Canadian ISPs need you to tell the regulator to force Bell to stop screwing them -- and the Canadian public

Robbo sez, "Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy [ed: fantastic, indie Canadian ISP that does not practice throttling, unlike the major semi-monopoly, Bell Canada], sent this email to customers today. Seems important for people in Canada even if they aren't TekSavvy customers:"

In March 2008 Bell started throttling its Wholesale Customers (TekSavvy among a group of many) without notice. We attempted to have the CRTC force Bell to stop as it removed our ability to do business and give Market choice. The throttling was done in the name of congestion, even if Bell, at the same time launched higher speeds (which they did not share with their wholesalers) and also dabbled with launching IPTV, which consumes even more capacity.

The CRTC sided with Bell in November 2008 but launched a Public Hearing to discuss Network Management Practices, clearly showing they made a decision on throttling without having all the details in hand to do so. As a result we launched a request to reverse their decision from November (The Review & Vary) in May 2009.

The only way we are going to make a difference at this point is to get full public support to stop companies like Bell from bullying the market and the regulators! The Telecom and Cableco Monopolies control 96% of our marketplace, so if we don't stand up and voice our concerns, this will become a two party dance where choices and services are going to be completely removed and rates raised to unreasonable levels!

Here are the details on how to submit your comments:

1) Go to: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e
2) Select "Part VII / PN" from the drop down list and then click "Next"
3) In box entitled "Subject" line, insert "CRTC File #: 8662-P8-200907727"
4) In the box entitled "Description / Comments / Questions", insert any comments that you may have on the review and vary application.
5) If you would like to attach a document, select "yes" and follow the instructions for attaching a file.
As indicated in the Title, I believe the deadline is June 22nd, so don't wait to long

PS - R&V details here.

Man, would you look at how hard it is to link to a specific docket at the Canadian telco regulator? It's almost as though they don't want activists to be able to exhort people to go and take action. Either that, or they don't know how the Internet works. I'm not sure which one is worse.

Submit a telecom-related request (Thanks, Robbo!)

• [lo_fye]

  My letter to the CRTC, as posted to that horrible form you linked to:

  I work from home, as an internet programmer, and I need an unlimited internet connection.

  Sadly, this is no longer an option with Bell or Rogers. It *was* with TekSavvy, until your November 2008 ruling that said Bell had the right to start throttling its wholesale customers without notice.

  I remember back in the 90s when Bell was forced to de-regulate. They had to open their infrastructure to their competitors. It was horrible, because my dad lost his job, BUT it was awesome because there was new competition, and new features, and lower prices. It was good for the market. If I recall correctly, Bell was NOT allowed to cripple their landlines before allowing their competitors to use them.

  Your November 2008 ruling effectively allows Bell to “cripple its lines”, without notice. This can do nothing but deter competition. You are reversing your own 1990s decision to deregulate.

  The internet needs healthy competition, deregulation, and neutrality. Canadian citizens need the same.

  Please reconsider.

  Sincerely,

  Derek Martin

• [Anonymous]

  Type of Application:
  Part VII / PN

  Subject:
  CRTC File #:8662-P8-200907727

  Comments:
  To whom it may concern, I am a private citizen, and a telecommunications engineer who works for XXXXXXX in Ottawa, ON. I have a Professional Engineering Degree and have grown up in the high-tech revolution. I am XX years old. I have 3 children who all use the internet on a regular basis (even my X year old boy talks to Grandma on our Voice-over-IP phone and accesses educational websites with his Mom.) I depend on high-speed access for information, unbiased and user-driven news (critical in a functional democracy), entertainment and for communications. I believe that there must be both private AND public access available to the internet so that consumers have a choice. If this cannot be provided, then the government has the responsibility to regulate ALL ISPs and ensure that throttling does not take place. The internet must be viewed as a public good like access to electricity or water, and cannot be cut or tampered with at the private owner’s whims. Many depend on access to the internet for their livelihoods, and for all forms of communication. I believe that the CRTC must take a strong stand in preventing throttling OR provide a public option to Canadians so that every citizen, rich or poor, can have open and free access to digital information. It is critical for me, and my children’s future that we make a strong decision to keep a fast, open and free (as in speech) and inexpensive internet option available to every citizen. Thank you for your consideration, XX XX, P.Eng, B.A.Sc XX XX XX XX, ON XXX XXX A proud Canadian

• [KanedaJones]

  For those who try but get the form system telling them there is an error please try again, at a later time if necessary, because this is an important issue. pleeeease!

  I posted to them. As often is the case I will be considered Too wordy with vacuous content but I was pissed. others here have said it better than me, and more distinctly.

  here is what I sent.

  “To whom it may concern.

  I believe whole heartily that the current way bell conducts itself in regards to minimizing the traffic of resellers while maximizing its own use, flies in the face of policies in place to at least give the appearance that the govt. is pro free market and anti monopoly.

  It does not matter if you had realized this before people brought it to your attention, it does matter that people are getting the impression that you are shills for bell.

