A little more than a year ago, I wrote that no additional laws are needed to protect the internet from discriminatory practices by internet access service providers.

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that his agency has all the authority it needs and that new legislation is unnecessary. He was speaking at a hearing on the future of the Internet.

He reiterated the FCC’s Internet policy principles and included a comment on the application of network management:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet,

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The Commission explicitly noted that these principles were subject to reasonable network management.

The full text of his statement can be found here.

The last few weeks have featured a who’s who in Canadian broadcast parading past the CRTC as part of the BDU hearings.

It should be interesting on Wednesday with Jim Shaw due up at 9:00.

Last week, he launched a preemptive strike (possibly preparing for a for a future cabinet appeal?) with a letter to the Prime Minister that said:

Instead of focusing on meeting customer preferences for open access to programming, cutting subsidies that reward broadcasters for the wrong behaviour, removing restrictions on programming and cutting onerous bureaucratic rules that limit customer choice – all of which are realistic and reasonable doorways to the future, we are forced again to look backwards to the past.

The CRTC review does not mark a movement toward a light at the end of the tunnel, but rather a fumbling toward deepening darkness.
…
The CRTC`s historic approach to cable as a mere instrument to promote Canadian content is outdated. Cable, in competition with the telcos, is building Canada`s information superhighway and our telecom and broadcasting policies should encourage not hinder this development.

What is really needed are not more subsidies and micro-regulation by the CRTC, but rather a made-in-Canada broadband policy.

This is the final week scheduled for presentations. Wednesday morning’s appearance by Shaw should be especially entertaining. You can watch the hearings on CPAC on-line or listen to an audio feed by clicking here .

---

Update [April 23, 9:30 am]
Jim Shaw was a no-show at the hearing on Wednesday, sending Shaw Communications president Peter Bissonnette to head up what the CRTC chair called a “B-team”, reminiscent of Shaw’s critique during the Canadian TV Fund proceeding.

NDP MP Charlie Angus issued a statement last week that says the Conservatives have ignored recommendations on net neutrality. The statement was issued in response to Industry Minister Prentice’s comments on April 2 in the House where he refused to wade in with government interference on the CAIP / Bell competitive dispute.

Angus’ statement says

Prentice should accept the recommendations of the Telecommunications Review Panel that laid out a practical guide for CRTC involvement on maintaining fair and open access of the internet. The panel stated: “open access is of such overriding importance that its protection justifies giving the regulator the power to review cases involving blocking access to applications and content and significant, deliberate degradation of service.”

Unlike many on the left who misquote the Telecom Policy Review Panel recommendation, I will credit Angus with recognizing that the TPRP acknowledged the technical, efficiency and legal constraints that may be used to impede internet traffic flow.

He cites the entirety of recommendation 6-5 in his letter. Many other observers of the TPRP consistently neglect to quote the full text, so kudos to him for that part of his letter. However, Angus falls into the same trap as most who are not familiar with the entire report.

The reality is that the CRTC already has all of the tools it needs to discipline bad behaviour in internet traffic management. The TPRP created its tight recommendation on internet traffic (6-5), because it felt that the existing anti-competitive provisions (Section 27(2)) are “much too general and rely too greatly on the regulator’s discretion.” So recommendation 3-13 was to replace 27(2) with tighter, more specific measures.

We wouldn’t want ministerial interference in a court proceeding. Why are we looking for the Minister to intervene in a regulatory complaint?

The net neutrality panel at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit will be taking place on June 18. Have you registered yet?

I wrote last week about the expected release of the CRTC’s agenda for dealing with social and other non-economic regulatory measures in light of the Minister’s Policy Direction.

Yesterday, the CRTC issued its most current view of the action plan to address these areas. You can find the timetable in the Appendix to the decision.

The Commission rejected a somewhat bizarre call from the consumer groups to delay an examination of privacy issues until the government revises the national privacy law:

The Commission considers that delaying its review of privacy measures pending the federal review and tabling of amendments to PIPEDA would unnecessarily postpone consideration of an important matter that many parties consider to be a priority.

The priorities coming up in the next year:

• Retail quality of service indicators, standards, reporting, and rate adjustment plan Mandatory disclosures in directories (e.g. terms of service, statement of consumer rights), billing inserts, and websites
• Statement of consumer rights
• Process for disconnection, late payment charge, dishonoured payment charge, deposit policies and toll restrict
• Privacy safeguards and obligations

Last December, Yak filed two applications with the CRTC to “protect Canadians against consumer gouging.” Today, the CRTC ruled on those applications.

At issue was a new network access fee that TELUS introduced for those local customers that had TELUS as their primary long distance carrier but had not subscribed to a calling plan. Yak characterized the fee as a fee associated with local service, since it applied whether or not long distance calls were made. The CRTC agreed and has ordered TELUS to refund the fee to any subscriber that did not make calls over the TELUS network during a billing period.

The CRTC noted that the definition of local service

consists of the provision of service and equipment necessary for telephone communication between customers in the same exchange and between such customers and the message toll office or facilities for that exchange. On that basis, the Commission finds that access to the long distance network is included in [TELUS]’s local exchange service

It is the first time that the CRTC has come down on system access fees. At issue in this instance was the fact that the fee was applied to non-forborne areas as well as forborne. In the case or areas where local rates are still regulated, the CRTC has to approve any change in local rates. In the rest of the territory, there is a price cap in effect that was likely exceeded.

The CRTC made a pledge last year to watch out for consumers in a forborne environment. Today’s decision affirms the CRTC’s commitment to that promise.