Friday, November 21, 2008
CRTC endorses fair access to the internet
The CRTC got it right yesterday with its Decision on Bell's network management, but then everyone proceeded to mismanage the communications.Let's be clear.
Notwithstanding what you may have read elsewhere, the CRTC fully endorsed:
- the claims by Bell that its network is congested during peak periods (see paragraph 29);
- that intensive use of P2P file-sharing applications could "result in network congestion and degrade the performance of Internet services for other end-users" (paragraph 30);
- that it is reasonable to assume that CAIP's members end-users would generate traffic in a similar fashion (paragraph 31); and,
- that Bell established that some network measures are required to prevent its customers from using, or permitting to be used, P2P file-sharing applications so as to prevent fair and proportionate use by others of its network (paragraph 32).
The decision closes one chapter in a long-awaited ruling that industry observers saw as a judgment on how fair Canada's Internet is for consumers.The Decision is an endorsement for fair use of the internet. The CRTC said that shared internet resources should not be hijacked by a minority of users, using an application that is not sensitive to latency. The CRTC found that network measures were required to prevent P2P file-sharing from harming the fair use of the network by others.
While some ill-informed observers try to draw a parallel to a different outcome with the FCC and Comcast, they conveniently neglect to say that Comcast was blocking applications, with no evidence of their actions being tied to managing their network. No action was taken to target video streaming, other than to enhance it.
Let's get the facts right. This decision was for a consumer friendly internet.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC, net neutrality
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 11/21/2008 10:02:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The decision was for a Bell/Rogers friendly internet. Not consumers. Consumers WANT real competition - they aren't getting it. And Bell is fighting to block the little competition that does exist.
Posted by 
: 8:52 PM, November 21, 2008
: 8:52 PM, November 21, 2008
Mark:
You said "The Decision is an endorsement for fair use of the internet."
It would be far more accurate to say that "The Decision is an endorsement for FARED use of the internet."
No wonder that the CRTC went on the defense and sent out its VP Telecom, Len Katz, who according to CBC has "spent 17 years working for Rogers and 11 for Bell" to defend its decision. Methinks he doth protest too much.
See:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/20/tech-crtcqna.html#socialcomments-submit
Administrative tribunals shouldn’t have to defend themselves or explain their decisions and very rarely do. And certainly not this defensively.
Post a Comment
You said "The Decision is an endorsement for fair use of the internet."
It would be far more accurate to say that "The Decision is an endorsement for FARED use of the internet."
No wonder that the CRTC went on the defense and sent out its VP Telecom, Len Katz, who according to CBC has "spent 17 years working for Rogers and 11 for Bell" to defend its decision. Methinks he doth protest too much.
See:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/20/tech-crtcqna.html#socialcomments-submit
Administrative tribunals shouldn’t have to defend themselves or explain their decisions and very rarely do. And certainly not this defensively.
Posted by : 4:05 PM, November 23, 2008
: 4:05 PM, November 23, 2008 << Home
Syndicate
