Broadband

by Karl Bode


Filed Under:
canada, fcc, net neutrality, us, zero rating



Canada Rushes To Defend Net Neutrality As The U.S. Moves To Dismantle It

from the who-needs-a-healthy,-working-internet-anyway? dept

Here in the States, regulators and Congress are preparing to gut our existing net neutrality rules -- replacing them with the policy equivalent of wet tissue paper. In Canada, regulators are taking the complete opposite tack, last week cementing the country's net neutrality rules as some of the most comprehensive in the world.

After years of some obnoxious behavior by Canadian ISPs like Rogers, Canadian regulators adopted guidelines back in 2009 that prevent ISPs from blocking websites, while requiring that they're transparent about network management. In 2013, those guidelines were expanded to cover zero rating after Ben Klass, a graduate student in telecommunications, filed a complaint with the CRTC over zero rating. Specifically, Klass and his co-filers noted that Bell had begun exempting its own streaming video service from the company's usage caps, thereby putting smaller streaming competitors at a notable disadvantage.

While many people (especially here in the states) continue to labor under the misconception that zero rating gives them something for free, Klass rather concisely broke down why this was a problem in a blog post at the time:

"To figure out exactly what’s going on, I compared the price Bell charges for 5 gigabytes of mobile TV data to the least expensive data-only plan that lets you watch 5GB of Netflix without going over your cap (it’s called the “Tablet Flex” plan). It turns out that Bell charges you $5 a month to watch 5GB worth of their own content. If you want to watch 5GB worth of Netflix on the Bell network, on the other hand, they charge you $40. That’s a markup of 800%."

The short version: usage caps (which are already arbitrary constructs only made possible by a lack of real competition) are being used as an anti-competitive weapon to harm streaming video competitors. Here in the States the FCC seems to think this is a really nifty idea. In Canada, Chile, Japan, India, Norway, and The Netherlands where the practice has been banned; not so much.

In 2015, the CRTC sided with Klass, arguing that this implementation of zero rating could wind up "inhibiting the introduction and growth of other mobile TV services accessed over the Internet, which reduces innovation and consumer choice." And last week, the CRTC released its final net neutrality guidelines, which puts in place a framework for addressing similar zero rating complaints moving forward. The CRTC decision first makes it clear that this kind of "differential pricing," when applied asymmetrically, can harm the overall market:

"differential pricing practices, generally speaking, result in (a) a preference toward certain subscribers over others, (b) a preference toward certain content providers over others, (c) a disadvantage to subscribers who are not eligible for, or interested in, a differential pricing practice offering, and (d) a disadvantage to content providers that are not eligible for, or included in, an offering."

Instead of using usage caps to disadvantage competitors and fracture the market, the CRTC has a crazy idea: how about ISPs instead directly compete on the quality and price of their networks?

"The Commission considers that competition in the retail Internet access services sector is best served, and the telecommunications policy objectives set out in the Act are best achieved, when ISPs compete and differentiate their services based on their networks and the attributes of the services on those networks, such as price, speed, volume, coverage, and the quality of their networks."

Of course ISPs loathe the idea of simply being "dumb pipe" providers that just offer a quality connection at a quality price. And they'd much rather continue engaging in half-hearted non-price competition -- using the lack of said competition to protect their TV revenues. But the CRTC also wasn't buying the argument put forth by ISPs (and the policy wonks and politicians paid to love them) that zero rating somehow improves overall internet access. Nor did it buy the argument that zero rating benefits users by letting them watch content for "free":

"The Commission considers that any short-term benefits of differential pricing practices would be greatly outweighed by the negative long-term impacts on consumer choice if ISPs were to act as gatekeepers of content through their use of such practices.

In other words, consumers labor under the illusion they're getting a better deal because their ISP's content doesn't count against caps. But as we've pointed out for years now -- the practice of zero rating simply shifts the cost burden around -- driving up costs elsewhere and hurting overall streaming competition. The CRTC is making it clear that -- barring some exceptional creative trickery by ISPs -- this will no longer be acceptable business behavior in Canada. For now.

