From looking at the photos of last week’s net neutrality rally in Ottawa, the reports of 300 people said to have been there must have included about 150 tourists who thought that the guy in the godzilla suit was the RCMP musical ride.

However, the rally was apparently a stimulus for a pair of private member’s bills, starting with Bill C-552, introduced by NDP MP Charlie Angus and announced at the rally. It proposes to add some text to Section 36 of the Telecom Act. Recall that the current section basically says that carriers can’t play with content without the express consent of the CRTC.

He has proposed that the following be added:

The Telecommunications Act is amended by adding the following after section 36

1. Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination.
2. Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as limiting or restricting the right of a network operator to
   1. manage the flow of network traffic in a reasonable manner in order to relieve congestion;
   2. provide reasonable security protection for a user’s computer or the network;
   3. give priority to emergency communications;
   4. offer directly to each user service at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user’s connection;
   5. offer directly to each user consumer protection services, including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities, provided that the user is given clear and accurate advance notice of their ability to refuse or subsequently disable each consumer protection service;
   6. handle breaches of the terms of service, provided the terms of service are not inconsistent with subsection (1); and
   7. prevent any violation of federal or provincial law.
3. Network operators shall not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching any device to their network, provided the device does not physically damage the network or substantially degrade the use of the network by other subscribers.
4. Network operators shall make available to each user information about the user’s access to the Internet, including the speed, limitations, and network management practices of the user’s broadband service at any given time.
5. For the purposes of this section, “network operator” means a person who operates or provides access to telecommunications services.

It seems to me that a lot of folks keep forgetting that, unlike its counterparts in other jurisdictions, the CRTC already has the tools it needs to guard against discriminatory practices.

Bill C-552 appears to be balanced on a cursory examination, but I can already detect areas that give me concern about the possibility to limit future developments in the internet.

Yesterday, Liberal MP David McGuinty introduced C-555, “An Act to provide clarity and fairness in the provision of telecommunication services in Canada.” He has proposed to add certain consumer protections as a condition of license for mobile carriers.

While neither bill may not stand a chance of passing, especially with summer recess around the corner, Bill C-555 is a sign of frustration with anti-consumer practices such unilateral changes of terms and fees outside of contracts. Carriers might be thankful that the honourable member didn’t think of adding the condition to wireline BITS licenses as well.

For the final word on this lengthy post, I found it ironic that in writing about net neutrality this past weekend, Mark Evans seemed to endorse new neutrality laws and regulations but simultaneously quipped that

regulating the Internet is a joke unless your goal is to create bureaucracy, policy and opportunities for lobbyists.

Net neutrality will be the theme of a special session at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 18.

Technorati Tags:
Charlie Angus, net neutrality, Canada, Canadian Telecom Summit

Call me a stickler for details, but there is a big difference between “kb” and “kB”.

In CAIP’s interrogatory responses to the CRTC, the units seem to be used interchangeably, perpetuating an erroneous statement in one of the attachments that throttled traffic speeds being experienced (around 30kBps) are half of dial-up speeds (56kbps).

Lower case ‘b’ refers to bits. Upper case ‘B’ refers to bytes (with 8 bits to a byte). So, 30 kBps means 30 kilobytes per second which is 240 kbps – around four times dial-up.

Of course, there is still a big difference between 240 kbps and 5 Mbps, so the exageration was not necessary to make their point.

Why would the association continue to make such an obvious mistake in its regulatory filings? Is it just me or does this cast suspicions on the quality of the rest of its complaint?

Technorati Tags:
Bell, CRTC, CAIP

The AWS spectrum auction has already generated $1.5B in bids for the federal treasury. The auction will be stepping up the pace later this week: after round 13 (the first round on June 2), bid increments will be 10% (instead of the current 15%). In addition, the auction will be moving to 5 rounds per day as of Thursday.

From the original pack of 30 applicants, 3 didn’t make it past the qualifying list. A number of bidders withdrew prior to the auction commencing. Some others were no shows when the bidding got underway. Still others have seen partial or dramatic erosion in their eligibility points.

Very interesting to look at where people are bidding and perhaps more importantly, where they are not bidding.

I referred to bidding early last week as the preliminary round. We are starting to move toward the end of regular season play this week. The play-offs are still to come.

The CRTC has granted modest relief to telecom carriers in approving aspects of their application to review and vary parts of Decision 2007-130, the Decision that gave effect to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS).

In its Decision 2008-46, the CRTC accepted a number of concerns that were raised in two applications that were filed on February 4 by a group of cable companies and a group of telephone companies.

The Commission identified three areas of the original Decision that were at issue:

• Should all service providers with revenues over $10 million be required to be members of the Agency?
• Will awards by the CCTS be constrained by contractual limitations of liability?
• How should collective and representative complaints be processed by the Agency?

The Commission affirmed its view that it has the power to mandate membership in the agency. However, it has said that it will review this requirement in 3 years. The CRTC believes that mandatory membership is required as CCTS gets underway in order to give it sufficient credibility and effectiveness at its genesis. Later on, the perspective is that market forces may be able to govern whether a service provider retains its membership.

The CRTC will authorize the CCTS to look beyond limits of liability to award up to $5000 in direct damages for losses actually incurred, but not punitive or exemplary damages, which would need to be pursued in the courts.

Finally, the CRTC confirmed that it sees merit in permitting collective complaints:

The Commission remains of the view that allowing consumers the option of pursuing their complaints either individually or collectively, with or without the assistance of a representative consumer organization, would help enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of the Agency.

However, it has clarified that should a collective complaint be filed, the $5000 maximum award applies, regardless of the number of complainants.

As a result, we don’t expect that the CCTS will be the way to pursue collective complaints of a large scale, such as system access fees or other consumer pet peeves. Unless of course, the CCTS receives millions of individual applications, instead of one application representing millions of customers.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, CCTS

Earlier this week, I received a home phone offer that was mailed to the attention of one of my college kids. It reads:

You’re currently enjoying Internet service from [us], and we’re delighted to have you with us. In appreciation, we’d like to extend a special offer on our new Home Phone packages.

The letter then describes packages starting at $14.95 per month and an additional $5 discount on a bundle of home phone and internet. At the bottom of the letter are 6 lines of micro-print that says (among other things) that the $14.95 rate is available “to customers who subscribe to home phone with a 2-yr. contract.”

However, there is another line that says “Bundle discount may be terminated by [us] upon 30-day notice.” In other words, we may decide to raise that $14.95 rate by 33% and you will still be stuck with us for the rest of your 2-year contract.

How can it be reasonable for the service provider – a major Canadian telco – to lock up a customer for 2 years, but be free to change the price substantially in the middle of the contract period? What exactly is the meaning of a contract if one side gets to change a key term, price.

This is reminiscent of the issue of system access fees being outside of the contract.

As I have said before, I’m not as bothered by system access fees as by the concept that some carriers believe that they can change fundamental pricing in the midst of a contract. If the service provider changes the rate, they should have to offer to release the customer from the contract.

Fair is fair.