News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 393     0 

Net Neutrality / Internet Throttling Debate

Google, Amazon, others want CRTC to ban internet interference
By Paul Jay, CBC News

A coalition of more than 70 technology companies, including internet search leader Google, online retailer Amazon and voice over internet provider Skype, is calling on the CRTC to ban internet service providers from "traffic shaping," or using technology that favours some applications over others.

In a submission filed Monday to the Canada Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in advance of a July probe into the issue of internet traffic management, the Open Internet Coalition said traffic shaping network management "discourages investment in broadband networks, diminishes consumer choice, interferes with users' freedom of expression, and inhibits innovation."

"If the commission allows Canadian ISPs to apply application specific traffic management practices to legal content or applications, it would be out of step with U.S. telecommunications policy and would disadvantage Canadian consumers and application providers," wrote the Open Internet Coalition.

The coalition joined a chorus of other critics, including consumer groups and privacy advocates, who are calling on the CRTC to investigate the way in which ISPs manage their networks, an issue often referred to as "net neutrality."

CRTC sought feedback
The submissions were in response to the CRTC's call for comments in its probe into the issue of internet traffic management, with hearings expected to be held on July 6 in Gatineau, Que.

The hearings were set up following complaints from the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) that Bell Canada is selectively slowing down or "throttling" internet traffic generated by peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications such as BitTorrent or "shaping" traffic to favour other applications over P2P in an effort to reduce network congestion.

That policy affects both Bell customers and customers of small, independent ISPs that buy network access wholesale from Bell. The CRTC, which has the power to impose conditions on the way retail internet services are offered, is looking into what types of traffic management practices are used by ISPs and whether they violate the Telecommunications Act.

Monday was the last day the CRTC was accepting comments. A CRTC spokesperson said the commission received 31 electronic submissions and 285 comments from interested parties, but those numbers do not take into account submissions that may have been submitted by fax or mail.

Potentially invasive practice
A number of groups that made submissions singled out deep packet inspection technologies used to monitor and direct internet traffic as both unnecessary and potentially invasive to consumers.

Deep packet inspection (DPI) is a form of computer network packet filing originally used to scan for spam or viruses, but one that also allows the inspection of content, and can be used to allow some applications to be given greater priority than others. In its submission to the CRTC, Bell said it uses the technology to redistribute P2P file-sharing traffic to off-peak periods, but does not block the file sharing outright nor does it block other kinds of applications.

It also said its bandwidth management practices are one of three ways it manages its network. The company said it also invests in its broadband infrastructure to expand its network capability and has moved away from "unlimited" pricing plans and toward more usage-based pricing.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, acting on behalf of the Campaign for Democratic Media, said in its submission that throttling the download or upload speed of particular applications should not be permitted, but said traffic management might be justifiable as a last resort if ISPs could prove their networks were congested. It said such congestion could only be established, however, by transparent and widely accepted tests.

What constitutes 'congestion?'
That's not possible, said CAIP in its submission, since with the exception of Rogers and Telus, all of the main telecommunications carriers have filed some of their information regarding congestion in confidence, making it impossible for other parties to comment meaningfully on their definitions of what constitutes "congestion."

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart also weighed in on the issue, saying that since DPI technology is capable of allowing inspection of information content sent from end user to end user, it potentially allows third parties to draw inferences about users' personal lives, interests and activities, whether or not that is the intent.

She said consumer privacy needs to be factored in when considering the use of the technology, and also added that thus far ISPs have done a poor job of communicating their practices.

"There is concern that the implementation of DPI for internet traffic management has been done in a manner that is less than transparent and potentially inconsistent with an individual's/consumer's expectations," she wrote.

Source
 
we need bigger tubes! not smaller spigots and smaller drain holes.

im glad some of the biggest corps are on the side of the consumer. i saw the ceo of amazon TV yesterday and he seems like a very nice dude. he even made fun of his own product (the voice of kindle) which is rare for a ceo or company man to do.
 
Liberals Push for Net Neutrality

Liberal shift may assure Net neutrality

Jun 22, 2009 04:30 AM

Michael Geist

Last Thursday began as an ordinary, rainy spring day in Ottawa. Canadian politicians, having just avoided an unwanted election, were only two days away from an extended summer break.

Yet by the end of the day, a trio of events unfolded that could help shape the Internet in Canada for years to come.

The first took place mid-morning, with the introduction of new lawful access legislation.

The bills would dramatically change the Internet in Canada, requiring Internet service providers to install new surveillance capabilities, force them to disclose subscriber information such as name, address and email address without a court order, as well as grant police broad new powers to obtain Internet transmission data.

