Hi Jim.
My disenchantment with the net neut movement in all of its many facets and forms (for reasons I've stated here in the past) aside for a moment, I remain wary of the potentiality of not having any counter-balancing force in place to offset the potential of service providers running amuck -- were they to decide, either individually or collectively, to become flagrantly abusive in their use of market power. So I remain very guardedly and reluctantly aligned with the net neuts, but wishing more each day that there was another way. To this point, I still happen to believe that improvements in technology and bit-carrying capabilities will cover many of the gaps we now face in the future, and in this respect perhaps even the 'market' does hold some redeeming value (as in let the market decide), but even the ability to use advanced technologies that would otherwise liberate end users from some of the inferior conditions we currently face falls directly to the 'permissions' granted by the first mile gatekeepers and backbone providers (who have increasingly become one nd the same).
Relating back to the CRTC release, Harold Feld pointed out in his analysis today (URL at bottom of page) a section of the ruling he considered to be of particular interest, having to do with Internet traffic management practices (ITMPs). From:
crtc.gc.ca
Review of the Internet traffic management practices of Internet service providers
File number: 8646-C12-200815400
From Paragraphs 38 through 43 (copied below):
Development of Internet traffic management practice (ITMP) framework
38. The Commission considers that, for an ITMP to be evaluated properly, it must first be described, along with the need for it and its purpose and effect. The description should also identify whether or not the ITMP results in discrimination or preference.
39. Where an ITMP does result in discrimination or preference, the Commission considers that establishing that the ITMP is carefully designed and narrowly tailored is important in an evaluation of whether or not the discrimination or preference is unjust or undue.
40. In addition to the above points, the Commission notes the following:
* Application-specific ITMPs degrade or prefer one application, class of application, or protocol over another and may therefore warrant investigation under subsection 27(2) of the Act.
* In contrast, economic ITMPs would generally not be considered unjustly discriminatory, as they link rates for Internet service to end-user consumption. Economic ITMPs also provide greater transparency to users than technical ITMPs, as they are reflected in monthly bills. Furthermore, these practices match consumer usage with willingness to pay, thus putting users in control and allowing market forces to work.
41. With respect to parties’ requests that the Commission’s determinations not apply to small ISPs and the requests made by advocacy groups on behalf of the accessibility community, as well as comments made with respect to the varying technologies in use by ISPs, the Commission considers that the framework will provide sufficient flexibility to account for the particular circumstances of each ISP as well as any unique requirements of persons with disabilities.
42. With these considerations in mind, the Commission will apply the framework that follows.
ITMP framework
43. When an ISP is responding to a complaint regarding an ITMP it has implemented, it will use the ITMP framework. In doing so, the ISP shall:
* Describe the ITMP being employed, as well as the need for it and its purpose and effect, and identify whether or not the ITMP results in discrimination or preference.
* In the case of an ITMP that results in any degree of discrimination or preference:
* demonstrate that the ITMP is designed to address the need and achieve the purpose and effect in question, and nothing else;
* establish that the ITMP results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible;
* demonstrate that any harm to a secondary ISP, end-user, or any other person is as little as reasonably possible; and
* explain why, in the case of a technical ITMP, network investment or economic approaches alone would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.
Where an ISP is seeking prior Commission approval in order to implement an ITMP, the ITMP framework will also be applied.
/snip
Did you get all that? See Harold's take on the matter at the PK site ( publicknowledge.org ).
FAC
------ |
