Michael Geist suggests rules to govern internet billing practices. He suggests a billing practices regime to parallel the CRTC’s rules on internet traffic management practices (ITMP): Internet Billing Usage Management Practices (IBUMPs).
There is no question that consumers should understand exactly what they are supposed to get for their money. And there is no question that consumers should be confident that any usage sensitive billing are completely accurate. I’m just not convinced that the CRTC needs to weigh in.
While Michael has cast his posting in terms of retail usage based billing, I think he has confused the wholesale and retail regimes. He suggests 4 conditions to test the reasonableness of a retail usage sensitive regime:
First, CRTC approval for UBB has long been focused on addressing network congestion. Indeed, incumbent ISPs now argue that the use of UBB is related to congestion concerns and the need for fairness among all subscribers. In the case of a complaint about UBB retail practices, ISPs should be required to demonstrate that the UBB approach is designed to address specific network congestion concerns.
Second, the UBB model should be the least restrictive possible to achieve its intended goals. Much like ITMPs, this may mean giving consumers the option for accounts that are rate-limited after a certain monthly cap is reached instead of imposing overage charges (as noted above, many ISPs around the world have adopted this approach).
Third, if the ISP has implemented traffic shaping or other technical measures, it should be required to demonstrate why those approaches alone would not reasonably address the same network congestion concerns. This requirement is a mirror image of the ITMP requirement that envisions ISPs relying on network investment or economic ITMPs (ie. UBB) rather than technical ITMPs such as traffic shaping. If traffic shaping is in place, ISPs should be required to explain why that has not adequately addressed the network congestion concerns.
Fourth, while the CRTC should not engage in reviews of the retail pricing or size of monthly data caps, it should, under certain circumstances, be entitled to examine overage charges should ISPs use this economic model (as noted above, many ISPs around the world rate limit rather than impose overage charges). The review of overage charges would only occur in local markets where both the cable and DSL provider employ UBB, thus leaving consumers with limited non-UBB alternatives. In such instances, the CRTC should review overage charges to allow for a reasonable profit but establish safeguards against price gouging in light of actual ISP costs.
These are perhaps better discussed in a wholesale context. After all, usage based billing on a retail level is not necessarily associated with congestion. That linkage was made only when usage sensitive pricing was introduced as a proposal for wholesale access. After all, contrary to the very first point, no CRTC approval was required, nor sought, nor granted for the introduction of usage based billing for retail.
Internet services are now covered by the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS). As covered on these pages last December, the CRTC has determined that ISPs are subject to reviews and remedies from the CCTS.
Shouldn’t the CCTS be given the chance to show its effectiveness in managing internet billing disputes?
Given the CCTS’s record, I would suggest they have already shown they are not well-equipped to manage disputes of any kind. The vast majority of the population still does not know they exist, and the last time I saw their closure statistics, they did not look good. Compare their general level of activity with their Australian counterpart, which was created around the same time, and we see how much the CCTS is underperforming.
The CCTS mandate says quite clearly that they cannot help to define UBB practices:
“Compliance with contract terms and commitments (but not the contract terms themselves). ” It’s the contract terms that are under dispute in the UBB debate, not the providers compliance with terms that we as consumers are forced to adopt due to lack of alternatives.
“Billing disputes and errors (but not the price of the service itself).” CCTS has no say over what can be charged, just ensuring that providers collect what they said they would. The heart of the UBB debate is the inflated price of service delivery.
“The delivery of your providers’ service, including installations, repairs, and disconnections.” But they have no means of ensuring the provider doesn’t throttle or provide less through put than they claim in the contract.
Using the CCTS as a solution to this problem is a red herring.
My post clearly addressed the IBUMP proposal, as I said. As such, CCTS is an appropriate solution.