I hate getting those calls as much as the next guy. You know the ones I’m talking about: a static beep followed by the background noise of a call-centre boiler-room and the familiar words “air duct cleaning”; or, maybe it’s Jeanette from Credit Card Services with my last chance to save; or, the computer technical support department; or, the $999.99 credit I won toward my Mexican vacation resort.

Despite all the best efforts of legislation and regulation, authorities have not been able to stop the fraudsters, scammers and spammers.

In August, the FCC hosted the launch of “the Robocall Strike Force, an industry-led group that is committed to developing comprehensive solutions to prevent, detect, and filter unwanted robocalls.” Earlier in the summer, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler pledged to cut off robocalls, saying “Robocalls and telemarketing calls are currently the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC.” At the final meeting of the Strike Force the update identified a number of areas where work activities remained open, including:

• Consumer Access to Free Call Blocking & Filtering Solutions
• Development of Network-to-Device Information Sharing Framework
• Deployment of VoIP Caller ID Authentication

In Canada, the CRTC launched a consultation in July 2015, “Empowering Canadians to protect themselves from unsolicited and illegitimate telemarketing calls.” That resulted in the production of a summary database of “options and features that are currently available to help Canadians protect themselves from unsolicited and illegitimate calls.” Let me know what you think of the usefulness of that website.

Also arising from that consultation, earlier this week the CRTC issued Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2016-442, stating “The Commission finds that the technical solutions available to Canadians to protect themselves from unwanted unsolicited and illegitimate telecommunications are not sufficient.” The CRTC has asked CISC (the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee) to “develop practices to block blatantly illegitimate calls at the network level”, effectively providing a Section 36 authorization for Canadian carriers to block calls. CISC is to report back within 90 days – early February.

What are blatantly illegitimate calls?

Blatantly illegitimate calls include calls that purport to originate from telephone numbers that

1. match the telephone number of the person being called;
2. are “spoofed” with a number that is local to the person being called, in the case of an incoming long distance call; or
3. do not conform to the North American Numbering Plan (i.e. are non-dialable telephone numbers [e.g. 000-000-0000]).

There are clear problems with this. The CRTC justified its definition with a bit of bizarre logic.

50. These three specific circumstances account for up to 35% of all complaints filed with the National DNCL Operator in 2015. The Commission considers that universal blocking of these types of calls would be consistent with
    • the UTRs, which require telemarketers to identify themselves and provide a telecommunications number where the originator can be reached; and
    • Telecom Decision 2007-48, which states that telecommunications numbers must conform to the North American Numbering Plan in order to be registered on the National DNCL.

Hold on. What is with the second bullet? Getting registered in the Do Not Call List refers to me, the person receiving the call, not the person calling me. Decision 2007-48 effectively says that Canada’s Do Not Call List is for Canadian phone numbers. Further, with respect to the first bullet, the logic only makes sense if the originator is a telemarketer. What if it is my daughter calling me from overseas? The CRTC has no control over the phone company or app with which she makes her call and by definition, as an overseas call, the originating number cannot conform to the NANP. A caller ID from outside North America cannot and should not conform to the North American Numbering Plan. Incoming calls from various long distance companies, or from VoIP apps (such as Skype and others), can deliver a range of non-conforming caller IDs. Will these be captured by the CRTC’s blanket ban?

While the CRTC claims the “use of universal blocking to prevent calls with blatantly illegitimate caller ID information also strikes an appropriate balance between the protection of individual privacy and the need to permit legitimate uses of telemarketing telecommunications”, it appears that there are bound to be legitimate calls blocked that did not originate from telemarketers.

As the Commission itself recognizes in the discussion about universal blocking:

41. A number of parties expressed concern that universal blocking could prevent legitimate calls from reaching their intended recipient…

…

43. Eastlink, Primus, and trueCall argued that universal blocking, if implemented broadly, would not reflect the distinct preferences of individuals, given that all calls would be blocked at the network level (i.e. affecting all subscribers) and that the blocking could not be customized by the consumer…

44. Carriers generally argued that universal blocking is ineffective at combatting nuisance calls from callers who constantly change the numbers that they display on caller ID, which makes it difficult to determine which calls should be blocked…

So the CRTC is sending this off to CISC:

55. Accordingly, the Commission requests CISC to
    • identify and develop a comprehensive list of attributes of calls that indicate blatantly illegitimate caller ID information and that can be universally blocked;
    • identify potential unintended consequences of universally blocking calls based on the list of attributes identified above;
    • as required, develop redress mechanisms to prevent and remediate these consequences when universal blocking is deployed, and approaches for monitoring their effectiveness; and
    • provide a report of its findings on the above to the Commission within 90 days of the date of this decision.

