Search Results for: regulating internet

NDP sets out telecom policy

January 24, 2017

NDPLast week, I started to review the party platforms, looking at the official positions being set forth in Canada’s upcoming elections. On Sunday, the New Democratic Party set out its platform [pdf] and telecom policy plays a more prominent role than we saw from the Liberals or Green Party last week.

Like the Greens and Liberals, the NDP are promising to introduce new legislation “to prevent the publication or proliferation of child sexual abuse content on the Internet.” The NDP has joined the Green Party in promising to regulate the internet. The NDP go further than simply looking at regulating traffic; they plan to regulate prices as well.

Implement “net neutrality” to protect everyday Canadians’ right to freely access the internet content of their choice at a flat rate and with clear and transparent rules. We will end price gouging and “net throttling”, preventing a two-tiered internet in Canada.

The NDP are the first party to mention plans to improve access to broadband internet:

Invest in a pan-Canadian broadband strategy to bring high-speed internet to more communities in Canada.

The NDP also plan to combat identity theft, control online computer fraud, including spamming and “phishing,” working to implement new measures to fight cyber-crime. The party also addresses new media with a promise to strengthen the delivery of new internet-based media services from CBC and Radio Canada.

The NDP, through such members as MP Charlie Angus, has been active in raising the awareness of telecom issues in the most recent session of Parliament. Although I often disagree with their positions, I admire the focus in the coverage of telecommunications issues as evidenced in their platform document.

Bills emerging from the rally

June 3, 2008

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:
, , ,

Net neutrality at the EDP

January 25, 2017
U of TAs I mentioned in my posting last Monday, the first day of the Executive Development Program at University of Toronto featured network neutrality presentations by Lawson Hunter of Bell and Professor Andrew Clement of U of T’s Faculty of Information Studies.

Both speakers expressed concern about the loaded nature of the terminology – and the definition itself. Net Neutrality is a term that evokes images of mom and apple pie: who could oppose it?

But there are definitional challenges – is there even a common understanding of what is meant by the term “net neutrality”?

Professor Clement rejects the view by some that net neutrality carries with it a requirement to treat all packets equally. He favoured a Lessig/McChesney definition set out as “like content must be treated alike.”

Andrew suggested principles for a neutral internet:

  • Basic broadband service
    • Broadband network operators should provide “Basic Access Broadband,” a meaningful, neutral Internet connectivity service, capable of handling all major application classes. Beyond providing this level of service, operators would be free to determine all service parameters.
  • Common carriage
    • Broadband network operators should maintain a strict separation between network carriage infrastructures and the content and services offered over them. They must ensure nondiscriminatory access and interconnection to competitors, including municipalities and public utilities, as well as data and content service providers.
  • Open
    • Network infrastructures at all layers should be based on open architectures, standards and protocols, especially for interconnection and interoperability with other networks and devices.
  • Transparent
    • Network operators should make available to customers, citizens and oversight bodies in clear and understandable terms their service offerings, prices, terms of inter-connection and peering agreements, as well as other aspects of their operation of vital public interest. Where operator actions may impair service, they need to provide clear notice and justifications.
  • Privacy protective
    • In keeping with legislative requirements and common carrier principles, network operators should keep personal information secure and under customer control. No ‘back-doors’ and deep packet inspection. Surveillance activities should be strictly limited in scope and demonstrably lawful.
  • Accountable
    • Network operators should be held accountable to legitimate and effective public bodies charged with promoting the public interest. Any regulations developed should be clearly justifiable for meeting core societal goals, including affordability, universality, equity, safety and national sovereignty.

Thoughts? There was quite a lively discussion on Monday at the EDP.

Some even suggested that the network equipment providers couldn’t or wouldn’t handle all these requirements, such as the requirement for adherence to open standards at all layers.

It reminded me of a time in the early 1980’s that equipment providers suggested that equal access wasn’t possible – the US didn’t buy that argument then. Let’s face it. If policy makers dictate certain capabilities as a mandatory requirement, then suppliers will develop the equipment accordingly or new suppliers will be found.

The issue is more fundamental – why should these requirements be imposed by regulation?

Each principle can and should be examined separately – why can’t market forces continue to drive internet development?

In my view, the internet has flourished without imposing limitations on degrees of freedom for service providers and equipment suppliers. Why risk regulating that which has flourished without?

As Lawson Hunter subtitled his presentation: is Net Neutrality “A Questionable Solution in Search of a Problem.”

Presumptive regulation interferes with market forces [and] therefore should only be used where/when proven necessary.

As always, your comments are welcome.

Competition and prices

April 16, 2007
Globe and MailOn Saturday, the Globe ran an article by Derek DeCloet, who repeated the now familiar view that deregulating local phone service will lead to price increases. Mark Evans described the article as Finally, Someone Gets It. Rob Hyndman joined in and Michael Geist pointed to the article as well.

I disagree with that viewpoint and I am more aligned with Andy Abramson‘s rebuttal. I know that we weren’t going to see vigorous competitive behaviour without the regulatory handcuffs being removed from the incumbents. After all, why would competitors price agressively when incumbent prices were fixed and publicly posted.

Under the rules of the tariffs, the ILECs aren’t even allowed to waive service charges, can’t contact people who had left them, couldn’t create fall promotions to coincide with student moving dates. When the ILECs have retail prices from which it is impossible to vary, how creative does the competition have to get?

There are also more competitors than just the cable companies. While Canadians don’t have access to Skype-In, we do have Vonage, Comwave, Babytel and a wide variety of other VoIP providers. Primus Canada offers both VoIP and conventional telephone competition for residential and business applications. Canada is well beyond a duopoly or oligopoly for substitutable products.

Mark Evans argues that Bell is unlikely to offer across the board price decreases because of the impact on its revenues. He is likely correct on that point. But normal behaviour would suggest targetted price discounting, rather than across the board rate changes. Maybe it will be special rates for students. Maybe it is a promotional deal on your first year of local phone, internet and TV service when you buy a new home or move into a certain apartment building.

More fierce competition for business services – large and small. Bundled promotions: commit to 2 or 3 years on your cell phone and we’ll throw in integrated voice mail. Buy Digital Voice and get half price on Digital Voice Lite.

What kind of pricing will unregulated local prices bring? We’ll have to see. But it is a certainty that under a regulated environment, we weren’t getting lower prices from either the ILECs or their competitors.

The state of competition in residential, business and wireless markets will be the subject of panel discussions at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit in June, featuring business unit leaders from Bell, Rogers, TELUS, Toronto Hydro Telecom, Videotron and Vonage.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Telecom and greenhouse gas

January 25, 2017

From the title, you may have been expecting this post to discuss mobile cellular phones. No, I am not reporting on a new study linking cel phone use to higher idling and increased release of green-house gas.

I saw a news clip about the Canadian Environment Minister summoning Canada’s car manufacturers to a meeting, where sources say she’ll lay out plans for regulating car emissions.

And you ask, how does this relate to telecom? This is from a conservative government – one that might be expected to keep hands off industry – let market forces rule. If consumers want cleaner cars, then the market will produce them and people will reward the manufacturers that produce them. Right?

According to an unidentified Conservative insider quoted in the story:

Canada has to have regulations that are valuable, enforceable and implementable – to do what they’re supposed to do.

As we watch for the implementation of the recommendations of the Telecom Policy Review Panel, it is perhaps worthwhile watching how this government deals with another of Canada’s key economic industries.

Scroll to Top