The CRTC and Network Neutrality

[na85]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/20/tech-bell.html

Bell Canada Inc. is not breaking any laws by slowing internet speeds and will be allowed to continue throttling its customers, the CRTC has ruled.

The phone company, Canada's biggest internet service provider with two million high-speed customers, has shown that it needs to be able to manage its network in order to prevent congestion, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said in a decision released Thursday.

....

“Based on the evidence before us, we found that the measures employed by Bell Canada to manage its network were not discriminatory," said CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein in a release. "Bell Canada applied the same traffic-shaping practices to wholesale customers as it did to its own retail customers.”

The recent decision by the CRTC to allow ISPs to continue their practice of throttling certain types of internet traffic greatly disturbs me. In case anyone isn't fully up to speed on the situation, here is some background:

The term "Net Neutrality" refers to the principle that obligates network operators to preserve the integrity of data that flows through their networks. Similar to the principle whereby postal services do not prioritize communications of a certain type, or with certain recipients/senders, an ISP must not block, suppress, or otherwise prioritize specific applications, services, content or protocols based on ownership, source, or destination.

A few years ago a new technology emerged called Deep Packet Inspection. DPI has a variety of uses, but one of those uses is by ISPs who can now inspect data as it flows in real-time, allowing providers to slow down certain types of traffic, to the benefit of others. This is of course against the principle of Net Neutrality.

A non-neutral network hampers the consumer's right to choose, and affords too much power to the network operator (in this case the ISP). While it is true that a consumer may choose between more than one ISP in Canada, it is also true that the large incumbent networks already own much of the infrastructure, and therefore even if I choose to pay (for example) Rogers for my internet access, my traffic might very well go through the Bell and Shaw networks before it reaches its destination. As a result, the incumbent networks now have the ability to degrade the service of their competitors (although they may not be doing so at present). For a good example, see the case of Western Union around the turn of the 20th century. Network operators cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

A neutral network fosters growth and innovation. A neutral network affords its users the ability to innovate without permission. It is this concept that allowed Tim Berners-Lee to introduce his radical concept to the Internet without consulting ISPs and network operators beforehand. Subsequently, Berners-Lee's invention has grown and spread to a position of ubiquity in today's society. We use it daily and many of us take it for granted. His invention is called the World Wide Web, and could not have become what it is today had it not been for the principle of Net Neutrality. A similar case could be made for Google, another startup that benefited from the level playing field and rose from obscurity to ubiquity.

The Canada Telecommunications Act states:

27. (2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

Also relevant is:

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.

Many applications use the Bit Torrent protocol to communicate over the internet, including peer-to-peer filesharing, internet radio, internet television, etc. This means that a streaming broadcast of, say, a university football game is rendered completely unwatchable after being throttled. The audio stutters and the video skips, often the two are not in synch.

Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act stipulates that disadvantaging a user is permissible if it is reasonable. We've already shown that the disadvantage exists, and is specific to a certain set of users. The question remains, then, is it reasonable?

Bell and other ISPs maintain that traffic throttling (they prefer the term "shaping" because it has fewer negative connotations ) is necessary because their networks are so congested with traffic that their hardware can't keep up. Somehow though, Bell managed to find enough bandwidth to launch www.bellvideostore.ca, a streaming-video site that allows users to "rent or buy thousands of dvd-quality videos" at the click of the mouse. Is this what the operator of a badly-congested network should be doing? Should they be investing capital to start up a bandwidth-consuming streaming video service? Or should they instead be investing in new network hardware and infrastructure so that they can actually deliver the speeds that they advertise?

Part of the problem is that the Telecommunications Act has not been revised since 1993, a time when broadband connectivity was still in its infancy, and rich content on the internet was nigh unheard-of. Canadian law is not adequately equipped to deal with this issue. If the case cannot be made that the actions of Bell and other ISPs engaged in bandwidth-throttling constitutes an unreasonable or undue disadvantage as prohibited in s. 27 (2), then the Telecommunications Act needs to be modernized and the current situation taken into account.

Obviously nothing can be done in the short term, since Parliament has been prorogued, but when the Government reconvenes this needs to be brought to light. This is an issue that transcends the petty, childish arguing going on in the House of Commons right now and deserves serious consideration, as it affects all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation. The CRTC's slogan, proudly displayed in bold across their website reads "Communications in the public interest." Public interest my ass. I consider myself to be a member of the public, but my interests are not being served by the CRTC siding with big business, to the detriment of myself and my fellow consumers. Something needs to be done.

[Cameron]

"Protocol Encryption" - Enabled

Solved some of my problems.

The reason I download is because I don't get certain American channels and the shows that are on them. There is a service in the states that allows people to view certain shows through streaming technology (hulu.com) but the rights don't extend to Canada.

[White Doors]

The advent of VoIP has made the principle of Net Neutrality unworkable.

Some data is more important than others as far as the need for speed goes.

[ToadBrother]

The advent of VoIP has made the principle of Net Neutrality unworkable.

Some data is more important than others as far as the need for speed goes.

That's the nature of traffic shaping. However, net neutrality isn't so much about packet prioritization as it is about the notion that an ISP could essentially give a bigger pipe to, say, friendly sites or sites that have paid it cash, and reduced the pipe for sites that aren't associated with it or which it wishes to damage.

Imagine for a moment Bell setting up its own search engine. It gives its search engine a rather large pipe, but to discourage people from going to Google or Yahoo, it slows the traffic down to them. This is the issue of net neutrality.

