Skip to Content

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality Enforcement Put to the Test

Submitted by mgeist on November 8, 2011 - 7:40am
Net Neutrality Enforcement Put to the Test
The enforcement of Canada’s net neutrality rules, which govern how Internet providers manage their networks, was in the spotlight earlier this year when documents obtained under the Access to Information Act revealed virtually all major Canadian ISPs have been the target of complaints, but there have been few, if any, consequences arising from the complaints process. The documents painted a discouraging picture, with multiple complaints against Rogers Communications due to the throttling of online games going seemingly nowhere, while a complaint against satellite Internet provider Xplorenet languished for months until the Commission threatened to launch a public proceeding. In the aftermath of document disclosures, my weekly technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes there has been slow but steady change. 

In September, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the agency that established and enforces the net neutrality rules (known as Internet traffic management guidelines) issued a new advisory on responding to complaints and enforcing the rules.

net neutrality enforcement
Content Country: 
Canada
Wednesday October 19, 2011
Do Bell's Throttling Practices Violate CRTC Net Neutrality Rules?: It Says P2P Congestion Declining
Earlier this week, Bell wrote to its wholesale ISP customers to let them know that it is shifting away from throttling practices that have been in place for several years. The letter states: Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied. Bell's letter raises several interesting issues. First, it is an acknowledgment of what groups like CIPPIC, PIAC and others were saying as far back as 2009 in the net neutrality hearing. Peer-to-peer traffic is declining as an overall percentage of network traffic and the stresses on the system are far more likely to come from online video services such as Netflix. Second, this acknowledgement raises the prospect that Bell's current throttling practices may now violate the CRTC's Internet traffic management guidelines. While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy "results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible" and ask for explanation why its data cap policies "would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP."  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.
bell on congestion
Content Country: 
Canada
Post Category: 
Blog

Earlier this week, Bell wrote to its wholesale ISP customers to let them know that it is shifting away from throttling practices that have been in place for several years. The letter states:

Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied.

Bell's letter raises several interesting issues. First, it is an acknowledgment of what groups like CIPPIC, PIAC and others were saying as far back as 2009 in the net neutrality hearing. Peer-to-peer traffic is declining as an overall percentage of network traffic and the stresses on the system are far more likely to come from online video services such as Netflix.

Second, this acknowledgement raises the prospect that Bell's current throttling practices may now violate the CRTC's Internet traffic management guidelines. While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy "results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible" and ask for explanation why its data cap policies "would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP."  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.

Add Comment (0) Tags (6)
Friday September 23, 2011
CRTC Updates Internet Traffic Management Practices Guidelines
Earlier this year, I launched an access-to-information request with the CRTC requesting all records related to net neutrality complaints filed under the Commission's 2009 Internet traffic management practices decision. The result was a post titled Canada's Net Neutrality Enforcement Failure, which listed dozens of complaints and a discouraging lack of CRTC investigation into them. The post concluded: After more than 30 investigations in nearly two years, it is clear improvements are needed. At a minimum, the CRTC should be publishing all public complaints and resolutions so that the issues obtain a public airing. Moreover, the system needs penalties for violations as well as pro-active audits to ensure Internet providers are compliant with their obligations. Without change, the CRTC’s net neutrality rules offer little protection for Canadian Internet users. Yesterday the CRTC took a first step in this direction by releasing new guidelines for responding to complaints and enforcing the rules. The best aspect of the ruling is a commitment to publish quarterly reports featuring a summary of the number and types of complaints it has received, including the number of active and resolved complaints. Moreover, any findings of non-compliance will be published on the Commission’s website and will include the ISP’s name and the nature of the complaint. The move toward greater transparency is welcome and an important step in pressuring ISPs to comply with the guidelines. The new guidelines also establish a strict timeline for responses by complainants and ISPs, which should help avoid Xplorenet-type situations that dragged on for months before the ISP addressed complaints over its traffic management practices.
net neutrality
Content Country: 
Canada
Post Category: 
Blog

Earlier this year, I launched an access-to-information request with the CRTC requesting all records related to net neutrality complaints filed under the Commission's 2009 Internet traffic management practices decision. The result was a post titled Canada's Net Neutrality Enforcement Failure, which listed dozens of complaints and a discouraging lack of CRTC investigation into them. The post concluded:

After more than 30 investigations in nearly two years, it is clear improvements are needed. At a minimum, the CRTC should be publishing all public complaints and resolutions so that the issues obtain a public airing. Moreover, the system needs penalties for violations as well as pro-active audits to ensure Internet providers are compliant with their obligations. Without change, the CRTC’s net neutrality rules offer little protection for Canadian Internet users.

