GATINEAU – In back-to-back presentations this morning, the CRTC heard from two of Canada’s largest ISPs, Telus and Cogeco Cable, one of which uses no Internet traffic management techniques (yet) and one which uses them all the time.
Each want the same thing, however: to be left alone to manage their networks how they see fit.
Telus, the big western-based telco, uses no traffic management technology right now on either its retail consumers or wholesale business clients, said senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs Michael Hennessy. But it wants the freedom to be able to deploy them, if needed, in the future.
The company is in the midst of its annual capital expenditure plan which calls for $950 million to be spent on network upgrades on the wired and wireless side in 2009. “Bandwidth does cost money,” added the company’s SVP mobile industry leadership David Neale.
Cogeco, on the other hand, Canada’s fourth-largest cable company with operations in southern Ontario and Quebec (and the first cableco before the CRTC in this proceeding), told Commissioners they slow P2P traffic in its network virtually all the time.
“The implementation of these measures was not an arbitrary decision,” said Yves Mayrand, Cogeco’s vice-president of corporate affairs. “Because P2P applications consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, mainly on the upstream, traffic-shaping measures were and are still required…
“In fact, given the finite bandwidth available and the fact that we operate a shared network, it is impossible in practice to run the Internet access network embedded in the DOCSIS network without controlling the upstream side.”
The differences between these two companies and their networks (and remember, Telus has a big wireless component, too) may demonstrate how writing network traffic management rules that apply to all might just be impossible.
Neale reminded the panel that since radio spectrum is far more limited for wireless carriers as compared to the wired Internet, “we reject a one-size fits all.”
Added Hennessy: “We don’t believe in absolute, or bright line, tests.”
Both Telus and Cogeco insisted the Commission can’t try to deal with the issue of application-based throttling as an ex ante (getting permission or establishing regs before the fact) regulation because the CRTC is primarily ex post (dealing with complaints and rectifications after a problem surfaces).
There is simply no way to write regulations that will be flexible enough to be able to comprehend what applications might come down the Internet pipe in the future, added Hennessy, when they “don’t even exist today.”
But, added CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein, should the Commission try to write in ex ante rules anyway to try and protect the future of any application developers who, in turn, might not develop apps they know their Canadian ISPs will then limit?
No, said Hennessy. The Regulator should be concerning itself with anti-competitive behaviour where, for example, an ISP blocks applications or content that competes with its own business – or an arm of its business, or a business relationship, “and if we see behavioural problems, then develop an ex ante rule to handle it,” he explained.
Mayrand noted that the technology his company uses – for upstream only – to manage its networks, despite fears, does not dilute the user experience (Ed note: Certain network management practices and their dilutive effect, however, is a matter of opinion, as we wrote about here earlier this week). “These measures do not result in any manner in unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, nor do they have the effect of controlling the content or influencing the meaning of the telecommunications that we transmit,” he said.
Cogeco, like many ISPs, has also deployed usage-based billing as a way to control network traffic, too. “However, we are not convinced at this time that this pricing approach will be sufficient… we need to rely on equipment that enables us to intervene in a timely manner if such a congestion problem occurs.”
And as Hennessy pointed out earlier in his presentation, much of what we have heard during this week of hearings does not actually reflect massive direct harm to anyone, but only the fear that the big ISPs could do something bad, if they wished.
“We agree that access to an open Internet should be an overarching policy goal,” he said. “The principal concern that we have heard at these hearings is about the potential for anti-competitive behaviour… We agree that ISPs should not engage in undue preferences that favour affiliated businesses or that materially degrade the ability of independent content providers and users to use the Internet.”
However, there are already a number of such regulations in place to prevent such discrimination and the discipline of the market – where if you inhibit your customers’ enjoyment, they’ll go elsewhere – will keep the ISPs playing fair ball.
Plus, any sort of “broad brush” of regulation could chill innovation on the network management side, noted Neale, limiting progress there from folks spooked by new rules overseeing progress in that field.
The chair and Hennessy even got into an exchange at the end of the Telus presentation on what the definitions of what’s a reasonable and what’s a restrictive application-based network management regime. “I don’t think the Commission wants to go down these measurability practices when it comes to engineering,” cautioned Hennessy.
“It goes back to the fundamental principle,” he added, that everyone should be able to do what they want with their web connection, “as long as its legal.”
The hearing wraps up on Monday with appearances by Rogers, Bell Canada, Quebecor and Shaw. That will be a day to watch.