The introduction of the legislation by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan – accompanied by more than a dozen law enforcement representatives –generated an immediate wave of criticism.

Internet service providers expressed concern about the cost of the program, while privacy groups lamented the government's about-face on the issue of court oversight since Stockwell Day, the previous public safety minister, had pledged not to introduce mandated disclosure of subscriber information without it.

Given the experience with misuse of surveillance powers in other countries, the bill will likely continue to attract attention as Canadians ask whether the government has struck the right balance between providing law enforcement with the necessary investigative powers, ensuring robust oversight, and preserving online privacy.

Hours later, the scene shifted to question period, where Liberal Industry critic Marc Garneau surprised Internet watchers by emphasizing the importance of an open Internet and declaring that the Liberal party now firmly supports net neutrality. The party has adopted a position opposing the management of Internet traffic that infringes privacy and targets specific websites, users and legitimate business applications.

The move represents an unexpected shift in policy direction just weeks before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is scheduled to conduct hearings on network management practices. For months, the NDP has stood virtually alone among the major Canadian political parties in its support for web neutrality.

With the Liberals onside, the door is open for a bipartisan effort this fall to enshrine net neutrality principles into law.

Immediately after Question Period, the standing committee on industry held its final hearing before the break on the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, Canada's new anti-spam bill. Some business groups have sought to water down the legislative proposal, implausibly arguing that Canadian privacy law is sufficient to address persistent spamming activities and that the ECPA's tough penalties could dissuade talented business leaders from taking on corporate directorship positions for fear of potential liability.

Representatives from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Competition Bureau and CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein firmly put those fears to rest. Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham rejected the view that current privacy laws are up to the task of countering Canadian spam and welcomed the clarity of the anti-spam bill.

Von Finckenstein was similarly supportive of the ECPA, expressing optimism about its potential to address long-standing spam concerns.

These issues – lawful access, net neutrality and the ECPA – will be back on the parliamentary agenda in the fall. But on a single day all three moved to the fore with big implications for the Internet in Canada.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can be reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or at michaelgeist.ca.
 
Net neutrality is a great thing, I'm glad the Liberals are on board with it and the NDP for sticking true to the cause. Its certainly one of the hottest topics most people haven't heard about.
 
CRTC Kicks Off Net Neutrality Hearings

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) begins its review of the Internet traffic management practices of Internet service providers Monday, July 6th, 2009.

These so-called ‘Net Neutrality’ hearings will be held in Gatineau, QC; for more information and a promised live audio feed of the proceedings on the CRTC website, visit
 
Tried to upload photos to my Zenfolio site today. Two photos (6mb total) took 15 minutes to upload using their default upload tool. Good job, Rogers.
 
I was listening live to some of the hearing today, and I must say I'm disappointed. The CRTC knows nothing about internet technology at all. They had professionals talking about what is happening, and different types of technologies being used, and ones that could be used, and the CRTC had no idea what they were talking about.
 
Traffic Shaping at the CRTC Hearings

Here we go


Don't regulate Web traffic, CRTC told

Company says it slows down users sharing big files — but doesn't identify users or files
Jul 13, 2009 11:35 AM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

GATINEAU, Que. – One of Canada's top cable companies is telling federal regulators to stay out of its affairs when it comes to managing Internet traffic.

Executives from Rogers Communications Inc. are appearing at special hearings by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

They said the company sometimes slows down users who are sharing big files, such as movies, in order to make the network work more efficiently for their other subscribers.

To do so, its technology examines the kinds of communications that are going on over the network. Critics of traffic-management practices say this kind of monitoring is an invasion of privacy, and companies could use technology to favour their own services and sites.

But Rogers vice-president Ken Engelhart says the company has no idea who is doing file sharing, what the files are, and does not manage Internet traffic to benefit its own services.

Source
 
Rogers does practice internet traffic to benefit itself. Anyone stuck with Rogers try entering an invalid URL, you get a Rogers site with ads, not the typical default screen. It's very annoying.
 
^ I was just going to say that.

It's a blatant conflict of interest and controlling trafffic for personal benefit.

There's a way around that but it involves complex changing of Proxy's, something most people will have no idea how to do.
 
Rogers does practice internet traffic to benefit itself. Anyone stuck with Rogers try entering an invalid URL, you get a Rogers site with ads, not the typical default screen. It's very annoying.

I changed my DNS to OpenDNS. I don't want to give ad money to Rogers since I pay for their service, I shouldn't be subjected to their ads.

And I now download stuff from Rapidshare instead of P2P programs to get around their throttling.
 
^ Thanks for the reminder. I had looked into OpenDNS but left it to study another day. I just signed up and set up my router. Extremely simple setup: no more Rogers "suggestions". Pages even seem to load faster.
 
