Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

·
Banned
Joined
·
382 Posts
This scandalous decision, even if it is preliminary, so completely spits in the face of common sense and basic fairness that I can only conclude that there are hidden agendas at play. I have lost all respect for the CRTC, and think major reform is in order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
With no Interim relief from the CRTC, teksavvy and others won't be attracted a lot of new customers. I for one was considering switching to teksavvy from my rogers Internet.

However, the CRTC has only rejected the request for Interim relief based CAIP failing to prove irreparable harm. It doesn't mean that the CRTC won't rule that what Bell did should be reversed based on all rules and regulations they've broken. That process is to be outlined in a letter May 15 according to the CRTC's response.

I'll be sticking with Rogers for now and hope that the CRTC does the right thing. If not, we can all kiss unthrottled uninspected Internet connections goodbye.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
However, the CRTC has only rejected the request for Interim relief based CAIP failing to prove irreparable harm.
You could say that but it ignores the fact that the CRTC has tacitly acknowledged that it believes traffic shaping / throttling does no harm and accepts it as a valid action by ISP's.

I consider traffic shaping a restraint of trade which by definition can cause irreparable harm!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
I started to notice traffic shaping about a week ago on my non-Bell DSL. I'd hoped that this process would have seen the end of it.

Any thoughts to the best action I could take? Would a formal complaint to the CRTC be worthwhile? If they received hundreds, then perhaps that would sway them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I agree with you. I'm not saying the CRTC is right. IMO they're dead wrong and are effectively screwing over the member of CAIP.

Having read all of the responses from both Bell and CAIP whomever is in charge of this issue at the CRTC would have to be a real idiot to allow Bell to get away with this. (or be in Bell's pocket)

One of the biggest issues I have with Bell's actions is that they are inspecting and throttling traffic of customers that are not theirs.

But, having no control over the situation, I'll have to wait and see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
I too was considering switching from Rogers to TekSavvy. Guess I'll be staying where I am for now . . .

cheers,
supervij
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I started to notice traffic shaping about a week ago on my non-Bell DSL. I'd hoped that this process would have seen the end of it.

Any thoughts to the best action I could take? Would a formal complaint to the CRTC be worthwhile? If they received hundreds, then perhaps that would sway them.
The CRTC says it does not regulate the internet. Yet if you have the money..The CRTC will listen to you. Otherwise they just publically ignore the fraud and invasions of privacy that are increasing in Canada. Try surfing some United States website...Oh wait. You can't. Due to some Canadian TV network saying you can exercise your "Freedom of Communication".
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The CRTC says it does not regulate the internet. Yet if you have the money..The CRTC will listen to you.
Funny, I thought the same thing earlier. How is this even in the CRTC"s domain?

Isn't this a Industry Canada thing? or a anti-competition thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has responsibility for two Acts... The Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.
The Telecommunications Act section 36 states:
Content of messages
36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
The CRTC says it does not regulate the internet. Yet if you have the money..The CRTC will listen to you. Otherwise they just publically ignore the fraud and invasions of privacy that are increasing in Canada. Try surfing some United States website...Oh wait. You can't. Due to some Canadian TV network saying you can exercise your "Freedom of Communication".
It's not the CRTC or your ISP that is controlling / blocking the access to that site. The US site itself is blocking / redirecting you. This is based on content agreements / license arrangements they have made with the Canadian network. As part of the sale of their content, they promise they'll redirect out-of-market visitors to the license owner's site in that market.

While you may blame the Canadian network, it's ultimately the US site's decision as to whether they want to enter into such an agreement to block / redirect Canadian visitors at the request of their Canadian counterpart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
Try surfing some United States website...Oh wait. You can't. Due to some Canadian TV network saying you can exercise your "Freedom of Communication".
Alternate has muddied the waters by bringing this up in the same thread as the CAIP decision. What Alternate is complaining about (eg. US Comedy Network website redirecting to the Canadian site) is not related and is an agreement between two websites. It has nothing to do with ISPs or their role as common carriers.

So let's drop that part of it, or start another thread about it... in fact, I think there already is another thread about it somewhere.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Please drop it and lets stick to the crtc decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
Let's not jump to conclusions

...the CRTC has tacitly acknowledged that it believes traffic shaping / throttling does no harm and accepts it as a valid action by ISP's.
I don't read that into this decision.

To me it sounds like the CRTC only considered whether CAIP had met the 3-part test for interim relief, which is a stricter legal standard (due to precedent) than they might apply in making public policy.