This is all dramatically different from what we're doing here in the States. Our 2015 net neutrality rules didn't specifically ban zero rating, but instead left it up to the FCC to determine the anti-competitive impact of such plans on a "case by case basis" (something we made clear was a mistake at the time). But by the time the FCC actually got around to enforcing the rules last fall (when it warned both AT&T and Verizon their zero rating plans are clearly anti-competitive), the existing FCC was on the way out the door, to be replaced by a new FCC led by new boss Ajit Pai.

And Ajit Pai's first order of business? To kill the agency's inquiry into zero rating. And he's now getting ready to push a plan that would eliminate hard, real net neutrality rules and replace them with voluntary guidelines -- and weaker FTC oversight that ISPs are fairly certain to laugh at. In other words, as Canada moves to protect consumers, net neutrality and competition, the United States -- driven ignorantly and blindly by Comcast, AT&T and Verizon lobbyists -- is preparing to give a giant, neon middle finger to all three.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2017 @ 6:29am

    replace them with voluntary guidelines -- and weaker FTC oversight that ISPs are fairly certain to laugh at.

    This is the understatement of the century. In the past when we had "tough" rules, by comparison, Comcast would at least have the decency to open up and read the letters from the FTC telling them how they screwed up.

    Now they're just going to have a trash bin in the mail room labeled "US Government" on it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2017 @ 6:58am

    We're going to need another Internet Blackout Day to protest Ajit 'Internet Public Enemy #1' Pai's manhandling of internet regulation.

    And before Mr. Regulations Are Bad shows up to complain about how this is all the FCC's fault to begin with and getting rid of regulation is good for us, let's start by getting rid of the regulations that benefit large, entrenched cable oligopolies first before we get rid of the ones that benefit the common people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 25 Apr 2017 @ 7:26am

    Canada does things differently. To get net neutrality, Canadians set about meticulous planning how to achieve it, and then elected the government that would enact it.

    And then on November 8, 2016, from across the border, they heard America yell "Leeeeeeeeeeeeeroy Jenkins!"....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 25 Apr 2017 @ 8:09am

    "In Canada, Chile, Japan, ****India****, Norway, and The Netherlands where the practice has been banned; not so much. "

    Even the country his parents came from disagrees with him not to mention all the other heavyweights in that list (and the ones not mentioned). There must be a whole freakin ton of money going into his arse to be that willfully blind and deaf.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2017 @ 9:24am

    If only the USA and Canada weren't the same entity projecting the illusion of being two, there might be more of a problem here than is being suggested.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2017 @ 1:02pm

    FCC Should Go

    Trump wanted to get rid of a bunch of government agencies. Well, with Ajit Pai at the helm the FCC is nothing more than a cheerleader for Comcast, Verizon etc. Why waste the tax money? The FCC should be dismantled and Pai can go to work as a legitimate lobbyist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2017 @ 7:18pm

    It seems like Canada thinks like this: "If we wanna have a decent country, we just need to do the opposite of what United States does."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 26 Apr 2017 @ 5:47am

    Free market

    Specifically, Klass and his co-filers noted that Bell had begun exempting its own streaming video service from the company's usage caps, thereby putting smaller streaming competitors at a notable disadvantage.

    This is how government works to promote a free, open market. This, I would argue, is its flippin' job.

    "Free market" should not mean "free for all for corporations, caveat emptor."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chuck, 26 Apr 2017 @ 8:53am

    Yep

    Because I needed yet another reason to move to Canada, right?

    *sigh*

    It's hard to be an American, sometimes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hairy Drumroll (profile), 27 Apr 2017 @ 6:09pm

    Are usage caps really "arbitrary constructs"?

    I get that connection speeds can be an arbitrary construct, but ISP's (small ones especially) buy their upstream connections by the megabyte (or terabyte or whatever). So the ISP costs are based on usage, making them direct costs. Or am I missing something.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Copymouse
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.