In the latest round of the Canadian net neutrality fight, a number of Internet service providers have formally applied to have a Canadian Radio‐television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision overthrown. This decision allowed Bell Canada to continue to throttle the speed of certain Internet traffic, most notably peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic used by applications such as Bittorrent. One of the notable aspects of the issue is that Bell is not only throttling its own customers, but also the customers of alternative Internet providers who lease Bell’s DSL infrastructure.
A group that includes the Consumer’s Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), and a group of independent Internet providers have filed a lengthy document that outlines what they claim are major errors of fact and law in the previous decision.
One of the main points in the filing is that while the CRTC ruled that Bell could continue to throttle certain kinds of Internet traffic, on the same day they opened a new proceeding examining the same issues raised in the throttling case. The suggestion is that the CRTC clearly felt they did not have enough information about these issues, and yet they decided in Bell’s favour regardless. The applicants suggest that this was a wrong decision and, in fact, more information has become available as a result of the new proceeding that provides further light on the throttling issue. They want the throttle decision to be reversed until a full examination can be conducted.
Further points raised by the applicants include:
(1) a failure by Bell to show that P2P applications were causing undue congestion on the networks, or that the throttling they were using was a necessary solution if there was a problem,
(2) that CRTC erred in believing Bell when it said it did not examine the content of Internet packets when it made a throttling decision,
(3) that by examining the content of Internet traffic, Bell is going beyond its role as a neutral common carrier,
(4) that there is no other method available to Bell to manage their network traffic,
(5) that the CRTC only considered the impact on Bell’s and alternative Internet provider’s customers and not on the providers and consumers of content services that rely on P2P protocols (and other protocols, such as encrypted virtual private networks, being throttled as a side effect),
(6) that the CRTC failed to adequately consider the privacy and freedom of expression considerations of its decision.
These points, and others raised in the application, are very interesting and important. There are fundamental issues at stake here, including fair business practices, content control, privacy protection, and freedom to choose service providers. Canadians should be following this issue closely.
Copies of the application and a discussion forum on the issue can be found at
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22421119