The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[…] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[…] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

Canadians looking for more competitive wireless prices and faster service may think they’re going to get them if they sign on to a new campaign sponsored by Rogers Communications that calls on the Canadian government to eliminate spectrum “set-asides” for the country’s smaller wireless competitors.  Rogers wants those frequencies for itself, critics charge, and they have the resources to outbid any new player in the country’s wireless market.

From Rogers’ “I Want My LTE” Website:

[…] There are some who are supporting a Federal Government regulation that would limit who can have access to the spectrum. Such regulation would exclude select companies from the upcoming auction to license the 700 MHz spectrum band. The outcome of this auction will have a major impact on deploying LTE across Canada. If a decision is made that prevents certain companies, including Rogers, from participating in the spectrum auction, it would be a recipe for leaving Canada behind the rest of the world, stalling Canadian innovation and limiting who can access LTE.

The website offers a pre-written plea to policymakers in government to allow for an open bidding process for the forthcoming 700MHz frequencies many wireless companies crave for their robust performance.

The problem is, according to industry observers, if a wide-open, no-limits auction takes place, it’s a virtual certainty Canada’s largest wireless companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, would walk away with most, if not all of the auctioned spectrum.  Even worse, it will stall competition that will lead to lower prices.

“The future of affordable wireless rates is at risk, not the future of long-term evolution (LTE) networks,” said Chief Operating Officer Stewart Lyons. “Mobilicity has helped bring down the cost of wireless in Canada significantly and we need to augment our limited amount of spectrum to ensure affordable pricing continues.”

“[The] big 3 wireless carriers have more spectrum than they need and will stop at nothing to dress up and misrepresent their hidden agenda of eliminating competition so they can raise their rates back up again,” he added.

The government is not planning to ban Rogers and the others from the spectrum sale.  They just want to set aside some frequencies for bidding among the smaller, newer competitors.  But even that is too much for Rogers, who has bad memories from the last spectrum auction that allowed those competitors to become established in the first place.

Today, new cell service providers like Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Quebecor’s Videotron are forcing larger carriers to reduce prices or lose business.

Fido is actually Rogers under a different name.

For some Canadians, wireless bills have dropped a lot since the competition arrived.  Some are leaving Rogers in favor of better prices elsewhere.

Andy Lehrer from Toronto had a cellular plan with Fido, an ostensibly independent cell phone company that is, in fact, owned outright by Rogers Communications.  Lehrer was paying Fido $150 a month for his Blackberry voice and data plan.  Today, with one of the new competitors, he pays $44 a month for a plan that offers more data and talk time.

Although new competitors still have just under 5 percent of the Canadian market, the price differences have become too enormous to ignore in many cases, especially if a customer is willing to give a new carrier a break as it works through growing pains.

Lehrer told the Globe & Mail his cellular reception is poorer, but not bad enough to make him switch back to Rogers’ Fido.

Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. notes the price disparities mean savings as much as 58 percent with new competitors’ combined voice and data plans.  For data services alone, new providers charge as much as 83 percent less.

If Rogers and the two others head home from spectrum auctions with everything up for bid, it will assuredly stall competition and help protect today’s high wireless prices.  Rogers, Bell, and Telus have never seen fit to undercut each other, adopting a rising prices raise all balance sheets-approach at doing business.  But scrappy new entrants like Wind and Mobilicity are willing to slash prices to attract customers.  But nobody will buy service if those companies cannot obtain necessary spectrum to actually compete.

Regardless of the outcome, North America in general has a long way to go to find the lower wireless prices commonplace abroad.

According to Edmonton city Councillor Kerry Diotte (11th Ward), Rogers Communications told him the company needs up to 1,000 new cell towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet the growing demands from cell phone, smartphone, and tablet owners who are putting pressure on the company’s wireless network.  That’s a number Rogers disputes, but regardless of how many towers eventually get erected, few residents want to live next door to one.

Diotte is caught in the middle of a major, some say inevitable, fight between the telecommunications giant and homeowners living near the proposed home of a new 25 meter cell tower that is as tall as an eight story building.

Diotte

Diotte attended a heated public meeting Tuesday evening between residents of Hazeldean and Rogers officials over plans to place the new monopole antenna right in the center of town in a residential district.

