The CRTC took steps yesterday to improve its complaints resolution process for internet traffic management practices [press release, information bulletin]. CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein was quoted saying:
The policy sets out clear ground rules, which we expect all ISPs to follow,” said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. “The guidelines we issued today will help Canadians understand which practices are permitted and how to make a complaint. We will require ISPs that are not following the rules to take corrective action as quickly as possible.
When receiving a complaint regarding an internet traffic management practice, CRTC staff will seek a response from the ISP in question. If the ISP fails to respond or bring itself into compliance, the CRTC will take further action, such as meeting with the ISP, on-site inspections, independent third-party audits, or calling the ISP to a public hearing.
Very little has been said about the potential for use of “independent third-party audits.” The CRTC, in paragraph 19 of the Information Bulletin, says that it may “initiate an on-site inspection or independent third-party audit to obtain additional information” – not just in response to an individual complaint, but also based on an observed pattern of complaints.
Should the CRTC determine that an ISP is not in compliance with its ITMP policy – set out in 2009 – it will publish the company’s name and the nature of the complaint. In addition, the CRTC will publish quarterly summaries of the number and types of complaints it has received, including the number that have been resolved and those that are still under investigation.
The CRTC does not have the power to fine – or charge “administrative monetary penalties (AMPs)” – for violations, so it is largely left to rely on pressure by negative public relations. But it can back up its order by registering it with the Federal Court, including the ability to reimburse the client, under Section 51 of the Telecom Act.
Section 51 is worded in a way that can cause you to pause with wonder at the powers of the Commission:
The Commission may order a person, at or within any time and subject to any conditions that it determines, to do anything the person is required to do under this Act or any special Act, and may forbid a person to do anything that the person is prohibited from doing under this Act or any special Act.
Ignoring an order from the commission, once registered with the court, is contempt. In other words, don’t expect service providers to take a Commission order lightly. And don’t expect service providers to look forward to the prospect of independent auditors wandering through their networks.