Yesterday the CRTC took a first step in this direction by releasing new guidelines for responding to complaints and enforcing the rules. The best aspect of the ruling is a commitment to publish quarterly reports featuring a summary of the number and types of complaints it has received, including the number of active and resolved complaints. Moreover, any findings of non-compliance will be published on the Commission’s website and will include the ISP’s name and the nature of the complaint. The move toward greater transparency is welcome and an important step in pressuring ISPs to comply with the guidelines. The new guidelines also establish a strict timeline for responses by complainants and ISPs, which should help avoid Xplorenet-type situations that dragged on for months before the ISP addressed complaints over its traffic management practices.

Add Comment (0) Tags (5)
Thursday July 14, 2011
The Xplornet's Release: Digging into the Documents
Earlier this week, Xplornet Communications Inc. (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) issued the following press release in response to my post on the CRTC's net neutrality enforcement: Xplornet Communications Inc., (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) is aware that allegations made online by Michael Geist on Friday July 8th, 2011 have been reprinted by various media. The statements made in Mr. Geist's original article omit material information and draw incorrect conclusions regarding Barrett Xplore Inc.'s actions.  Reprinting this blog entry, or Geist's allegations regarding Barrett Xplore Inc. (or Xplornet Communications Inc), represent the publication of materially misleading statements regarding our company. To say I was surprised by the release would be an understatement. Xplornet never contacted me to discuss the post or express concern about its content. The original post did not directly target Xplornet, but rather focused on the CRTC enforcement record. It pointed to complaints against several different providers and listed all complaints I obtained as part of an Access to Information request. With respect to Xplornet, I stated the following:
xplornet comment
Content Country: 
Canada
Post Category: 
Blog

Earlier this week, Xplornet Communications Inc. (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) issued the following press release in response to my post on the CRTC's net neutrality enforcement:

Xplornet Communications Inc., (formerly Barrett Xplore Inc.) is aware that allegations made online by Michael Geist on Friday July 8th, 2011 have been reprinted by various media. The statements made in Mr. Geist's original article omit material information and draw incorrect conclusions regarding Barrett Xplore Inc.'s actions.  Reprinting this blog entry, or Geist's allegations regarding Barrett Xplore Inc. (or Xplornet Communications Inc), represent the publication of materially misleading statements regarding our company.

To say I was surprised by the release would be an understatement. Xplornet never contacted me to discuss the post or express concern about its content. The original post did not directly target Xplornet, but rather focused on the CRTC enforcement record. It pointed to complaints against several different providers and listed all complaints I obtained as part of an Access to Information request. With respect to Xplornet, I stated the following:

Add Comment (0) Tags (6)
Wednesday August 12, 2009
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.

 

3.   Unbundling. The bill ensures that broadband providers don't force consumers into buying additional services if all they want is Internet access.  The bill states:

rules to ensure that an Internet access service provider does not require a consumer, as a condition on the purchase of any Internet access service offered by such provider, to purchase any other service or offering. The Commission shall adopt any other rules it determines necessary to make such requirement effective and meaningful for consumers.

4.   Net neutrality conditions. The bill includes a whole series of net neutrality conditions, some of which are much more specific than those found under Canadian law.  PK notes that they include that Internet access providers:

  • Must not block, interfere with, discriminate against, or degrade the ability of a user to engage in lawful activity on the Internet
  • May not charge users additional fees for accessing specific Internet content or services
  • Must allow a user to connect any lawful application or device to the network, so long as that application or device does not harm the network
  • May not provide or sell any technology that prioritizes any one party's traffic over that of another party

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.

Add Comment (1) Tags (1)
Monday July 20, 2009
CRTC Net Neutrality Hearing Open Door To Regulatory Action
Regulatory hearings on Internet traffic management practices held in windowless rooms in Gatineau, Quebec in the middle of summer are not likely candidates to attract much attention.  Yet, as my weekly technology column notes (Toronto Star version, homepage version) for seven days this month, hundreds of Canadians listened to webcasts of Internet service providers defend their previously secret practices while engaging in a robust debate on net neutrality. The interest in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing may have caught the regulator off-guard (the webcast traffic was, by a wide margin, its most ever for a hearing), but it was the testimony itself that was the greatest source of surprise.