For example, they specifically said they didn't consider "the public interest" (eg. what's best for Canada) when deciding on interim relief... which to me implies that they probably will give it consideration in the policy decision.

In fact, the CRTC concluded that "there is a serious issue to be determined regarding whether Bell Canada's practice of throttling Internet traffic carried by CAIP's members subscribing to the GAS tariff is in accordance with the requirements of the Act."

Yes, the CAIP failed to provide sufficient evidence to win interim relief. But I don't think we should interpret that as tacit approval of Bell's actions, nor an indication of which way the policy decision may go.

For those who can't be bothered reading the whole thing, here's my Readers Digest version of the CRTC decision:
Before granting an application for interim relief, the Commission requires the party requesting the interim relief to demonstrate that its application meets the criteria...
a) there is a serious issue to be determined;
b) the party seeking the interim relief will incur irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and
c) the balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours granting the interim relief.
...
+a) Based on the record, the Commission is satisfied that CAIP has demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be determined regarding whether Bell Canada's practice of throttling Internet traffic carried by CAIP's members subscribing to the GAS tariff is in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
+b) The Commission notes that the test of irreparable harm relates only to the harm suffered by the applicant and does not relate to the public interest.
The Commission considers that CAIP did not provide sufficient evidence in support of its claim... In conclusion, the Commission finds that CAIP has not demonstrated that its members will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief was not granted.
+c) In light of the Commission's determination with respect to irreparable harm, it is not necessary for the Commission to consider whether CAIP has satisfied the balance of convenience criterion.
...
Accordingly, the Commission denies CAIP's application for interim relief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Micheal Geist puts a more positive spin on it and says the door is open for further deliberation

CRTC Denies CAIP Request for Interim Relief from Bell's Throttling
PDF | Print | E-mail
Wednesday May 14, 2008
The CRTC this morning denied CAIP's request for interim relief blocking Bell's throttling practices. The Commission ruled that CAIP did not meet the standard for interim relief. It acknowledged that there is a serious issue to be determined, but it was not convinced that there will be irreparable harm if the relief was not granted. While CAIP is undoubtedly disappointed, I don't think this decision is much of a surprise. The standard for interim relief is very high and given the ability to provide monetary compensation at a later date, the CRTC took a pass on stopping the throttling practices based on the limited record of evidence. The CRTC has left the door open to addressing throttling and net neutrality in a serious way, however. First, it ruled that there is a serious issue to be determined. Second, tomorrow it will release the details on how it plans to address the substantive issues of the throttling complaint. Combined with the draft new media document, there is a real possibility of hearings in the fall on throttling and net neutrality in Canada from both a broadcast and telecom perspective.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Yes, the CAIP failed to provide sufficient evidence to win interim relief. But I don't think we should interpret that as tacit approval of Bell's actions, nor an indication of which way the policy decision may go.
The CAIP says throttling is causing irreparable harm
CRTC decides that CAIP can not prove throttling causes irreparable harm


The notion of irreparable harm is boolean. It's either harmful or it isn't. The CRTC ruled it isnt'. By definition that means they have tacitly okayed throttling!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,273 Posts
The notion of irreparable harm is boolean. It's either harmful or it isn't. The CRTC ruled it isnt'.
No, the CRTC ruled on 'irreparable harm', not harm. The question of whether there is still harm is still open.

The idea of requesting interim relief is for the case where the CRTC eventually rules in the CAIP favour, but due to the irreparable harm already caused, it's too late.

If the harm is reparable by a favourable decision by the CRTC of the question at hand (throttling), then the interim relief is not warranted.

*That* is what the CRTC ruled.

TVl
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
No, the CRTC ruled on 'irreparable harm', not harm
I know and I repeat its boolean. Either the actions cause irreparable harm or they don't. There is no mid-ground on irreparable harm.

By denying CAIP, the CRTC is saying tacitly saying that bandwidth throttling does not cause irreparable harm.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
As an aside, I don't know why the CRTC is using the term "irreparable".

It's a term that appears to be coined by the Supreme Court and does not seem to have a definition in broadcasting. It's unclear in my mind as to how destroying a company's business can be "repairable". We can see here that people are avoiding 3rd party suppliers such as TekSavvy. How is the lost business repairable? Will Bell be required to turn over 20,000 subscribers and a few million to repair the loss?

How do you quantify "irreparable harm?" in internet usage?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
So for many Canadians who want unmolested internet access they basically have no viable options.

I don't understand why this is the case.

Clearly there is money to be made here, as many people would be interested in a product where net neutrality is present.

Unfortunately this product is no longer readily available for whatever reason.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top