“I will absolutely bring everything that I can to try to stop this,” Diotte told CTV Edmonton. “It’s the will of the people in this ward.”

CBC Radio in Edmonton explored the cell tower controversy in Hazeldean back in July when Rogers first announced plans to erect an 82 foot monopole cell tower at a local senior’s center. Rogers says increased demand requires the company to place new cell towers in residential neighborhoods to meet demand. July 14, 2011. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Rogers officials found themselves shouted down at times during Tuesday evening’s meeting, as dozens of residents complained the new tower would reduce property values and could pose a health risk.  At least one resident wants Rogers to pay moving expenses to allow her family to leave the area before the tower is built.

Hazeldean residents say a better spot for the antenna would be in an industrial neighborhood a few blocks away.

Rogers Communications says wireless data demands are growing exponentially, and constructing new cell towers improves reception, data speeds, and divides up the increasing load of data traffic on their network.  Unfortunately, cell towers are increasingly required where customers live, work… and use their wireless devices.

For the immediate future, Rogers has plans for 20 new cell towers in Edmonton, a number dwarfed by their competitor Telus, which has plans to install 80 new cell towers across the province this year.

Industry Canada has the final say on whether Rogers will ultimately win approval to place its proposed cell tower in Hazeldean.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV Edmonton Residents Upset Over Rogers Cell Tower 9-21-11.flv[/flv]

CTV Edmonton covered the Hazeldean cell phone tower controversy and spoke with a city councilman who shared Rogers told him they would need another 1,000 cell phone towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet growing demands for cell phone users.  (5 minutes)

When high definition television was a novelty, there was just one network that specialized in showing off what digital HD could do for television viewing: Mark Cuban’s HDNet.  Broadcasting exclusively in 1080i High Definition, HDNet featured prominently in television showrooms and HD-capable homes, showing a mix of sports, movies, documentaries, specials and current events programming in crystal clarity.

It was also a novelty in that it had no direct affiliations with either a movie studio or a cable television company.  That independence (and a desire to be included on standard HD tiers and not ‘mini-pay‘), has proved costly for Cuban’s venture, celebrating its 10th anniversary this month.  HDNet is in a unique position of finding itself off of an increasing number of cable providers’ lineups.

The latest: Rogers Cable, who has told subscribers it intends to drop the channel Nov. 1.

The cable company did not explain why it was planning to remove the channel, but it is hardly alone.  Bell dropped the network last December.  In the United States, HDNet has lost lucrative carriage agreements with Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks, Cox Cable, Mediacom, RCN, and MetroCast Cablevision.

It is rare for cable operators to sever relationships with networks, except for brief periods during contract renewal talks.  But they make an exception for Mark Cuban’s networks, even if it means replacing HDNet programming with live cattle auctions.

When is a cable, wireless, and video rental conglomerate big enough to start its own financial institution?  When it achieves the size and scope of Rogers Communications.

Rogers announced, through a tiny legal notice filed over the weekend, it had taken the first steps to achieve its ambition of launching Rogers Bank:

ROGERS BANK

APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A BANK

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 25(2) of the Bank Act (Canada), that Rogers Communications Inc. intends to apply to the Minister of Finance for the issue of letters patent incorporating a bank under the Bank Act (Canada) primarily focused on credit, payment and charge card services.

The bank will carry on business in Canada under the name of Rogers Bank in English and Banque Rogers in French, and its head office will be located in Toronto, Ontario.

Any person who objects may submit an objection in writing to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H2, on or before October 24, 2011.

If approved by the Minister of Finance, don’t expect to get your next home mortgage or checking account from the cable company.  Rogers Bank intends to focus mostly on the payment services business, according to the application.  Among the potential angles to be pursued by Rogers Bank:

• Offering a Rogers-branded credit card to interested customers, perhaps tied to a rewards program;
• Getting a substantial discount processing credit card payments and the growing popularity of mobile micropayment services, which allow consumers to purchase items from vending machines, parking meters, and other in-person transactions using a mobile phone;
• Offering its own payment transfer service, similar to PayPal;
• Leveraging credit opportunities by running the credit-granting institution inside the company, instead of appealing to outside institutions.

Rogers’ idea, while unusual, is not unique.  Canadian Tire and Loblaw both operate their own “banks,” primarily for financing products and services.