The seven-day hearing was billed as a debate over whether rules are needed to govern ISP network management practices. While many Internet users remain unaware of the issue, behind the scenes ISPs employ a variety of mechanisms to control the flow of traffic on their networks, with some restricting or throttling the speeds for some applications.

Those practices have proven highly contentious, with creator interests, technology companies, privacy rights organizations, and consumer groups all expressing fears that they may curtail innovation, invade user privacy, stifle competition, and create an uneven playing field for content distribution.  ISPs argue that such measures are essential to provide their subscribers with a good experience at an affordable price.

Days of testimony revealed the issue is far more complicated than the rhetoric might suggest. First, there is a wide variation in the use of traffic management tools with a different approach for pretty much every major ISP.  Some throttle all the time (Cogeco), some during large chunks of the day (Bell), some only during congested periods (Shaw), and some not at all (Telus, Videotron).

Second, ISP disclosures are woefully inadequate. For example, Rogers admitted that it charges tiered pricing for faster upload speeds but that all tiers are throttled to the same speed when using peer-to-peer applications.  In other words, subscribers to the Extreme service pay $59.99 per month and are promised fast upload speeds (1 Mbps) but actually get the same upload speed as Express subscribers who pay $46.99 per month and are promised upload speeds at half that rate.

Third, notwithstanding the perception that network traffic is growing dramatically, the reality is that the rate of growth is actually slowing. ISPs acknowledged the could cope with the growing demand through reasonable new investment in their networks.

Given all the competing evidence, what is the Commission likely to do? A four-pronged approach is possible.

First, it could adopt a test advocated by the Open Internet Coalition, a group of technology companies that includes Google, that permits traffic management practices so long as they further a pressing and substantial objective, are narrowly tailored to the objective, and are the least restrictive means of achieving the objective. This test would give useful guidance to ISPs and ensure that there are appropriate limits on traffic management practices that have no clear correlation with network congestion.

Second, it can affirm the role of current law against leveraging network management for unfair advantage. Third, the Commission can establish minimum disclosure requirements including information on traffic management practices such as time, targets, and the actual speeds consumers are likely to experience. Fourth, it can dictate limits on the use of personal data that ISPs obtain from traffic management.

Alternatively, the Commission could decide to do nothing and simply retain the power to address complaints as they arise. If so, significant political pushback is likely with political parties lining up in the fall in support of net neutrality legislation.

Regulatory hearings on Internet traffic management practices held in windowless rooms in Gatineau, Quebec in the middle of summer are not likely candidates to attract much attention.  Yet, as my weekly technology column notes (Toronto Star version, homepage version) for seven days this month, hundreds of Canadians listened to webcasts of Internet service providers defend their previously secret practices while engaging in a robust debate on net neutrality. The interest in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing may have caught the regulator off-guard (the webcast traffic was, by a wide margin, its most ever for a hearing), but it was the testimony itself that was the greatest source of surprise.

Add Comment (11) Tags (10)
Wednesday July 15, 2009
Harris-Decima Poll on Net Neutrality
The Canadian Press is reporting on a Harris-Decima poll that it says shows that Canadians are supportive of traffic management provided that all users are treated fairly.  The survey indicated that Canadians are generally happy with their Internet service.  Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report: I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?". This doesn't exactly inspire confidence about some of the poll results.
harris-decima on net neutrality

The Canadian Press is reporting on a Harris-Decima poll that it says shows that Canadians are supportive of traffic management provided that all users are treated fairly.  The survey indicated that Canadians are generally happy with their Internet service.  Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report:

I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?".

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence about some of the poll results.

