Canada Gets New Neutrality Rules > This is a win for Canadian consumers!

said by »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm at 43 :

In the case of an ITMP that results in any degree of discrimination or preference:

* demonstrate that the ITMP is designed to address the need and achieve the purpose and effect in question, and nothing else;

* establish that the ITMP results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible;

* demonstrate that any harm to a secondary ISP, end-user, or any other person is as little as reasonably possible; and

* explain why, in the case of a technical ITMP, network investment or economic approaches alone would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.

said by Kevin Martin in »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···83A2.pdf :

If so, I believe that we should evaluate the practices with heightened scrutiny, with the network operator bearing the burden of demonstrating that the particular practice furthered an important interest, and that it was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Such an approach would not mean that any action taken against a particular application would automatically be a violation. Rather, it would trigger a more searching review of both the particular concern and whether that network management solution was tailored to resolve the particular harm identified to the network in as narrow a manner as possible.

In a manner similar to the way in which restrictions on speech are analyzed, network management solutions would need to further a compelling or at least an important/legitimate interest and would need to be tailored to fit the exact interest. Such practices should not be overly broad in their application so that they become over or under inclusive. For example, if the concern is about stopping certain illegal content, a network provider should not block a particular application to all users if that application transmits both legal and illegal content.

Such an analysis would recognize the importance of legitimate network management techniques while giving the Commission the framework to analyze carriers actions on a case-by-case basis. As we move into an era in which network operators are taking particularized actions against individual applications and content, the Commission should evaluate such practices under sufficient scrutiny to ensure that whatever actions the operators are taking are actually furthering a legitimate purpose and are narrowly tailored to serving that legitimate purpose.

said by sbrook:

And if the incumbents follow it. Both parties have the habit of ignoring things. For example, Bell ignored the CRTC request for a tariff for higher speed wholesale service and brought in UBB in their response. The CRTC ignored that Bell ignored their request and approved UBB.

It's not a good track record.

Considering that the whole net neutrality problems (UBB and throttling) are based on the unproven concept that there is sufficient network congestion that Bell needed to throttle, and then that wasn't enough, that they needed UBB, and the CRTC bought their story, it's all based on a stack of lies. If Bell had put the money into infrastructure that they've spent stacking up this house of cards and lawyers to defend it, this discussion wouldn't be needed!