  I kindly request you to have a backbone concerning these matters.

  signed – Kaneda Jones ”

• [bmcraec]

  FWIW, here’s mu submission to the CRTC.

  “It is my understanding that certain primary Internet access wholesalers (eg, Bell Canada,Telus) are throttling access speeds to other secondary resellers of network access, to the detriment of the customers of these secondary network access resellers, and creating an unfair, de facto monopoly for network access to Canadians. This is a dangerous precedent, as it effectively removes choice from the marketplace, and gives the power to hamper the secondary network providers’ offerings to their major competitors. This is not a fair and equitable situation, and will not serve Canadians, or help Canada compete in the world as a front-running network-enabled nation. I do not want my country’s access to the rest of the world, via the Internet, to be controlled by a single monopolistic, government sanctioned behemoth that answers to neither the electorate or its customers. Letting spurious arguments for throttling network access go unchallenged will hurt Canada, and allow uncompetitive practices to happen is both unfair and stupid.Shareholders may be served for the short term, but ultimately this attempt to preserve what can only be seen as a legacy monopoly is not good for these companies, our nation, or the contributions of our nation to the world. I urge the CRTC to investigate this situation and take steps to ensure a level playing field in allowing Canadians unfettered access to the globe’s networks.”

  I hope this does some good.

  Bruce

• [Nic Morgan]

  Going after Bell has been set up to be nearly impossible.

  We’re a small company in Toronto, and we use a third party DSL provider for our office Internet and because we’re not listed as a Bell DSL customer, an Bell installer who was putting in a Bell DSL account noticed that we were using a digital line and hooked us up to a conventional line – effectively disconnecting us.

  We called our ISP who figured out what happened and said they would do their best, but suggested we try and call Bell to ask to get reconnected as “it might be faster”.

  It took 2 months of calls and follow ups for our ISP to get us reconnected, all the while things getting harder and harder for us. (Luckily some of other other businesses in the building were willing to be generous with their wifi while we sorted things out.)

  At one point I started calling people like the CRTC and anyone else in government that I could think of and it turns out that everyone I talked to said they had no jurisdiction to investigate or regulate Bell. No agency would accept a complaint and none could recommend a means of filing one. We were told that we would need to sue Bell directly or accept that “they can do whatever they want.”

  Insane when you think about it.

• [ianm]

  Except for bell’s boot on resailers necks, Teksavvy is a great company. Thanks for bringing this to boingboing Cory.

• [jpollock]

  This, as with many things, depends on how LLU is done in the market. You either have LLU – where the competitor is allowed to put equipment in a cabinet, or you don’t. If you don’t have it, ask for _that_. If you do, quit whining buy a DSLAM (they’re cheap) and get competing.

  Bell Retail isn’t making use of any plans that Bell Wholesale doesn’t offer to others.

  The trick? Don’t _resell_ someone else’s retail plans!

  Trying to force regulation for better plans from the wholesale division (which the retail division doesn’t want), is silly. Lobby for regulated access to the cabinets, and go buy some DSLAMs.

  There are probably a fairly large number of large backbone providers more than willing to run more backhaul for them, so the only money they are paying to Bell would be the rent for the loop and the cabinet space.

  I am eternally fed up with telcos who feel it is easier to spend $30m on lobbying instead of $300m on a new network. Which is better for the customer? Hint, it isn’t the lobbying.

• [mackenzi]

  Pirate telephone. Who’s calling me now?!@*&$!$!! What time is it? On a Saturday night? Is my phone even ringing? Hold on a sec, I’ve got a call…

• [Anonymous]

  Just tried to submit my comment:

  An error has occurred. If the problem persists, please contact us at [e-mail].

  Thank you.

  Une erreur s’est produite. Si le problème survient de nouveau, s.v.p. nous contacter à [e-mail].

  Merci.

• [Narfig_Agar]

  If Teksavvy or any other independent ISP want to have control over their network, they should build their own. Down to the last mile. There’s a lot of whining about Canadian telecom duopolies, but the reality of the situation is that any suitable Canadian company could petition the CRTC to overbuild the area (lay their own cables to the front door). Right now, they’re at the whims of their “landlord”.

  There is a high cost of entry, but if some upstart enterprising organization wanted to start deploying FTTH, I doubt the CRTC would prevent it. You have to ask yourself, “if competition is possible, why does it not exist?”.

  Full disclosure:I work for a Canadian broadband provider; not one of the ones mentioned.

• [Cowicide]

  ” … It’s almost as though they don’t want activists to be able to exhort people to go and take action. Either that, or they don’t know how the Internet works. I’m not sure which one is worse. … ”

  Mix equal parts maliciousness and ineptitude sprinkled with greed and sociopathic tendencies and you get… that internet “form”.

  Bush Admin 101

• [Ian70]

  My complaint has been submitted.

• [Anonymous]

  Comment to CRTC submitted. Thanks for the heads up,

  Bruce

• [donatolla]

  Thanks for bringing this up.

  I think it is extremely important for the general public to do whatever they can to ensure that the providers, and the CRTC, stay honest.

