Phillip Dampier

I have been following the Canadian hearings on Net Neutrality and Canada’s widespread use of bandwidth throttles and usage limits on broadband access.  It has been an issue confronting customers of the largest telephone and cable providers across Canada for at least a year.  Now that these practices have spread to wholesale accounts, which directly impact independent Internet Service Providers, it has created a major hullabaloo across the country.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has decided to address these two issues together during the week-long hearings.

Unfortunately for Canadians, there is considerable division about how to manage Internet traffic, based on a premise from the largest providers that they do not have the capacity to provide everything to everybody.  Of course, getting providers to cough up raw data and allowing an independent group to verify it is like trying to feed your dog a head of lettuce.  You always have a fight on your hands.

Everyone attending has an agenda, and more than a few are willing to throw each other under the bus if it means getting what they want.  Some pro-content groups who also claim to be pro-consumer, but receive money from private businesses want no bandwidth throttles and suggest usage based pricing is the better option.  Some wholesale ISPs would prefer to put up with peer-to-peer usage throttling and “equal” throttling of other Internet applications if it means no usage based pricing for their wholesale accounts.

Consumers don’t want either one, and cannot understand why an industry raking in such enormous profits can’t simply make the investments required to rake in even more profits, especially if they create their own new products and services to take advantage of the broadband marketplace they are helping to create.

Canada’s largest providers have enjoyed the fight, and have managed to take advantage of the divisions created by groups willing to sacrifice each others’ interests for their own sake: they imposed BOTH usage based pricing and bandwidth throttles.  Oh, and raised your broadband bill by at least 10% for good measure.

This comes as a result of the myopic “only my interests matter” agendas some of these groups bring to the hearing room, and Commissioners obviously realize it, based on some of their challenging questions back to those testifying.

No hearing on these issues should ever rely on an unproven premise: the great exaflood, the clogged pipes, the torrent of data is upon us and we cannot survive without imposing limits, rate increases, and try to control usage.  Bring in an independent auditor and provide full access to raw usage data, consider how much investment companies are making in their networks compared with the profits they extract from them, and then consider whether we have a problem and examine possible solutions to it.  These third party astroturf groups releasing bought-and-paid-for “independent research” and equipment manufacturers with an agenda are not suitable for the task either.

Just as we’ve seen providers attempt to custom-draw their own maps for broadband penetration, providers are only too happy to release their own massaged data, but won’t allow anyone outside of the company to do so, ostensibly for privacy and competitive reasons.  Sorry, that’s not even close to being acceptable.

Stop the Cap! opposes Internet Overcharging schemes, which include usage based pricing and limits.  But we also oppose bandwidth throttles, free passes for provider-owned content while everyone else faces some “meter,” and companies that believe in “this is fast enough for you” broadband speeds which are far slower than those in more competitive markets.  We support Net Neutrality.  We support public investment in broadband development, as well as private investment.  We’re happy to support a deregulated framework for broadband when it works for consumers.  But we want oversight and regulation where competition is insufficient or non-existent.

As we’re watching events unfold to our immediate north, it’s clear other pro-consumer organizations and those that want to claim to represent consumers must also be on the same page so we don’t make the same mistakes.  We cannot be willing to throw in the towel on Net Neutrality if it means no Internet Overcharging, and we should never support Net Neutrality alone if it subjects consumers to enormous Internet bills because of some rationing plan that subjects people to overlimit fees and paltry usage allowances.

The only real choice is fast, affordable, reliable broadband service.  If private companies can’t or aren’t willing to provide it, than it’s time for municipal or public sector projects to build the infrastructure necessary to guarantee it.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is investigating Canadian ISP practices all week in a series of public hearings.

All week long, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s telecommunications regulator, is investigating Canadian ISPs who are throttling back speeds on certain Internet applications and engaging in “usage based pricing” of their wholesale accounts.

The hearings, which will run until Monday, will help the CRTC create regulations for how service providers manage their Internet traffic and address provider claims of network congestion.

A wide array of interests are represented at this week’s hearings (courtesy CBC):

1. ISPs that use internet traffic management for P2P file transfers

• Specifically: Bell Aliant, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, Barrett Xplor.
• What they are expected to say: Practices such as throttling are necessary to ensure fairness among internet users and prevent a few bandwidth hogs from slowing down the internet for everyone. Barrett Xplor use traffic management for satellite services, arguing that satellites are expensive and hard to upgrade.

