CRTC Sends Rogers Issue to Enforcement Division
WOW Throttling Practices to Get Hearty Wrist Slap
Last week we directed your attention to new data from MLabs
highlighting that most U.S. ISPs have traded blunt-force throttling from a few years ago in exchange for more subtle, intelligent network management practices. That's not the case in Canada, where Rogers Communications was shown to be continuing their heavy-handed approach to network management, which at times has involved not only throttling all encrypted traffic (piracy or not), but blocking legitimate games and applications.
The new data shows that Rogers is the worst ISP globally among those tracked
when it comes to throttling its users. Many observers quickly noted that Rogers appeared to be violating Canada's new network neutrality rules, and wondered when the CRTC might get around to enforcing them. The Canadian consumer group Open Media this week noted
that the CRTC has sent them a letter
acknowledging that the whole issue has been sent to the Compliance and Enforcement Sector for action.
What that further action will be remains unclear. As users in our forums note
, there's several layers of bureaucracy that come into play here, with actions ranging from site inspections, more letter writing and additional hearings -- likely culminating in little more than a wrist slap. As in the United States, the new Canadian network neutrality rules are more show than substance, the rules generally relying on an ISP correcting bad behavior voluntarily because the regulator in question is afraid of actually regulating.
So far though, Rogers has repeatedly insisted that their heavy handed throttling practices fully comply with Canadian neutrality rules. The CRTC lacks the authority to fine Rogers for the violations, so it's possible Rogers simply drags this out indefinitely instead of learning how to manage their network using more modern and sophisticated congestion management.
Enforcement? What enforcement? The CRTC has never shown ANY interest in getting 'technical' and truly understanding what a problem really is - a local or systemic network bottleneck, inadequately provisioning, deliberate or accidental network mismanagement, network underinvestment, or corporate policy to deliberately avoid regulations.
I'm not sanguine about the outcome of this 'investigation'.
| |cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
Good but... ... What will the CRTC do about it? Fine Rogers money? A mere drop in the bucket, again, as Rogers makes millions off Canadians every year.
They should just ban ITMP/QoS/DPI/etc altogether and upgrade their 1997-based network.
| |baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
Sterling Heights, MI
! Send the Horde to defend!
Re: ! If they fine robbgers then they will pass the cost on as part of doing bussiness to the consumer
its not how much you got , its how much you coulda had more and more and more .....
| |elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
Re: ! You'll get a "Network Neutrality violation fine recovery fee" on your bill.
Why? Why do countries, the U.S. and Canada, even bother forming these committees/groups/departments when they won't and/or can't do a thing?
Hard to believe there are really so many brain dead people controlling things.
Half the reason the U.S. is in the financial state it is, is because 25% of the people are working for the government! Talk about a union that needs to be busted!!
The Firefox alternative.
... Regardless of whether they only get a slap on the wrist the more important question is whether it will alter their behavior. If it does then it is well worth while.
| |said by asdfdfdfdfdf :Why would they... "The CRTC lacks the authority..." the CRTC barks but has no bite, they can do whatever they want with impunity. Giving them a fine simply means that the customer will pay more.
the more important question is whether it will alter their behavior.
Telecommunications Act PART III s.27.(1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.
the next step now move onto the rate regulation, stat!
Re: the next step no, your next move is to move to the u.s
Re: the next step Free health care? Where??? Last I looked, I pay a ton of taxes for this "free" health care... Glad to see the government has you fooled though... wasn't it less than 10 years ago that we got dinged another $750 a year for "free" health care on top of all the taxes I already pay?
Re: the next step Let alone if y have good job u have a decent health plan that covers medical, pharmacy, dental and vision. Doctors ate not capped with payout and don't have to refuse accepting new patients.
