Canadians Get To Pay More Money For The Same Broadband

from the abuse-by-the-byte dept

In 2008 we noted how Canadian incumbent phone company Bell Canada began throttling smaller wholesale ISP traffic before delivery -- without bothering to tell anyone.  In short, Bell wanted to make sure that smaller, independent ISPs that were reselling Bell's bandwidth weren't able to offer services that were superior to their own throttled and capped DSL service. Independent ISPs complained, and Canadian regulators (CRTC) largely ignored them. Now reader Slatemass writes in to direct our attention to the fact that the CRTC has also approved another Bell plan to begin charging all (wholesale and retail) customers per-byte overages up to $1.13 per gigabyte. Needless to say, operators of smaller ISPs are rather angry:

"The rates are absolutely atrocious. How the hell are we doing above one dollar for extra usage?" said Rocky Gaudrault, president of Chatham, Ont.-based Teksavvy. "It's in the thousands of multiples beyond what the costs are." Gaudrault said Bell also continues to have an advantage over smaller ISPs in that it is able to offer superior speeds. The CRTC issued an order in December 2008 that gave wholesale ISPs access to the faster networks of phone companies such as Bell and Telus, but the federal government last year ordered the regulator to reconsider the decision."

To be clear: this shouldn't be confused with pure "billing by the byte." The low cap and high overage model (which Time Warner Cable tried -- and failed -- to impose in the U.S. last year) simply jacks up prices "thousands of multiples beyond what the costs are" on top of the already high flat rate price -- ensuring that consumers wind up paying significantly more money for the same service. Bell also wants to ensure resellers can't offer a flat-rate pricing model that could better compete with their expensive capped DSL services. Of course Bell couldn't get away with this kind of obnoxious pricing were there more competition -- but just like in the States, most Canadian customers lack the option to be able to vote with their wallets.

Filed Under: broadband, canada, competition
Companies: bell canada, crtc

Just Because A Site Has A Privacy Policy, Doesn't Mean It Will Keep Your Data Private

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Last week there was a fair amount of coverage of the fact that Canadian regulatory agency, CRTC, had revealed private data on its website. That story, by itself, is interesting enough, but the followup from the CRTC was even more interesting. It claimed that since the CRTC's privacy policy stated that any data you gave it was a part of the public record, it was fine:

Note that all information you provide as part of a public process, except information granted confidentiality, whether sent by postal mail, facsimile, e-mail or through the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca, becomes part of a publicly accessible file and will be posted on the Commission's website. This information includes your personal information, such as your full name, e-mail address, postal/street address, telephone and facsimile number(s), and any other personal information you provide.

Fair enough, right? After all, the privacy policy states right out that the data will be revealed. Except... as we've noted in the past, most people falsely believe that if a site has any privacy policy, it means their data will be safe. This situation highlights this exactly. Most people assumed that the existence of a privacy policy itself meant the data would be kept private -- even though the policy itself says otherwise. Most people never bother to read the policy, and assume privacy policy = privacy. The truth, of course, was that the CRTC's "privacy policy" was actually a "non-privacy policy," but most people had no idea.

Filed Under: canada, privacy, regulation
Companies: crtc

The Goldilocks Argument For Regulating Online Content In Canada

from the too-much,-too-little dept

The attempts by some Canadian TV writers and actors to get Canadian regulators to regulate internet content is seen by many as pretty ridiculous. The arguments make almost no sense, and seem to center on the idea that there's so much content online, that no one can find Canadian content unless (a) ISPs pay extra to fund it and (b) certain sites are forced to promote Canadian content. What's never explained is what's wrong with option (c): make good content that people want to see. That option would solve all the other issues.

That said, Rob Hyndman points us to a great analysis showing just how ridiculous it is to think that the CRTC needs to regulate online content:

Once upon a time there were only four or five television channels. Hardly anyone had the money to broadcast a television signal, and if anyone did, there were only so many spots available on the dial.

