UK ISP said if weeklong trial was "successful" it would "launch the new policy immediately." Customers are split on the effect it's had on their Internet connection.

Had appealed earlier decision by the FCC sanctioning the ISP for singling out BitTorrent traffic as part of its network traffic management plan.

The Commission may exercise this 'ancillary' authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is 'reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'

UPDATE:

We’ve been following a very interesting story from two cities in North Carolina for a while now. In one city, the city of Wilson, the city government listened to complaints about slow broadband speeds. So the city then rolled out fibre optics in an effort to boost broadband speed. When the city approached the two local ISPs to offer the improved network infrastructure, Time Warner Cable and Embarq, the two ISPs refused. So, the government created Greenlight Inc. – a new ISP for the area. Once the ISPs caught wind of it, they lobbied the state of North Carolina to introduce legislation that would cripple or block the new company altogether. Shortly afterwards, city residents in the two cities that would get the new broadband started getting push polls over the phone by the ISPs. More recently, a major tech company threw their support to the opposition of the bills – the so-called “level the playing field” bills.

Later today, there will be a vote on the bills. Opponents of the legislation say that they will be there to witness the vote in action. Already, city officials have been shocked and angered when they found out that legislation like this had been tabled.

Salisbury (the other city in question) Mayor Susan Kluttz said that she was “floored” when she found out that legislation like this would even be considered in the first place. From the article:

“This is a bill written by Time Warner Cable and the Cable Association through their attorneys,” Salisbury City Manager David Treme said. He described it as a double-standard, anti-consumer and incumbent-protection bill.

The competition municipalities can provide through fiber-optic cable will lower prices for consumers, improve customer service, broaden choices, offer the service to everyone and spur economic development, Treme said Thursday.

“Plus, it will have instant accountability,” Kluttz added. Customers of a city cable utility would own the enterprise and have local people heading the operations and providing the service, the city officials said.

“This is a hometown business,” Treme said.

Kluttz added that Wilson and Salisbury have studied the broadband issue “for so long we know how dangerous this (the bill) is.”

Opposition isn’t just limited to one tech company and city officials. It seems that other major companies are joining the opposition crowd. In a joint letter to the North Carolina representatives (PDF), many major companies expressed their opposition to the bills in question.

We, the undersigned private-sector companies and trade associations urge you to oppose HB1252, the so-called “Level Playing Field Act.” HB1252 is “level” only in the sense that it will harm both the public and private sectors. It will thwart public broadband initiatives, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, and diminish quality of life in North Carolina. In particular, it will hurt the private sector by undermining public-private partnerships, hamstringing our ability to sell our goods and services, interfering with workforce development, and stifling creativity and innovation.

The United States is currently suffering through one of the most serious economic crises in decades. We also continue to lag behind the leading nations in per capita broadband adoption, access to high-capacity networks, cost per unit of bandwidth, and growth of new broadband users. To address these concerns, Congress and the Obama Administration have made more than $7 billion available to catalyze public and private efforts to accelerate deployment of broadband infrastructure and services. States can ill afford to enact measures like HB1252, which impair use of these broadband funds and the ability of the public and private sectors to work hand-in-hand to reverse these trends.

So who said that? Here’s the list of entities that opposed the legislation through that joint letter:

Alcatel-Lucent
American Public Power Association
Atlantic Engineering Group, Inc.
EDUCAUSE
Fiber to the Home Council
Google, Inc.
Intel Corporation
Utilities Telecom Council
Telecommunications Industry Association

That is quite the list to say the least. The vote that will happen later today should prove to be one of the most interesting votes. It could even set the tone on whether or not governments should set up their own ISP if the service is bad. Clearly there are those that are openly upset over slow broadband. One doesn’t have to look far for people complaining about slow US internet speeds online.

Since ISPs would have to actually compete in the US again if this becomes a country-wide phenomenon, one wonders if things like throttling and data caps mysteriously fades away. If one wants to really be optimistic, maybe one could go as far as to say that ISPs might actually start acting like their Swedish counterparts and defend their customers more rigorously.

