What are the new rules of the Internet? We ask CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein to explain the Net Neutrality ruling.
Search Engine #15 by Jesse Brown is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.
Well, I think the question of whether or not the CRTC ruling screws Canadian users has pretty much been decided. If Finckenstein's resentful responses to being asked for the most basic clarification about the ruling, willful ignorance towards all data indicating the inadequacy of Canadian networks, and parroting of hitherto unsubstantiated congestion claims doesn't make it clear to you, then you're probably in the pay of the telecom industry.
The part about who bears the burden of the responsibility to submit network problems or changes to the CRTC was particularly funny. The telecom companies and the users... So the CRTC won't lift a finger to investigate anything themselves, the telcos get to keep their whole process opaque, and the users have to give the CRTC a call whenever they get an inkling that they're getting shafted.
posted by BrianLS on 27 October 2009 at 9:56 PM
Konrad! Answer the damn questions!
"You're trying to get me to define principles... it's difficult." You're the freakin' Chair! If you don't understand it, who does?
How successful is the average end user going to be in launching a complaint against an ISP without getting frustrated to the point of retraction?
He talks about issuing orders if the ISPs don't "pass their test". I don't know how one can establish a test when there are no defined terms. Apparently the test is done by whim, evaluated by influence, and graded by the Red Tape Brigade.
Great interview Jesse. He wouldn't confirm his name if you'd asked him.
@anthonymarco
posted by anthonymarco on 27 October 2009 at 10:31 PM
What a hilarious, frustrating interview! Finckenstein knows little and cares less about the technology which he is supposed to govern. The CRTC used to be just a relic of the nanny state, telling us what was good for us and protecting Canadian culture from Canadians. Now it's a tool of corporatists, allowing near monopolies to control every aspect of media and telecommunications and allowing the recording and motion picture industry to define our laws to protect their failed business models. It should be abolished, or at least redefined to look after consumer interests.
posted by makuribu on 28 October 2009 at 10:54 AM
Please don't pick on Konrad von Finckenstein because of his name. He's working really hard to give us valid reasons for complaint.
"Internet hogs" ARE paying for internet access. Government approved discrimination against customers is obscene.
The only reason there might be congestion is that Bell Canada hasn't bothered to re-invest. Now that Canada is so far behind the CRTC has to help them out so that they can get new money to pay for the upgrades they haven't bothered with for what... 15 years?
Throttling? What throttling? Real throttling doesn't require DPI. Of course, Mr. von Finckenstein believes everything Bell Canada tells him... like the one about congestion.
Invasion of privacy issues posed by DPI are insane. (When comcast did what Bell Canada calls "throttling" they got slapped down by the FCC... in Canada it gets CRTC approval.)
How can these people based decisions solely on the word of a corporation they are supposed to watchdog?
He doesn't seem to have a clue. I'm only a stay-home mom, but from the time I first learned about UBB & net neutrality in August I've made it my business to learn about this stuff.
Sadly I seem to understand more about this issue that CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein. The difference is he's being paid big bucks by the state while I'm spending my time cranking out my public service blog gratis.
My motivation is simple: the Internet is both amazing and terribly important to us all. It has changed the world in staggering ways in an incredibly short span of time. I don't want to see Canada turned into a third world country due to a combination of corporate greed and shortsighted political ignorance.
It is such an important issue and still most people don't understand what's happening.
Thank you Jesse Brown for doing this interview.
posted by Laurel L. Russwurm on 28 October 2009 at 5:37 PM
For once in my life, I'm actually glad I'm not Canadian. Listening to the interview CRTC Chairman Finckenstein, I heard so many variations of "we just have to trust huge, largely unaccountable corporate behemoths to act in the consumer's best interest" in answer to your questions that I started having flashbacks to the GW Bush era.
It's a shame that as our FCC finally seems to be moving forward in the right direction on Internet regulation, the CRTC seems to be stepping backward.
posted by Mark S. on 29 October 2009 at 2:41 PM
Even after listening to Mr. Konrad, I *still* don't know what the CTRC ruling does.
posted by MW on 30 October 2009 at 11:13 AM
I just had a moment to listen to this week's podcast and I want to again salute Jesse for not reaching through the telephone line and strangling this bureaucrat. I doubt I could have kept my cool.
So you can't define your principles, you can not predict the future, you certainly can't compare Canada to other first-world countries, you haven't seen any studies, you can not determine if there is dark fiber, you can not dictate business objectives to common carriers, blah, blah, blah . . .
