In a story for the morning Globe and Mail, the CRTC acknowledges that it would like to see stronger powers to add muscle to its enforcement of regulations.
The article suggests that the Commission will be looking for the government to give it the power to sanction companies, presumably with fines of a sufficient magnitude to serve as a meaningful deterrent, not simply a cost of doing business.
With increased relaxation of ex ante regulations, many would agree that the Commission needs to be able to act swiftly and effectively in policing an ex post regulatory environment.
In the wake of the release this week of a notice and letter examining emergency call handling, the government may be predisposed to look at providing such a solution.
California consumer protection law has intervened into early termination fees imposed by Sprint. Sprint had argued that a state court had no business deciding an issue that the company believed was better suited for federal authorities.
The FCC has been trying to move carriers to a system of termination fees that declines over the life of the contract. Most Canadian wireless carriers have fees that conform to such a model.
Still, the case is interesting in that it demonstrates the need for carriers to ensure that their processes and terms of service are consistent with state (or provincial?) consumer protection laws.
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.