Another point to make that might throw a wrench into the machine though. What if the ISPs in those areas just pack up and leave, leaving the one ISP to be the new monopoly? What’s to stop that ISP from engaging in similar practises to that of the private interests? One hopes that the better alternative winds up prevailing. After all, if the status quo is kept, would anything really change at all while other countries develop even better internet access thanks to heavy competition? One hopes that if the bills fail, the text-book case scenario prevails and that internet access improves from here.

[Cartoon link via BoingBoing]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Every once i in a while, a conspiracy theory surfaces that, for the less informed, sounds like a major warning. For the more informed internet user, these same conspiracy theories really have no basis and can be taken with a grain of salt.

The conspiracy theory was started on a blog called Reality Check. The theory may not have gained much ground, but it was then re-posted on Global Research where it gained more readership. Other blogs such as Digital Copyright Canada.

According to the theory, major Internet Service Providers in Canada are gearing up to charge users for browsing on non-favored websites. Essentially, there would be a white list of websites for ISPs and if users do not surf to those websites, they’ll be charged a small additional fee.

The theory may be a throwback to earlier network neutrality debates where theories about ISPs gearing up to prioritize traffic for certain websites that pay a fee to the ISPs. It had considerable attention considering there were big voices throwing rhetoric out about how ‘Google is freeloading off of ISPs networks’ There were offshoot theories from this suggesting ISPs – particularly cable ISPs – would turn the internet into a tiered system much like ordering a different number of channels in different packages for TV.

Unfortunately for this theory, it suffers from lack of sources that would give it some form of credibility. The only source cited was a yet-to-be-published article in Times Magazine. The fact that there are no published citations in the entire posting should serve as a first warning sign to readers that the validity of the posting may be questionable.

Interestingly enough, the word choice seemed a bit odd for a serious piece – namely “a diabolical plot”.

Either way, in the comments section of the original blog post features a comment that strongly suggests that Telus was not amused by the piece.

Kevin,

Several weeks ago I spoke to the alleged Time Magazine reporter, Dylan, about this issue and sent him the attached note. Dylan conceded that he was not a Time Magazine staff reporter but was hoping to submit a freelance story for their consideration. I never heard back from him after this note nor have we received any formal follow-up from Time Magazine as would be a normal part of the fact checking process prior to publication.

As I confirmed with Dylan a few weeks ago, TELUS is not part of any global movement to radically alter the Internet and we would appreciate if your group would cease those allegations.

Jim Johannsson
TELUS Director Media Relations

(Note: the attached note was included in the comment)

So, is this all just completely hot air and made up conspiracy theories? Not entirely. It’s been widely reported (we also covered the story ourselves) that Bell Canada has been throttling BitTorrent, not only for their own customers, but also their wholesalers customers as well. comcast drew significant fire for throttling their users in the US. Most recently, British ISPs have folded to corporate pressure from copyright stakeholders and are going to become copyright police in the UK.

It might not exactly be a ‘surf on one site and get charged’ type of action, but much rather, ‘generate certain traffic and you could get throttled or monitored’. So while the original conspiracy theory may not hold water at this time, there are elements in the theory that are actually at play right now. As Don K. of Digital Copyright Canada comments, “Canadians do need to wake up and understand that companies like Bell are causing serious problems. That said, paranoid, vigorous hand-waving is not the answer.”

Bell Canada seems to have a hard sell – convince everyone that throttling wholesalers as well as their own customers was necessary. Selling the idea originally got tough when they throttled their wholesalers without initial notice. Selling the idea got even tougher when they said that they were at 33% capacity. The privacy commissioner was asked to investigate Bell over Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) techniques which didn’t help things on Bell’s side. Now Bell has disclosed some new figures that seems to be only adding more fuel to the fire.

