Any traffic management practices deviating from complete network neutrality, that is to say, any practices that single out one protocol over another, should certainly be disclosed to the user in the service agreement. To disclose anything less would be consumer fraud.

[updated 2009-03-31 11:53]

Traffic management has a real impact on the product that a consumer is paying for. All ISPs are not created equal and consumers aren't in a position to analyze the complexities of network management and the possible impacts on their usage.

ISPs should be required to disclose their complete management practices along with network and traffic statistics to the CRTC, but also in an easily understood form to all users of their service.

[updated 2009-03-31 13:37]

All traffic shaping practices should be disclosed, in plain english, online and as a part of the terms of service.

[updated 2009-03-31 13:37]

I agree with the other posters thus far -- if ISPs are allowed to get away with uncompetitive throttling of Internet traffic, those techniques and the effect on the customer should be fully disclosed in plain versions of both official languages.

[updated 2009-03-31 14:28]

With Bell currently throttling the smaller ISP's who purchase bandwidth that is also throttled at Bells equipment.. and Rogers throttling as well.. Why does it matter if they aren't deceptive in the Adverts, and carefully scripted sales pitches? Consumers lack any REAL CHOICE. Yet the CRTC is missing the point of the whole issue that most, if not all members of The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, are FORCED to only offer the exact services that Bell forces on its customers.. So 1 ISP's decision is forced onto smaller competing ISP's.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:01]

I'd say that any traffic management information needs to be explicitly outlined in the sales literature for the consumer to make an informed choice about what they are purchasing.

GM would not be allowed to sell you a car that goes 120 km/h, then after you purchase it you find out that it only goes 10 km/h during most of the day, or whenever you have more than 1 person in it.

It makes perfect sense that any defined restrictions on the use of the service should be explicitly defined before purchase.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:03]

Unfortunately we were never warned about such changes in our service. Bell never told the third party providers and should have been fined and forced to disable the changes.
The implementation of traffic management violated contracts with wholesale providers and their customers as well.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:09]

ISP don't purchase Bandwidth from BELL. I don't purchase my Internet connection from BELL. No one private business should own the last mile connection to my house, since that was paid/subsidized by taxpayers. Add all this up and the answer is : BELL needs to get its sticky fingers out of other businesses' relationships with their customers....

[updated 2009-03-31 15:13]

100% transparent disclosure clearly stated on their webstie, any change should first be noted on the monthly bill. No hidden fees in the fine print. As paying customer we have a right to know what kind of service we are paying for.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:27]

Comment removed at participant request

[updated 2009-03-31 15:32]

They should disclose all traffic management practices publicly and put a large diclaimer on the first page of all customers bills when new rules practices are introduced. Also, any changes to the current practices should automatically void and service term contracts (Telus) or at least give the customer the option to keep the contract or get out of the contract without penalty.

[updated 2009-03-31 15:33]

If it's decided that ISP's are allowed to manage traffic they should definitely be forced to provide details on it. Customers should know if an ISP is going to limit their connection in any way and the conditions that would have the ISP limit them. It should be stated in the contract that's signed as well as clearly stated in any acceptable use policy the ISP has. It should also be stated in any advertisement that mentions the speed of the connection.

[updated 2009-03-31 16:38]

I absolutely think that it should be plainly and boldly advertised to customers when they sign up and when any change to the practices occur. There should be serious penalties for non-compliance as this is a critical issue. Some traffic management has privacy related implications as well such as Bell's use of DPI to inspect evey packet of data you send out. (Note that Bell implemented this without any notification and no penalty was given!).

I think the real question should be what traffic management practices should be allowed at all? Non-neutral, invasive techniques like DPI should not be allowed. Internet is an essential service and thus should be provided in a neutral manner (like telephones). Privacy is a Constitutional right that should be guaranteed by not allowing DPI no matter what purpose it is used for.

