Some people have questioned whether the existing regulatory framework is sufficient to have been used by the CRTC to examine the CAIP complaint about Bell’s traffic shaping.
NDP critic Charlie Angus is quoted by the CBC as saying:
[The] CRTC is applying outdated rules that this government has refused to change, leaving the average consumer and emerging business models at the mercy of the telecom giants.
Two years ago, the Telecom Policy Review Panel (TPRP) released its report, having looked at these issues in a broad review of Canada’s policy and legislative framework governing telecommunications. In April, Angus called for the government to adopt precisely the net neutrality provisions recommended by the TPRP.
So let’s look at what he wanted. Recommendation 6-5 calls for legislative changes to:
confirm the right of Canadian consumers to access publicly available Internet applications and content of their choice by means of all public telecommunications networks providing access to the Internet.
This amendment should
(a) authorize the CRTC to administer and enforce these consumer access rights,
(b) take into account any reasonable technical constraints and efficiency considerations related to providing such access, and
(c) be subject to legal constraints on such access, such as those established in criminal, copyright and broadcasting laws.
It seems to me that the CAIP application would not have succeeded any better with these provisions. Based on the discussion contained in the CRTC’s Decision last week, it was just as likely to have failed.
The TPRP leans toward allowing ISPs to make reasonable decisions, but importantly, with clarity of information to customers. As I cited when the report was first released:
Given the complexity of this area, the rapid evolution of technologies and the market dynamics, the Panel believes the regulator here should have more discretion than in other areas of regulation. However, the Panel also believes this discretion should be exercised with a view to encouraging reliance on market forces and customer choice as much as possible. For example, there may be situations in which a customer wants an ISP to block access to particular applications or content. In addition, some customers may be willing to accept a reduced degree of access in exchange for a lower price. Such consumer choices should be respected.
In the Panel’s view, the purpose of a customer access rule should be consumer protection, and there should be a strong emphasis on ensuring that customers have the information required to make informed choices. In this way, the rule would promote the efficient operation of market forces.
It is encouraging that the NDP is calling for the report of the TPRP to be adopted. Perhaps this support will help move legislation onto the government’s agenda.
We will again explore net neutrality as a panel at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.