The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Thanks to quick work from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canadian broadband providers have wasted no time announcing new usage limits and penalties for those who exceed them.

The principal culprit for the Internet Overcharging: Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company.

Bell’s newly won right to charge wholesale customers usage-based billing rates has caused a collective groan from independent providers from Vancouver to Charlottetown. Primus, the second-largest alternative communications company in Canada, threw up its hands and announced it was going to pass Bell’s costs along to their customers.  Some other providers have already raised rates, shocking customers who received December bills with $100 in overlimit penalties.

“It’s an economic disincentive for Internet use,” said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. “It’s not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.”

That is a hallmark example of what happens under Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based pricing,” usage caps, or other limited use plans.  Customers don’t pay for their actual broadband use — they overpay, especially when stiff penalties are imposed when they exceed their usage allowance.

“Canada’s broadband market is a racket, period,” says our reader Andy, who lives near Petawawa, in northern Ontario.  “If you are in a major city in the south, you can choose Bell or one of their lackeys or the cable company, which almost always means Shaw or Rogers in English-speaking Canada.”

Andy doesn’t have access to cable, so his broadband comes courtesy of DSL from the phone company.  He counts himself lucky he has that, even though it only delivers around 512kbps and is down at least once a week, especially when the weather is bad.  Other communities have no broadband at all, and some areas are so desperate for access, they have provided financial incentives to attract a provider to town.  It rarely succeeds.  Zeropaid reports a handful on unscrupulous would-be providers have taken the incentives and left town with no broadband service to show for it.

“These guys only want the easy customers and they’ve got them in Toronto or Ottawa,” Andy says. “The rest of us can live with dial-up.”

The Canadian government occasionally launches highly publicized demonstration projects to deliver rural broadband in northern Canada, often over wireless, something Andy scoffs at.

“When the TV cameras are shut off and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper’s political bandwagon goes home, the networks last for about a month until something goes wrong and the whole thing shuts down, sometimes for weeks before someone repairs it,” Andy says.

There oughta be a law.

Katz

In fact Canada, a country with a reputation for keeping a regulatory eye on essential services, has an agency that is supposed to protect consumers and monitor telecommunications services. Unfortunately for Canadians, it was that agency that gave Bell the go-ahead to kill unlimited, flat rate broadband — the service that has kept most independent service providers in business.

Critics charge the Commission has been acting more like a Big Telecom industry trade group than an independent oversight body, and many independent providers openly wonder how long they’ll survive with Bell’s predatory pricing.

Reviewing who serves on the Commission may provide some answers about why they seem to be closely aligned with Canada’s largest telecom companies.  Many of the commissioners used to work for the very companies they are now asked to regulate, and some are likely to return to them after their stint at the CRTC.  The agency’s supposedly independent commissioners know if they want future employment in the telecommunications industry, it’s best not to antagonize your next boss.

Take Commissioner Leonard Katz.  He joined the CRTC in 2005 and was appointed vice chairman of telecommunications in 2007.  For 30 years before joining the Commission, Katz was employed by Canada’s largest telecom firm, moving up through Bell’s management ranks from 1974-1985.  His last big job at Bell was as the assistant director of Bell’s regulatory lobbying department, where he spent his energy and time dealing with federal politicians and the CRTC.  Katz also loves Canada’s wireless industry, dominated by Rogers Communications.  He was founder and chairman of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Clearinghouse for wireless carriers.

Arpin

Or there was Michel Arpin, a consummate former insider at some of Canada’s largest corporately-owned broadcast station groups like Astral Broadcasting, Mutual Broadcasting, and Radiomutuel.  He also had a side relationship with Telus, a western Canadian telecom company that also belongs to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).  Arpin served CAB as vice-chair and chair. Arpin, the corporate media man, also served as the vice-chairman of the CRTC’s broadcast division until late last year.

Other examples:

• Rita Cugini — A regional commissioner for the province of Ontario, her professional background has been working for some of the province’s biggest media interests, including Alliance Atlantis, Telelatino, and CFMT/OMNI.  She also is integrally involved with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which bends the ears of regulators regularly on a variety of matters;
• Tim Denton — About as close to the broadband industry as you can get, Denton’s role as a commissioner began in 2008, but his money was made working for the broadband industry, including the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which lobbies for big broadband provider interests.
• Candice Molnar — Serves today as regional commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but she knows most of the prairie provinces’ movers and shakers by name, having spent more than 20 years at SaskTel, Saskatchewan’s biggest phone company.  She helped guide SaskTel from provincial to federal regulation when she worked there and her voting record shows her heart is still with her former employer.

