Mediacheck

The Internet Grab

Big providers want to force a 'two tier' Net.

By Michael Geist, 9 Oct 2007, TheTyee.ca

Net Provider

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Online auction giant eBay Canada last week released the results of a survey it commissioned on Canadians' attitudes toward "net neutrality," a rapidly emerging issue that focuses on the need for Internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all content and applications in an equal, non-discriminatory manner. Conducted by Leger Marketing, the survey found that Canadians are generally unaware of net neutrality issues, yet, when informed of the concern, strongly support the principles that provide the foundation for net neutrality legislation.

Most Canadians can hardly be faulted for being unaware of net neutrality, since ISPs have done their best to keep the issue off the public's radar screen. While solving the net neutrality issue will not happen overnight, addressing the lack of transparency associated with Internet services would go a long way toward creating a more informed debate.

How Rogers 'traffic shapes'

For example, Rogers, one of Canada's largest ISPs, has faced regular criticism over its failure to come clean on "traffic shaping" practices on its network. Traffic shaping limits the amount of bandwidth available for certain applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing. The company markets its high-end Extreme package as its "fastest residential service for sharing large files." However, the reality is that consumers are promised service offering specific speeds and a maximum cap on data transfers, yet are secretly unable to make full use of the service for which they have paid.

Rogers maintains that it needs to manage its network with traffic shaping technologies in order to provide a better quality of service for all its customers. It continues to shroud its practices in secrecy, however, as its website does not include a single mention of traffic shaping or limits on peer-to-peer applications, and company spokespeople have provided inconsistent explanations for what is happening behind the scenes.

Last week, a company executive told an industry meeting that Rogers traffic shapes by limiting the percentage of bandwidth available for peer-to-peer file sharing. From a consumer perspective, that means that upgrading to faster products will only yield limited benefits, since the faster bandwidth is partially offset by traffic shaping.

Rogers maintains that the traffic shaping is essential, yet it is disappointing that the company seemingly refuses to level with its customers. In contrast, some of Rogers's competitors have opened up on the traffic shaping issue -- Bell recently advised customers that it may engage in network management to address excessive bandwidth use.

Limits to 'unlimited'

While Bell's acknowledgement is a welcome development, it still faces criticism for the uncertainty associated with other services. Last month, Bell unveiled a new "unlimited" data plan for laptop computers using a PC card slot. Consumers who took the time to read their contract quickly realized that the offer was not quite what it seemed, as the fine print prohibited "multi-media streaming, voice over Internet protocol or any other application which uses excessive network capacity."

The contract went further, prohibiting any use that "consumes excessive network capacity in Bell's reasonable opinion, or causes our network, or our ability to provide services to others, to be adversely affected." In other words, while the company markets its service as unlimited, the reality is that consumers face significant, largely unknown restrictions.

While Canadian leaders such as Industry Minister Jim Prentice, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Chair Konrad von Finckenstein, and Competition Commissioner Sheridan Scott have done little to address the lack of transparency issue, their counterparts in other countries have been far more proactive.

For example, earlier this year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released guidelines for ISPs when advertising their broadband services to "prevent consumers being misled as to the speeds achievable on various technologies." The ACCC backed the guidelines with the threat of million dollar fines for those ISPs that fail to comply.

A 'two tier' Internet?

Net neutrality proponents and critics unquestionably remain far apart on many issues. Indeed, a senior Bell executive recently acknowledged that the company would like to retain the right to establish a two-tier Internet where they can levy fees on both consumers and websites for the traffic that runs on their networks. That proposition strikes fear into the hearts of net neutrality advocates, such as emerging e-commerce companies and creators, who can ill-afford such additional costs.

While bridging that divide will clearly require much discussion, tackling the lack of transparency provides a good starting point for addressing the new neutrality concerns that the Leger Marketing survey suggests are shared by the majority of Canadians.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. His column on digital media runs every Tuesday in The Tyee. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

11 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • gaulois

    4 years ago

    Complicity of mainstream medias

    The big medias have certainly been pretty quiet on this huge issue. It has been going on for *several* years and numerous tech oriented NGOs have been vocal on that. I really would expect some progress by now from the regulator.

