I wrote last week about Open Media’s misleading “pro-internet” pledge, requiring signatories to agree to control retail prices if candidates want to win the organization’s seal of approval. On Friday, Open Media released its list of people who signed up. The original list had a number of people who appeared multiple times, as well undefined candidates, such as “Moe” and “KG”. On Friday, I let Open Media know about the problems with their list. After I tweeted about the problems, Open Media apparently reviewed their database. The current version may have eliminated duplicates, but it still creates questions in my mind.

I wasn’t surprised to see a large NDP presence on the list, especially after reading the plank in the NDP’s digital platform: “We will prohibit all forms of usage-based billing (UBB) by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)”.

However, under the heading of Conservatives, Open Media lists the following candidates:

• David Pais
• gerard mckenzie
• Howard Garstad
• James Stevens
• Mark Pescador
• Patrick Hunt
• Ron Manke
• Tyler Pelletier

I thought this was an interesting level of support for Open Media, until I went to the Conservative party’s website to learn more about these candidates (only one of the candidates had a link from the Open Media website).

It turns out that most of them aren’t actually candidates for the Conservative party. As far as I can tell, seven out of the eight aren’t even running for office.

For example, according to Open Media, Ron Manke is the conservative candidate for Edmonton Centre, which likely comes as news to incumbent Laurie Hawn, who thought he was the nominee. In fact, seven out of the 8 names under Open Media’s Conservative heading don’t align with Conservative Party records of their candidates. The candidate sign-up page doesn’t appear to have mechanisms to validate entries, or guard against duplicates, similar to its form letter to the CRTC and its original petition.

It’s great to have mobilized a constituency; will Open Media be able to rise to the challenge of responsible leadership to become a credible consumer voice?

CRTC processes are not easy to follow. Navigating the CRTC website can be complex, even for those of us who have spent the past 2 decades following Canada’s regulator. The terminology can be complex. We consultants can be grateful for that. It can be helpful for our job security!

But, it can lead to frustration for many people who are trying to get a crash course in Canadian communications regulatory processes, thanks to the debate over usage sensitive internet pricing.

On Saturday evening, a Twitter discussion persisted to erupt over my use of the CRTC Monitoring Report’s estimate that there are 500 entities providing internet access in Canada (see page 137 of the CMR – [pdf, 7.1MB]). I cited the number in my March OpEd: Don’t Regulate My Internet. My correspondent could not accept that there are more than 500 ISPs operating in Canada. Apparently, as far as he knows, where he is living there are just 2. Another of my tweeps claims that her sister just outside of Ottawa can only access her cable company for internet – she is beyond the reach of the telco. I was challenged to produce a list of the 500. As regular readers know, no such list exists. I identified that challenge last December when the CRTC decided to bring all ISPs under the purview of the CCTS.

Not easy to explain in 140 character snippets.

I don’t think we should expect detailed telecommunications regulatory issues to be easy for beginners to understand; we certainly don’t expect everyone to understand navigating the income tax regulations. However, despite recent rework, our government websites are just not as accessible as they could be, in part because of silly Common Look and Feel regulations from the Treasury Board. [These regulations even cover domain names, making it forbidden for Environment Canada to promote the easily remembered “Weatheroffice.com” domain that it owns, in favour of “weatheroffice.gc.ca“.]

The CRTC has been trying to be more accessible for some of its higher profile public consultations. Look at the beta for the FCC’s new website south of the border. Does it improve access for citizen engagement?

The NDP became the last of the major parties to release its platform [pdf, 1.1MB] and its digital policy certainly differentiates it from the rest. It sets out 6 points:

• We will apply the proceeds from the advanced wireless spectrum auction to ensure all Canadians, no matter where they live, will have quality high-speed broadband internet access;
• We will expect the major internet carriers to contribute financially to this goal;
• We will rescind the 2006 Conservative industry-oriented directive to the CRTC and direct the regulator to stand up for the public interest, not just the major telecommunications companies;
• We will enshrine “net neutrality” in law, end price gouging and “net throttling,” with clear rules for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), enforced by the CRTC;
• We will prohibit all forms of usage-based billing (UBB) by Internet Service Providers (ISPs);
• We will introduce a bill on copyright reform to ensure that Canada complies with its international treaty obligations, while balancing consumers’ and creators’ rights.

Further, under the heading of Home-grown Film and TV Production, there are 4 additional points, including preservation of foreign ownership restrictions:

• We will ensure Canadian TV and telecom networks remain Canadian-owned by maintaining effective regulations on foreign ownership;
• We will re-focus the mandate of the CRTC to promote and protect Canadian cultural industries;
• We will provide sustained funding for the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm Canada, enhance federal film incentives and develop a targeted strategy for the promotion of domestic films in Canada;
• We will set license requirements for broadcasters based on clear, binding and enforced performance standards for broadcasters, including increased Canadian drama.

What does this mean in practice? Under an NDP government, there could be a new internet services tax – internet service providers will be taxed to fund some kind of universal broadband services fund, meaning consumer prices will go up. The NDP will regulate internet business models, by prohibiting “all forms of usage-based billing”.

Should I be troubled by the NDP confusing the AWS and 700 MHz spectrum bands? For $4B, you would think the party would learn a little bit of jargon.

Your perspectives?

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?

Open Media is asking candidates to declare themselves as pro-internet. It is part of an initiative that has contributed to a raised awareness of digital issues. When I first heard about Open Media’s “pro-internet” campaign, I had to ask,”Why wouldn’t you sign on?” After all, as a colleague put it, if you aren’t on such a list, you must be a Neanderthal. If you aren’t pro-internet, you’re must be against it, right?

But political candidates should be careful to read the fine print on how “pro-internet” is being defined. The fine print seeks to set Canada apart in the world. Open Media wants candidates to agree to have the government regulate retail internet prices:

By signing up here, you are agreeing to stop the pay meter on our Internet if elected.

What does that mean? If elected, candidates will be expected to stop usage sensitive prices. Sounds good if say it quickly enough, but stop to think about what that means in practice. For the majority of customers, it means that prices will increase. But let’s ignore that for a moment, because there are many who believe that the cost should be borne by shareholders or the government (and if profits decline, then the government will be bearing some of that cost).

More importantly, eliminating “the meter” means restricting choice for consumers. It means that at whatever speed, service providers would be forbidden from offering an “entry level” service. As I wrote a month ago, it means that seniors who may not need unlimited throughput wouldn’t have a choice of a lower price plan at the same speed. For half of Canadian households in the lowest income quintile (who don’t even own a computer, let alone have internet access), Open Media wants politicians to commit to restricting the flexibility of service providers to develop creative price plans to get them connected.

I wrote an OpEd a few weeks ago about why we should resist calls to regulate retail internet pricing: Don’t regulate my internet.

Stopping the meter isn’t pro-internet. It is a populist way of demanding retail internet price regulation. The rest of the Open Media candidate commitment, committing “to increase broadband access, competition, transparency, and choice”? I’m all in favour. Who isn’t?

Regulating retail prices won’t increase broadband access and it reduces competition by restricting choice. The pro-internet pledge, as currently phrased with government price regulation, just isn’t pro-internet.