Telecom by yum9me (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/53jSy4

Telecom

Why Canada Lags on Wireless

Where does Canada stand with respect to the cost of wireless services? That question recently generated a spirited debate when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released new figures that ranked it as the third most expensive developed country. Critics pounced on the report, calling the results ridiculous and pointing to perceived flaws in the methodology.

Given that consumers have a hard time making sense of the different plans, options, and hidden fees offered by Canada’s big three wireless providers (Rogers, Bell, and Telus), it should come as little surprise that comparisons of wireless services across dozens of countries is exceptionally difficult. Some countries charge consumers for both incoming and outgoing calls, while many others do not. Moreover, hidden charges such as Canada’s system access fee – which can add as much as 25 percent to a monthly bill – are often excluded from cost calculations.

While the debate will continue to rage, few currently hold Canada up as a model of wireless leadership. If not pricing, what should policy makers and politicians be focusing on? My weekly technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that four main issues come to mind.

August 25, 2009 — 14 comments — Columns

Canada Hardly a Leader in Wireless World

Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 24, 2009 as Canada Hardly a Leader in the World of Wireless Where does Canada stand with respect to the cost of wireless services? That question recently generated a spirited debate when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released new figures that […]

August 24, 2009 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

U.S. Net Neutrality Bill Big Leap Over Canadian Law

Last week, Congressional Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eshoo introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Public Knowledge provides a great rundown of the net neutrality bill. While some have suggested that the bill merely allows the U.S. to catch up to Canada, a closer look reveals that the bill would move the U.S. far beyond Canada in dealing with net neutrality issues as it directly addresses many of the issues raised during the CRTC network management hearing. In particular:

1. Traffic management guidelines. It establishes a reasonable network management traffic management guidelines similar to those proposed by the OIC and CIPPIC. The bill states:

a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.

This is not current Canadian law, though the CRTC has been asked to adopt something very similar.

2. Transparency. The bill requires full public disclosure of traffic management practices, something opposed by some ISPs at the traffic management proceeding. The bill states:

each Internet access service provider shall provide to consumers and make publicly available detailed information about such services, including information about the speed, nature, and limitations of such services. Each Internet access service provider must publicly disclose, at a minimum, network management practices that affect communications between a user and a content, application, or service provider in the ordinary, routine use of such broadband service.

This bill would provide far greater mandated transparency than that found in Canada.

August 12, 2009 — 5 comments — News

OECD Says Canadian Wireless Rates Third Highest in the Developed World

The Globe reports that a new OECD report finds Canada pays among the highest wireless prices in the world. The OECD numbers say that for a “low-use” basket (defined as including 360 minutes of voice calls, 396 text messages and eight video messages per year), Canada ranked 20th most expensive […]

August 12, 2009 — 1 comment — News

Bell and Rogers Square Off Over Internet Speed Claims

As two of Canada's biggest Internet service providers, Bell Canada and Rogers Communications are fierce rivals that frequently battle for the same customers. That marketplace fight rarely spills into the courtroom, yet my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) notes that last month a Rogers advertising campaign prompted Bell to file a $50 million dollar lawsuit. The result was an end to the campaign and evidence both companies over-promise the speed of their Internet services.

The case began when Rogers launched a direct mail and Internet ad campaign called "Check Your Speed." The campaign warned users the Internet services "you are paying for may not be what you're getting" and encouraged them to test their connection with an independent third party. The campaign unsurprisingly offered Rogers services as an alternative, promising a "reliable speed every time you connect." Just days after the launch, Bell filed suit, arguing in court documents violations of the Trade-Mark Act, Competition Act, along with various torts. The company sought $50 million in general damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and an injunction blocking Rogers from continuing with its campaign.

Two days later, Rogers dropped the third party testing feature. Rather than using a fully independent third party service, Rogers had used a server located in Seattle, Washington to run its tests. The court found that the distance between users in Ontario and the speed test server in Washington might help account for slower speeds. Even more telling was the evidence that placed the spotlight on a Canadian industry practice of advertising the maximum or "up to" speeds for customers, rather than minimum or actual speeds that customers typically obtain. The Rogers campaign was effectively premised on this discrepancy since it encouraged users to check their speeds where they would undoubtedly learn their typical speeds were lower than those promised by their ISP.

August 11, 2009 — 16 comments — Columns