I’m not sure that it is fair to say, as Mark Evans does today, that Canada and the CRTC lags the rest of the world in addressing Net Neutrality issues. A number of such issues came up in the original VoIP proceeding in 2004 and 2005 and the CRTC addressed them. You may not like how the CRTC resolved the issues, but it isn’t fair to say that the issues are being ignored.
For example, as early as 1997, the CRTC made statements about technological neutrality for network interconnection. This principle was upheld in 2005 in requiring IP interconnection and ongoing monitoring to ensure carriers are playing nicely. One of those monitoring reports came out earlier this week.
During the VoIP proceeding, the CRTC specifically addressed a few issues that are part of the Net Neutrality debate. They ruled that tariff restrictions for both cable companies and telcos that limited voice services being offered by competitors over cable and DSL broadband pipes had to be removed.
In assessing the issue of discriminatory access, the CRTC reviewed submissions and determined that it already had sufficient tools to guard against abuses of neutrality. For example, Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act already forbids unjust discrimination.
Just because the CRTC chose not to come out with a new rule called ‘Internet Neutrality’ doesn’t mean that elements of the principle aren’t already enshrined in our laws and rules.
It is on the basis of these existing rules that Vonage filed its complaint against Shaw. We have due process in this country – both sides get to air their positions.
In dealing with the new frontier, we don’t necessarily need to throw out all the old rules and start writing new ones. We have been looking for consistency and predictability from our regulator.
Its position on net neutrality is pretty good for an agency that was one of the first in the world to address VoIP.