Cugini

With a Commission stacked against ordinary Canadian consumers, it’s no wonder Internet Overcharging schemes and stifled broadband competition rule the day in Canada.

“Rural Canada always pays the biggest price,” says Andy.  “If it didn’t happen in Toronto or Ottawa, it didn’t happen at all.”

Andy complains Canadian broadband will never improve with Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

“They complain about your usage and say if they can restrict it, they can improve service to more people; well, where is my better service?” Andy asks.

“At least I don’t have to worry about their usage allowances… yet,” Andy says. “Even if I left my connection running continuously, at these speeds I doubt I could do much damage.”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre just released a report that found deregulation in Canada's telecommunications marketplace delivered most of the benefits to providers, leaving consumers holding the higher bill.

Four years after Canada deregulated its telecommunications industry with the promise it would bring competition, better service and lower prices, Canadian consumers are instead paying too much for broadband service that delivers too little.

That is the conclusion of a new report from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a non-profit consumer protection organization that compared provider promises with the bills ordinary Canadians ultimately pay for their Internet service.

Michael Janigan, the report’s author told CBC News that deregulation has brought “super-normal” profits for Bell, Telus and Rogers — among Canada’s largest telecom companies — while those same providers continue to increase prices and, in some cases, reduce the amount of broadband usage customers can access before overlimit fees kick in.

“We still have three big players with over 90 per cent of the market, and they’re pretty fat and happy,” Janigan said in an interview with CBC News. “We’re still seeing the incredible clout of the big telcos in relation to their ability to swing competition in their favor.”

Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, stands to gain even more power over the broadband marketplace with a ruling from Canada’s telecommunications authority that has direct implications for Canada’s independent service provider market.  Most third party providers obtain their Internet connectivity from Bell at wholesale pricing.  Thanks to a now-approved-request from Bell to charge wholesale customers usage-based pricing, providers are now forced to pass along those artificially high prices to Canadian consumers.

“The days of unlimited Internet service are about to become extinct in Canada,” says Stop the Cap! reader Giles in Trois-Rivières, Quebec.  “How surprised can you be that the company that sells access to competitors has managed to find a way to price that competition out of business.”

For one such competitor, Primus, the effect of Bell’s usage-based pricing will have an immediate impact on their customers’ monthly bills.

The company is now notifying customers that effective Feb. 1, the unlimited service plans that appealed to those opposed to usage-limited broadband will be now limited to just 25GB of usage per month.  Primus directly implicated both Bell and the the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for the pricing changes.

Those who exceed the limit face overlimit fees of $2.00 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $60 per month.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Primus is discontinuing its unlimited use services. Effective Feb. 1, overlimit fees of $2/GB kick in after just 25GB of usage.

Those limits could put Primus at a competitive disadvantage with larger providers delivering lower cost plans with higher usage allowances.

“Why would you still be a Primus customer after this,” asks Giles.

Primus will not be alone among third party DSL service providers — almost all will be forced to adopt similar pricing.  The result? More expensive service for Canadian broadband customers, and major troubles for third party competitors whose new pricing could turn customers away.

The price increase is a direct result of a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to approve Bell Canada’s request to introduce Usage Based Billing on wholesale Internet services. Over the last four years, critics charge the CRTC with abandoning its watchdog role to protect Canadian consumers from unfair and uncompetitive practices and kowtowing to the interests of large telecom companies.

“In 2006 and 2007, the government stepped in to tell the CRTC to deregulate as a priority and to deregulate local telephone service faster promising better deals for consumers. As a our report notes, this did not happen despite all the hype”, said Janigan, author of the report, Waiting for the Dream, The Consumer Brief for Telecom Reform 2010.

In fact, the report concludes that Canada’s performance in telecommunications services such as broadband and wireless has been less than impressive, and the results for customers of cable and satellite services from deregulation of basic service has been the opposite of what should be expected in competitive markets.