In such a world of "spectrum scarcity," it was argued, government regulation was essential to ensure a diversity of content--and, in Canada, to ensure that some of that content was Canadian. Or as the cultural nationalists had it, to make it possible for Canadians to "tell ourselves our own stories." This was the world in which the CRTC was born.

Flash forward 40 or 50 years, to a very different world. Not only are there now hundreds of conventional television channels catering to every conceivable taste, but with the advent of Internet broadcasting the constraints of cost and spectrum have disappeared. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadian websites, each of them, post-YouTube, potentially a broadcaster in its own right. It is now possible for any Canadian with a video camera and a laptop to transmit to every other Canadian. And the cultural nationalists' response? This just makes the case for more regulation.

It's a great point, and it's something I call the "goldilocks argument" for regulation. The original content regulations were because there was "too little" content that could be delivered over TV. Thus, there "needed" to be regulation to ensure that in that limited and scarce space, that some of it would be Canadian. But the argument now is the reverse. It's that there's "too much" content online, and thus it's hard to find good Canadian content (apparently, some people up north haven't discovered Google). So, the argument seems to be that the CRTC is needed to make sure the content is "just right" whether there's too little content or too much content available.

Filed Under: canada, colin mochrie, content, internet, regulations
Companies: crtc

Canadian TV Industry: Please, Regulators, Make The Internet More Like TV... And Have ISPs Give Us Money

from the how-to-break-the-internet-in-one-easy-step dept

Last week, we wrote about how the Writers Guild of Canada was pushing government regulators to force ISPs to fund content creation, with a specific focus on promoting Canadian content and trying to tone down or keep out non-Canadian content from online sources. This seemed pretty ridiculous, but the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is in fact holding hearings on the issue.

Perhaps the most ridiculous is Canadian comedian Colin Mochrie, who is making pretty much a mockery of the whole thing by whining about how Canadian content will get buried if ISPs don't pay extra to create and "broadcast" Canadian content. Perhaps Mochrie hasn't noticed, but ISPs aren't like TV networks. They don't choose what content they air. They are the conduit. Mochrie's complaints get more and more silly the further he goes:

Unlike television, when you are broadcasting through new media, the space for content is practically endless. However, being endless, content can easily get lost. So how do we make sure Canadians can find our own content? How do we make sure Canadian content is featured and given "shelf space"?

How about by making the content good so people want to see it no matter where they're from? Or, if he wants to go fund a website that just highlights Canadian content, he's free to do so. It wouldn't even cost that much, thanks to the wonders of the internet. And that's before Mochrie just starts making stuff up:

Most of what we do on the Internet falls under the definition of "broadcasting" and that percentage grows daily as we turn to our laptops, iPods and mobile phones to watch our favourite programs.

No, actually. Most of what people do on the internet falls under the definition of "communications." A small amount falls under "broadcasting," but even then it tends to be a lot more interactive than traditional broadcasting. The broadcasting companies have jumped onto the internet bandwagon (much too late, of course), but they should learn to adapt to the platform -- not force the entire platform to become TV 2.0.

Mochrie goes on to make the argument that basically anyone offering content in Canada needs to be regulated -- meaning forcing them to show Canadian content, and that ISPs and wireless operators should be forced to fund this content? Why? Who needs reasons! It's for the good of Canadian culture or something.

In the meantime, while we agree with ISPs like Rogers, who are protesting any such move, it is worth pointing out how hypocritical they're being as well. Rogers is protesting any such rule by claiming "We're a dumb pipe" who can't be expected to "regulate" the content shown over their network. However, as Michael Geist points out, when it comes to traffic shaping, Rogers has no problem claiming it's "smart" enough to figure out what to shape and block. So which is it?

This whole debate is rather silly of course. Starting to regulate content on the internet would serve to severely damage internet services and culture in Canada -- bringing all of the disadvantages of protectionist cultural policies and knocking out most of the benefits of the internet. Hopefully the CRTC knows better than to follow folks like Colin Mochrie.

Filed Under: canada, colin mochrie, content, internet, regulations
Companies: crtc