2. ISPs that use other methods to deal with congestion

• Specifically: Telus, MTS Allstream, Primus, Quebecor on behalf of Videotron
• What they are expected to say: Methods such as usage-based pricing and network upgrades work well to deal with congestion, but each ISP should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding how they deal with congestion. Primus argues in its written submission that internet wholesalers such as Bell should not be allowed to impose their traffic management practices on the customers of other ISPs that buy wholesale network access from them.

3. Small ISPs, including those that may be throttled by their wholesalers

• Specifically: Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc., Canadian Association of Internet Providers, Execulink, Cybersurf.
• What they are expected to say: Many of these companies buy internet access wholesale from companies such as Bell, create packages and resell it to their own retail customers. They argue that allowing wholesalers to apply traffic management to customers of other ISPs is anti-competitive.

4. The entertainment industry

• Specifically: Independent Film and Television Alliance, Canadian Film and Television Production Association, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.
• What they are expected to say: The internet is an important platform for distributing music, film and TV. ISPs should not act as gatekeepers for those.

5. Other businesses and organizations that rely on the internet to deliver services

• Specifically: Zip.ca, Jason Roks, Vaxination informatique, Norm Friesen, Canada research chair in e-learning practices at Thompson Rivers University, Open Internet Coalition
• What they are expected to say: Traffic management practices that discriminate against certain types of data could reduce investment in broadband networks and consumer choice, inhibit innovation and freedom of expression and be abused to engage in anti-competitive practices.

6. Consumer and public interest advocacy groups

• Specifically: Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Union des consommateurs, National Union of Public and General Employees, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic on behalf of Campaign for Democratic Media, Council of Canadians with Disabilities and ARCH Disability Law Centre
• What they are expected to say: Their position is similar to that of businesses and organizations that rely on the internet, but they are also concerned that technologies such as deep packet inspection could invade consumers’ privacy.

Several interest groups are willing to advocate for certain bandwidth management techniques over others, much to the consternation of some consumers following the hearings.  Jacob Glick, Canada policy counsel for Google, for example, told CRTC commissioners he supported usage based pricing if it meant throttled broadband would end.  In his written and spoken comments before the CRTC, he indicated that throttled broadband was the worst choice for ISPs:

They have the potential to hurt innovation and other techniques are preferable, including:

• Boosting network capacity.
• Using different pricing models.
• Using techniques that target the amount of bandwidth use rather than the type of application using the bandwidth; for example, slowing a user’s connection after reaching a certain limit.

Glick argued that such techniques helped Comcast reduce network congestion after it was ordered by regulators to stop throttling its customers.  Comcast has a 250GB monthly consumption allowance.

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which claims to represent three Canadian consumers groups, also advocated usage based pricing telling the Commission it was an acceptable alternative to dealing with network congestion issues.

But Timothy Denton, national commissioner for the CRTC, inquired about whether usage based pricing would inhibit the development of innovative, but bandwidth intensive, services like online video.  Marvin Ammori, general counsel for Free Press argued that it very well could.  Ammori pointed out there are anti-competitive issues to consider because many online innovations, particularly video, may compete with Internet providers’ own services.

Canadian consumers following the hearings on several technology websites were hostile to both usage based pricing and Net Neutrality violations.

John from St. Catherines wrote Stop the Cap!:

“I don’t know who these groups claim to represent but they sure as hell don’t represent me or any of the other consumers I know.  It sounds like some of these so-called pro-consumer groups are being funded by commercial services that will be harmed more by bandwidth throttles than with these overcharging scams.  Rogers does it all – they throttle, they cap, they charge penalties, and they raised their prices anyway!  Glick is part of Google which has their own agenda which isn’t consumers, and Lawford is full of crap.  He and his friends are like the passengers on the Titanic clawing their way to the front of the ship as it goes down. He’s not smart enough to realize all he’s accomplishing is going down with the ship a few minutes after the rest of us. He’s still going to drown, along with all of the consumers these people claim to represent.”

Canada’s largest online movie rental firm was particularly concerned about usage pricing models.

Rob Hall, Chairman of Zip.ca, Canada's leading online movie rental firm, told the Commission his business could go down if providers continue throttling traffic and limiting usage.

Rob Hall, chairman of  Zip.ca and CEO of its parent company told the Commission its plans to provide direct delivery of movies and other programming directly to consumers online, without waiting for a DVD to arrive in the mail, could be jeopardized by speed throttles and usage limits.  Hall said that cable and telephone video providers get to deliver their own programming to viewers over the same wires as their Internet service, but without any limitations.  Hall said that represents evidence that providers are giving priority to their own network traffic over others.

“The same rules must apply to both,” Hall said.