“It is one thing to try a course of action that doesn’t work out: it is another to ignore the results and simply try more of the same,” said Janigan. “It doesn’t now make sense to have a government Policy Direction in place that hampers both competition and consumer protection”:

This report concludes that the failure of the regulatory reform of the last two decades to deliver the goods for ordinary residential consumers is not one that has its roots in theory, but in practice. Here, the interests of powerful stakeholders have affected the service landscape. In the same way that incumbent players used their political and economic influence and regulatory capture to get their way in the monopoly era of regulation, the winners have used the market- based system to their advantage. Neither regulation nor deregulation will engineer a thriving telecommunications industry producing innovative and efficient products and services with resultant economic growth for Canada if the decision making processes for each are skewed by conditions and assumptions that favour some stakeholders over others.

Most importantly, the governance and regulation of the telecommunications industry in Canada must respond to results. For the most part, the restructuring of telecommunications has been guided by untested economic theories, largely provided by experts engaged by the largest stakeholders. The relatively poor performance of telecommunications service for ordinary consumers should have long ago engendered a review of the  regulatory framework and market structure that is producing the same. In the last five years, the only acknowledged measure of success has been how fast telecommunications services have been deregulated with predictable market results.

The solution is not a return to old regulation but new models. First of all, there are a variety of consumer issues associated with basic rights for information, quality of service, security of service, disconnections, privacy etc. that should be met by all carriers whether they are incumbent or not. Basic service, obligations to serve, complaints resolution, and burdens of service in uneconomic areas have to be in place for all across the board. The best way to ensure that this occurs is for mandatory licensing for all carriers, with appropriate codes of conduct and enforcement with meaningful force in the form of administrative monetary penalties. The Telecommunications Act should be amended to reflect these improvements.

Interconnection with essential telecommunications facilities should be available for competitors at rates that are fair to users and suppliers. We cannot let abstruse theories supposing innovation and duplication in the absence of access to govern this important issue.

Bell, Canada’s largest telecommunications company, quietly increased the interest rate for late payments to a whopping 42.58 per annum, sparking complaints from company critics that accuse Bell of racing towards the nation’s 60 percent usury limit.

Michael Girard, writing for lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca, says the company is way out of line demanding interest 42 times higher than the interest rate charged to the Bank of Canada on past due balances .

To “appreciate” Bell’s 42.58% rate, let’s compare it with other rates charged by lenders in Canada:

• It’s 42 times the Bank of Canada rate;
• 14 times the 3% prime rate charged to banks;
• Eight times the mortgage rate for five years (5.0%);
• More than twice the interest (19%) charged by credit card issuers;
• Approaching double the interest rate charged by the worst department store credit cards (28%)

The increase in interest charges took effect this past June.

Why has Bell increased its late fee interest rate into the stratosphere?  Because it can.  In July 2009 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the agency that oversees the country’s telecommunications industry, deregulated late fees.  This policy change lets providers charge whatever they want for late payments, so long as they don’t exceed Canada’s 60 percent legal limit for interest charges.

Girard says the outrageous fees bludgeon customers who are least equipped to afford them.  He also suggests they are completely out of whack with what other telecommunications companies across Canada charge.

Girard

“Previously, Bell late fees amounted to 26.82%, the same rate as that charged by Rogers and Telus,” Girard writes. “Why did Bell require a rate so high? Bell Canada’s response: ‘The increase in the [interest] rate reflects our increased collection costs, which are now covered.'”

Somehow, Bell’s competitors eke out a barren, profit-scarce existence charging far less:

• Videotron appears the least greedy with annual interest of 19.56% (1.5% annualized per month) on outstanding balances;
• Cogeco ranks second by charging 24% (2.0% per month) on unpaid balances;
• Not far behind, we find Rogers and Telus, with their late payment fees of 26.82% (2.0% annualized per month).

One day before the Federal Communications Commission in Washington announced draft guidelines to establish an American Net Neutrality policy, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its own guidelines to govern what Canadian broadband providers can and cannot do with the Internet traffic they deliver to millions of Canadian consumers.  While Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company praised the CRTC for its provider-friendly ruling, consumer groups varied their responses from “a step in the right direction” to “weak” to “here comes more gouging.”

The CRTC Net Neutrality policy for Canada essentially permits providers to continue to throttle broadband speeds for both retail and wholesale customers, and block traffic altogether should the CRTC grant permission in “exceptional cases,” as long as the provider discloses the practice to consumers up front, and warns them in advance of any policy changes that further slow their connections.

Laurel Russworm, who runs Stop Usage Based Billing, was not pleased.