So exactly what is it the CRTC does for the internet. If you can not protect Canadian content on TV, nor can you mandate wireless telephone coverage - then what exactly does the CRTC do? It's clear (and embarrassing) that Mr. Finckenstein appears clueless about his role.
It took a change of government to transform the FCC, maybe the same holds true here.
posted by Ed Terry on 30 October 2009 at 11:21 AM
Jesse, I am glad you brought-up the issue of dark fiber. It got me thinking about mandating the sale of unused or underutilized telecommunications resources. A government auction - just like they do for wireless spectrum in the states.
One way to encourage competition is to mandate purchase eligibility requirements and allow smaller or emerging companies to purchase these facilities and foster competition.
I am sure the big guys have already amortized this expenses and they have demonstrated them as excess by their idleness. What about market franchises that have yet to be served? Sell 'em!
Not sure if it's doable, but it is a thought.
posted by Ed Terry on 30 October 2009 at 11:28 AM
Coincidentally, I was listing to your interview with CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein while pricing Internet feeds in Vancouver. Two things struck me:
(1) Internet feeds have prescribed limits on bandwidth, and data transfer.
(2) The telcos and this CRTC chair say that all this fuss about net neutrality is about these so called bandwidth hogs.
These two facts are incompatible. Either the telcos sell internet feeds with data transfer limits, or we have bandwidth hogs. How can you be accused of hogging something you paid for?
posted by _dave_ on 02 November 2009 at 6:21 PM
Mr. von Finckenstein demonstrated what I think has been wrong with this debate. He wants to rely on market forces. Anyone who lumps ISPs, phone and cable companies together as if they were the same are only demonstrating that they are oblivious to the relevant market forces.
The CAIP (The Canadian Association of actual Internet Providers) vs. Bell (A phone company) complaint is key to understanding the issue. It should be noted that while phone/cable companies may offer Internet-like services, that they should be regulated as phone/cable companies. Internet providers are a different class of companies that the phone/cable companies are not only not part of, but are most often in conflict with.
Technical details are important. In the CAIP vs. Bell debate the subscribers connection to the Internet could be divided into 3 parts.
a) connection from customer premises to phone switches
b) connection between phone switches, and specifically from the local phone switch to the ones that ISPs are allowed to connect to.
c) Connections in/through/out of an actual ISP.
Competition between ISPs can only occur at (c), and thus if we are relying on market forces then it should only be at (c) that traffic management is allowed.
Congestion at (a) can only affects the individual customer, and can never be abused in the name of anyone else.
Congestion at (b) should simply be disallowed for two primary reasons:
1) that there is no competition possible if the management is here as a customer can have no competitive choice to switch to another provider to avoid the problem if all ISPs using this mode are subjected to the same management.
2) that this is the least expensive part of the network to increase capacity, and thus where congestion is least justified. Compared to the costs of (a) and (c), the costs of (b) are nearly non-existent.
Summary: No decision that treat phone/cable companies as ISPs will ever make sense. Bell is still being allowed to manage at (b).
posted by Russell McOrmond on 13 November 2009 at 2:04 PM
I agree 100% with others who have posted that Finkelstein's responses were sorely lacking. It is very disheartening to think that the CRTC chair would give such condescending, mealy-mouthed answers to very clear questions. The most generous interpretation would be that he is very out of touch.
He could not confirm or deny the central claim of ISPs about internet congestion, was unaware of studies on internet service levels that have been all over the press on multiple occasions, couldn't provide a clear guideline to establish when ISPs would be breaking the rules ("guidelines not rules"), couldn't make any meaningful comparison with the U.S. experience, and on and on.
How depressing.
posted by MattMacLean on 24 November 2009 at 11:43 PM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Video Podcasts
#1: Does the Internet Make You Dumber?
#2: Free Hoder
The official blog of Search Engine – the podcast that predicts the present. Host Jesse Brown and guests explore the Internet's impact on politics and culture.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Oligopoly
Despite the fact that the various people claim that we can choose a different provider and that its negative towards competition we have found many in the telecom industry simply creating an informal adhoc (if not planned and strategized) Oligopoly. The comment that Mr Finckenstein made that "there is a competitive advantage to not doing it" doesn't seem to bother canadian Telecom companies... its nice for us to choose wether or not lubrication is used before one bends over, but we aren't even getting that choice most of the time.
posted by themindfantastic on 26 October 2009 at 7:21 PM