A much bigger scourge is that of phishing, with scammers spoofing the originating source of emails. Ottawa Police is circulating an educational video as part of an education process for users to recognize fraudulent messages. Should the CRTC be ordering ISPs to block blatantly illegitimate emails?

Ultimately, these efforts by the CRTC and by the police point to the ineffectiveness of legislation and regulation such as Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation and the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules. Hopefully, CISC will report back about the risks of blocking legitimate calls from ordinary citizens and we can move on. But we need to consider the unnecessary costs these rules have imposed on legitimate businesses while the perpetrators of fraud and genuine consumer annoyances continue their practices unabated.

While it would be nice to find a regulatory solution or a novel technology, I continue to believe the most effective way to deal with nuisance calls was invented more than 130 years ago. Just hang up.

A couple quick thoughts in the wake of last night’s election in the United States.

Derek Thompson, Senior Editor at The Atlantic observed that it is appropriate for some humility about the ability to influence public opinion:

I noticed a tweet that said that no one in that person’s timeline was excited about seeing Trump win. To me, that is a problem. So I replied, saying “I tend to learn a lot by reading things that can sometimes make me angry”:

In August, I wrote about this phenomenon (Reading just what we want or what we need?), asking “How do we encourage reading alternate perspectives, consideration of dissenting viewpoints, and engaging in cooperative dialog?” It is a real challenge when we self select digital news feeds, or get algorithmically selected articles served to us on social media based on what is perceived to be what we want to read. Perhaps the advantage of print media was the enforced diversity of views based on bundles of content including more than what we want.

Aren’t our minds nourished by snacking on opposing views once in a while?

Last week’s CRTC hearing to examine differential pricing practices related to internet data plans highlighted many areas of confusion among Canada’s regulatory professionals.

Outside of the ISP community, many people seem to think that data tiers (often erroneously called “caps”) were created for traffic management. The misunderstanding may arise from the CRTC’s approval of such retail pricing mechanisms as a traffic management tool. As described by Xplornet (among others) tiers are not defined by the network organizations; rather they are primarily a creation by marketing departments to create a range of product options for consumers at different price points.

Data tiers are a very coarse method of managing congestion, in that they can be seen, especially on the wireless side, to constrain demand. Rogers explained last week, “traffic incurs costs, causes costs. So if you had unlimited traffic, in effect you would have unlimited cost.” Data tiers are a means to monetize the network investment in a way that those who want the capacity for more traffic pay more toward those costs. Of far greater import is the popularity of data tiers when unlimited plans are available. for example, Eastlink told the Commission that the vast majority of its wireline internet subscribers had unlimited data plans. Rogers said 40% of its wireline internet subscribers are signing up for unlimited plans.

Despite wide availability and high levels of adoption of unlimited data plans, there are some consumers who choose a lower priced option. Such tiers existed before the CRTC’s internet traffic management decision in 2009 and continue to exist as a means of price differentiation so that consumers can select which plan is best suited for their situation.

Open Media wants to deny that choice to consumers, asking the CRTC to ban data tiers. That makes no sense. At any price point for an unlimited plan, there will be consumers who would benefit from a lower priced option that includes some lower level of data. How can consumers benefit from losing choice? And, as a number of parties indicated to the CRTC, eliminating data tiers would result in price increases for the majority of customers.

