Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 31, 2009 as Telco Lobby Helped Block Cellphone Cost Calculator Last week I discussed the well-known challenge faced by millions of Canadians as they sort through a myriad of cellphone pricing plans in a marketplace still lacking in robust competition. Previously unreported, however, […]
Telecom by yum9me (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/53jSy4
Telecom
CRTC Seeks UBB Pricing Answers From Bell
The CBC reports that the CRTC has asked Bell to provide specific answers about its implementation plans for wholesale usage-based billing.
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.
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 […]
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.
Recent Posts
The Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails 
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
