A recent Net Neutrality proposal from Google and Verizon has dominated the news this week, with opponents claiming that the deal would kill Net Neutrality on wireless (cellular) networks. What hasn’t been mentioned thus far, however, is that BitTorrent and other types of evil traffic have already been banned for years by Verizon, AT&T and others.
Yesterday I appeared as a panelist in an FCC Open Internet workshop in Seattle. Media coverage of the event here. My comments should be available soon via the FCC Open Internet site.
Last fall, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issued its much-anticipated Internet traffic management ruling, better known as the net neutrality decision. The case attracted national interest as the CRTC established several key requirements for Canada’s Internet providers.
These included new transparency obligations that forced ISPs to disclose their network management practices, such as why the practices were introduced, who will be affected, when it will occur, and how it will impact users' Internet experiences (down to the specific impact on speeds). The CRTC also opened the door to complaints about network management practices by establishing a test that any harm to users be as little as reasonably possible.
Several months later, Canada's ISPs have had ample time to comply with the new requirements, yet my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) reviews the policies from the biggest ISPs – including Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Telus, Cogeco Inc., and Groupe Vidéotron – and reveals a decidedly mixed bag.
Two of the six providers – Telus and Vidéotron – do not have explicit network management practice disclosures since neither currently uses throttling or traffic shaping technologies that limit the speeds of some applications. Of the remaining four providers, no one makes it easy to find the disclosures and at least two may not be compliant with the CRTC requirements.
Bell features the most detailed disclosure, providing specific information about its policies and their impact. While critics may object to the positive spin the company uses to describe limitations on its service, it has done precisely what the CRTC asked. The Rogers policy is not quite as extensive, yet it also covers much the same terrain, including a description of the policy, the frequency of traffic shaping, and the resulting limitations in their service (including the specific impact on speed).
By contrast, neither Shaw nor Cogeco appear to meet the CRTC requirements. Shaw's policy, which can be found within its terms of use, does not disclose the actual speeds users encounter when it throttles peer-to-peer activity. Cogeco, which implausibly claims "customer experience is never affected by the application of [its] measures," similarly does not disclose the speeds that result from its throttling practices.
Not only are two providers arguably failing to meet the transparency requirements, but some traffic management practices may be ripe for complaint.
Telus and Vidéotron once again get a pass, since neither uses throttling technologies, opting instead for economic measures that add additional costs for heavy broadband users. Shaw's policy also appears compliant with the CRTC minimal harm threshold, since it limits its throttling practices to actual instances of congestion on specific segments of its network.
Meanwhile, Rogers and Cogeco continuously throttle all upstream P2P traffic. Both providers admit that the limits on their service occur on a 24 hour, 7-day basis, regardless of whether the network is actually experiencing any congestion. For example, Cogeco claims "it is [our] experience that congestion created by P2P can occur at any time within a 24-hour period." This may be true, but the failure to limit throttling activities to instances of actual congestion is surely grounds for a CRTC complaint.
While Bell limits its throttling practices to specified periods, its defined period is so broad that it too may be the target of a complaint. Bell discloses that its throttling practices, which target upload and download traffic, runs from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am. By covering nearly half the day, the company could face questions about whether the policy limits harm as much as reasonably possible.
The CRTC's net neutrality guidelines garnered well-deserved plaudits last year, yet the true test will be whether the guidelines will be enforced effectively. Last month, the CRTC sent letters to several ISPs – including Shaw, Rogers, Cogeco, and Bell – seeking action. The ISPs have yet to respond.
Since I wrote my last post suggesting (rather speculatively) that Google’s apparent willingness to pull out of China might be linked to US state fears of (and pressure concerning?) cyber espionage against data held by Google about US citizens instead …
U.S. President Barack Obama has reinforced his support for net neutrality. When asked about the issue, he responded "I’m a big believer in Net Neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it. My FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has indicated that he shares the view that we’ve got to keep the Internet open, that we don’t want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn’t have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet."
Ignited by the Comcast fiasco in the US, the concept of Net Neutrality has been brought into the mainstream resulting in planned government interventions. However, unlike the name suggests, Net Neutrality might not stop BitTorrent blocking and could leave us worse off than when this all started.
SaveOurNet.ca points to a letter written by NDP MP Charlie Angus to Industry Minister Tony Clement late last year on net neutrality. The money paragraph focuses on the enforcement side of the CRTC's Internet traffic management guidelines:
I urge you to do what is in your power to curtail ISP's discriminatory traffic-shaping practices. In order to make Net Neutrality a reality in Canada, I would ask that you direct the CRTC to adopt it as part of Canada's internet policy, and enforce it through regular compliance checks of ISP traffic.
As the traffic management guidelines take effect, Canadians should begin to see more detailed disclosure of ISP traffic management practices and the possibility of complaints or investigations.
The Pirate Party’s Christian Engstrom is already making waves in the European Parliament. After his hard work on the Telecoms Package amendment he’s now working to set up an Internet Bill of Rights, attempting to codify some of the core beliefs of the Pirate Party. To achieve this he wants your help.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has released a major new report on net neutrality. Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality, canvasses recent decisions and makes recommendations for future actions. It arises from six focus groups conducted in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.
Mark Goldberg points to a recent Sandvine broadband report on recent broadband traffic patterns. Goldberg points to the growth of real-time entertainment traffic, such as streaming, which is consistent with what the CRTC heard during the net neutrality hearings over the summer. Most notable, however, is yet another confirmation that P2P traffic is declining as a percentage of overall traffic. Sandvine reports that it dropped by 25 percent as a share of overall traffic. Moreover, in a table on peak-time bandwidth share, Sandvine reports that web browsing leads (34.4%), followed by real-time entertainment (29.1%), and then P2P (16.9%). Sandvine also reports that peak-time usage is narrowing. In 2008, peak-time ran from 6:00 to 11:00 pm. In 2009, Sandvine said it has narrowed to 7:00 to 10:00 pm.
This data is important in considering the test established by the CRTC for reasonable traffic management practices. First, practices that target P2P will be increasingly difficult to justify (many argue application-specific approaches are never justifiable), given its declining share of traffic the application represents. Second, far broader peak-time characterizations – Bell claims that its peak-time runs from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am – are unlikely to meet the CRTC's standard for any harm from traffic management practices being as little as reasonably possible.