Yesterday, the CRTC pronounced on the matter, issuing an information circular to remind “nomadic local VoIP service providers” of their emergency services obligations.
The interim solution that the Commission considered would provide benefits similar to basic 9-1-1 service for nomadic local VoIP service was described by the Commission at paragraph 60 of Telecom Decision 2005-21 as one that “routes 9-1-1 calls directly to a third-party call centre. There, agents answer the call, verbally determine the nature of the emergency and the location of the caller, and transfer the call to the appropriate PSAP or emergency services agency.”
The Commission noted that this solution, including the requirement to verbally determine a 9‑1‑1 caller’s location, was again described in Telecom Decision 2007-44.
What are the implications for Comwave, the service provider at the centre of the Calgary incident?
Update [July 29, 9:50 am]
The CRTC sent a letter to Comwave coincident with its Information Circular yesterday. The letter finds that Comwave’s third-party call centre operator did not follow the proper procedures.
A Videotron press release last week indicates that it has now surpassed the 1 million mark in high speed internet customers. The milestone represents about 60% of its cable TV subscriber base of 1.65M, half of which have subscribed to digital service.
Nice story about how the company is treating its millionth customer. The young mother will not only be receiving a year’s subscription to Videotron’s Quattro bundle, she will be appearing on an upcoming episode of Le Banquier – the Quebec version of Deal or No Deal with an opportunity to win $1M.
Videotron has been a global leader in the deployment of ultra-high speed cable modem access, having launched its TGV with speeds of up to 50 Mbps. The company has successfully tested even higher speeds on its network.
With more than 50,000 wireless customers already, Videotron is proving to be a formidable competitor to Bell, delivering an ARPU rich bundle to consumers in Quebec.
I keep considering the concept of a stupid network versus an intelligent one. Maybe I can have another educated look. The analogy (not great) likening an operating IP network to dumb plumbing pipes doesn’t really hold water – if you’ll excuse the pun.
Internet access cannot be stupid any more than our water supply or power supply can be stupid. Think back to the blackout of a few summers ago and you understand the importance for network management of all utilities.
Bell’s modifications of GAS service clearly breach the section 36 prohibition on a carrier “controlling the content” or “influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carrier by it for the public” absent Commission approval of same. At the most basic level, Bell violates the common carrier principle by inspecting and throttling back traffic that it is supposed to transmit from point A to point B at defined speeds in a completely “opaque” fashion.
I don’t believe that there is any violation. The operative phrase that is in CAIP’s own words: “absent Commission approval of same.” The CRTC has correctly approved Bell’s Terms of Service (and CAIP’s members signed contracts accepting these terms) which provide for taking steps to manage the integrity of the Bell network.
CAIP tries to extend a postal metaphor as well, which the press picked-up on:
postal service customers have the freedom to decide for themselves the urgency of their packages, and to pay the postal service a fee based on how quickly they want their packages delivered.
Except that CAIP’s members nor customers aren’t paying differential pricing based on the packages (applications) they are using. They want “before 10 am” next-day delivery of all their mail, despite paying a single price for all the mail they can stuff into the mailbox at the corner – a mailbox they share with the whole neighbourhood.
If CAIP members want a dedicated physical channel to their customers, then they can pay for that. But it is more expensive. If they want to enjoy the discounted price associated with logical channels, then the ISPs have to understand that, just like with postal services, you don’t get overnight delivery of all packages all the time when you pay for parcel post.
I think that Canadians want our ISPs to manage their networks. Specifically, we want our ISPs to take action on certain types of content. For example, we expect all network operators to act to defend themselves and their customers from denial of service attacks. We want them to implement spam guards. We want them (some argue that we legally compel them) to block known child abuse images, content and website.
These are three examples that clearly contradict the ‘dumb plumbing’ view of the internet.
We want our water cleaned up; we want fluoride. We want the water company to manage supply. During certain periods, we see limits on certain applications like watering our lawns, washing our cars. The ban on watering is application specific, but it is non-discriminatory; it applies to all. It recognizes the difference between real time requirements for water (drinking, flushing, hygiene, etc.) and more discretionary uses. Sound familiar?
The dumb pipe plumbing metaphor doesn’t work, because you have to consider that consumers don’t want their water delivered without filtering as well. Sure, we could all be responsible for treating the water at our premises, but that isn’t how the system works.
It is time to move on to a new metaphor. If you want to provide dumb pipes, then you should be prepared to build your own water company.
Back in January, I wrote a piece that spoke of the simple words: cell phones save lives.
I caught a press release from the folks at “411 on Wireless” that talked about an event held yesterday to promote increased accessibility to prepaid phones as an affordable choice for a “cell phone security blanket” for the elderly.
We have seen various prepaid plans that target our teens; the youth market is sexy and fun and predisposed to try out lots of high margin discretionary services.
While the elderly are among those most likely to benefit from access to a mobile device, they are also among the age groups least likely to have one.
The question is whether service providers will look at special packages for seniors’ emergency access?
A reader sent me a link to a wonky article that claims that a Canadian conspiracy is underway to begin charging to access certain internet sites:
The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether.