    I notice the political parties have been just about as bad as the mainstream medias for covering this story. I wish I could put the spotlight over how much lobbying the biggies havce been putting at the CRTC (and the political parties)over this one. That might explain the incredible foot dragging by the CRTC over this. The CRTC is a joke and almost deserved to be shutdown IMO if it cannot do its work. Did not notice a way forward from Mr. Geist in this otherwise excellent article.

  • Working Memory

    4 years ago

    Fed up

    Yet another example why consumers feel absolutely zero guilt when they undermine companies through any means available including MP3, p2p, hacking, service sharing, etc.

    I know of a group of tenants in a townhouse complex that share a single Rogers long distance line among about 20 of them (4 units). They split the $20 monthly fee and talk long distance all they want to family and friends. Three of the units also share wireless internet connections, plus they all copy and share movies and music regularly.

    When Rogers announced their "no late fees" the town house complex started a movie sharing co-op where one person rents it and it gets passed around the complex for two weeks or more.

    Consumers are fed up and learned long ago how to apply MP3 file sharing strategies to a number of services. Craigslist advertises all kinds of opportunities that include coupons, equipment rental, tickets, etc.

  • BC Dude

    4 years ago

    Step 1 Start a very

    Step 1 Start a very aggressive campaign and petition against these very secretive attacks on " OUR, the Citizen Journalists of the World's Last Venue for Real Democracy and Freedom of Speech"
    Step 2 Boycott all of Roger’s products, cable, internet, phones, newspapers, magazines, like MacLean’s etc.
    Step 3 MSM is none-news absolute garbage, nothing about Rogers secret privatization of OUR internet, SPP's = Corporations taking over all aspects of OUR Democratically Elected Representatives and OUR LIVES!!!!
    Where is the justice in waiting 3years and 9 months for Justice just on the Basi, Verk BC Rail scandal?
    Campbell's privatization of 500 BC Rivers, Private Clinics with Mr. Day as CEO of BCMA as he is the owner of a private clinic, can you spell a major Conflict of interest!
    His "plum" jump to CEO of ICBC while still involved in the B.C. Auto Dealers Association???
    Now remember the non-criminal act of the NDP's Glen Clark’s back porch, the NDP were politically assassinated by it. WOW that was the work of CanWest and Gordo 24/7 for weeks on end in all CanWest types of MSM, Global TV!
    Is this the Democracy WE voted for?
    WE NOT ME, WE NEED TO DEMAND OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS, OUR CHARTER THE PEOPLES
    Paul Taylor http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/bios/taylor.asp
    http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/september2004news.asp
    http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/2007/10/convicted-victoria-police-officer-rob.html

  • Martin

    4 years ago

    Bad Neighborhood

    Sounds like that townhouse complex has a lot of dishonest neighbors. Better keep your doors locked.

  • dorothy

    4 years ago

    Enlightenment needed...

    This piece really confuses me. Is there not already a two-or-more-tiered system inasmuch as you don't get the same capacity for different kinds of money? When we got our service 'bundle', we were presented with choices on our likely download and upload and would choose a pay rate accordingly.

    We have not been bothered by any explicit restrictions, but we have noticed, that if we listened to half a brandenburger concerto on European radio, we would experience a bit of slowness the next couple of days, so it looks like there may be some built-in capacity allocation, but is that not reasonable - that one gets what one pays for?? There are still quite a number of people who use dial-up connection, and that doesn't cost a heck of a lot. And there are free services, free e-amil etc.

    I think I am equally worried about some kind of forced 'egalitarianism', that could ultimately cause a backlash and totally commoditize the Internet. I think the e-commerce is still fragile enough, and maybe it alwasy will be, that we could run the risk of killing something that is still being shaped.

    Maybe I do not understand the problem? It looks to me as if people are asking for something that is not totally realistic. Are we in fact suggesting that the Internet should be a free-for-all, no holds barred, sort of a communal service that should ideally cost nothing? Is that not utopian, inasmuch as things always cost something?

  • gaulois

    4 years ago

    Pay as you eat is OK

    I have no problem if heavy bandwidth consumers are charged for their traffic (upstream and downstream). I however have a huge problem when the ISP forces you taking their own apps provider such as a VOIP telephone service, or simply kick apps providers out.