“The CRTC decision doesn’t have a silver lining I can find; in fact they essentially said that usage based billing and caps are good tools to use to fight congestion. All Bell Canada has to do is warn us first, then they can gouge as they please. They’ve deferred making a decision on usage based billing until after the court challenges are dismissed, but I’m not holding my breath,” Russworm wrote.

On Wednesday the CRTC decided that Internet providers in Canada need measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times to deal with what providers claim to be a congestion problem.  At hearings held this past summer, several CRTC commissioners were receptive to the claims providers made that Canadian broadband does not have the capacity their American neighbors have.  Providers like Bell and Rogers claim that peer to peer traffic and increasing consumption of high bandwidth services have created capacity shortages on their networks, requiring traffic management which artificially slows certain traffic on their networks at “peak times.”  Canadian broadband providers almost universally also impose Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers, limiting customer use and charging them overlimit penalties for exceeding usage allowances.

The commission accepted the providers’ claims and gave the green light to those practices, but said before a provider literally blocks access to online services, or throttles time sensitive traffic on services like Voice Over IP telephone or two-way video conferencing to the point it becomes “degraded,” it needs to get Commission permission first.

Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs, told The Globe and Mail the ruling gives carriers the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. “We’re the experts, and we get the flexibility to determine how to manage our networks to give the user the best experience,” he said.

Bell already “throttles” its Internet service by slowing peer-to-peer downloading between 4:30 p.m. and 1 a.m. to make sure the network is not overloaded by a relatively small number of people transferring large video and music files.

Independent Internet providers are among the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, and a ban on Internet Overcharging schemes known in Canada as “usage based billing.”  Many Canadian broadband providers obtain connectivity through wholesale accounts purchased from Bell.  The Canadian phone giant imposed both speed throttles and usage based billing on their wholesale customers.  Those costs, and the speed bumps that go with them, are now increasingly passed on to consumers.  Independent providers fear being put out of business.

For many of them, Wednesday’s decision might as well never have happened.

“This has really not changed anything,” Tom Copeland, chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, told PC World.

Copeland said the “biggest, most glaring omission” from the ruling is the lack of restraints on the time of day or how long suppliers like phone or cable companies can manipulate traffic. “So we could continue to see traffic management every day of the year,” he said.

“We’re still not addressing the cause of the problem,” he added: “Either weak points in the network, or abuse by users.” Most casual users of peer-to-peer applications — the biggest offending programs in the eyes of providers – aren’t the problem, he said.

“We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “ while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead.”

“The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on Net Neutrality.  PIAC argued that the Telecommunications Act required ISPs not to interfere with customers’ Internet traffic unless such traffic was clearly harming other users of the network and not otherwise.  “ISPs should act as common carriers and just carry traffic, not as broadcasters deciding what you watch” continued Lawford, “but now they can decide what gets through – and how much they get to charge you for the privilege.”  Lawford also noted the CRTC’s requirement for the ISPs to disclose their “Internet traffic management practices” will not actually stop any of the practices.

The CRTC has repeatedly taken broadband industry-friendly positions in direct opposition to Canadian consumer interests, helping to set the stage for Canada’s rapid decline in broadband leadership.  The country’s standing in broadband rankings has taken a stunning fall from its earlier top-shelf position.  Regulatory policies that permit abusive, anti-competitive practices and reward providers for rationing broadband instead of investing in expanding it are at the heart of the problem.

Since the CRTC has taken positions more worthy of a industry trade group than an independent regulator, an increasing number of Canadians are demanding the CRTC lead or get out of the way.  A large group of Canadian voters upset about any issue is sure to attract politicians, and the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) has arrived.

Charlie Angus (NDP)

Charlie Angus, New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic and MP for Timmins-James Bay, who already is on record opposing Internet Overcharging schemes, says the CRTC dropped the ball on Net Neutrality.

“Yesterday’s CRTC decision on Internet traffic-management practices is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada,” Angus said in a statement.

“This interference [from traffic management] will be bad news for small third-party competitors and leaves consumers subject to digital snooping and interference from cable giants,” he added.

“Basically the CRTC has left the wolves in charge of the henhouse. ISP giants have been given the green light to shape traffic on the internet in favor of their corporate interests,” he said. “This decision is a huge blow to the future competitiveness of the Internet.”

Angus says that the premise of today’s decision – that notification from the ISP will allow customers to make an informed decision on where to buy Internet service – misses the harsh reality that the market for Internet service in Canada is not nearly competitive enough to work.