The documents can be found on a thread at DSL reports – a thread that makes for some interesting reading no less. The documents show the following graph:

It’s interesting to note that Bell chose one of the most populated areas in Canada to try and prove that they are congested. what’s more interesting is how Bell tries to sell these statistics as proof that they need to throttle everyone who uses their networks:

One needs to be cautious about simply looking at absolute number of congested links over time. For example, as noted in Bell Canada(CRTC)15May08-2 CAIP Part VII, non-P2P traffic that is not being managed as part of the Company’s traffic management solution has been able to use up and flow more freely using the bandwidth previously occupied by P2P file sharing traffic during peak periods. Similarly, other non-P2P types of traffic such as video streaming are growing at a faster pace than in prior years. Furthermore, one must consider the impacts of seasonal fluctuations in traffic patterns generally. Finally, the number of congested links over the period in the table above is also affected by the rate of deployment of the Company’s traffic management solution.

Some suggest that Bell has admitted in these documents that their throttling practices are not relieving any possible congestion or bandwidth issues. Last year, an Ellacoya study found that there is more HTTP related traffic than p2p traffic online. The study alone makes Bell’s comment that video streaming is merely “growing” rather than, say, “competing with” P2P traffic.

So is it just conspiracy theory that Bell may have just cherry-picked Ontario and Quebec because it would show the highest amount of capacity? Not really if one were to read the supplementary document:

The map below illustrates the central offices with congested links demonstrating that while congestion occurs throughout the Bell Canada network, unsurprisingly it is more concentrated in the main population centres of Ottawa, Montréal and the Greater Toronto Area.

So clearly, they admit, at the very least, they used statistics for their most congested links to try and sell their idea that they have to employ Deep Packet Inspection techniques to save their network. Obviously, investing in these areas is a little easier because there isn’t as much of a geographical issue to take into consideration. Geography is often the biggest argument to explain why there isn’t as much competition in Canada in the Internet Service Providing industry compared to countries like Japan which is sometimes cited as being a country with faster internet connections.

It’s not currently clear how this will affect the outcome of the hearings at the CRTC.

Hat tip: Michael Geist

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Bell_Canada_No_Really_We_Are_Overloaded_8_in_2_Cases’;

In Canada, there’s no shortage of controversy over Bells decision to throttle users. Recently, the CBC did an interview with a spokesperson Marko Bibic who says a number of interesting things. One of the interesting things was when Bibic was asked why they are rolling out a video distribution service despite saying they are at peak capacity. He responded with the following:

The Bell video service, the content that we will be distributing, isn’t using peer to peer. Peer to peer is by design a high-bandwidth use application. What we’re using here is content-distribution network technology and we think you’ll find others, as they enter this space, will likely use this technology as well.

Of course, there are numerous content distributors like Revision3 that use protocols such as BitTorrent to distribute content to save bandwidth among other things. This fact alone makes this statement confusing at best. There’s also technology like BitTorrent DNA which also helps address any bandwidth issues an Internet Service Provider may encounter.

While there was a number of comments that could easily generate varying levels of debate, there was one that caught the eye of CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) during an audio interview on CBC’s ‘Spark’.

Starting at about 26:10 of the uncut interview, Bibico says that Bell Canada was transparent about its throttling practices and notified customers through their website on what they are doing with respect to traffic shaping. We spoke with an intern for CIPPIC, Robert Hester about this. “they said they’d been clear with customers about shaping and there was an explanation on the website.” He explained. He then says, “I looked through their site, and could only find a small, vague blurb.”

He forwarded a correspondence to us which contains a link to their website which supposedly explains what Bell is up to:

In order to continue to ensure a consistently high level of service for all of our customers, Bell may be required to manage its network in such a way that no customer, service or application consumes excessive bandwidth which may impede the use and enjoyment of other customers.

This network management will allow Bell to deliver a consistent and reliable experience to all its customers who use real-time sensitive applications like browsing and instant messaging.

Other providers here in Canada have implemented similar types of measures.

