The CRTC Must Rule In Favor of Network Neutrality: A CRTC Submission

[Note: What follows is a slightly revised brief CRTC document I submitted yesterday as part of the CRTC's Network Neutrality (-Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 "Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers") review. Submitted to the CRTC February 23, 2008]

CRTC Submission Re: Telecom Notice CRTC 2008-19 "Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers"

Date Submitted: February 23, 2009

Submitted By: Dr. Paul D. Boin, University of Windsor

The following are 5 brief points that I would like to make for this vitally important "Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers" CRTC public review and proceedings.

POINT 1: I DISAGREE WITH THE VERY TITLE OF THIS REVIEW.

As the CRTC, a body that is supposed to regulate in the public interest, you have selected an inappropriate title "Internet Traffic Management Practices of Internet Service Providers") for this public review. I say this because by utilizing a slogan of the corporate/ISPs ("Traffic Management") you may have wrongly skewed the debate, and provided an unfair advantage towards the very corporate groups who have started to violate the fundamental principles of network neutrality – that all information (bites or packets) be treated in an equal manner. The words that you chose in your review title, "Traffic Management," are just as biased as if had you chosen "Internet Throttling." Had this review been more objectively entitled "Network Neutrality in Canadian New Media (or the Internet)," for example, you would likely have had many more Canadians participate in this debate and offer many more comments, in favor of network neutrality, to this proceeding. I hope that the CRTC will take this into consideration, and will endeavor to develop more neutral titles for future public review proceedings.

POINT 2: "TRAFFIC SHAPING" ("Internet Throttling") ENSURES A "RACE TO THE BOTTOM" OF CANADIAN BROADBAND, UNDERMINING CANADIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH & OUR INFORMATION PROSPECTS.

For over two decades our telecom companies have been afforded both regulated monopoly rights and public (tax-payer funded) subsidies to develop their fiber optic broadband networks. These companies are therefore duty bound to improve their network capabilities, and manage these networks in a fair and equitable manner (as required in detail by the Telecommunications Act of 1993). Further, if they truly wish to "compete" in the "competitive marketplace" then they already have all the incentives they need to continually improve their broadband networks so as to gain their respective competitive advantages, and lure prospective customers by providing better and faster broadband service. Instead, Canada's big telecom/ISP providers seem to be engaged in some type of "gentleman's agreement" to try to get away with spending the least amount of money on upgrading their networks as possible. If they ALL do this (meaning, do nothing to substantively upgrade their networks) they think they can ALL be more profitable (for the wrong reason of providing poorer service). If the CRTC allows our Canadian Telecom/ISPs to engage in the practice of network "traffic shaping" (or "throttling" or "traffic management") then you/the CRTC will also be allowing these irresponsible corporations to escape the rationality of the market, or the judgment of consumers, as they will be creating artificial broadband scarcity. Worse still, if the CRTC continues to allow these corporate telecom/ISPs to continue these irresponsible practices, in violation of network neutrality, you will be undermining the future development of the Canadian broadband system and damaging the prospects of Canadian economic growth and creative and information skill development. In short, if the CRTC allows our corporate/ISP providers to continue violating network neutrality, Canada and Canadians will not be able to compete in the 21st century new information-based economy.

POINT 3: IF THE CRTC DOESN'T REGULATE/UPHOLD NETWORK NEUTRALITY, TELCOS/ISPs WILL REGULATE/THROTTLE INSTEAD, AND PUT CANADA's "INFORMATION HIGHWAY" IN REVERSE.

In the public notice for this review the CRTC states that you will "pronounce on whether such ["traffic management"] practices are consistent with the Act, and whether any measures are required to ensure that such practices are in accordance with the [Telecommunications] Act." The CRTC should know quite well that issues dealing with compromising network neutrality ("throttling" or "traffic management") are not consistent with the Telecommunications Act's requirements for fair and equitable treatment of services and information. The CRTC is also aware that the principle of network neutrality (or "Traffic Shaping" or "Throttling") is not directly addressed in the Telecom Act. By and large, this is unchartered territory, and if this regulatory vacuum is not filled with a firm CRTC commitment to network neutrality than the CRTC will be allowing the greatest medium in human history to become less than ordinary, while placing Canadians in reverse on the "information highway." If the CRTC doesn't regulate the principle of network neutrality, than the irresponsible and self-interested corporate/ISPs will undemocratically regulate in the opposite direction. It is time for the CRTC leaders and commissioners to live up to your titles as "public servants" not simply act as "corporate servants." Please note, that these are not anti-business arguments, just pro-responsible business arguments. If all Canadians are thriving and developing, than businesses of all sizes will also thrive.

POINT 4: THE CRTC's PREVIOUS DECISION ON BELL vs. CAIP (Telecom Decision 2008-108) WAS DEEPLY FLAWED AND MUST BE CORRECTED.

There is clear evidence that the CRTC erred significantly when making your Telecom Decision 2008-108 ruling in favor of Bell at the expense of CAIP and the public interest. This decision must be reversed and the principle of network neutrality must be enshrined and upheld.

The CRTC's Telecom Decision 2008-108 was a deeply flawed decision in terms of process, technical misunderstandings, and a systematic bias in favor of Bell and large telecom/ISP interests at the expense of smaller telecom/ISP businesses and the public interests. In these regards, I refer you to the thorough technical investigation and analysis provided by Jean-Francois Mezei (see: http://www.vaxination.ca/crtc/2008_108_analysis1.pdf).

This Telecom Decision 2008-108 must be reversed at best, in favor of CAIP and the public interest, or reviewed at worst.

POINT 5: THE PUBLIC INTEREST & THE TELECOM ACT RANKS HIGHER THAN THE "POLICY DIRECTION" OF ANY TEMPORARY MINORITY GOVERNMENT.

In the public notice for this review the CRTC refers to the fact that the Governor in Council (the Cabinet of the current sitting minority government) has issued a Policy Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, (P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006, entitled "The Policy Direction"). The CRTC leadership and commissioners must realize, and evidently be reminded, that this policy direction, issued by a minority and temporary government, must rank far below the public interest obligations and the letter and spirit of the Telecommunications Act of 1993. The public interest and the Act is where the guidance and direction should come from when the CRTC makes this monumental decision.

This point above is punctuated by the fact that the recent economic recession was largely brought about by the very same flawed advice (reliance on market forces over government regulation) contained in this low ranking Governor in Council "Policy Direction."

I thank you for your consideration and time.

Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
University of Windsor, 4105 Lambton Tower
Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
pboin@uwindsor.ca www.MediaJustice.ca
http://mjblog.mediajustice.ca/ (Tel.) 519-253-3000 ext. 2893