“Canada has fallen to the back of the pack in Internet service provision and pricing after leading the way for years. This is the direct result of a small band of ISP giants blocking out competition,” Angus said. “This decision clears the way for ISPs to squeeze out third-party players who are attempting to provide better price and service options.”

South of the border, the FCC has taken clear steps toward the establishment of Internet neutrality on U.S. networks.

Angus said that principle of Net Neutrality should be at the center of Internet policy in Canada, and that the CRTC has missed a golden opportunity with yesterday’s decision.

“The principle of Net Neutrality must be a cornerstone of the innovation agenda. The CRTC has once again acted as the rubber stamp for large ISP and cable players to dominate the market and decide which traffic goes in the fast lane and which traffic gets stuck in the slow lane. This decision continues a long and dismal tradition of Canada’s communication policy decisions chipping away at the public interest to the benefit of a few corporate giants.”

Dissolve the CRTC, a group collecting signatures to petition for the closure of the Commission, also made several comments about the CRTC decision.

Among their conclusions:

• The new policy leaves the door open to providers deciding their economic interests are better served from traffic management practices like throttles and usage limits than network investments.  Short term limits may serve the interests of stockholders, but could discourage long term investments needed to create new 21st century broadband platforms;
• The Commission’s encouragement that providers make additional investments in their networks is likely to fall on deaf ears.  It was Bell’s lack of investment in their broadband network which led to the traffic management practices, and the recent hearings about them, in the first place.  Without mandates, there is no real pressure on Bell to change their investment strategy.
• The Commission’s policy to regulate this issue through a user complaint process that calls out bad actors has no historical precedent of working.  The CRTC has a long history of ignoring public involvement in telecommunications proceedings, and does not like to involve themselves with individual customer complaints.  Campaigns to flood the CRTC with complaints on specific issues using their language may be the only way to get them to investigate.  Additionally, complaints that call out the disparity in network management policies between wholesale and retail accounts may only lead to additional restrictions on both types of accounts, making a bad situation even worse.

Canadians must contact their elected officials and demand federal legislation to enact true consumer protection and broadband reform policies to restore Canada to a position of leadership in broadband.  The CRTC is ineffective and must not be the final arbiter on these important issues.

Professor Geist

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail.

[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some general principles of “Net neutrality” – comes as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is expected to release its own position this fall, after public consultations this summer that prompted feedback from tens of thousands of Canadians.

“The kinds of principles that the FCC is now looking to put into rules are precisely what the CRTC heard from many groups this past summer,” said Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. “The kinds of concerns that Canadians have been expressing have clearly been taken to heart by the FCC.”

Many Canadian citizens have been unhappy with the CRTC after a summer of hearings and policy decisions which have almost universally-favored Canadian broadband providers’ positions.  The CRTC seemed skeptical during hearings over the urgency to enforce Net Neutrality protections and stop provider’s throttling of peer to peer networks.  But consumers were even more upset when the Commission agreed with Bell, Canada’s largest phone company and wholesale broadband provider, and allowed the company to impose “usage based billing (UBB)” (Internet Overcharging) on wholesale buyers — primarily independent Internet Service Providers.  Canadian customers attempting to avoid usage caps and consumption billing relied on more generous policies from independent providers, policies likely to be revoked with the imposition of UBB, potentially making flat rate broadband service in Canada largely extinct.

In general terms, Net neutrality refers to the concept that access to all legal content on the Internet should be equal. The concept often comes up in relation to the practice of “bandwidth throttling,” where ISPs limit the transfer speed of certain kinds of data – such as the transfer of large movie files between users – but not other kinds.

Many large Canadian ISPs have argued that network management doesn’t affect Net neutrality, and taking away an ISP’s ability to manage its network results in worse service for a large number of customers.

Currently, there is no uniform practice among large ISPs in Canada when it comes to network management. Some firms throttle bandwidth during certain times of the day, whereas other limit bandwidth all the time, or not at all. A CRTC ruling this fall could go a long way toward implementing a uniform code for all ISPs.

“In light of what we’ve seen today, [the CRTC ruling] will be particularly telling because the benchmark now isn’t just what the CRTC heard during this hearing, the benchmark now is our neighbours to the south,” Prof. Geist said. “The CRTC will in many ways be measured up against what the FCC is doing in the U.S.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>