Telecom Policy

Telecommunications Policy

Network Neutrality – Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-19

The CRTC recently considered network neutrality – the issue of whether Internet Service Providers should be permitted to discriminate against different types of traffic that passes on their website. The idea is that ISPs, much like phone companies, are carriers and merely carry messages from source to destination, neutrally, without discriminating against one type or another.

On November 20, 2008, the CRTC issued Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-19, a public consultation intended to explore these issues. CIPPIC made submissions in this proceeding and participated in a six day hearing on behalf of the Campaign for Democratic Media. CIPPIC/CDM called on the CRTC to put in place rules to ensure ISPs no longer act in such a discriminatory manner and to find that current ISP application-specific throttling practices violate the Telecommunications Act.

On October 21, 2009, the CRTC issued Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657, which put in place a framework for assessing ISP traffic management practices. The policy states that ISPs can use technical traffic management practices such as throttling only as a last resort, and even then, must justify them as minimally intrusive. While the CRTC did hint that traffic management targeting applications might be problematic, it did not rule on any current ISP practices. Instead, it put the onus on consumers to bring forth complaints against specific practices before deciding what to allow.

• CIPPIC/CDM Initial Comments
o Attachment A – Testimony of Dr. Andrew Odlyzko
o Attachment B – Testimony of Dr. David P. Reed
o Attachment C – Testimony of Mr. Bill St. Arnaud
• CIPPIC/CDM Reply Submissions
• CIPPIC/CDM Oral Submissions
• CIPPIC/CDM Final Reply

Network Neutrality

The issue of network neutrality is now at the fore in Canada, with a CRTC Decision in November 2008 approving Bell Canada's practice of throttling P2P wholesale traffic in order to manage scarce bandwidth capacity, and a CRTC proceeding initiated at the same time to examine ISP traffic management practices more broadly. Comments in that proceeding are due February 16, 2009.

Other aspects of Net Neutrality are also in need of attention by Canadian law and policy-makers. CIPPIC is working with other public interest advocates to ensure that the internet remains a largely free and open medium uncontrolled by commercial interests.

Save the Net Campaign
Neutrality.ca
What is net neutrality? website
Michael Geist's blog

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-19
Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-108
CAIP v. Bell - CRTC proceeding
Campaign for Democratic Media ("CDM") submission in CAIP proceeding
CDM News Release

Craig McTaggart's (TELUS) paper on Net Neutrality
Philippa Lawson's comments on Net Neutrality in response to Craig's paper (April 2008 LSUC conference)

CRTC Proceeding on Telecom Consumer Complaints Agency (CRTC Telecom Public Notice 2007-16)

Further to an Order-in-Council issued by the Canadian government (federal Cabinet; Minister of Industry) in April 2007, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) initiated a proceeding in August 2007 to establish a Telecommications Consumer Complaints Agency. A group of telecommunications service providers ("TSPs") meanwhile responded to the Ministerial direction by establishing the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services. The CRTC's public notice invited comments, by Oct.1 2007, on the appropriate structure and mandate of the new Agency, and on the industry proposal. An oral hearing was held in November 2007, and the Commission issued its decision on Dec.20, 2007.
Telecom Companies' proposal
CIPPIC's Oct.1st Comments on the proposed Telecom Consumer Agency
CIPPIC's oral argument
CIPPIC's reply argument
Link to other submissions (CRTC webpage)
CRTC Decision (Dec.20, 2007)
CIPPIC News Release

In February, 2008, a number of TSPs applied to the CRTC for a "review and variance" of (ie., appealed) Decision 2007-130. In particular, they objected to the CRTC's decision to make participation in the new agency mandatory, to allow the agency to disregard TSP liability limitations in the awarding of up to $5,000 compensation, and to allow collective and representative complaints to the new agency. CIPPIC replied to these Applications on March 5, 2007.
Bell et al Application
Bragg et al Application
SaskTel Application
CIPPIC Answer
PIAC Answer

CRTC Decision 2008-46 (May 30, 2008)

Telecom Policy Review Panel

In April 2005, in response to lobbying from Canada's large telephone companies, the federal government created a panel of three industry experts to review the way telephone service and telecommunications should be regulated. The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (TPRP) issued a consultation paper in June, and received submissions from numerous interested parties in August and September. CIPPIC filed a submission, together with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. See below for links to our submissions.

