CAIP says deal with Bell throttling separate from new media consultation

Still stinging from a defeat handed down by the CRTC yesterday, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers says the commission should settle its claim against Bell Canada separately from the larger issue of Net Neutrality and new regulations for new media. Tom Copeland, chair of CAIP and president of eagle.ca, acknowledges that the association's fight before the commission could form part of the broader debate on Net Neutrality, but maintains the throttling issue should be dealt with on its own. "We're talking about breech of regulations and tariffs, so things that need to be addressed outside of that bigger picture," Copeland tells Network Letter. "That bigger picture might get down to legislation rather than regulation, and if that's the case, I think the CRTC would be obliged to deal with our complaint separately." The CRTC is expected to outline the process for a public consultation on new media, which will include traffic shaping, later today. Commission chair Konrad von Finckenstein noted the release of the consultation paper in an appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage earlier this week. This is also an issue about dollars and cents. CAIP members pay for bandwidth that the association claims is not being delivered. ISPs purchase a finite amount of capacity that they believe they require to serve customers, and once customer acquisition targets are met or bandwidth usage is negatively affecting customer Internet connections, they buy more capacity. If they don't, they risk losing customers to other providers. "When we feel we are hitting those thresholds when performance is being impacted because we're trying to do too much with those services, we ante up, we purchase more, and we have yet to be turned down," Copeland explains. "So it's hard to imagine that there's a capacity issue when they keep selling capacity." Interim relief denial, a disappointment Bell Canada welcomed the commission's decision to not intervene. It's also confident that the CRTC will come to the same conclusion in the broader review of the matter later this year. Regardless of the decision to look at this matter in a broader consultation, CAIP maintains that the commission missed the boat in denying its request for an immediate stop to Bell's traffic management practices. The test for getting an interim injunction, or relief, is set out in the 1994 Supreme Court of Canada case, RJR MacDonald vs. Canada. "We're disappointed that they looked at in the manner they did, especially when applying the RJR MacDonald test," Copeland says. "The fact that they didn't look at the balance of convenience or the public good has us concerned." The CAIP chair expresses confusion regarding the commission's decision to not take into account the public outcry. "If you look at the comments in relation to the application, there's over 1,100 comments filed, the vast majority were in favour of CAIP's application," Copeland says. "The CRTC is the keeper of public good. It's hard to imagine how they could ignore the public outcry."

CAIP says deal with Bell throttling separate from new media consultation

News | 05/15/2008 3:01 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us