[White Doors]

That's the nature of traffic shaping. However, net neutrality isn't so much about packet prioritization as it is about the notion that an ISP could essentially give a bigger pipe to, say, friendly sites or sites that have paid it cash, and reduced the pipe for sites that aren't associated with it or which it wishes to damage.

Imagine for a moment Bell setting up its own search engine. It gives its search engine a rather large pipe, but to discourage people from going to Google or Yahoo, it slows the traffic down to them. This is the issue of net neutrality.

Ok, good info. thanks

[cybercoma]

I think it should be mentioned in the same thought as Net Neutrality. Cellphones need to be unlocked by the communications companies as well. For example, I bought a Nokia 5310 XpressMusic phone from Rogers because I didn't need something with a whole ton of features, but I wanted a phone that had a really good music player because I knew I would get a lot of use out of it. Well, one of the benefits of this phone with its own music engine is the ability to use MP3s as ringtones. However, the only MP3s you're allowed to use for ringtones on the phone are the ones you download from the "Rogers Mall". They have locked out the ability to use any other mp3 files on the phone or your memory card for that. Nokia says the providers are allowed to do whatever they want with the software on the phones, even if it means locking out some of the advertised features of a phone. What they have done is effectively monopolized ring tone sales. The only way to get around it is to unlock the phone. From what I've heard, doing this is risky and you can "brick" your phone. Anyway, I think throttling is just another example of how modern communications companies will try to get away with whatever backhanded tactics they can, hoping the government will never catch on or understand how they're monopolizing the markets.

[Hydraboss]

cyber,

That model of Nokia utilizes a microSD slot. While Rogers can restrict the ringers you download, you can always backdoor this by downloading (or transferring) any ringtone (or mp3) you want to a mSD card and then moving and assigning the file as a ringtone.

One of my kid's mp3 players was "iTunes restricted" as was my wife's LG Chocolate phone (Telus download store). Two minutes later, they both had all the tunes they wanted from one of my computers. Don't let Rogers snow you on that one.

As for bittorrent clients, there are ways to open and restrict your port forwarding settings. Shaw throttles my downloads ("Blocked"), but I still pull 660Mbps over a standard connection. What they don't know won't hurt me.

[cybercoma]

cyber,

That model of Nokia utilizes a microSD slot. While Rogers can restrict the ringers you download, you can always backdoor this by downloading (or transferring) any ringtone (or mp3) you want to a mSD card and then moving and assigning the file as a ringtone.

I've tried doing that, but the phone doesn't let you assign the file as a ringtone. They've somehow gone right into the OS of the phone and restricted it to their files.

[Hydraboss]

If you have the balls....

Upgraded my phone to the firmware v08.32 from 3.6(the rogers version). This will only work with Nokia 5310 XM BLUE Rogers. I do not know about others though.

Phone spec:

Nokia 5310 Express Music

v8.32

23-07-08

© Nokia

Variant:00.00

Language V 08.32

V 08.32

23 - 07 -08

Rm-303

© Nokia

N

First you have to download http://europe.nokia.com/A4579163 from the Nokia website.

Second you will have to download http://www.b-phreaks.co.uk/index.php?main_page=page_2

After you download both, go into the Nemesis Service Suite and connect your phone. On the right corner there is a magnify glasses. CLick on that and it will check your spec.

Then go to PHONE INFO>

in the right hand side. you will see "Product Code"

In the bottom you will see the option "Read"

Click on read first and then check off "ENABLE" beside the Product Code.

Erase the product code that you have right now and put in "0558988" in the product code box and then click Write.

In the bottem you will see (...... Done)

Close the Nemesis Service Suite and then open the Nokia Software updater

Again you must connect the phone to the USB. Then follow the instruction and you will see the 8.32 firmware ready to update! SO you click update or what ever it is and then wait for a few minutes to update.

THEN YOU ARE DONE> ENJOY THE EXTREME LOUD SPEAKERS AND THE NEW FIRMWARE DESIGN!

It works. Trust me (I want to be a politician). It's the only way.

[na85]

This got a little OT, but basically my point is that the CRTC does not act in the interests of Canadians. Anybody agree? Disagree?

[Peter F]

This got a little OT, but basically my point is that the CRTC does not act in the interests of Canadians. Anybody agree? Disagree?

On the face of it, I disagree.

"Net Neutrality" refers to the principle that obligates network operators to preserve the integrity of data that flows through their networks.

DPI has a variety of uses, but one of those uses is by ISPs who can now inspect data as it flows in real-time, allowing providers to slow down certain types of traffic, to the benefit of others. This is of course against the principle of Net Neutrality.

If net neutrality is about preserving integrity of data and ISP need only preserve the integrity of the data to meet the requirement of Net neutrality. Is Net neutrality concerned with the speed at wich data is transferred? No. But integrity of the data must not be meddled with and the ISP's don't meddle with that.

Your example of trying to watch a streaming football game that has been throttled is a good one. Unfortunately the integrity of the data was not affected, only the speed. Of course, the fun of watching the football game was destroyed, but the ISP did not muck with the integrity of the data. The game was all there if you have the patience of Job.

Network operators cannot be trusted to act in good faith

Of course not. What business can be trusted to act in good faith?

Your provider babbles about its Hi-speed then throttles it. If its good for the company what do they care about your football game?

As regards to the Telecommunications act sections 27(2) and 36; The ISP is not violating these sections by throttling transfer speeds.

If I was you I'd look for a new provider, but I suspect you already have and they all do the throttling for thier own benefit.

The old Roman saw "Buyer beware" comes to mind.