By Ahmad Hathout
The CRTC should specifically tailor its broadband transparency efforts on certain technologies that have been shown to demonstrate more variation in internet speeds, such as satellite and fixed-wireless services, according to Bell executives.
Otherwise, if the CRTC must impose standardized transparency language to make it easier for consumers to choose services, it can force internet service providers to change their “up-to” or “maximum” language to “typical” because that’s what most service providers are already offering on wireline.
“We’d be well within … the margins by which what we advertise as a maximum speed would be advertised as a typical speed in those other jurisdictions,” Mark Graham, Bell’s senior vice president of legal and regulatory, told the five-member CRTC panel studying how to implement changes to the Telecommunications Act brought forth by Bill C-288. The bill requires the CRTC to examine mandating ISPs to include service quality metrics during the peak periods — such as between 7 pm and 11 pm — and including “typical” download and upload speeds. Currently, many ISPs use “up-to” language.
Graham – who said Bell would still be subject to regulation because it operates satellite and fixed-wireless services – noted that the legislation allows for the tailoring to specific transmission systems.
“If the evidence that’s available is that fiber-to-the-home like fixed-line internet providers are meeting or exceeding their advertised speeds … then very likely the costs of regulation outweigh the benefits,” Graham noted.
“I don’t think it’s an unusual proposition to suggest that there’s not a market failure or a problem to be solved … the default in our system should be that you don’t introduce new regulation because inevitably it comes with costs,” Graham added. “And those are really the costs and the unintended consequences for guiding our recommendation.”
Bell suggests that the CRTC be wary of the impact of new rules because of the high cost of implementation, which it said could redirect money from network investments. It also urged the commission to be wary of the possibility that new rules could create more confusion.
Bell cites Cogeco’s testimony from Tuesday, which noted that less than two per cent of its American customers look at the broadband label mandated by the Federal Communications Commission, which it said was costly to implement.
The telco suggests that the CRTC could achieve the legislation’s objectives by defining the peak period as 7 pm to 11 pm, “allowing ISPs flexibility to use any adequate testing methodology, and requiring that typical download and upload speeds during the peak period, along with network technology, be prominently displayed on relevant company websites.”
Rules that are too prescriptive regarding testing methods and disclosure formats, Bell says, “will lead to very high implementation costs and long implementation timelines.”
It also urged the commission to ensure that all ISPs comply with the reporting method, noting that some small ISPs don’t use any of the language to caveat the theoretical speeds they offer.
Telus executives suggested Wednesday that the telco would be happy to provide additional information because they are “proud” of their networks and services. But the standardized information should be tailored to the most pertinent information: median speed, maximum speed, latency, and technology type. It noted that combining the maximum and median speeds will encompass the variability in the speeds that consumers need to make an informed decision.
The telco said this information should be displayed prominently in the pre-sale context and the rules should apply to all ISPs, even though Cogeco warned that smaller providers are not as well equipped to absorb such costs as its larger peers.
“The Commission should refrain from copying and pasting another jurisdiction’s broadband disclosure framework onto Canada,” Telus executives added. “The Internet landscape in each jurisdiction is different, shaped by different rules, unique markets, and consumer needs. For example, pricing disclosures might make more sense in the United States where the CRTC’s Internet Code does not exist. But in Canada, pricing is already extensively disclosed and price representations are robustly regulated under both the Telecommunications Act and the Competition Act. Any additional mandate would complicate the label, prevent effective communications between the provider and the consumer, and add to implementation timeline and costs.”
The Canadian Telecommunications Association (CTA), a trade group representing some of the larger telecoms, such as Rogers and Bell, urged the commission to be even more careful about what it does, lest it jumps the gun to impose new rules without sufficient evidence to justify them.
“Market forces, together with the requirements of the Internet Code, have resulted in consumers being provided with the key information regarding service plans and contractual information in an accessible and easy-to-understand manner. There is no need to require service providers to abandon these existing practices in favour of unproven and costly standardized formats,” Eric Smith, senior vice president of the CTA, said Wednesday.
“Similarly, we urge caution on expanding the scope of required disclosures to include service metrics beyond broadband speed,” he added. “Bill C-288 was introduced to address concerns around broadband speed advertising—not latency, jitter, packet loss, or oversubscription ratios.”
A CRTC-commissioned public opinion report, conducted by Earnscliffe Strategy, found that 84 per cent of those surveyed found a standardized broadband label would be at least helpful. At the same time, two per cent or fewer respondents said they found any specific type of product or plan information difficult to find or understand when shopping for a plan. A further one per cent found it difficult to compare services, providers or prices.
“When one considers the design of the questions, it is not a surprise that more respondents chose helpful than unhelpful and easier to compare than more difficult to compare,” Smith said about the survey. “However, saying something would be helpful rather than unhelpful does not mean it is a better solution than existing practices for providing information to consumers.”
Smith said there has been no evidence that the American label has helped consumers and none to suggest countries without standardized labels, such as the U.K. and Australia – which have voluntary codes – have struggled more than Americans when making purchasing decisions.
Generally, the CTA argues that there is no need to prescribe product information beyond peak-period speeds; that the CRTC should establish a single peak period, as opposed to different periods for various geographies; and that the ISPs should have the flexibility in how they test and report those speeds.
On the opposite end, public interest groups Open Media and the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), not only support broadband labels, but are encouraging the commission to apply them to mobile wireless services as well.
“Mobile services are not a secondary concern,” the groups said Wednesday. “For many Canadians, mobile devices are their primary gateway to the Internet and essential public services. Yet when it comes to transparency and plan information, mobile users are being left behind.”
The groups further urge the commission to make the labels in machine-readable formats so that the data can more easily be compared.
“A centralized, publicly accessible repository on the CRTC’s website would ensure that this information is not only accurate but consistent, complete, and auditable,” they suggest. “It would extend the benefits of transparency beyond individual provider websites, supporting public literacy, digital inclusion, and better regulatory oversight.”
Screenshot of Mark Graham, Bell’s senior vice president of legal and regulatory (middle), on Wednesday
