Michael Geist

The Meaning of the CRTC Decision
"With this decision, the Commission has rightly confirmed that network operators are in the best position to determine how to operate their networks effectively and efficiently, to allow fair and proportionate use of the Internet by all users."
Len Katz, Vice-Chair, CRTC:
"Someone told me Bell put out a press release that said the commission upheld its position that network management practices are a fundamental right of theirs. That's not what we said at all."
CRTC Denies CAIP Application on Throttling, But Sets Net Neutrality Hearing
This morning, the CRTC issued its much-anticipated ruling in the CAIP v. Bell case, the first major case to test the legality of Internet throttling. The Commission denied CAIP's application, ruling that Bell treated all of its customers (retail and wholesale) in the same throttled manner. This points to the challenge in this case - it was not about discriminatory network practices per se, but rather about wholesale shaping in a specific context.
Bell comes out a winner in this round. The Commission found that there was network congestion due to P2P usage and that some network management is required to address it. Moreover, it rejected the competition concerns noting that there was no evidence that Bell's action had lessened competition and it concluded that reducing speeds does not rise to the level of controlling content.
While the CRTC's decision to permit Bell's throttling practices is disappointing in the short term - and seems to place Canada on a different track from the U.S. - the decision is not a total loss for net neutrality supporters as the Commission made a clear commitment to addressing the issue of net neutrality and network management in a formal proceeding in July 2009. Indeed, it is important not to lose sight of how much has changed in the past year.
Just over one year, I wrote a column noting the need for greater ISP transparency in the wake of Rogers' admission that it engaged in traffic shaping. At the time, net neutrality was viewed as a fringe issue in Canada without much political traction. In the span of 13 months, there has been a major CRTC case, a private member's bill on net neutrality, a rally on Parliament Hill, the emergence of BitTorrent as distribution tool for broadcast content, a more vocal business community supporting net neutrality, and a gradual shift of this issue into the political mainstream. In the United States, the change has been even more dramatic - an FCC ruling on the throttling activities, proposed legislation, the shift of net neutrality to wireless, and a President-elect who has been outspoken on the need to preserve net neutrality.
In other words, today's CRTC decision is not the final word on net neutrality in Canada, but rather the first word on it. The Commission itself has opened the door to broader hearings on the issue next year, which may come alongside the new media hearings that also offer the opportunity to raise net neutrality concerns. Moreover, if the Commission comes to the conclusion that these practices are consistent with current Canadian law, there is the likelihood of growing calls from within Parliament to change the law.
A year ago, the net neutrality debate focused on whether rules were needed. Today, the debate is changing from whether there should rules on network management to what those rules should be. In fact, the Commission notes that as part of the hearing it "will try to establish the criteria to be used in the event that specific traffic management practices need to be authorized." There is an emerging consensus on the easy issues - no content blocking and better transparency of network management practices (the CRTC today required Bell to provide its wholesale customers with advanced notice of its plans). We are in the early stages of the more difficult questions of what constitutes reasonable network management practices and the opening of a formal proceeding puts those tougher questions squarely on the table.
Update: The NDP's Charlie Angus responds. Coverage from the CBC, Globe, Toronto Star, and Ars Technica.
Copyright Reform Back on Legislative Agenda
The Governor-General is currently reading the Speech from the Throne, which sets the forthcoming legislative agenda, in the Senate. The speech unsurprisingly includes reference to copyright reform:
Cultural creativity and innovation are vital not only to a lively Canadian cultural life, but also to Canada’s economic future. Our Government will proceed with legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright laws and ensure stronger protection for intellectual property.
The speech disappointingly does not reference anti-spam legislation, despite a commitment to introduce anti-spam laws during the election campaign.
CRTC Bell - CAIP Throttling Decision Tomorrow
Ontario Legislature Passes Bill 85
The Ontario legislature this morning passed Bill 85, facilitating the creation of an "enhanced drivers' licence" that uses RFID. I wrote about the bill yesterday.
Update: Media coverage from Canwest.
Stanford Engineering Uses BitTorrent To Distribute Courses
SaveOurNet.ca Launches Action Campaign
Local Councillor Claims Copyright in University Name
NDP Announces Shadow Cabinet
Clement on Copyright Reform
Stephen Taylor posts the first interview with new Industry Minister Tony Clement on copyright reform. Clement positions himself as a part of the iPod generation, emphasizes the effects of new media, and keeps the door open to potential changes to Bill C-61.
"Enhanced" Licence May Enhance Privacy and Security Risks
The primary impetus behind the EDL is the increased border security measures between Canada and the United States. As the U.S. increased identity card requirements for entry into the country (passports are now required at most border crossings), government officials in both countries have sought to develop an alternative to the passport. The EDL, which will embed new technologies including a radio frequency identification device (RFID) within the card, is the outcome of that work. While the enhanced card will be optional, it is expected that many residents may pay the extra fee for the EDL. Moreover, Ontarians will not be alone in this regard as other provinces and U.S. states have similar plans. As Ontario moves closer to an EDL with this new legislation, the concern from the privacy and civil liberties communities - who point to three overarching concerns - have continued to mount.
The first concern is largely procedural. The introduction of the EDL is viewed as an important development with significant implications for personal privacy. However, few have participated in a consultation process and the legislative committee considering the proposed legislation allocated limited time to debate and discussion.
The second concern stems from the larger implications of the EDL. Although the new card is optional, some experts view it as a major step toward a national identity card. National ID cards have generated heated debate in the past with fears about the privacy and security implications of such schemes. In fact, after a failed attempt to introduce ID cards in the U.S. under the REAL ID program, some officials have acknowledged that enhanced drivers licences may ultimately serve the same purpose.
The third issue is by far the most important - the privacy implications associated with the use of biometric screening and the embedding RFID tags in the licences. RFID tags are tiny tracking devices that use radio waves to emit information to an RFID reader. While RFIDs have been innocuously used for inventory management with containerized shipping in the past, their use on identification cards raises a host of privacy concerns.
Earlier this year Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial privacy commissioners issued a joint statement expressing "their significant concerns about privacy and security aspects of EDL programs." The Commissioners pointed to the long-term retention of Canadian driver data in the U.S., the lack of program oversight, and the use of insecure RFID technology.
Research into the use of RFID has revealed that they are vulnerable to snooping and copying, which may open the door to cases of identity theft or to surreptitious surveillance. The Ontario government notes that the RFID tag will only contain a numerical identifier (rather than a full personal profile), yet access to the identifier could open the door to misuse.
To guard against unintended access to card information, an RFID with an "on/off" switch could be used. To date, the government has rejected proposals to use RFIDs with that more updated technology, instead supporting the use of "protective sleeve" that it argues will guard against unwanted surveillance.
Facilitating faster and more secure border controls is unquestionably a worthwhile goal. Rather than introduce a flawed licence, Ontario Transport Minister Jim Bradley should put the brakes on Bill 85 by first addressing the lingering privacy and security concerns.




