In summing up the internet network management hearing, Michael Geist makes an observation that may inadvertently make the case as to why no regulatory intervention is required:
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).
In other words, consumers have choice. We should be concerned if every ISP uses the same, government-mandated network management techniques, without competition driving innovation, evolution, differentiation and consumer choice.
Barrett Xplore’s oral comments summarized 3 principles that should be at the core of the CRTC’s decision: (i) transparency; (ii) non-discriminatory treatment; and (iii) non-interference with content. Items (ii) and (iii) are handled by legislation; the first is largely covered by companies responding to competition. The CRTC should deal with internet traffic management complaints in response to specific complaints and resist the calls for ex-ante regulation.
The marketplace is working.
The quote of a competitive marketplace is somewhat misleading. Despite the claim of top 5 telecom providers in Canada all have different levels of traffic management policy (none <-> heavy), and consumers are free to choose service provider. The duopoly nature of our Canadian marketplace, actually offers little meaningful consumer choice. For example, Telus's coverage (Ontario) is only available to several condominium buildings next to Skydome. The argument of this topic is (in fact) mute. The real discussion should be how CRTC can rectify the OECD Report findings that ranked Canadian Broadband slow and expensive. (Canada used to ranked among top 5 in the report, when broadband was first introduced in the country.)
Thanks for the comment Patrick.
Of course, if we move beyond the rhetoric, we both know that the market is hardly a duopoly, right? There are competitive alternatives available for most Canadians beyond the local telco and cableco. Primus offers choice without reselling Bell's GAS service. There are wireless alternatives as well as satellite. I have more on the myth of the broadband duopoly in tomorrow's blog post.
We also both know that there is no way that the OECD's latest report reflects the Canadian market reality. Let's have a critical eye look at the OECD report and try to come up with their numbers for affordability.
Start by asking why the OECD ignored the 50 Mbps services that are available. Help me replicate the $26.11 (US) price per Mbps that is at the root of your complaint.
There is a need for a real discussion, but it shouldn't be based on flawed reports.