Add Comment (20) Tags (6)
Wednesday July 15, 2009
In Case You Missed It: Reflecting on the CRTC's Net Neutrality Hearing
In case you missed or avoided the CRTC net neutrality hearing, I thought I would post a few reflections (my summaries of the events are available at Day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; additional coverage NetNeutrality.ca).  While there were some notable anecdotes and quotes (Rogers comment about traffic managing a cure for cancer come to mind), I would point to six key revelations that evolved over the course of the week and a half. 1.   The rate of network traffic growth is slowing. This was raised midway through the first week by Professor Odlyzko and was subsequently confirmed by several ISPs.  The revelations ran counter to the general sense before the hearings that ISPs cannot keep pace with the rate of growth.  In fact, it turns out the opposite is true - reasonable new investment in the networks can address current growth rates. 2.   There is a wide variation in the use of traffic management tools with a different approach for pretty much every major ISP. There are those that throttle all the time (Cogeco), during large chunks of the day (Bell), only during congested periods (Shaw), or not at all (Telus, Videotron). There are those that throttle upload only (Rogers) or upload and download (Bell).  There are those that use "economic measures" such as bit caps effectively (Videotron) and others that doubt it can be an effective approach on its own (Bell).  This points to the fact that granular rules will be difficult, but broader principled tests are essential. 3.   The rules for retail and wholesale will be different. The hearing surprisingly included a near-rehearing of the Bell v. CAIP case.  Wholesale services were much discussed as the CRTC recognized the potential of independent ISPs to inject additional competition into the marketplace.  Based on the evidence, it would appear that the problems with wholesale are largely a Bell problem.  Many other ISPs that offer wholesale services do not traffic manage or have such small wholesale businesses that the impact is fairly small.  Bell is a big player in the wholesale side and they have designed their network in a manner that makes it difficult to fully exploit the competitive potential of smaller entrants.  While CAIP argued for rules against wholesale throttling but against retail restrictions (thereby abandoning consumer interests), the opposite seems more likely to occur. 4.   Disclosures are woefully inadequate in Canada. Each day brought new and surprising revelations about how little ISPs tell their customers about their traffic management practices.  By far the most egregious was Rogers, which admitted that it charges tiered pricing for faster upload speeds but that all tiers were throttled to the same speed when using P2P.  In other words, the Extreme subscriber who pays $59.99 per month and is promised fast upload speeds (1 Mbps) actually gets the same upload speed as the Express subscriber who pays $46.99 per month and is promised upload speeds of 512 kbps.  There were similar stories from many other ISPs, who disclosed actual speeds that bring P2P down to a virtual crawl.  Disclosure has improved over the past year as the issue has gained prominence, but there clearly is a long way to go. 5.   Managed networks vs. public Internet. ISPs do not focus on the fact that many run managed IP networks offering telephony and IPTV on the same pipe as the public Internet services.  When asked whether the two impact each other, the answer came back that it could.  In fact, ISPs were at pains to say that while it could happen, it would not happen since they ensure that they provision enough bandwidth for their managed services.  Yet in examples such as Bell's three users promised 5 megs but with only 10 megs to share, it was apparent that the same cannot be said for oversold public Internet services. 6.   The Commission takes privacy seriously. The ISPs seemed surprised that the Commission regularly asked about the privacy impact of throttling and deep-packet inspection. The Commission was similarly surprised when Bell admitted that Canadian privacy law would permit the use of DPI data for marketing purposes with the customer's consent. Where to from here?

The parties will have a couple of weeks to file final submissions and a decision will likely take several months.  My best guess is that the Commission will likely leave the wholesale side alone, though a best case might be to place restrictions on traffic management where the provider has the capability of differentiating between wholesale customers.  Bell says that they cannot do so today, but the introduction of usage based billing might change that equation.

On the retail side, I think a four-pronged approach is possible.  First, the Commission could adopt the Open Internet Coalition/CIPPIC style test based on Oakes that permits traffic management practices so long as they further a pressing and substantial objective, are narrowly tailored to the objective, and are the least restrictive means of achieving the objective. This test would give useful guidance to ISPs and ensure that there are appropriate limits on traffic management practices that have no clear correlation with network congestion. Second, the Commission can affirm the role of current law against undue preferences and work to stop any attempt to leverage network management for unfair advantage. Third, it can establish minimum disclosure requirements including information on traffic management practices such as time, targets, and speeds when shaping. Fourth, the Commission can establish a prohibition against the use of DPI data for any purpose other than network management.

Of course, the Commission could decide to do nothing and simply retain the power to address complaints as they arise. If that approach is adopted, I think there would be significant political pushback, with political parties seeking net neutrality legislative reform.

crtc net neutrality wrap

In case you missed or avoided the CRTC net neutrality hearing, I thought I would post a few reflections (my summaries of the events are available at Day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; additional coverage NetNeutrality.ca).  While there were some notable anecdotes and quotes (Rogers comment about traffic managing a cure for cancer come to mind), I would point to six key revelations that evolved over the course of the week and a half.

