Net Neutrality in Canada

In case you missed it, the CRTC has just ruled in favour of Bell Canada with regards to their practice of 'shaping' internet traffic through their networks.

I won't go into detail about the decision except to highlight that the CRTC has left the larger issue of the legality of traffic shaping open to future decisions. They have been specific in that they have decided that Bell Canada treated it's 'partners' who lease their network the same way they have treated their retail customers. It's a funny partnership when you change the terms of the agreement without telling your customers, deny it, then become intransient enough to force them to take you to a regulatory body.

What bothers me most about this decision and the practice of throttling is that it seems rather short sighted. The 'problem' as defined by Bell is that some users are congesting the internet by using it too much (through peer to peer networking).

Really?

First off, I know I pay a premium for a certain speed of access to the internet (5MB/sec). My ISP goes to lengths to assure me that I'll only achieve that speed in optimum conditions and that they will never guarantee it. Fair enough. I also know that I can't go beyond that speed due to limits placed on my connection to the internet by my ISP. Fair enough.

Why does Bell think that they have the right to charge for that access (which you rarely ever receive at the best of times), then artificially reduce your speed even more? If it truly is the case that their network cannot handle their customers using the services paid for on a monthly basis, then reduction of services doesn't seem like a long term solution.

The analagy used in the Globe and Mail is of a highway with dedicated streams of traffic. This is false and misleading, here's a better one...

Bob works downtown. He drives to work. In the city he lives in, all parking stalls are owned by a group of private companies. So, in order to park downtown, he pays a monthly fee to one of them for a parking stall. The company in charge of the lot naturally tries to maximize revenue by overbooking all of their parking lots. Bob deals with this, sometimes it takes him longer to find an open space, even though the price he pays per month for the stall does not change.

One day though, he is stopped on the way into the parking garage. The attendant says that they have been monitoring his use of the garage and have noticed that he parks for five days a week (Bob happens to have a full time job). This is not acceptable because it causes too much congestion in the garage. Imagine if everyone tried to use the garage every day. The solution to this problem is for Bob bike to work, he can park his bike in the garage too.

"But I've paid for a parking stall" says Bob.
"And so have all of our other customers", the attendant responds. "What makes you so special as to be able to use a parking stall every day? Surely you aren't so greedy as to think that you can use this space at the expense of others?"
"I suppose your right -- I'll start bringing my bike."
"Oh, by the way," the attendant called out as Bob left, "this month's fee is due, bring you chequebook when you come back".

A cynic might argue that perhaps Bell should sell fewer subscriptions, upgrade their network, or stop telling people that they offer high speed internet. I'm not paying extra so that my emails are sent at 10MB per second (that would allow me to send a few thousand emails per second, and I can't type that fast). Of course, this all might be moot. Who can really say if in the next five years internet traffic is going to increase or decrease. Maybe people in developing/developed countries will unplug themselves. Maybe people will decide they don't like reading the news online, teleconferencing, listening to music, catching up on tv series', talking with overseas relatives, and so on. Or, Bell can start preparing for yesterdays pattern of internet use.