  Competition is a good thing for innovation; Bell and Rogers do not want competition to erode their control over the network infrastructure. In the end, it is better for everybody – including Bell – for competition to drive this technology.

• [Cory Doctorow]

  @2 I’d be a lot more sympathetic to that argument if Bell wasn’t the beneficiary of so much public subsidy in it’s history. Canadians paid for Bell’s pipes, so they should be managed in Canadians’ best interests. If Bell wants to act like a private firm, they can give back the publicly subsidized wires, float some bonds and lay their own, shareholder-financed infrastructure. Until then, the biggest ungrateful whiner of all is Bell Canada, gobbler at the public trough.

• [Perry de Havilland]

  Cory Doctrow is 100% correct. Bell is not a company that created all the infrastructure it uses with its own privately raised capital, it is a company that benefited from tax funds on a massive scale and now uses that fact, and its political connections, to rent seek from would-be competitors.

  If they had laid the wires at shareholder expense rather than with a large chunk of state appropriated tax money, and if they had not been the recipient of so much state largess for so many years… well fine, let them charge what they wish… But that is not in fact the case.

• [Anonymous]

  Here’s what I would have submitted, but I got only an error page (as have previous commenters):

  “As a past unsatisfied customer of the two major providers of internet access in my community (Bell Canada and Rogers Cable), I was elated to find an independent Internet Service Provider that fully satisfied my demand for internet access.

  Since then, the implementation of throttling by Bell Canada on its wholesale ADSL service has significantly impeded the quality of my internet service. These throttling practices have slowed down legitimate and legal activities such as the updating of specific software using modern load balancing protocols to such an extent that they are no longer feasible with my internet service.

  I am appalled that Bell Canada is allowed to force such a degradation of service on me by throttling the access it provides to my Internet Service Provider (ISP). Given that my ISP has no other reasonable choice for connectivity but Bell Canada, this is to me a clear abuse of Bell’s quasi-monopoly in this market. Furthermore, it directly affects me, the consumer and customer, by no longer providing me with the freedom of choice in the ISP market that was previously offered to me by small independent ISPs who chose not to throttle their customers in this manner.

  Please strongly consider the application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2008‐108 submitted by my ISP and others in a similar situation. As a co-founder of a successful Canadian software company I am especially aware of how allowing these kinds of practices is hurting Canada’s information economy. Internet access is of unprecedented priority to Canada’s high-tech innovators, and circumstances such as these only make it more appealing to consider relocating to a location providing more open access to the Internet, such as the United States.”

• [Anonymous]

  Having lived in Ontario for years and using Bell/Rogers/Cogeco than moving to the West coast, I have to say Shaw destroys them all. No throttling, unenforced caps etc, I shudder at the thought of ever using Bell for my internet service again.

• [Anonymous]

  @#20

  Shaw = Cogeco. You’re just seeing the effect of having fewer people connected via the same tube.

• [gtron]

  “Either that, or they don’t know how the Internet works”
  oh, they know how it works alright: on their terms, like all corporatist-governmental collusion that forms the basis for Canadian ‘civil society.’
  the repeated stories of how Canada has one of the world’s highest standards of living would be exposed as bunk if someone would just open the curtain. talk about a house of cards

• [Anonymous]

  @2 Narfig Agar

  “if competition is possible, why does it not exist?”

  Uhh, because Bell & friends run the f*cking racket. How naive of you.

  Do you really think it’s cost-effective for them to compete when they can just grease some palms, buy a report or two and tell the government & CRTC to f&ck off?

• [the_headless_rabbit]

  #20. you have no idea how right you are. back when I was in highschool, we were one of the firsts families to get highspeed cable internet. Shaw was our provider, but they were eventually replaced with rogers.

  when Rogers replaced Shaw, overnight, my download speed was cut in half, my ping while playing FPS’s nearly doubled. i was appalled at how terrible this ‘rogers’ company was, and this was long before they started bandwidth caps. several months later, the rates went way up…so we were paying more for reduced service.

  and you know what? I am still with rogers because there is no where else to go.

• [Boopy]

  For what it’s worth, my submission (and thank you to previous commenters for some of the inspiration):

  “Canadian taxes and government subsidies paid for Bell’s infrastructure. Some would argue it belongs to Canadian citizens, not to Bell. I do not believe Bell’s race for profit implies they have the right to control legitimate competition, to throttle customers’ internet usage, to control customers’ internet usage, or exert any other type of control not explicit in their role as bandwidth/connectivity provider.

  Further, the fact that they’re trying to be a bandwidth/connectivity AND content provider exposes them to an obvious conflict of interest, and the Canadian public will pay (in every sense of the word) too much for that conflict.

  The CRTC has so far been in favor of net neutrality, at least conceptually. Do not change directions now.

  Thank you for your consideration,
  Signed”

• [brian corcoran]

  Cory,
  Well summarized in your comment above.
  Boopy – great template, I wish I’d read it prior to submitted my less than stellar attempt to echo the same sentiment.
  Thanks for posting this to BB.
  -brian.

• [Anonymous]

  Doesn’t the last mile duopoly have a legal monopoly on the last mile, right of way laws, etc?