Thats no moon. What to expect when youre expecting the website - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

That’s no moon.

What to expect when you’re expecting

the website you’re accessing to be delivered to you by your internet service provider in a fair and just manner according to a series of policies set by a regulator accountable to the public.

Zero Rating or Differential Pricing

The practice of providing internet access without any financial costs on the consumer, usually under conditions such as permitting access to certain websites or by subsidizing the service with advertising.

What’s the deal with zero rating?

Some Examples

• T-Mobile’s ‘music freedom’
• Verizon and AT&T’s FreeBee Data
• Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia
• Many, many more

Conflict With Net Neutrality

• Create potential for a two-tiered internet
• Entrenches internet status quo and disrupts the

free market

• Creates opportunities for censorship
• Exploits those with less money

INTERNET

On the other hand…

• Provide opportunities to get online for those

with less money

• Highly beneficial for consumers
• Assist emergency service
• Could bring the developing world online

INTERNET

M A Y B E

Facebook’s Free Basics

• Also known as Internet.org
• Purpose was to “connect the world”; idea that

connectivity is a human right and while universal basic internet service is possible, “it isn’t going to happen by itself.”

• Was a video/picture free version of Facebook

and Facebook Messenger coupled with some third party Apps

• Launched in developing countries around the

world

Cue the backlash.

• Service providers reluctant to partner with Facebook
• Digital colonialism
• Threat to net neutrality
• Human rights groups concerned that Facebook was becoming arbiter of

what people could and could not access

And now.

• Directly responsible for bringing approximately

50 million people online in the developing world

• Allegedly assisted in the perpetration of

violence in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and the Philippines

• Initiative appears to have significantly dialled

back; still available in over 50 countries

• Google and Microsoft are pursuing similar

ideas to enhance connectivity

–Linnet Taylor, From Zero to Hero: How Zero-Rating Became a Debate about Human Rights

“One function of zero-rating in developing countries is to take that national process of building and negotiating connectivity and turn it into The Internet. Once this disjuncture has happened, it’s then usual to hear it argued that The Internet can Solve Poverty, Solve Education, or Solve Healthcare. The decontextualized, de- territorialized Internet can do any number of things, but – unfortunately – it can only do them in the abstract. For actual education to occur, rather than Education, Internet content must be translated, molded, and aligned to fit with what people need to know to progress in a particular place.”

Zero-Rating Around the World

• Chile’s Ministry of Transportation and Telecommunications banned zero-rating in June, 2014 for violating

the country’s net neutrality laws

• Telecoms Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) banned zero-rating in February, 2016
• Netherlands article 7.4 of the Dutch Telecommunications Act, successfully enforced for first time in

February, 2016

• EU net neutrality regulation, EU 2015/2120, does not definitively point one way or the other with some

national regulators investigating/banning the practice, others not addressing it

• Study of EU states: countries that allowed zero rating business practices by wireless carriers have increased

the cost of wireless data compared to countries without zero rating

• U.S. appeared to be moving to ban the practice until Agit Pai took over as commissioner; called practice

violating net neutrality rules in letters sent to AT&T and Verizon

Canadian Regulators

• House of Commons Committee Report May

2018

• Summary of current law on Net Neutrality in

Canada

• Provides 5 recommendations to the House of

Commons and Government

Legislative and Statutory Protection of Net Neutrality in Canada

• Where in the legislation is net neutrality explicitly protected?
• Relevant piece of legislation is the Telecommunications Act
• 4 relevant sections

CRTC 2017-103 at para 3

ISP or Internet Service Provider “provide retail Internet access services and are thus uniquely situated as the link between Canadians and the online world. ISPs have control over the speed of a customer’s Internet connection, which is measured in bits per

• second. They also set the allowable monthly volume limit, measured

in bytes, for their customers’ data plans (commonly referred to as a data cap or data allowance). Customers who exceed this limit typically incur additional charges.”

Telecommunications Act

• 2. Definitions

(1) In this Act,
 
 telecommunications means the emission, transmission or reception of intelligence by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system; (télécommunication)
 
 telecommunications common carrier means a person who owns or operates a transmission facility used by that person or another person to provide telecommunications services to the public for compensation; (entreprise de télécommunication)

Legislative and Statutory Protection of Net Neutrality in Canada

• Definition is broad.
• Technologically neutral.
• Captures ISPs.

Legislative and Statutory Protection of Net Neutrality in Canada

• Section 7 policy objectives are applicable.

Telecommunications Act

Objectives

• 7. It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs

an essential role in the maintenance of Canada’s identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives (a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada

• f a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard,

enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions; (b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada; (c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications; (d)to promote the ownership and control of Canadian carriers by Canadians; (e) to promote the use of Canadian transmission facilities for telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside Canada; (f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective; (g) to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field of telecommunications and to encourage innovation in the provision of telecommunications services; (h)to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services; and (i) to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons.

Telecommunications Act

Unjust discrimination

• 27. (2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a

telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate

• r give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including

itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage. Content of messages 36.Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

No explicit reference to net neutrality → How has this been interpreted?