1.   The rate of network traffic growth is slowing. This was raised midway through the first week by Professor Odlyzko and was subsequently confirmed by several ISPs.  The revelations ran counter to the general sense before the hearings that ISPs cannot keep pace with the rate of growth.  In fact, it turns out the opposite is true - reasonable new investment in the networks can address current growth rates.

2.   There is a wide variation in the use of traffic management tools with a different approach for pretty much every major ISP. There are those that throttle all the time (Cogeco), during large chunks of the day (Bell), only during congested periods (Shaw), or not at all (Telus, Videotron). There are those that throttle upload only (Rogers) or upload and download (Bell).  There are those that use "economic measures" such as bit caps effectively (Videotron) and others that doubt it can be an effective approach on its own (Bell).  This points to the fact that granular rules will be difficult, but broader principled tests are essential.

3.   The rules for retail and wholesale will be different. The hearing surprisingly included a near-rehearing of the Bell v. CAIP case.  Wholesale services were much discussed as the CRTC recognized the potential of independent ISPs to inject additional competition into the marketplace.  Based on the evidence, it would appear that the problems with wholesale are largely a Bell problem.  Many other ISPs that offer wholesale services do not traffic manage or have such small wholesale businesses that the impact is fairly small.  Bell is a big player in the wholesale side and they have designed their network in a manner that makes it difficult to fully exploit the competitive potential of smaller entrants.  While CAIP argued for rules against wholesale throttling but against retail restrictions (thereby abandoning consumer interests), the opposite seems more likely to occur.

4.   Disclosures are woefully inadequate in Canada. Each day brought new and surprising revelations about how little ISPs tell their customers about their traffic management practices.  By far the most egregious was Rogers, which admitted that it charges tiered pricing for faster upload speeds but that all tiers were throttled to the same speed when using P2P.  In other words, the Extreme subscriber who pays $59.99 per month and is promised fast upload speeds (1 Mbps) actually gets the same upload speed as the Express subscriber who pays $46.99 per month and is promised upload speeds of 512 kbps.  There were similar stories from many other ISPs, who disclosed actual speeds that bring P2P down to a virtual crawl.  Disclosure has improved over the past year as the issue has gained prominence, but there clearly is a long way to go.

5.   Managed networks vs. public Internet. ISPs do not focus on the fact that many run managed IP networks offering telephony and IPTV on the same pipe as the public Internet services.  When asked whether the two impact each other, the answer came back that it could.  In fact, ISPs were at pains to say that while it could happen, it would not happen since they ensure that they provision enough bandwidth for their managed services.  Yet in examples such as Bell's three users promised 5 megs but with only 10 megs to share, it was apparent that the same cannot be said for oversold public Internet services.

6.   The Commission takes privacy seriously. The ISPs seemed surprised that the Commission regularly asked about the privacy impact of throttling and deep-packet inspection. The Commission was similarly surprised when Bell admitted that Canadian privacy law would permit the use of DPI data for marketing purposes with the customer's consent.

Where to from here?

Add Comment (4) Tags (7)
Tuesday July 14, 2009
New NetNeutrality.ca Launches
The CRTC's network management hearing has concluded, but the net neutrality issue will continue for the foreseeable future as we await the CRTC decision and the political parties jockey on the issue.  Given the interest, I've relaunched the NetNeutrality.ca website with more information and a cleaner look.  Suggestions for improvements welcome.
netneutrality.ca

The CRTC's network management hearing has concluded, but the net neutrality issue will continue for the foreseeable future as we await the CRTC decision and the political parties jockey on the issue.  Given the interest, I've relaunched the NetNeutrality.ca website with more information and a cleaner look.  Suggestions for improvements welcome.

Add Comment (22) Tags (6)

An Act to Amend the Telecommunications Act (Internet Neutrality), Bill C-552

Submitted by administrator on July 14, 2009 - 4:01pm
Type: 
Regulations/Regulatory
Publishers
Publisher 1 - Date: 
(May 28, 2009)
Publisher 1 - URL: 
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3524372&Language...
Authors
Author 1 - First Name: 
Charlie Angus
Author 1 - Last Name: 
NDP MP
Syndicate content