This review covers a wide range of issues in telecom policy, including the implications of new technologies for telecommunications policy, appropriate policy objectives, the appropriate extent and form of regulation (economic, technical, and social) for telecommunications, the roles of various regulatory institutions in Canada, the status of and appropriate approach to Canada's "connectivity agenda", and obstacles to the adoption of new communications technologies by Canadians. CIPPIC and its partners focused on issues of concern to ordinary Canadians:

Ensuring (through effective competition or effective regulation) the delivery of high quality telecom services at reasonable and affordable prices to all Canadians;
Ensuring the availability of a wide range of telecom services and applications;
Protecting individual privacy and ensuring network security;
Preventing telecommunications fraud and deceptive business practices, and ensuring that consumers are not held responsible for telecommunications fraud that they cannot control; and
Providing telecommunications consumers with clear rights and effective redress mechanisms in respect of unfair business practices in the telecommunications market.

CIPPIC et al submissions:

August 15, 2005

September 15, 2005:

Reply submission
Executive Summary
Appendix A: Dr. Bauer comments on Bell's proposed principles
Appendix B: Dr. Bauer comments on Telus' proposed principles
Appendix C: Dr. Bauer on international comparisons
Appendix D: International comparison of telecom policy purposes and objectives
Appendix E: Dr. Bauer curriculum vitae
Other submissions of note include those filed by ARCH, CANCAP, and CRACIN.

To no-one's surprise, big industry players have dominated this process, in one case alone filing over 1300 pages of submissions. Large telecom providers are calling for radical deregulation and the removal of telecom-specific consumer protection measures such as customer privacy, quality of service monitoring, and rules against unjust discrimination and unreasonable rates. They want to reduce the role of the regulator, so that companies are free to offer what telecommunications services they want, where they want, at the price they want, and under the conditions they want.

In response, consumer and public interest groups have pointed out numerous ways in which market forces fail to provide Canadians with adequate telecommunications services, and in which government intervention is needed in order to ensure that people have decent telecom service available to them at affordable prices and under fair terms of service.

In a study conducted in the summer of 2005 by Decima Research, over 90% of Canadians expressed the view that each of the telecommunications policy objectives of (i) reasonable price, (ii) good quality (iii) privacy (iv) disabled access and (v) rural access were important responsibilities of the federal government. Affordable access for low income Canadians was viewed as important by 86% of Canadians.

In keeping with the views of Canadians, we are calling for a renewed commitment to important social and economic goals of telecommunications policy, stronger consumer protections and more effective enforcement and redress mechanisms, and a focus on end results rather than the means of achieving them.

Telecommunications for the Benefit of All Canadians: A Declaration

This declaration was sent by PIAC on behalf of the signatories to the Minister of Industry by way of a letter dated January 10, 2006.

Subsequent Developments

The panel issued its report on March 22, 2006. On June 13, 2006, the Minister of Industry issued a proposed policy direction to the CRTC, calling for greater reliance on market forces, in keeping with the Panel’s recommendations. A number of organizations submitted comments on the proposed policy direction. In October 2006, a group of public interest researchers and advocates called on the government to preserve important social policy goals and principles underlying telecommunications regulation in Canada, and and emphasized the need for continued regulatory oversight and government intervention in order to achieve certain goals such as universally available broadband service and network neutrality.

Resources

This page last updated: June 2, 2007

Webpage URL: http://www.cippic.ca/documents/telecom-policy/

Print this page

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)

Current page is 2.7.11: Telecom Policy