CRTC Decisions and Net Neutrality

Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657

• “2009 decision created a framework against

which internet traffic management practices may be evaluated for compliance with the Telecommunications Act.”

• Network investment is the primary solution to

ISP congestion.

In this decision, the Commission sets out its determinations in the proceeding initiated by Telcom Public Notice 2008-19 regarding the use of Internet traffic management practices (ITMPs) by Internet service providers (ISPs). The Commission establishes a principled approach that appropriately balances the freedom of Canadians to use the Internet for various purposes with the legitimate interests of ISPs to manage the traffic thus generated on their networks, consistent with legislation, including privacy legislation. The Commission based its determinations in this matter on the following four considerations:

• 1. Transparency
• Where any ITMPs are employed, ISPs must be transparent about their use. Consumers need this information to

make informed decisions about the Internet services they purchase and use.

• Economic practices are the most transparent ITMPs. They match consumer usage with willingness to pay, thus

putting users in control and allowing market forces to work.

• 2. Innovation
• Network investment is a fundamental tool for dealing with network congestion and should continue to be the

primary solution that ISPs use; however, investment alone does not obviate the need for certain ITMPs. The Commission recognizes that some measures are required to manage Internet traffic on ISP networks at certain points in the network at certain times.

• Where ITMPs are employed, they must be designed to address a defined need, and nothing more.
• 3. Clarity
• ISPs must ensure that any ITMPs they employ are not unjustly discriminatory nor unduly preferential. The

Commission has established an ITMP framework that provides clarity and a structured approach to evaluating whether existing and future ITMPs are in compliance with subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act).

• 4. Competitive neutrality
• For retail services, ISPs may continue to employ ITMPs without prior Commission approval. The Commission will

review such practices, assessing them against the framework, based upon concerns arising primarily through complaints by consumers.

• For wholesale services there will be additional scrutiny. When an ISP employs more restrictive ITMPs for its

wholesale services than for its retail services, it will require Commission approval to implement those practices. technical ITMPs applied to wholesale services must comply with the ITMP framework and must not have a significant and disproportionate impact on secondary ISP traffic.

CRTC Decisions and Net Neutrality

CRTC 2015-26 “Complaint Against Bell Mobility et al”

• Bell was exempting their own mobile TV services

from the standard monthly data caps and data charges applicable to their wireless services.

• CRTC held that Bell Mobility operated as a

Canadian Carrier when they provide data services to their clients.

• CRTC found that Bell Mobility and others violated

subsection 27(2) [unjust discrimination] by exempting their mobile TV services from data charges, providing an undue preference for subscribers to their mobile services.

CRTC Decisions and Net Neutrality

Telcom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-104

• The proceeding stems from two separate

complaints the Commission received concerning the billing practices employed by Videotron in the provision of its Unlimited Music program.

• A preference or a disadvantage in and of itself

is not contrary to the Act; an examination as to whether there is a violation of subsection 27(2)

• f the Act would require a determination as to

whether any preference or disadvantage is undue or unreasonable.

CRTC Decisions and Net Neutrality

Telcom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-104 CRTC can initiate a review of differential pricing practice to ensure that it does not contravene section 27(2) of the

• Act. The CRTC employs 4 criteria in making this

determination

• 1. The degree to which the treatment of data is content

specific vs. content agnostic

• 2. Whether the offering is exclusive to certain

customers or certain content providers

• 3. The impact on internet openness and innovation, and
• 4. Whether there is financial compensation involved.

Criticisms of Current Canadian Framework

• 1. No explicit enshrined principle of net neutrality in

the Telecommunications Act

• Private members bill M-168
• Inclusion will be considered during reviews
• Merely a motion
• 2. Enforcement:

“In terms of the discussion earlier around enforcement, if I had to pick the best thing we can do to improve the law, I would say improving some of the enforcement is probably more of a priority for me than getting a net neutrality provision, given the way it has

• unfolded. In fairness, we’ve seen in the United States

that what we thought was well-entrenched policy can change.”

Economic Modelling

• Economides, Nicholas and Hermalin, Benjamin E., "The Economics of Network Neutrality" (2012).

New York University Law and Economics Working Papers. Paper 250. http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/ 250

• Models scenarios with and without neutrality to derive conditions that would make it beneficial for
• verall welfare or not
• Assumes some congestion exists, and quantity of data is not fixed
• Assumes homogeneous consumer tastes
• Assumes speed is a factor in consumers demand for content
• Gans, J. S. (2015). Weak versus strong net neutrality. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 47(2),

183-200. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/s11149-014-9266-7

• Simple model of 1 ISP, 2 Content Providers, and consumers
• Includes pricing (not just ads) between Content Providers and consumers too
• Considers different forms of weaker or stronger neutrality

Gans (2015)

• Gans, J. S. (2015). Weak versus strong net neutrality. Journal of

Regulatory Economics, 47(2), 183-200. doi:http:// dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/s11149-014-9266-7

• Simple model of 1 ISP, 2 Content Providers, and consumers
• Includes pricing (not just ads) between Content Providers and

consumers too

• Considers different forms of weaker or stronger neutrality

• 1. Price Discrimination and Market Power
• Two markets (ISP-Consumer and Provider-ISP)
• ISP monopoly on access
• ISPs Capture the content provider’s profits

(imperfectly)

• 2. Congestion and Long-Term Investment
• Pricing to ration a scarce resource (bandwidth)
• Higher profits = more investment?