  • zalm

    4 years ago

    Dorothy

    Quote:
    Maybe I do not understand the problem? It looks to me as if people are asking for something that is not totally realistic. Are we in fact suggesting that the Internet should be a free-for-all, no holds barred, sort of a communal service that should ideally cost nothing? Is that not utopian, inasmuch as things always cost something?

    So you'd have a problem with the City of Vancouver's plan to provide free wireless to the city without restriction? You see no way in which this would enable the inhabitants of the city, not to mention any visitors, tourists and business people - all of them - to take a great leap forward in connectivity, information and knowledge, not to mention profitability?

    Mebbe you'd better tell Citizen Sam what you know so much about.....because he and Judy Rogers still think this is a good idea.

  • dorothy

    4 years ago

    To zalm

    What he deuce are you tripping on? I did not voice any politcal opinion, or lay claim to any kind of omniscience, I asked a question, even expressed doubt that I fully understand the problem, and you wipe the floor with me [SMALL OFFENSIVE BIT REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.] ...

    No, I do not have a problem with that, just hadn't heard about it, probably because wireless doesn't appeal to me, I prefer being wired, according to the cultural norms of my generation. But it sounds good, subsidizing tourism and all that, with the wintertime big event coming up in the year three forward from now (don't want the Tyee to get any grief from the big guns).

    Where's the money going to come from? The public health care system could be bolstered by many of the same arguments, putting smiles back where they belong and so on, and we know how much smiles contribute to the value of the future, but that does not seem to penetrate the thick skulls of our politicos, so I smell not only a rat, but some of its droppings, too. I want to know who will pay, and how.

  • zalm

    4 years ago

    Dorothy

    Sorry I got it all over you. But your comment can easily be read as a complaint from someone who thinks everyone ought to pay his or her own way, like IAMC. He thinks there are no commons. I think there are, worse so do a lot of philosphers who've made more history than any of us are ever likely to on this site.

    So please re-read your comment and perhaps you'll want to make a correction or two. For instance, the article specifically talks about hidden download limits, but your comment on "capacity allocation" being "reasonable" is antithetical to what the article talks about.

    If you still think I'm unfair, well, perhaps we'll have to have a realllllly long conversation....

  • snert

    4 years ago

    I'll have what he's smo...

    Quote:
    So you'd have a problem with the City of Vancouver's plan to provide free wireless to the city without restriction?

    Without restriction. Hah! That would last about 2 seconds. Of course it could be offered at dial-up speed but then that would be a restriction, wouldn't it?

  • dorothy

    4 years ago

    Now about corrections (not the department)

    "He thinks there are no commons. I think there are, worse so do a lot of philosphers who've made more history than any of us are ever likely to on this site."

    Oh, certainly there are commons. All whatever has not been laid claim to as yet; sunshine is free, air is free, some of the grass you can walk on is free, and rain and snow also is part of the community property which you can pick up for no payment at all, other than what you pay for the bucket to hold it.

    Then there are those big enterprises, which are best done in common, such as major infrastructure, education, health care, and the defense of our turf against all comers. Probably a few more I haven't thought about. But the Internet?? Why not then newspapers, books, movies, all phones, and television, which are all part of how we manage to stay connected?

    You still haven't told me how we are going to pay for it. There are no 'they'. It's just you and me, and our wads one way or another. I prefer to make my own choices and onit those things I do not like - gratis or otherwise.

    I said that we opted for a contract with certain limits, suiting our likely usage, and if we overblew it a bit, some adjustment would follow. We don't keep tabs, because we can't be bothered, as it happens rarely, but there is nothing 'hidden' about it.

    I would not call anyone unfair, because they subscribe to a viewpoint different from mine, but because they accused me of giving myself airs of omniscience, etc., which I had not done. If what I say is 'antithetical' to the article, I guess that means I disagree with it. OK, so be it. We do not need to have any of us convince the other, as this discussion is not for forceful spreading of evangelia, but for possibly inspiring each other to further thinking.

    Why would you not wish to pay your own way, and then some? is that not constructive? Just like a marriage only works, if both parties are willing to go more than halfway to meet. Are you suggesting we normalize not paying your own way? If we do so, how will you justify the implied exploitation of those who make sacrifices in order to do so?

    Those philosopers have a way of making history on the backs of other people. I am not awestruck. A lot of what they say is simply not practical. You can't smack me with the celeb-stick.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.