Many of the parties submitting comments in the CRTC’s network management proceeding have looked at flow control and suggested that this results in a form of control of the content of the telecommunications, in contravention of S.36 of the Telecom Act.
The Open Internet Coalition parses the language of that section, word for word – even looking at the French language version of the section to confirm its interpretation of the meaning.
Some of the parties suggest that delaying the completion of a file transfer, such as a movie could inhibit the use of the file for the intended purpose, such as entertainment for that evening.
Let’s look back to the old days of circuit switched telephonic voice communications to examine a metaphor for which S.36 also applied.
After all, the section was written in the predominantly voice pre-internet era.
Let me take you back to a time not so long ago…
Active network management was required to handle voice network congestion. Whether it was a weather related event, Mothers’ Day or other peak times, at times, the network could not handle the full load. Certain applications, such as radio station contest lines, would get choked during peak traffic loads.
Not all Mothers’ Day long distance calls got through. Sometimes, a percentage of capacity was reserved for other applications or users. Some callers experienced constrained capacity to allow incoming overseas calls to get through.
Various techniques would be employed to manage the traffic – some of them invoked on the fly – responding to conditions the best way the industry could. In some cases, no matter how many times you dialled the numbers you just couldn’t get through to Mom on Mothers’ Day. [As an aside, I remember that a colleague of mine – here is my shout out to you, Corrie – was the voice of the Windsor toll switch Mothers’ Day congestion announcement. She had wanted to say “For all of you who couldn’t be bothered to stay in touch all year long, shame on you…”]
When you couldn’t get through on Mothers’ Day, the meaning of your call the next week just wasn’t the same, but I don’t recall people arguing that this was a violation of S.36. A Mothers’ Day call on the following Monday is no longer a Mothers’ Day call.
There was no control of the content of your message to mom. No knowledge of what you wanted to say. No invasion of privacy. Simple re-prioritization of certain traffic because the network just couldn’t handle all of the offered load. And this was in the days of fully regulated monopoly telcos. No competitive long distance choice. No wireless alternatives. Our only competition came from Hallmark and the Post Office.
Maximizing utility of the network.
Skimming through the submissions, I enjoyed reading the views of some of the academics who suggest that over-provisioning is more effective than QOS or prioritizing certain types of traffic over others. Who do they think is going to pay for this over-provisioning?
We’ll have more to say about the submissions in the coming days.
Technorati Tags:
network management, CRTC
Mark:
The comments related to over-provisioning (both the intervenors and yours) could be stated in another way: Is it too much to expect at least one of Canada’s carriers to do what Verizon is doing in the U.S. and move towards implementing FTTH?
Yes, FTTH is costly and the cost/benefit equation may not be the best everywhere, but don’t the carriers have an obligation to ensure that anyone, anywhere in Canada can instantly access whatever he/she wants or needs from the web anytime? They keep telling us that what they’ll provide in their promos and advertisements and its what governments tell us will happen when they subsidize accessibility. As a couple of those who commented on the Toronto Star’s coverage of the submissions have said the history of ISP service in Canada by the large carriers anyway has been to continually charge more for less bandwidth.
I realize that FTTH on its own isn’t the answer because if the pipeline is bigger applications like BitTorrrent will just expand to fill the space. However, on the other hand, don’t service providers have an obligation to ensure they have the capacity to provide what’s expected of them and what they say they will provide in their advertisements?
Operators weren’t listening in on the calls to determine if you were wishing your mother a Happy Mother’s Day, Mark. Few would argue against the idea that some form of network management would be acceptable when necessary.
The rules for network management should be transparent, clearly communicated, and application-agnostic. If some applications are to be given priority over other traffic, such as VoIP, videoconferencing, etc., it should not be up to Bell to determine which applications are ‘high priority’ and which are not. They must be held accountable for their management activities, and not be given permission to abuse their market position to their advantage.
@ Brain G.
You stated, “…don’t the carriers have an obligation to ensure anyone…can instantly access…” and “don’t service providers have an obligation to ensure…” I puzzled why you think they would have an *obligation* to provide the level of service you are suggesting. We don’t expect plumbers to use the best parts available. We don’t expect our grocery stores to have nothing but the best cuts of meat available at all times. Why would you expect the same thing from an ISP?
@Abattoir
“Operators weren’t listening in on the calls to determine if you were wishing your mother a Happy Mother’s Day, Mark.” Well they can! But they don’t. The same thing will apply to DPI…they’ll manage the network, but not “listen” to the “call”.
I find it quite ironic that people give up their right to privacy when they use Google search, yet they cry foul when when a telco uses DPI to manage its network and doesn’t retain details on the content of the data inspected. People should be concerned about Google’s privacy policy and data retention! Our ISPs are pretty good compared to them.