Another area of misunderstanding was whether negotiations were required in order for an ISP to cease charging “per byte” for a particular application, a practice known as “zero-rating”. The confusion may have arisen from a casual read of the submission by TBayTel, where it says “This type of arrangement is possible to negotiate when the ISP has sufficient scale and market power but not for small providers like Tbaytel and many others.” However, TBayTel was refering to “sponsored data” with that statement, the practice where “ISPs are compensated by the application providers”. To zero-rate a particular app or data stream, no negotiations are required. The ISP simply stops charging for those bytes for a certain class of users. TBayTel has offered zero-rating to its customers, with a $15 flat rate for Blackberry users to have unlimited social networking.

TBayTel had been cited by a number of parties as saying it was too small to negotiate arrangements for zero-rating plans. The Independent Broadcast Group told the CRTC that TBayTel said it doesn’t “have the resources really to go out and put together an unlimited music type service or similar things that the big guys could do.” In reality, any ISP could implement zero-rating plans as a promotion without consultation or negotiations with the relevant applications.

Videotron said:

Écoutez, on ne niera pas que certains de nos concurrents seraient peut-être plus rapides ou d’autres moins rapides à pouvoir nous copier ou pouvoir lancer quelque chose de semblable, mais je vous répondrais que c’est un peu la dynamique de marché et que tant mieux.

Differential pricing is a means of offering targeted promotional pricing to attract or retain a certain demographic of customers. In a competitive marketplace, differential pricing provides increased choice. Such plans are optional and do not limit customers from accessing any other content. As I wrote before (see A matter of choice), Open Media’s claim that the practice “makes websites they don’t like slower” is simply not true. This false claim was part of its campaign to solicit support for its position in the proceeding. Given the false premise, one might question the support it garnered to oppose a pro-consumer choice practice.

As I have said many times before, differential pricing does not inhibit access to any content, it raises prices for no one and reduces costs for some. Banning the practice will reduce choice in the marketplace, raise prices for some and lower prices for no one.

Last month, I wrote Competition, investment and innovation, announcing my plans for a series to highlight ways that innovations originating in the communications sector have made a positive impact on our daily lives, as part of the lead up to The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, which will take place June 5-7.

Starting this past Tuesday (November 1), each day at 9:00am (Toronto time) I have been highlighting an invention or innovation that has emerged from the telecom sector.

I am collecting these tweets here.

Ten years ago, I wrote a piece called “4 degrees of impersonal communications.” In it, I describe how people say things in emails that they would never say to someone over the phone. And, over the phone (especially in a voice message), we seem willing to speak in ways that one would never consider saying face-to-face.

I wrote that piece before the popularization of social media which can, in some cases, be somewhat anti-social.

Yesterday was a good example. I was asked if I was “congenitally incapable of accurately representing ppl’s views that you don’t agree with“, in response to my observation that a witness was evading answering a direct question from the CRTC.

This followed a pattern of abusive tweets that I have generally ignored for many months. He seemed surprised to have been blocked, throwing in a jab or two in response.

The miracle of modern communications allows me to follow the CRTC Differential Pricing hearing from halfway around the world, commenting and engaging with others in real time – chirping from the sidelines, as some might say.

Other than fundamental disagreements on a number of issues, I don’t know what I did to set off a history of ad hominem tirades. I have met this person exactly once, a number of years ago as we were both guests of the CRTC at a dinner in Ottawa. We sat at different tables, so I am pretty sure that I didn’t accidentally use his bread plate, or take his napkin.

There are many people with whom I engage, without either party resorting to personal attacks about each other’s integrity. I cannot and will not tolerate such.

Let me digress for a moment. As many frequent readers know, I enjoy watching football, especially the Denver Broncos. I don’t follow the sport as much as I would like to, but there are aspects of almost every game that keep me coming back every Sunday in the Fall and early Winter. At the end of each game, I like seeing the players from both sides gather on the field, shaking hands with opponents and in some cases hugging and sharing long conversations. Moments earlier, these gladiators were ferociously attacking each other, clawing with their fingernails for every inch of the field. But when the final whistle blows, they are able to remember to be civil.

There are no referees on the field in Twitter; no red flags for unsportsmanlike conduct; no personal fouls.

Some have quit Twitter after getting bullied by anti-social behaviour – it is a recognized problem on that platform. But encouraging words from some and inspirational words from others will keep me coming back, sharing my observations, adding up those inches to make a difference.

Some people may need to cut down a little on their caffeine intake and try eating more bran.