TORONTO and OTTAWA – In what could be a first, Internet service providers, consumer groups and independent producers all agreed that Wednesday’s CRTC framework on Internet traffic management practices got it right.
“I didn’t think that we needed any rules, but, they are reasonable, certainly not draconian”, Rogers’ SVP of regulatory, Ken Engelhart, told Cartt.ca. “They’ve picked a middle ground that we can live with.”
Over at Telus, Michael Hennessy, SVP of regulatory and government affairs, largely concurred, calling the new rules “clear and well thought out”.
“I think it was a good decision”, he said in an interview with Cartt.ca. “The Commission put the interests of the consumers first, but recognized that there will be congestion problems, and that the best way to deal with them is through network upgrades and economic practices.”
And even Bell, whose traffic management practices appeared to jump start the debate on throttling, agreed that the new framework “addresses fundamental policy concerns around consumer issues in an appropriate manner”.
“The framework relies on market forces by giving service providers the flexibility they need with respect to pricing and network management in the best possible way”, a Bell spokesperson wrote in an email to Cartt.ca. “It is a well considered framework for addressing issues in the future and gives everyone, providers and consumers alike, a much needed measure of certainty.”
In its decision, the CRTC said that an Internet traffic management practice should only be used if it addresses “a valid purpose”, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network; is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means; causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the ISP that is a wholesale customer; and network investments or economic approaches would not effectively achieve the same purpose.
It also said that if an ISP does adopt a technical measure to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, it must inform its customers in advance on its website, and must describe why it is being introduced; who will be affected; when it will occur; what type of Internet traffic is subject to the management practice; and how it will affect a user’s Internet experience, including the specific impact on speeds.
“This part was an important win”, said David Fewer, director of Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa. “We were consistent with content producers at the hearing on what makes a good framework. It’s not just what practice the ISPs may find ‘reasonable’, now they will have to justify any traffic management practices that they impose.”
The Canadian Film and Television Production Association said that it “particularly welcomed” the transparency aspect of the Commission’s decision.
“Throughout this process, we’ve maintained that having informed consumers is the best means of ensuring an open Internet”, said president and CEO Norm Bolen, in a statement. “Consumers want to be able to access the Internet content of their choice without it being manipulated or degraded by their ISP. With these new disclosure requirements, ISPs will think twice before adopting measures that makes independently produced content harder to access and enjoy by consumers.”
Despite the new regulations, many of Canada’s big ISPs said that the new framework would not have a significant impact on their business plans, at least in the short term.
“It’s fully consistent with previous Commission rulings approving Bell’s use of bandwidth management and usage based billing”, Bell’s statement continued. “Bell’s existing Internet traffic management practices are already compliant with it.”
Rogers’ Engelhart echoed Bell’s sentiments.
“That is what we’re doing”, he said. “We’ve increased our capacity and rely on economic measures. (The decision) won’t change what we’re already doing.”
“We’re just really happy that it wasn’t us who was doing the throttling”, laughed Telus’ Hennessy. “This decision really validated our strategy. Unlike other providers, we have continued to increase our Capex by 10% in 2009, and put that right in to our own network, meaning we haven’t needed to throttle. I think this will become an increasingly useful competitive advantage.”
CIPPIC’s Fewer said that he wished the Commission had taken it one step further.
“It would have been nice to see a statement like, ‘in the absence of network congestion, any traffic management practice would be inappropriate’, but I think that will eventually flow from what was decided on today.”
The CRTC said that it will review the regulatory measures that apply to wireless service providers and their use of Internet traffic management practices at some point in the future, noting that the number of subscribers in Canada has nearly doubled from 11.3 million in 2003 to 22.1 million in 2008.
“The CRTC really punted on wireless,” Fewer said. “But I could kind of see that coming at the hearing. Even though it means going through this again, it is worth its own hearing.”
Hennessy said that a separate hearing on wireless was to be expected.
“The Commission rightly said that it’s too early to decide on that now, while we’re on the cusp of the smart phone revolution. Congestion will be a bit more of a challenge in the wireless world, but we can learn from the lessons of wireline Internet, and recognize that the best way to limit congestion is through pricing that reflects consumption.”