Hall was also concerned about ISPs spying on customers and potentially taking advantage of the data they collect:

Some ISPs are throttling peer-to-peer file transfers using programs such as BitTorrent, which “might be an ideal platform” to deliver Zip.ca’s movies, as it uses the network efficiently.

Deep packet inspection, a technique used for traffic control, will be abused to access marketing information about users that his company has collected.

If rules change suddenly, and there is no way to resolve the problem quickly, his company could be put out of business.

Independent ISPs are also concerned about the implications of throttled service.  They purchase Internet access from large providers like Bell (Canada) and then resell that connectivity to their customers.  Recently, Bell started imposing usage based billing on their wholesale accounts and throttled their speeds, forcing providers to raise prices and limit access.

The proposition, according to several providers, is that they are supposed to compete with Bell and large cable operators with a service that is identical or worse than what those providers offer, with the same limitations on usage and service, at a price that reduces or eliminates potential savings and benefits for their customers.  They believe many providers will be driven out of business because of the anti-competitive marketplace.

Many appearing at the hearing were skeptical about the effectiveness of bandwidth throttling, particularly of peer to peer applications.  Many such networks are rapidly moving to hiding traffic to avoid the network throttle.  Jean François Mezei, who runs the consulting company Vaxination Informatique, told the Commission that those heavy users of such applications will switch to a less efficient protocol to hide their traffic, which would only increase congestion further.

Toronto-based technology consultant Jason Roks said the real problem is false advertising by providers who are overselling their networks to subscribers.  Roks said advertised speeds in provider promotions rarely meet expectations, companies do not disclose the actual speeds of throttled services, and consumers are not given access to that information.  Roks told the Commission bandwidth providers are using throttles and other control measures to avoid investing in expanding their networks.

“If they can’t afford to upgrade their networks to support that many customers at advertised speeds, they should let customers go,” he argued.

More reactions from Canadian consumers below the fold.

… Continue Reading

No Myth: AT&T Huge Wireless Data Bills

In between the wall-to-wall coverage of the passing of Michael Jackson last week, Stop the Cap! reader Lou discovered Twitter was all-a-tweet about yet another person who got stuck with an enormous mobile data bill from AT&T Mobility.  This time it was Mythbusters’ Adam Savage, who spent five days in Montreal and discovered the most expensive part of the trip was the $11,000 bill from AT&T.

The story here isn’t really about AT&T’s math, or the remarkably expensive Canadian data roaming rate of $0.015 per kilobyte, it’s the fact AT&T will let your bill run into the ionosphere before alerting you, or giving you the option to automatically shut yourself off before you go over a plan limit.

Savage’s tweet to his 50,000 followers all but guaranteed a rapid response (and credit) from AT&T for the $11,000 in fees charged to his account (and they turned his phone back on.)  Unfortunately, company policies remain unchanged, leaving those who encounter similar kinds of overlimit fees who don’t have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter, stuck paying those bills or begging for credit.

AT&T should automatically notify any customer entering into a roaming area with a text message explaining the rates and fees charged when inside that roaming area.  Customers should have the right to choose a setting for their account that best meets their needs:

1. No roaming access/No overlimit fees: This would suspend service on your phone automatically until you contacted AT&T to remove it at your request;
2. No Overcharges: This would turn your service off when your plan limit is reached, requiring the customer to opt-in to any overlimit fees;
3. Free and Open: The current standard — roaming and overlimit rates apply automatically.

AT&T claims it will send a text message and/or contact customers who substantially exceed their normal usage, but there has been scant evidence that policy is applied uniformly.  Customers should have the right to make their own choices about their wireless usage, and the responsibility to select an option that best protects them from the heart attack in the mail, a/k/a the bill.

Cogeco, following in the footsteps of Rogers, Canada’s largest cable operator, has mailed letters home to residential subscribers informing them that their new Internet Overcharging scheme and fees are real and will apply to broadband accounts that exceed their arbitrary usage allowances.  Since the spring, Cogeco has been showing the Internet Overcharges on subscriber’s bills, but not actually billing them.  That is set to change, however, and many residents in Ontario and Quebec are quite upset.

“Cogeco can bite me. As soon as I manage to scrounge up a second DSL modem I’m gone.”

“I’m waiting for the Cogeco trolls to come out of the woodwork so they can claim how competitive and affordable that plan is.”

“I am starting to hate Cogeco very much, I am tempted to cancel my internet and my digital TV service for spite.”

“Vote with your wallets guys, I did. And now with the increase I’m going to cancel my HD access and return the receiver — enough is enough. I’ll be down to Basic Digital Cable and if they keep increasing prices, that will go too.”