^ Thanks for the reminder. I had looked into OpenDNS but left it to study another day. I just signed up and set up my router. Extremely simple setup: no more Rogers "suggestions". Pages even seem to load faster.

Open DNS is very easy & quick to setup on your router and it does indeed speed up browsing a bit.

*****

Update on the web neutrality hearings at the CRTC. I just don't trust them.

Law Bytes
Web neutrality hearings paving the way for action

Jul 20, 2009 04:30 AM

Michael Geist

Regulatory hearings on Internet traffic management practices, held in windowless rooms in Gatineau, Que., in the middle of summer, are not likely candidates to attract much attention. Yet for seven days this month, hundreds of Canadians listened to webcasts of Internet service providers defend their previously secret practices while engaging in a robust debate on net neutrality.

The interest in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing may have caught the regulator off-guard (the webcast traffic was, by a wide margin, its most ever for a hearing), but it was the testimony itself that was the greatest source of surprise.

The seven-day hearing was billed as a debate over whether rules are needed to govern ISP network management practices. While many Internet users remain unaware of the issue, behind the scenes ISPs employ a variety of mechanisms to control the flow of traffic on their networks, with some restricting or throttling the speeds for some applications.

Those practices have proven highly contentious, with creator interests, technology companies, privacy rights organizations and consumer groups all expressing fears that they may curtail innovation, invade user privacy, stifle competition, and create an uneven playing field for content distribution.

ISPs argue that such measures are essential to provide their subscribers with a good experience at an affordable price.

Days of testimony revealed the issue is far more complicated than the rhetoric might suggest.

First, there is a wide variation in the use of traffic management tools with a different approach for pretty much every major ISP. Some throttle all the time (Cogeco), some during large chunks of the day (Bell), some only during congested periods (Shaw), and some not at all (Telus, Videotron).

Second, ISP disclosures are woefully inadequate. For example, Rogers admitted that it charges tiered pricing for faster upload speeds but that all tiers are throttled to the same speed when using peer-to-peer applications. In other words, subscribers to the Extreme service pay $59.99 per month and are promised fast upload speeds (1 Mbps) but actually get the same upload speed as Express subscribers who pay $46.99 per month and are promised upload speeds at half that rate.

Third, notwithstanding the perception that network traffic is growing dramatically, the reality is that the rate of growth is actually slowing. ISPs acknowledged they could cope with the growing demand through reasonable new investment in their networks.

Given all the competing evidence, what is the commission likely to do? A four-pronged approach is possible.

First, it could adopt a test advocated by the Open Internet Coalition, a group of technology companies that includes Google, that permits traffic management practices so long as they further a pressing and substantial objective, are narrowly tailored to the objective, and are the least restrictive means of achieving the objective. This test would give useful guidance to ISPs and ensure that there are appropriate limits on traffic management practices that have no clear correlation with network congestion.

Second, it can affirm the role of current law against leveraging network management for unfair advantage.

Third, the commission can establish minimum disclosure requirements, including information on traffic management practices such as time, targets and the actual speeds consumers are likely to experience.

Fourth, it can dictate limits on the use of personal data that ISPs obtain from traffic management.

Alternatively, the commission could decide to do nothing and simply retain the power to address complaints as they arise. If so, significant political pushback is likely with political parties lining up in the fall in support of net neutrality legislation.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

Source
 
If I'm Rogers or Bell I'm scared that their entire empire's will have all but crumbled away in 5-10 years. Eventually the GTA will be blanketed by cheap or free wi-fi services that work everywhere in the city and probably the province.

Then you'll have a scary situation as skype-capable phones will be common place. Imagine if your cell phone could connect to wi-fi, allow you to surf the internet without ridiculous data charges... and make and receive phone calls.. from ANYWHERE? It's coming... just a matter of when. All that investment in cell-phone infastructure... gone, rendered obsolete. Of course then it's just a matter of time before mp3 players and other electronics become wi-fi/skype capable and the entire cell phone industry has been turned on its head. You don't think this isn't being discussed in the backrooms of Rogers and Bell and so forth? A company like RIM could probably more than survive such a dramatic shift, but Bell and Rogers are the ones who truly stand to lose from such a shift.

They'll also be competing with download services capable of piping in HD quality content into your living room. I've been watching MLB games on my computer in Korea in glorious HD streamled flawlessly all summer, if I had bandwidth restrictions there's no way I could do that.

They want to sell you the content as well as the means of getting you that content at a massive premium. I personally give it 5-10 years max before both companies are rendered obsolete if they hang onto their ways.
 

Back
Top