“We can’t have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the Internet and that’s why I’m supporting what’s called net neutrality.” — Barack Obama, podcast, June 2006
[June 19: So much for pruning – added 300 words in corrections and background.]
On Friday, June 13, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made a short but dramatic statement headlined Broadband Consumers and Internet Congestion. Though barely 450 words long and presented outside any formal setting, Wheeler’s reaction to the public hue and cry over the reliability of retail broadband in the US marks an important step forward for end-user welfare. His announcement puts the lie to the vehement criticisms levelled at him about his betrayal of the Open Internet concept (the FCC’s term of art for net neutrality).
Many of his critics also assumed that the Wheeler FCC would never look into paid peering arrangements – well, they actually said they wouldn’t (“… the rules we propose today reflect the scope of the 2010 Open Internet Order, which applied to broadband provider conduct within its own network.” NPRM, fn 113 – pdf uploaded here). That is what Wheeler has now directed Commission staff to do (request “information from ISPs and content providers”).
While the American public are clearly confused by the net neutrality debate, and for good reason, many ISP subscribers have begun to question whether they’re getting the broadband they’re paying for – whatever the underlying business and technical issues may be. Excerpts from Wheeler’s statement follow (the full pdf is uploaded here):
“For some time now we have been talking about protecting Internet consumers. At the heart of this is whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide connectivity in the final mile to the home can advantage or disadvantage content providers, and therefore advantage or disadvantage consumers. …
“Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on. I have therefore directed the Commission staff to obtain the information we need to understand precisely what is happening in order to understand whether consumers are being harmed. …
“The bottom line is that consumers need to understand what is occurring when the Internet service they’ve paid for does not adequately deliver the content they desire, especially content they’ve also paid for. In this instance, it is about what happens where the ISP connects to the Internet. It’s important that we know – and that consumers know.”
Subject: Part 1 application by Benjamin Klass requesting the fair treatment of Internet services by Bell Mobility (Klass application) and Part 1 Applications by CAC-COSCO-PIAC regarding Rogers’ Anyplace TV service and Vidéotron’s Illico.tv Service (CRTC files 8622-B92 201316646, 8622-P8-201400142 and 8622-P8-201400134).
Yesterday was the deadline for final reply comments on the Part 1 Application filed last November by Ben Klass. I wrote several posts on Ben’s initiative, starting with this one on November 24, 2013. My second and final submission is pasted in below (with a few copy edits; paragraph numbers remain).
The case brought by Ben is a good opportunity for the Commission to see how its ex-post regime for handling ISP and WSP misdeeds is working. Thus, while I hope the Commission gives Ben his due, I also hope it takes a long hard look at the bigger picture, i.e. the status of the mobile TV services operated by both Rogers (RAP-TV) and Vidéotron (illico mobile), in addition to Bell’s Mobile TV. Continue reading →
The public hearing announced by the CRTC last week (Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-190) came with two other newsworthy documents.
One is the Commission’s trial balloon on instituting a pick-and-pay system for TV subscribers, which takes the official form of the CRTC’s Response to Order in Council P.C 2013-1167 (“Maximizing the ability of Canadian consumers to subscribe to discretionary services on a service by service basis” – here). This document contains the seeds of what might be a significant reform to the channel-bundling model. Continue reading →
Bell’s CRTC whisperer, Mirko Bibic, got bent out of shape when he saw the CRTC’s annoying interrogatories Friday morning
Today saw another encouraging step in the CRTC’s management of the Ben Klass Part 1 application on Bell’s Mobile TV service. You can get the backstory in my prior posts (first one was in November) and from Ben’s blog, among other places.
That step was the interrogatories sent to Bell officials, asking for detailed information on Bell’s network architecture, subscriber invoicing, content exclusivity and competition, among other things. I’ve pasted in all 10 of the Commission’s questions below. A couple of comments in the meantime…
First off, the language of the questions demonstrates that the Commission is taking Ben’s application to heart, and that it sees a prima facie case against Bell for violating telecom rules. On one crucial point, whether Mobile TV is simply a broadcasting service as Bell claims, the Commission staff want to hear an explanation of the “inconsistency” in Bell’s statements on this matter – as well as of “how a data service that uses the Internet is not a telecommunications service” (yes, Bell argues that its quacking duck ain’t no water fowl no how). Continue reading →
It appears Bell, Rogers and Telus are still not making a decent buck from Canada’s textbook wireless oligopoly. So they’ve raised their prices – again, all at once, all by the same amount.
To shed some light on the meaning of this further greed-is-good foray into price-gouging, I’ve asked Ben Klass to let me re-post the comments he made about the recent price hikes on his blog on March 17, under the title Wireless Carriers’ High Flying Prices. Ben documents the obvious and awful truth: out West where there’s competition, prices are… wait for it… lower! Continue reading →
Last Wednesday was the deadline for followup comments on Ben’s Part 1 application, more accurately described as a complaint. In the text below you’ll find the main body of my intervention, minus the top and tail. I wrote about Ben’s original filing back in November: Ben Klass asks CRTC to stop Bell’s deliquency on Mobile TV. As of today, Ben’s current filing hasn’t yet shown up on the Commission’s site: I’ve uploaded it here. Of the other interventions filed this past week, two were especially critical of what Bell is being allowed to get away with. Teresa Murphy starts her comments by suggesting that Bell’s whole argument is founded on a phony distinction (para 2: her pdf is uploaded here):
It makes no sense whatsoever to treat competing services differently when the underlying technology and distribution method is the same. This is allowing vertically integrated companies to behave by one set of rules, and allowing them to treat their competitors differently, and frankly unfairly.
Infographic released by TekSavvy in February, from omnibussurvey by IDC Canada
(Please see previous post for the setup to this one)
In early February, TekSavvy released the results of five survey questions fielded by IDC Canada on its behalf, which probed for attitudes to Internet service among Canadians. In keeping with its White Knight role, the maverick ISP is not only going Ottawa one better on the research. TekSavvy also took the opportunity to launch a new tool to help customers navigate the decisions involved in choosing a particular access plan. They call it Find Your Plan and apparently people like it.
I spoke recently about this initiative to Tina Furlan, TekSavvy’s Director of Marketing and Communications, and the brains behind last year’s dramatic rebranding. The two main questions on my mind concerned a) why her team decided to plunge into the research game, and b) were they surprised by the results. Tina points out that TSI’s subscriber base across Canada (for all services) is now close to 270,000. Naturally, with that kind of growth, its traditional customer base of younger, techie males has broadened into a more mainstream and technically unsophisticated group, the very end-users who are especially puzzled and frustrated by all the bafflegab ISPs usually throw at them. Continue reading →
Yesterday, the Open Technology Institute, an initiative of the New America Foundation, released the 2013 version of its study, The Cost of Connectivity. Once again, Canada looks really bad in the rankings. And not just bad for 2013, but even worse than in 2012. (I wrote about the 2012 results last November in this post. I’ve uploaded the 2012 report here and the 2013 report here, both in pdf.)
Here’s the setup for the just-published report from this gang of lefties:
“Last year, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute published The Cost of Connectivity, a first-of-its-kind study of the cost of consumer broadband services in 22 cities around the world. The results showed that, in comparison to their international peers, Americans in major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC are paying higher prices for slower Internet service. While the plans and prices have been updated in the intervening year, the 2013 data shows little progress, reflecting remarkably similar trends to what we observed in 2012 (my emphasis). Continue reading →