• 3. Transaction Costs
• Content providers dealing with complicated

fees

• Consumer headache

Net Neutrality

Allowing internet service providers to charge content companies for access to the ISPs’ customers would provide net benefits to consumers.

Responses

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion 29% 0% 20% 29% 9% 0%

Responses weighted by each expert’s confidence

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree

0% 35% 56% 9% 0%

igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality

Net Neutrality II

Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service.

Responses

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion 4% 0% 11% 36% 40% 4%

Responses weighted by each expert’s confidence

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree

0% 14% 41% 36% 9%

igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

Is the internet a utility?

What is a utility?

What is a utility?

What is a utility?

Dictionary definition: “a business organization (such as an electric company) performing a public service and subject to special governmental regulation.”

What is a utility?

• Quality and minimum standards
• Reliability
• Safety
• Rates

The Argument in the United States

F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility The FCC just killed net neutrality

Communications Act

Title I — General Provisions

• ‘Light touch’ regulation.

Title II — Common Carrier

• Power to regulate prices.
• Power to regulate terms of service.
• Ability to require service to be provided to everyone within a carrier’s

catchment area.

Net Neutrality and Title II of the Communications Act

Bruce M Owen, Professor of Public Policy at Stanford

• “Title II regulation was modeled on railroad and trucking regulations,

which have since been repealed because of their anti-competitive effects.”

• “Competition among railroads led to lower rates.”
• “In general, these regulators also tended to restrict competition


and entry.”

Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC

• “What is responsible for the phenomenal development of the Internet? It

certainly wasn’t heavy-handed government regulation.”

• “The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has

never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to

• content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition.”
• “Under Title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by

billions of dollars.”

• “These rules have also impeded innovation.”

If these arguments sound disingenuous, it’s because they are.

The Argument in Canada

Telecommunications Act

Canadian Telecommunications Policy

Objectives

• 7. It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential

role in the maintenance of Canada’s identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives

Telecommunications Act

(b)to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;

Telecommunications Act

Conditions of service 24.The offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a Canadian carrier are subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission or included in a tariff approved by the Commission. Telecommunications rates to be approved 25.(1) No Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission that specifies the rate or the maximum or minimum rate, or both, to be charged for the service. Just and reasonable rates 27.(1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.

How CRTC Sees its Role

“The CRTC does not intervene in the rates, quality of service issues, or business practices of Internet service providers as they relate to retail

• customers. This is because there is enough

competition in the market and retail customers have a choice and can shop around for service packages.”

Utilities Commission Act

"public utility" means a person, or the person's lessee, trustee, receiver or liquidator, who owns or operates in British Columbia, equipment or facilities for (b) the conveyance or transmission of information, messages or communications by guided or unguided electromagnetic waves, including systems of cable, microwave, optical fibre or radiocommunications if that service is offered to the public for compensation,

Regulation of Utilities in BC

“We are responsible for ensuring customers receive safe, reliable services at fair rates from the entities we regulate.”

Regulated Utilities

Stasiuk v West Kootenay Power Ltd 2000 BCCA 377 at para 6

“The appellants concede that Shaw’s operations fall within (b) of the definition of public utility in s. 1 of the Utilities Commission Act. Shaw is federally regulated and has powers of expropriation under the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. I am satisfied that both Shaw and West Kootenay are public utilities for the purposes

• f s. 218.”

Stay in your lane.

Utilities Commission Act

Part 3 — Regulation of Public Utilities Application of this Part 21 (1) This Part applies only to a public utility that is subject to the 21 (1) legislative authority of the Province.

You’re doomed to high prices forever.

You’re doomed to high prices forever?

• Crown corporation responsible to a Minister.
• Legislative mandate to construct, maintain, and operate a

telecommunications system.

• Government has the ability to regulate rates.

History of Innovation

• At one point was tied for one of the fastest 4G networks in the world

according to OpenSignal.

• Involved with international projects including telecommunications

infrastructure between the UK and France via the Chunnel.

Canada’s largest network. Saskatchewan’s largest newtork. Quad-Band LTE-A*

*Theoretical top speed of 900mbps, limited availability.

LTE-A*

*Top speed not listed, limited availability.

Fibre-Optic Internet up to 950mpbs Fibre-Optic Internet up to 300mbps

Unlimited Nationwide Calling + 5gb

Bring your own device.

$100 $75

Internet 300mbps

$100

$55 for the first 6 months.

$145

$60 for the first 3 months.

Final Thoughts