It is important to note that all online applications will continue to be available to our valued customers.

Obviously, there is no mention about Deep Packet Inspection, nothing about what “throttling” is, what specifically are the “measures”, or even a hint about what is being slowed down in the first place.

“I have searched [the] website for the information that Mr. Bibic was referring to [during the Spark interview],” Hester commented, “but all I have been able to find is this link which does not describe the practice at all, or give the customer guidelines about what applications will be subject to network management.”

In response, Pierre Leclerc from Bell said that they are working to make more information available about network management practices for wholesale ISP and retail customers.

Another interesting comment during the Spark interview starts at around 7:53 where Bibic commented that 5% of the heaviest users consumer “a little over 50% of our total capacity”

Remember two months back when we covered the Bell submission to the CRTC which states the following:

“20. Last fall, before the Company began deployment of its Internet traffic management solution to ease network congestion during peak usage periods, 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic on the network and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic, including BitTorrent. During peak periods, that same 5% of users were utilizing 33% of available bandwidth. In other words, 95% of Bell subscribers were being negatively impacted by a very small minority of Internet users primarily using P2P file sharing applications.”

Original document (PDF)

So the question is, is this so-called “5%” using 33%, “a little over 50%” or 60% of Bell’s total capacity? At this point, the official statistic reported by Bell seems rather blurry. One hopes that Bell isn’t trying to mislead anyone on this particular number, especially not the CRTC.

It seems the effort to explain what is happening from Bell has only left as many questions answered as the number of new questions being raised at this point in time.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Bell_We_Are_Transparent_to_Our_Customers_CIPPIC_Do_Tell’;

Network neutrality in the last few months has stormed its way into the headlines. While the issue has already gone from the headlines to demands with the CRTC, now there’s word that there is a rally being organized on the 27th this month.

The group organizing this rally is also organizing transportation for some to help others attend the event.

Here’s what the group is rallying for:

1 – Competition:
– To stop Vertical Market leveraging
– To stop/prevent a Duopoly Environment (where Cable/Telco incumbents control)

2 – Innovation:
– To allow new content and applications to develop and/or flourish (ie: facebook/google)

3 – Consumer Rights:
– Promote ISP transparency
– Promote Consumer Privacy
– Promote the need for Product delivery (get what you pay for)

So if you find yourself near the nations capital and want to help support network neutrality, you can drop them a note that you’ll be attending.

The speakerlist includes Charlie Angus (NDP MP), Mauril Bélanger (Liberal MP), James Clancy (NUPGE), Philippa Lawson (CIPPIC), Tom Copeland (CAIP) and Rocky Gaudrault (TekSavvy Solutions Inc.)

Via Michael Geist

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Canada_Net_Neutrality_Rally_Expected_on_Parliament_Hill’;

The revelation was followed up by a recent submission (PDF) by Primus to the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which supported the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) Primus demands that Bell Canada immediately cease and desist the throttling of wholesalers. Here’s a few samples of the Primus submission:

2. On 8 April 2008, Commission staff issued a letter splitting CAIP’s application into two separate processes, establishing 15 April 2008 as the deadline for submissions on CAIP’s request for interim relief. Pursuant to section 60.(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, Primus hereby submits its intervention on that portion of CAIP’s application. Primus intends to submit a further intervention supporting and dealing with the substance of CAIP’s application and why it agrees that Bell Canada is in violation of its GAS tariff, once the deadlines in that further process are established by the Commission.

6. At the outset, however, Primus rejects any assertion by Bell Canada that traffic volumes associated with its wholesale GAS customers have necessitated this measure. Based on the capacity of the connections between Primus’ network and the GAS network at the Aggregated High Speed Service Provider Interface (AHSSPI), and based on certain assumptions about the capacity of other ISPs’ connections, Primus does not believe that such traffic management measures are required. Bell Canada’s actions have dramatically changed GAS service levels and subsequently the levels of service Primus is able to offer its retail customers. For this reason, and the set out in the balance of this intervention, Primus submits that the Commission should grant CAIP’s request for interim relief.