“Ditto! Price increase is THE LAST STRAW for this 10 year + customer!”

Cogeco’s limits also come with overlimit fees that are particularly harsh on casual and power users.  In Canada, many overlimit fees are currently capped at a maximum amount, and do not continue to increase beyond that maximum.  Lite users face a $2.50/GB overlimit fee (maximum $30), despite representing almost no usage impact on Cogeco’s network, and “Pro” users face a $1/GB overlimit fee, but face a maximum of $50 in overlimit penalties, despite paying a much higher up-front monthly subscription fee.

In a nutshell,

• Lite – 10GB/mo bitcap – $2.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Lite Plus – 20GB/mo bitcap – $2.00 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Standard – 60GB/mo bitcap – $1.50 per GB over to a maximum of $30
• Pro – 100GB/mo bitcap – $1.00 per GB over to a maximum of $50

Broadband providers in the United States always promise that if they are permitted to introduce Internet Overcharging schemes, it will be “fairer” for all customers, because “heavy users should pay more for what lighter users don’t do.” Providers also typically allude to network improvements and no widespread price increases.

But as Canadians have already discovered, big telecommunications firms operating with virtual duopolies can have their cake and eat it too.

Cogeco customers now face the prospects of classic Internet Overcharging — usage allowances, overlimit fees and penalties, and “fair pricing,” but after the company implemented these schemes, consumers got a reminder of what cable operators like Cogeco are also capable of — widespread rate hiking.

New Rates: We’re improving our services so you’ll continue the best today and in the future (effective July 17, 2009):

Internet Pricing

Standard – With TV or Phone…..current rate: $44.95……new rate: $45.95

Standard – Standalone……..current rate: $52.95………..new rate: $54.95

Pro – With TV or Phone……..current rate: $69.95………..new rate: $76.95

Pro – Standalone……………..current rate: $74.95………..new rate: $81.95

Internet Overchargers like Cogeco consider “fair share” to mean giving an equal amount of dollars from yourself to them.  That’s fair, right?

It’s simply more evidence to this universal truth, a fact of life every North American should already know:

Cable bills never decrease, they only increase, unless you drop services.

When a cable company tells you they have a plan to guarantee “fairness,” be sure to remember what represents “fairness” to you may mean something entirely different to them.

Canada is a victim of Internet Overcharging, with virtually every major provider limiting access to broadband, throttling speeds, and charging overlimit penalties for exceeding arbitrary limits. Now Cogeco, which itself engages in these schemes for its residential broadband service, has made a breakthrough of sorts.

Cogeco One Zone, available only to users of Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch, provides 802.11g WiFi across the One Zone WiFi network for only $5CAD a month. One Zone, acquired last August from Toronto Hydro Telecom, operates within a six kilometre region in the downtown core of Toronto. Users discovering the service report it can achieve speeds of up to 7Mbps, and there are no data consumption limits or contracts.

Any iPhone/iPod Touch user who accesses the network within range will automatically be taken to a special sign-up page to begin service. Cogeco One Zone’s offer represents a major discount off the pricing being charged to other One Zone WiFi users:

1 Hour
60 minutes of continuous access
$4.99 + GST and PST

1 Day
24 hours of continuous access
$9.99 + GST and PST

1 Month
Continuous access to same date in following month
$29.00 + GST and PST

(All prices are in Canadian Dollars)

So why has Cogeco decided to practically give away the service?

“Our expectation is that users won’t be using it for downloading video and huge files … It’s just the nature of the device. It’s not likely they’ll be downloading gigabytes of information standing on the street,” Cogeco Data Services president Ian Collins told itWorldCanada.

One potential use Collins may not realize has been among Toronto residents who live and work within range of the network. For some of them, Cogeco One Zone is being used from work and home, and although it is unlikely to replace residential broadband accounts that connect with home computers, some users will give the network a real workout. Should customers figure out how to tether their iPhone WiFi connection to their home computer, effectively accessing the network from a home PC or laptop, that could become an entirely new challenge.

For Canadian iPhone owners, who already face higher prices for iPhone data plans (no “unlimited” plan exists in Canada as it does in the United States), the biggest savings may come from customers downgrading data plans for “phone-based” data, because they rely on the WiFi network instead. Most iPhone owners currently pay $30 per month for 1GB or $25 for 500MB. With unlimited access through WiFi, there are no worries about exceeding data allowances.

Knowledgeable iPod Touch owners could also turn their players into Voice Over IP telephone lines using Skype or Truphone, and effectively pay just a few dollars per month for unlimited long distance calling.