Re: the next step Maybe you guys should actually move to the U.S. and be educated on what it's really like being forced into having private, uncompetitive for-profit healthcare there, just as many choices, less oversight. As an American and Canadian dual citizen, I'm all too aware of the cost in the U.S. and trust me, the minuscule amount paid in HST and payroll to balance the medical budget in OHIP is far better than the debt laden private (more like semi-private since U.S. taxes still pay for hospitals and all their staff+work just not the coverage) nitpicking half-coverage pre-existing condition mess down south. Once living in their system do you begin to appreciate the fact that taxes simplify care that's just as equivalent to the U.S. standards and with more fiscal responsibility.
Re: the next step
said by chgo_man99:I'm actually from California. I live in Ontario (permanent home), and maintain a residence in California. I have far more experience with the U.S. healthcare system than Canada's, and have much more scrutiny of the U.S. system given the complications of it over the more simplified Canadian one. My own sister, also from California, was denied care by her insurance to treat her 4th relapse of leukemia because it was a pre-existing condition, ultimately it was the state of California's MediCal which covered her at UCSFMC and helped her beat cancer, opposed to dying from it. Indeed there's a bit of a personal ring to it, nonetheless, it's a microcosm of a bigger issue of healthcare.
that actually would have never been a problem if rates were not constantly going up each year by 10% or more.
Most health insurance plans people have are through employers. If not, you can get your private insurance. If it feels too much on pocket, you can get it for less but it comes with higher deductibles. And since you live in Ontario, or you're from there, I assume you have ties with New York state? Right? New York state is a bad example to compare as it has the worst private health insurance market in the country. Compare quotes between Illinois and New York and you'll see a difference.
Americans will never want the system you have due to horribly managed by government Mediacare and Medicaid mess. People don't have confidence that government will manage more efficiently than private enterprises. Medicaid plans don't even reimburse minimum, they cover far less below what it cost to provide medicare coverage which is the reason why some doctors and many private clinics refuse to accept Medicaid. It is also the reason why doctors, hospitals and private insurance must pick up remaining slack for costs.
Since when U.S taxes pay for hospitals? 70% of hospitals in the country are private and funded only through patients.
I also have had medical bills just for ultrasounds and extended time-wasted care of $10,000+.. with insurance, from the U.S., while not a penny out of my wallet has been spent on healthcare in Canada due to OHIP. If I factored the cost from HST and payroll as a comparative before-tax deduction, I'd come out way ahead being in Canada, and I rarely get sick. Someone who did have medical issues and unable to jump through the legal hoops of getting on disability in the U.S. would be saving well over five figures.
One thing I want to go over is the hospital issue and funds. While I don't take issue with the percentage used (there is a large mass in the U.S. that are not considered urban and so likely the number of hospitals is technically higher), city hospitals tend to incur the largest patients, and city hospitals in the U.S. are primarily funded via local governments, i.e. taxes, when no insurance/private funds are present. Granted, more public hospitals are disappearing, but that's because of fiscal mismanagement at every government level across the U.S., low and high. Nonetheless, when one of the 50+ million uninsured U.S. citizens go into city hospitals, which cannot deny them treatment, and they can't afford the enormous bill, the doctors, nurses, and other staff don't stop getting paid. Someone picks up the slack for that, it's the taxpayers. My mother was given a grant to get treatment for a rare heart condition at Stanford's Medical Centre, which is of course not a city hospital, it's a private medical centre. If it was as simple as doctors and insurance must pick up the slack, the U.S. healthcare system would not be in such disarray. It's mostly the crummy profit-nature of insurance which makes it ridiculous, and I suppose it would be consistent if people without insurance or a cash deposit would be flat out denied care, but it would be far more fiscally responsible, transparent, and fair, if it was universal. I will, OTOH, agree with you on the ineptitude of the U.S. government, which would certainly need to be solved and getting people on the same page about healthcare, and then getting those who oppose it not to attempt to dismantle it the way the SSI and Medicare system currently stands. Tories in ON know what would happen if they tried to dismantle OHIP.
| |linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
I can't resist CRTC + FCC = 0
Re: I can't resist That or "fail", but I agree.