dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
120

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

1 edit

JGROCKY to shikotee

Premium Member

to shikotee

Re: Oct 21 2009 CRTC Ruling - Discuss!!!

Hey Gang,

Haven't had the chance to read through everyone's responses but here's how we view this thus far.

[puts down glass of semi-celebration Rum & Coke]

Basically the decision has been declared a stalemate of sorts. They haven't removed the Interim decision but they have recognized the issues surrounding Retail vs Wholesale as per all those who have filed in this proceeding. As a result they have delayed implementation until further notice in order to give enough time to work through the various issues at hand.

So... this is thus far a win and makes the November 10th/12th date moved/delayed/varied until further notice.

Edit: Basically this is as good as we could have wished for for the moment.

Rocky
Gruesome
join:2007-10-18
Milton, ON

Gruesome

Member

Congrats, it is a victory , the war continues

Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON

Arbalister to JGROCKY

Member

to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:

Hey Gang,

Haven't had the chance to read through everyone's responses but here's how we view this thus far.

[puts down glass of semi-celebration Rum & Coke]

Basically the decision has been declared a stalemate of sorts. They haven't removed the Interim decision but they have recognized the issues surrounding Retail vs Wholesale as per all those who have filed in this proceeding. As a result they have delayed implementation until further notice in order to give enough time to work through the various issues at hand.

So... this is thus far a win and makes the November 10th/12th date moved/delayed/varied until further notice.

Edit: Basically this is as good as we could have wished for for the moment.

Rocky
Agreed! And I'm joining you in that rum and coke.

My take so far - For possibly the first time since I've been in this business, the CRTC stepped back from a ruling and shook their heads. We have what might amount to the first real victory for the independent ISPs. It's not the end of the war, but we've avoided being steamrolled by Bell, again, *both* on UBB and on throttling. Now that we've engineered a pause and step back in the proceedings, we *must* keep up the pressure. Keep up the letter writing campaigns, keep up the CRTC submissions, and the court actions. We've impeded Bell's momentum, now we need to reverse it.

A few encouraging things I've seen so far:
quote:
d) Wholesale Internet services

Many ISPs purchase bandwidth from telephone or cable companies to provide Internet services to customers. Certain traffic management practices, when applied to wholesale services, can prevent ISPs from offering distinctive services.

CRTC framework

The Commission has established a set of criteria to determine whether an Internet traffic management practice is acceptable. In the Commission's view, a practice should only be implemented if:

- it is designed to address a valid purpose, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network
- it is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means
- it causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the ISP that is a wholesale customer, and
- network investments or economic approaches would not effectively achieve the same purpose.

That last line is huge. It means that they have to prove that any new traffic shaping measures they propose are needed because building out new capacity, or some sort of fee for service would *not* correct the problem. That's a huge point - Bell couldn't just outright implement throttling of p2p *without* proof that other methods wouldn't have corrected the problem. That clause alone would have killed throttling in the first place.

Also:
quote:
An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commission's approval before it implemented a practice that would:

- block the delivery of content to an end-user, or
- slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or
Internet telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the
extent that the content is degraded.

When faced with these requests, the Commission will only grant its approval in the most exceptional cases.
Monster win!

Again, on traffic shaping:
quote:
40.
In addition to the above points, the Commission notes the following:
Application-specific ITMPs degrade or prefer one application, class of application, or protocol over another and may therefore warrant investigation under subsection 27(2) of the Act.

That's what we have now - throttling that discriminates against one application or class of application. They're outright stating that what Bell is doing now may warrant further investigation. Could be that we haven't heard the last word on throttling yet.

Time to refile complaints against the current throttling? Based on this section:
quote:
43.
When an ISP is responding to a complaint regarding an ITMP it has implemented, it will use the ITMP framework. In doing so, the ISP shall:
Describe the ITMP being employed, as well as the need for it and its purpose and effect, and identify whether or not the ITMP results in discrimination or preference.

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.

Where an ISP is seeking prior Commission approval in order to implement an ITMP, the ITMP framework will also be applied.

It would seem to me that we need to revist the previous rulings on throttling, and require that the decision be reconsidered based on the CRTC's new framework. Bet it gets killed...

Other positive points:
quote:
79.
The Commission considers that technical ITMPs applied by primary ISPs to their wholesale services can adversely affect a secondary ISP’s provision of retail Internet services. In particular, the Commission notes that technical ITMPs can have a disproportionate impact on a secondary ISP’s ability to offer differentiated services tailored to its unique customer base, therefore affecting consumer choice and innovation. The Commission therefore considers that measures are required to address these potential adverse effects.
Going forward, a couple points that I see that need to be made in regards to the final UBB decision: First, if they allow the "economic ITMP" of UBB, they should immediatly require Bell to cease the current traffic shaping, as UBB could make it unneccessary, and as the CRTC has preferred an economic solution to a technical one. Allowing UBB would alter the factors that made throttling an option. Second, if they allow UBB they must allow a provision for the independents to *also* offer "insurance plans" and that there must be enough leeway in the overage rates for us to design insurance plan rates that allow us to vary our offering from what Bell sells. Also, the proposed rates for UBB are outrageous. Bell must be required to submit supporting documentation that proves the current price per gigabyte of data transfer, and based on that price a wholesale rate for usage must be submitted as a variance to the current applicable tariffs for GAS and AHSSPI services. Per user GAS charges must be reassessed in light of the per gigabyte charges, and dropped or reduced.

Of course, all of that only applies if they decide to allow UBB. The main cause, going forward, has to be "Make Bell honor their contracts and the tariffs that we have in place for GAS and AHSSPI."

