CRTC ruling a blow to net neutrality advocates

[hugh]

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today announced that it has denied the Canadian Association of Internet Providers’ (CAIP) application to end Bell Canada's practice of "throttling" its wholesale internet services.

This is the most bizarre decision I have read. The CRTC has totally ignored the whole practice of throttling particular types of content and applications by saying we'll talk about it at a later date!

FWIW, I don't have a problem with bandwidth throttling provided its done in a "neutral fashion" I appreciate that its uneconomical to have unlimited capacity and networks get congested but picking and choosing which types of data and content can get through is discriminatory.

[smootherator]

Proving once again the CRTC is only setup to protect the big corporations and could really care less about the consumers.

[hugh]

Well I certainly don't believe that was why the CRTC was setup but regardless lets stick to the topic at hand please.

[Barney Rubble]

What a joke...as usual the big guy almost always win....

Bell is bloody lucky I am not PM or else it would be a Crown corporation and it would not be by buying them out with tax dollars either if you know what I mean..

[99gecko]

Well it appears the CRTC's definition of neutral was applied in the scope of wholesale vs. retail, which was within the context of the original complaint by CAIP.

Many people are going to think that this was a ruling against P2P advocates; which it was not. How Bell defends it's network management will be their biggest challenge in the proceedings next summer.

Personally, I am disappointed by this decision, but I didn't expect much to come from it anyway.

[hugh]

Well it appears the CRTC's definition of neutral was applied in the scope of wholesale vs. retail, which was within the context of the original complaint by CAIP.

And I think you will agree that avoiding the whole neutrality issue was like Canute trying to hold back the tide!

It's like saying it's okay to discriminate against Muslims so long as you also discriminate against Jews.

[habskilla]

Actually, I think it means it's ok to discriminate against Mustims as long as you do it across Canada.

[99gecko]

And I think you will agree that avoiding the whole neutrality issue was like Canute trying to hold back the tide!

M. Geist pointed out in his blog today the huge "swell" in the awareness of the Net Neutrality issue in the last 13 months. It has now left the domain of the digitally interested, and entered the realm of J6P.

Want to be more than a passenger? Required reading:
http://crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notice.../pt2008-19.pdf

4. The Commission anticipates that any determinations it makes in this proceeding will be applied in a technologically neutral fashion.

As opposed to today's commercially neutral ruling???

[cptben]

So it's ok for ESSO to add 1.00$/l to gasoline as long as the one it sends to Shell and Petro-Canada with a 1.00$/l surchage.

The problem with bell here is that it sell a xMbps bandwitdh connection to a number of consumer but they don't have the infrastructure to do it.

Hopefully the next CRTC study about throttling itself might be better, but I have a feeling that the ruling will again favor the bug corporation and not the citizen

[technut]

We're not endorsing internet throttling: CRTC
Leonard Katz, the CRTC's vice-chairman, discussed the decision and the upcoming proceeding with CBCNews.ca

It's a good interview and helps to explain the CRTC's take on it.

[nospam]

It seems to me that the CRTC simply sidestepped the question of net neutrality on a technicality.

While the decision comes as a blow to Bell resellers, the CRTC will now be able to focus their attention on net neutrality itself rather than dealing with the issue piecemeal.

[CraigB]

Technut, that is a good article and props to the CBC for following up after this decision.

What worries me though is when the reporter questioned Mr. Katz on whether he felt it was ethical that someone such as himself, who worked for Bell and Rogers for a combined 28 years, was allowed to be on the CRTC.

This is what I believe to be the problem, regular citizens do not seem to be represented by the CRTC or we wouldn't see some of the head-scratching decisions we've seen in the last few years.

[travisc]

I think the perspective of those who appoint Commissioners to the CRTC is that they are looking for people who have a lot of experience in the areas that the CRTC regulates. Some might be specialists in certain areas, but they have some sort of expertise that the Commission can use. It sounds like a fun idea to appoint Joe Public to the Commission who wants to download porn on torrents, but in reality, show me a regulatory body anywhere that does that.

[hugh]

Travisc, I hear what you are saying but I would prefer some intelligent business people and consumer advocates running the show than a bunch of people whose are so intimate with the people they are supposedly overseeing.

Failing that I am certain that an even split would be better than what we have today.

[gobisbay]

It would seem to me that customers were promised a certain service level and that promise was not kept.

Isn't this what class-action lawsuits are for?