The Issue
The Internet has become a primary source of information, entertainment and communication for Canadians. Access to the Internet, and control of its processes, however, have largely become concentrated in the hands of established telephone companies and cable companies in Canada.
The established telephone companies (Bell Canada, TELUS, MTS Allstream, Sasktel, Bell Aliant, Télébec, etc.) and cable companies (Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Eastlink, etc.) recently have complained about increasing traffic on the Internet stressing their Internet service provider (ISP) networks. Some, such as Bell Canada and Rogers, have taken unilateral steps to reduce traffic on their ISP networks, including slowing or blocking certain types of traffic. These companies call the practice “traffic shaping” or network management. Many Internet users prefer to call it traffic “throttling.” Many have been very vocal in expressing their displeasure at the practice.
As a result of this agitation, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) held a hearing about Internet traffic management practices (ITMPs) by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, the CRTC ruled that all existing ITMPs are presumed fair unless a third party can demonstrate that the practice is unfairly discriminatory or that it fails other CRTC tests of reasonableness.
The CRTC’s approval of ITMPs places an unfair burden on consumers and businesses to prove that ITMPs are discriminatory, stifling their expression or inhibiting their ability to innovate. It is nearly impossible for all but the largest companies to mount a technical challenge to the ISPs’ ITMPs and provide the evidence required by the CRTC – evidence that likely is only in the ISPs’ control and which they would refuse to release.
The practical result of this throttling is that “net neutrality” is threatened. “Net neutrality” is a founding principle of the Internet. It ensures that all Internet traffic and Internet applications are treated relatively equally by the ISPs. No favouring or degrading of service depending on the type of traffic or application is allowed. This principle favours innovation and free speech. It ensures choice for consumers with regard to content providers and the content itself.
However, such innovation and new services are less likely when large telephone and cable company ISPs are permitted to promote either their own content or that of preferred companies by favouring that traffic (or slowing that of competitors or free sources). No one would tolerate telephone companies making conversations hard to hear or cut out completely when a consumer is on the phone to a competitor telephone company, so why should Internet service be treated in this manner?
The CCI’s concern is that necessary consumer protection in Internet access has effectively been lost during the regulatory process and that Parliament must send a clear message through legislative change that consumer protection on the Internet includes equal access to all sites and applications on the Internet, subject only to applicable law.
The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel Report in 2006 recommended Parliament legislate this very right. Now is the time for Parliament to make this right crystal clear.