Off to read more...

Abattoir
join:2008-03-27
Ottawa, ON

Abattoir

Member

said by Arbalister:

The Commission has established a set of criteria to determine whether an Internet traffic management practice is acceptable. In the Commission's view, a practice should only be implemented if:
- it is designed to address a valid purpose, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network
- it is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means
- it causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the ISP that is a wholesale customer, and
- network investments or economic approaches would not effectively achieve the same purpose.
The 'narrowly tailored' provision was a significant point of contention. The way it is worded, I don't see how anyone can justify network-wide 16-hour/day 90% throttling. It would almost certainly require the ITMP to be node-specific, time-specific, and congestion-specific.

As little harm as possible to the customer, application provider, or the wholesale ISP? That is the first time I've heard of the CRTC directing that Bell must think of reducing harm to the application provider.

I think this firmly establishes that throttling as we have suffered under since Black Easter is now out of the question.
Any affected party, however, can raise a complaint with the Commission.
By my interpretation, this means that TekSavvy, Google, and anyone here can raise a complaint with the CRTC, using this new framework.

When does this decision go into effect? Shall we have a race to see who will file the first complaint?

Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON

Arbalister

Member

said by Abattoir:

said by Arbalister:

The Commission has established a set of criteria to determine whether an Internet traffic management practice is acceptable. In the Commission's view, a practice should only be implemented if:
- it is designed to address a valid purpose, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network
- it is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means
- it causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the ISP that is a wholesale customer, and
- network investments or economic approaches would not effectively achieve the same purpose.
The 'narrowly tailored' provision was a significant point of contention. The way it is worded, I don't see how anyone can justify network-wide 16-hour/day 90% throttling. It would almost certainly require the ITMP to be node-specific, time-specific, and congestion-specific.
Yeah, exactly. It's definately something to shift to the "win" column. There's little enough there. :-P
static416
join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

static416

Member

said by Arbalister:

said by Abattoir:

said by Arbalister:

The Commission has established a set of criteria to determine whether an Internet traffic management practice is acceptable. In the Commission's view, a practice should only be implemented if:
- it is designed to address a valid purpose, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network
- it is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means
- it causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the ISP that is a wholesale customer, and
- network investments or economic approaches would not effectively achieve the same purpose.
The 'narrowly tailored' provision was a significant point of contention. The way it is worded, I don't see how anyone can justify network-wide 16-hour/day 90% throttling. It would almost certainly require the ITMP to be node-specific, time-specific, and congestion-specific.
Yeah, exactly. It's definately something to shift to the "win" column. There's little enough there. :-P
If you guys are right, there shouldn't be any significant throttling very soon.

But I think you're being overly optimistic. I don't think this will change anything.

Bell and Rogers will say that they've already "notified" their customers of ITMP practices via their terms of service, and at best, will just revise those terms to include a few more specific points. So they're covered there.

Then they'll wait if/when until the CRTC gets enough complaints that they'll start a review process. They'll draw that out as long as possible. And then if they're ruled against, they'll just ignore it, like they did with the higher speeds ruling.

We won't see an end to throttling until there is specific legislation or an explicit ruling against it.

These rulings don't change anything for the better or worse. They are only a win insofar that they are not a win for Bell/Rogers.

Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON

Arbalister

Member

said by static416:

These rulings don't change anything for the better or worse. They are only a win insofar that they are not a win for Bell/Rogers.
This is exactly my point. In 12 years of running an ISP this is the first time I can remember the CRTC *not* caving to bell or the cablecos.

Hence, something has changed...and I think that *something* is the 13000 plain ordinary Canadians that got riled up enough to post to the CRTC.

Its a win insofar as, finally, the CRTC has taken *our* views seriously enough to give things a second look.
static416
join:2007-01-26
Toronto, ON

static416

Member

said by Arbalister:

Its a win insofar as, finally, the CRTC has taken *our* views seriously enough to give things a second look.
That's true. We've been ignored up until now.

Well I guess we have to keep up the noise for another couple years till we can shift things in our direction.
said by Arbalister:

That said, he also emphasized the point that we need to generate complaints to drive this process forward. It's not clear to me where we file these complaints, perhaps it has to be through the standard CRTC filings process. Maybe JF can give us some pointers.
Yeah, as soon as I find out how that process works I'll be filing a complaint every month when I pay my bill. Continuously. Until something changes.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to JGROCKY

Premium Member

to JGROCKY
said by JGROCKY:

Hey Gang,

Haven't had the chance to read through everyone's responses but here's how we view this thus far.

[puts down glass of semi-celebration Rum & Coke]

Basically the decision has been declared a stalemate of sorts. They haven't removed the Interim decision but they have recognized the issues surrounding Retail vs Wholesale as per all those who have filed in this proceeding. As a result they have delayed implementation until further notice in order to give enough time to work through the various issues at hand.

So... this is thus far a win and makes the November 10th/12th date moved/delayed/varied until further notice.

Edit: Basically this is as good as we could have wished for for the moment.

Rocky
This is no more a stalemate than the German Army's stand at Stalingrad. It went back and forth for a while before they were annihilated.

ITMP is ok as long as it is disclosed. They expect that Bell & ISP's will 'negotiate' methods ---- howls of laughter....

UBB is ok and PREFERRED. In Bell's world-view that means that current prices are a base from which to apply increases to, and not to offer more speed/throughput for the same or less money as costs continue to decrease per byte.

All that is being quibbled about is when UBB will start and exactly how much it will cost and who will pay, ie. per user pay or aggregated at the ISP level.