How Canadian ISPs Are Responding to Net Neutrality Rules
Last fall, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issued its much-anticipated Internet traffic management ruling, better known as the net neutrality decision. The case attracted national interest as the CRTC established several key requirements for Canada’s Internet providers.
These included new transparency obligations that forced ISPs to disclose their network management practices, such as why the practices were introduced, who will be affected, when it will occur, and how it will impact users’ Internet experiences (down to the specific impact on speeds). The CRTC also opened the door to complaints about network management practices by establishing a test that any harm to users be as little as reasonably possible.
Several months later, Canada’s ISPs have had ample time to comply with the new requirements, yet a review of the policies from the biggest ISPs – including Bell, Canada Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Telus, Cogeco, Inc. and Groupe Vidéotron – reveals a decidedly mixed bag.
Two of the six providers – Telus and Vidéotron – do not have explicit network management practice disclosures since neither currently uses throttling or traffic shaping technologies that limit the speeds of some applications. Of the remaining four providers, no one makes it easy to find the disclosures and at least two may not be compliant with the CRTC requirements.
Bell features the most detailed disclosure, providing specific information about its policies and their impact. While critics may object to the positive spin the company uses to describe limitations on its service, it has done precisely what the CRTC asked. The Rogers policy is not quite as extensive, yet it also covers much the same terrain, including a description of the policy, the frequency of traffic shaping, and the resulting limitations in their service (including the specific impact on speed).
By contrast, neither Shaw nor Cogeco appear to meet the CRTC requirements. Shaw’s policy, which can be found within its terms of use, does not disclose the actual speeds users encounter when it throttles peer-to-peer activity. Cogeco, which implausibly claims “customer experience is never affected by the application of [its] measures,” similarly does not disclose the speeds that result from its throttling practices.
Not only are two providers arguably failing to meet the transparency requirements, but some traffic management practices may be ripe for complaint.
Telus and Vidéotron once again get a pass, since neither uses throttling technologies, opting instead for economic measures that add additional costs for heavy broadband users. Shaw’s policy also appears compliant with the CRTC minimal harm threshold, since it limits its throttling practices to actual instances of congestion on specific segments of its network.
Meanwhile, Rogers and Cogeco continuously throttle all upstream P2P traffic. Both providers admit that the limits on their service occur on a 24 hour, 7-day basis, regardless of whether the network is actually experiencing any congestion. For example, Cogeco claims “it is [our] experience that congestion created by P2P can occur at any time within a 24-hour period.” This may be true, but the failure to limit throttling activities to instances of actual congestion is surely grounds for a CRTC complaint.
While Bell limits its throttling practices to specified periods, its defined period is so broad that it too may be the target of a complaint. Bell discloses that its throttling practices, which target upload and download traffic, runs from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am. By covering nearly half the day, the company could face questions about whether the policy limits harm as much as reasonably possible.
The CRTC’s net neutrality guidelines garnered well-deserved plaudits last year, yet the true test will be whether the guidelines will be enforced effectively. Last month, the CRTC sent letters to several ISPs – including Shaw, Rogers, Cogeco, and Bell – seeking action. The ISPs have yet to respond.
[thanks to jason walton and michael geist via cc]
Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Technology Under Fire By CRTC in Canada
P2P (Peer-to-Peer) is a technology, not an activity.
- File sharing is an activity uses P2P technology.
- P2P is about sharing content and resources with peers.
- The internet has always been about sharing resources with peers.
- Bandwidth is a resource.
In the beginning it was military computer peers. Then it was academic researcher peers. Now it’s the consumer public peers.
Many ISPs emulate the original internet and peer with each other to save on transit data thereby clearing the internet highways for traffic is not generated locally.
Empirically, closed access (non P2P) detracts from a country’s economy by artificially restricting trade and encouraging “gray marketing” or pirate marketing of products.
The CRTC in Canada is now taking submissions from the public on throttling DSL connections.
Consumers feel it’s because the Telcos want to push their own content onto users (which of course is not throttled.)
Users also unrealistically expect $20.00 per month entitles them to 6.5 mbps for the entire 730 hours.
The CRTC receiving evidentiary submissions from industry experts, lobbyists, big iron sales people but so far I haven’t seen a single net economist give evidence.