7. CAIP’s application raises significant issues for Commission deliberation. It raises questions of whether Bell Canada is in compliance with its tariffs (section 25 of the Telecommunications Act) and questions of undue and unreasonable preference and disadvantage (section 27 of the Act). Both of these allegations relate to a service which the Commission has just recently re-affirmed as a service upon which competitors rely on a
significant scale to provide competitive alternatives in the high-speed Internet access market. In Revised Regulatory Framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-17, 3 March 2008 (“Decision 08-17) the Commission categorized GAS as a “conditional mandated non-essential” service.

11. Primus also submits that the requested interim order would be in keeping with the government’s Policy Direction to the CRTC. The Direction states that the Commission is to implement the Act’s Policy Objectives by “[relying] on market forces to the maximum extent feasible as the means of achieving the telecommunications policy objectives” and “when relying on regulation, use measures that are efficient and proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary to meet the policy objectives.”

Bell submitted a response to the allegations in a package (Zip – PDF, Doc) which contains the following:

1. [...] in its Application at paragraph 1, CAIP states that its application is made on behalf of “those of CAIP’s members that provide retail internet access services”. However, the Company notes that some of its GAS customers have told the Company that they support its Internet traffic management solution and further, some of them have noted that they have adopted similar traffic management practices.

8. Regarding its specific request for interim relief under the first prong of the RJR MacDonald test, CAIP has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be tried. First, the Company is not operating off-tariff. To the contrary, the Company’s traffic management measures are performed in a manner consistent with its tariffs and contractual obligations. Second, the Company is not unjustly discriminating against its wholesale ISP customers nor is it granting unto itself an unjust preference as it is applying its Internet traffic management solution to retail and wholesale customers using the same network in the same manner and to the same extent. Third, the Company is not affecting end-user’s privacy nor is it controlling the content of influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications. The Company’s use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) as part of its Internet traffic management solution is such that it treats all P2P traffic the same, it only looks at the application header of the content but not the content itself, and it does not block access to any content or applications.

11. There appears to be a large amount of confusion and miscomprehension about how the Internet works, what Bell Canada is actually doing to manage its network and the impact that it is having on Internet users. Customers generally, including the Applicants, are using unsubstantiated allegations as facts to then jump to certain conclusions. The Commission’s assessment must be based on facts, not unsubstantiated allegations.

Though most significantly is this:

20. Last fall, before the Company began deployment of its Internet traffic management solution to ease network congestion during peak usage periods, 5% of users were generating 60% of total traffic on the network and 60% of that traffic was P2P traffic, including BitTorrent. During peak periods, that same 5% of users were utilizing 33% of available bandwidth. In other words, 95% of Bell subscribers were being negatively impacted by a very small minority of Internet users primarily using P2P file sharing applications.

It is that admittance that has left people like Michael Geist wondering if Bell even has a bandwidth problem.

“That is a disproportionate use to be sure,” Geist comments, “yet it struck me as far lower than might have been expected.”

he continues, “This becomes relevant for at least two reasons. First, Bell has been fighting its public relations battle on the premise that P2P is a problem that necessitates throttling practices that inconvenience 100 percent of its users, yet its own data suggests that the problem may not be as severe as first thought. Second, while the Telecom Policy Review Panel recommended a net neutrality provision that accounts for “reasonable technical constraints,” Bell’s current traffic experience may make it more difficult to argue that constraints that affect 100 percent of users are reasonable in light of better alternatives (Bell acknowledges in its submission that Comcast is moving away from this approach) and network usage patterns that do not seem particularly out-of-sorts.”

It seems as though this may be a crucial slip-up on Bell’s part. It’ll be interesting to see how the CRTC responds to all of this.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Bell_We_are_Overloaded_33_Capacity_Peak_is_Overloaded’;