ISPs will get second chance to fight for Net Neutrality; but status quo remains until 2010

Independent ISPs, disappointed with a CRTC ruling today denying a Canadian Association of Internet Providers' (CAIP) application against Bell Canada's traffic management practices, will get a second kick at the can to convince the CRTC that it should uphold Net Neutrality."Essentially what we have here today is a delay, despite the CRTC initiating at the same time a Net Neutrality public proceeding, in any sort of Canadian leadership on the issue. The fact that it will be 2010 before we have a decision should be inexcusable," Tom Copeland, chair of CAIP and president of ISP eagle.ca, tells Network Letter.The CRTC kicked off today a public consultation on the Internet traffic management of ISPs with the goal of determining whether such practices are allowed under the Telecommunications Act. In Telecom Public Notice 2008-19, the commission noted it will look at "whether such practices are consistent with the Act, and whether any measures are required to ensure that such practices are in accordance with the Act." The commission plans to hold a public hearing on the matter next July."Its main purpose will be to address the extent to which Internet service providers can manage the traffic on their networks in accordance with the Telecommunications Act," CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein said in a statement.The commission plans to look at broad range of topics associated with Internet traffic management. They include: technical solutions to Internet congestion, the influence of traffic management on content, potential unjust discrimination against competitors through the use of bandwidth shaping as well as whether the use of Internet throttling technologies would prevent the commission from implementing telecommunications policy objectives.While the CRTC is potentially looking to establish new Internet regulatory oversight, Copeland wants Net Neutrality enshrined legislation, which would reduce the need for the commission to regulate. "Things like this traffic shaping would simply have not occurred in this manner," he contends.Besides, Copeland argues that traffic shaping is "best used to manage the abusers of the network not the casual users of it. And, as a result, if we have good Net Neutrality legislation in place then there's no question about whether or not traffic shaping is permissible or what level it's permissible or on what class of users it's permissible."Traffic shaping penalizes legitimate users of the network, he suggests, highlighting the example of someone who uses a torrent or peer-to-peer for business purposes such as updating a Linux application in the evening. The people that could be causing network congestion are the ones downloading multiple HD movies on a daily basis."If it's those folks who are truly causing the problem on the network it's those folks that need to be addressed, it's not the class of applications or class of users," Copeland says.More online consultationsAfter receiving about 1,300 submissions from Canadians on the CAIP vs. Bell case - which many, according to Copeland, associated with Net Neutrality not the narrow scope of the CRTC - the commission will again ask for Canadians' views of this controversial topic. It follows a similar process the CRTC conducted as part of initial discussions on new media earlier this year.To get a solid understanding of the traffic management technologies available or soon to be available, the commission plans to hire a consulting firm to prepare a study. The report will be made public once complete.The CRTC is also looking for information on what other international jurisdictions are doing with respect to traffic shaping. Widely referred to as Net Neutrality, the hot-button topic has also garnered significant attention in the US with Comcast under significant scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission.In September, the FCC ruled that Comcast's traffic management practices were illegal and ordered the company to disclose details of its discriminatory network management. It also told Comcast to submit a plan, explaining how it intends to stop the practice. Comcast has appealed the FCC ruling, and instituted a bandwidth cap of 250 GBs per month for all residential customers.Bell wins over CAIPThe announcement of the consultation and public hearing comes on the same day as the commission determined that Bell Canada didn't discriminate against its wholesale ISP customers using the Gateway Access Service (GAS) when it decided to throttle their bandwidth. Telecom Decision 2008-108 resulted from an application filed by CAIP in April."Based on the evidence before us, we found that the measures employed by Bell Canada to manage its network were not discriminatory. Bell Canada applied the same traffic-shaping practices to wholesale customers as it did to its own retail customers," CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein said in a statement.Not surprisingly, Copeland and CAIP members weren't happy. "Certainly our membership is disappointed. I think the bigger issue though ultimately is that Canadians should be disappointed," he says.Not surprisingly, Bell says the CRTC came to right conclusion. "With this decision, the commission has rightly confirmed that network operators are in the best position to determine how to operate their networks effectively and efficiently, to allow fair and proportionate use of the Internet by all users," senior VP of regulatory and government affairs Mirko Bibic said in a statement.The Net Neutrality issue was thrust into the spotlight by CAIP when it complained to the CRTC that's Bell Internet throttling of its wholesale customers was interfering with their ability to sell high-speed Internet services by slowing their wholesale connections at certain times during the day. The independent Internet providers association argued this was discriminatory and that Bell was violating the terms of its tariffs by throttling the traffic of its wholesale customers. CAIP also alleged that Bell had an ulterior motive in throttling, which was to reallocate bandwidth for its own services.Bell contended that its traffic management program was required to reduce the bandwidth hogging impact that peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing was having on its network. The company released figures to the CRTC that showed a dramatic increase in the number of lost packets due to P2P file sharing.The commission concluded that Bell was not discriminating against its wholesale access customers."There is no basis to conclude, based on the record of this proceeding, that the implementation by Bell Canada of traffic-shaping measures on GAS was intended, as alleged by CAIP, to secure sufficient bandwidth for its own services or to prevent ISPs from effectively competing against Bell Canada's introduction of usage-based charges for its retail service," reads the decision. "Further, the commission considers that there is no evidence on the record to establish that Bell Canada has benefited from the implementation of traffic-shaping measures with respect to GAS in the manner alleged by CAIP."

ISPs will get second chance to fight for Net Neutrality; but status quo remains until 2010

News | 11/20/2008 7:49 pm EST

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