Being Australian, I guess my input is not really warranted for what Canadians consider to be an internal countrywide matter.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world is watching Canada, and the RBOCS/Bells and large carriers are awaiting the outcome – sitting on the edges of the chairs whilst they do so.
Will the CRTC give them a precedent that will allow them lobby their own governments for similar treatment resulting in being able to implement packet prioritization ensuring higher corporate profit margins?
Any economist would tell you throttling should depend on several things:
Are all services being throttled identically? i.e., if P2P is being throttled, are the Video on Demand services also being throttled an equal amount?
If not, an obvious case of abusing their position as dominant market player by Bell may need to be investigated.
The solution to the problem is quite simple.
If Bell Canada is not prepared to peer with all ISPs and insists on “applying to utilize DPI for throttling only P2P traffic,” an as a result, the CRTC finally accedes to their request, then:
The CRTC needs to mandate DPI traffic management across all ISPs with each DPI activity being monitored by the CRTC and logged in a database.
- The database needs to collect – network segment traffic flow, reason for throttling – % of throttling.
- The throttling needs to be reset to zero as soon as traffic conditions warrant it.
- Any unfair throttling needs to be logged by CRTC for anti-competitive disciplinary action (fines).
I’ll revert to an analogy —->
If all traffic lights were always green at all intersections, there would be a high number of collisions, specifically during morning and evening rush hours.
Eventually, traffic would stop flowing altogether.
Traffic lights are therefore recognized by the public necessary to ensure a smooth transition from point of departure to the destination.
The timing of traffic lights alter per hour, and sometimes per minute, depending on the traffic flow in other parts of the city grid.
Sometimes there’s more demand on the East West axis, and therefore North-South traffic needs to wait longer for the lights to change.
The timing is calculated by computer database, and over-sighted by human operators, who curiously are Government officials.
Adding freeways changes traffic patterns (in many cases improving the flow for a limited period – until the population catches up) but traffic lights are still needed at the on and off ramps to regulate the traffic flow.
Bandwidth throttling should be managed in exactly the same manner.
Ambulance traffic, fire and police get first priority followed by mass transit vehicles, thereafter minibuses, motorcycles with single seater V8 sports cars coming last.
In the Internet World this translates to:
Why am I selecting Video on Demand as one of the most required items for throttling? Because the model is extremely net unfriendly and is the least important content.
1000 – 3000+ kbps (.TS MPEG) is required to be streamed by a single host to a single client.
This example utilizes a T3 connection for every 5 clients.
A T3 wholesales in the USA for $3,000 (USD) per month.
If each client is watching a 90 minute movie, a T3 is only capable of delivering 2433 movies per month – or essentially, a wholesale bandwidth price of $(USD)1.23 per movie.
However, P2P delivery of the same movie at 750 kbps with every ISP in Canada being mandated to peer (without exception) would deliver the same movie to a user for the bandwidth cost of approximately $0.21 cents
ISPs in Canada have absolutely no hope of competing on a commercially level playing field basis with Bell Canada —- unless the delivery of on demand video content is either delivered via P2P or Bell Canada is instructed to throttle VoD.
Utilization of a P2P software solution to deliver the video through a client like MIRO can be monetized for those desiring to deliver video on demand.
The downside is transport stream DRM would need to be revisited in conjunction with developers who can add a flag into file sharing programs.
Unfortunately, the one downside of this proposal is DPI be utilized in the execution of the proposed throttling.
Checks and balances need to be put into place to ensure a private users data is never revealed.
While I realize this isn’t within the CRTC bailiwick and involves the privacy commissioner, I’m fairly sure the following methodology would satisfy all parties as it doesn’t in any way alter the current status quo.
This can be achieved by each transaction on a network being allocated an incident number by the ISP. With only the ISP capable of relating incident number to user IP or User login details.
The importance of a CRTC database with every throttling action logged is to ensure dominant market players do not continue to abuse their market dominance to the detriment of Canadian users and the Canadian economy.
NB In Australia of course, references to Bell or Bell Canada should be transposed in readers minds with the name ‘Telstra’.
[thanks to mlaaker and tom koltai via cc]