[updated 2009-03-31 17:02]

I would suggest that the payment model for the Internet be changed, so that the provider of traffic to the Internet pay a fixed fee, say .0002 cents per KB, and that there be no other fee to connect to an ISP, or service provider, other than the payment for outgoing traffic. That way an ISP would have no interest in shaping or throttling traffic since they would be earning more money with more traffic.

[updated 2009-04-01 14:09]

Everything should be disclosed.
Not much else to say about that if throttling was not allowed there would be nothing to disclose.

[updated 2009-04-01 16:34]

The CRTC should ensure that customers get a full list of ingredients up front. Like food packaging, we should not be sold an unlimited internet connection, just to have the "unlimited" aspect of it taken away in the fine-print details. I want to know the protein, fat, and carbohydrates up front and centre. I want to know what ports are blocked (like outgoing smtp), what protocols will be subject to shaping, and what caps my connection might have (e.g. 100 gb per month).

That being said I think traffic shaping practices should be abolished as a form of traffic management.

[updated 2009-04-01 18:02]

Any deviation from absolute network neutrality should be disclosed clearly, with all details about what traffic is affected, and how it is affected.

Any instance where traffic is affected in a space where the ISP has a competing product (for instance, blocking/slowing of VOIP done by an ISP that is also a telephone company) should be particularly clearly defined.

[updated 2009-04-02 10:38]

The customers should be notified in clear and plain language up front. Don't bury it in the fine print of the "user agreement" or other such nonsense. If you are going to throttle my protocols and cap my downloads, you better tell me or I will never deal with you again. I refuse to deal with one such ISP since they refuse to acknowledge that they have a download cap. I will only deal with an ISP that either a) tells me up front, or b) just doesn't throttle the traffic at all.

[updated 2009-04-02 10:58]

Not only do ISP's need to be required to have clear language explaining exactly what they are providing, but they need to be forced to give clear notice to all of their customers when changing such practices. When Bell started throttling third-party DSL ISP's, they didn't even bother to tell them in advance that they would be changing the quality of their subscribers service! The lack of transparency in how these ISP's manage their networks is disconcerting.

[updated 2009-04-02 12:27]

ISP traffic management must be clearly outlined to the user, but such management must be only allowed where for a temporary reason as a result of some technical failure.

Again, the Carriers, and providers of internet service must keep up with the technology and not use an excuse that they do not have the equipment or large enough pipes.

People do understand short term issues where impacts are experienced but do expect those short term issues to addressed/fixed. We subscribe for a service and expect that service to be a continuum.

[updated 2009-04-02 13:21]

These:
"description of traffic management techniques employed, how and when these practices are employed, and the effect on a user’s Internet service".
Notification should be included all advertising.

I disagree with ISPs changing the contract in the middle.
"We can change the terms of the contract and post the changes on our website." :-(

Most consumers do not keep track of changes on a website.

Current subscribers should be notified of any change by phone or mailed letter.
A time frame for notification should also be enforced (to direct customers and wholesale buyers).

[updated 2009-04-02 14:51]

i think they need to provide more information to us the customers on these things. but they never will, for that simple fact that one ISP will have no throttling and everyone will move to that ISP, and away from the big ones like bell and shaw, and that wouldn't make them very happy because of the revenue they would lose. every ISP's need to be on the same level, not one doing one thing and another doing it differently.

[updated 2009-04-02 15:17]

it is false advertising to advertise one speed and then to actually deliver another based on an ISPs arbitrary guidelines.

Full discloser should be mandatory and not just in fine print but as heading up the package contents.

Also smaller ISPs should be exempt from BIG ISP throttling so as to give consumers a choice as right now choosing between throttled and throttled is no choice at all. give small players a fair chance.

allow more competition in Canada. stop creating a walled garden that's good for corporations but bad for consumer choice and value for money. this applies to more than just internet.

[updated 2009-04-02 15:34]

*All* information pertaining to traffic management should be disclosed to the customer. It should be outlined in clear terms before the user agrees to any sort of plan with the ISP.

[updated 2009-04-02 18:40]

Customers have the right to know if their service is going to be effected in any way what-so-ever. If the ISP ever, at any point throttles a connection, all users of that service should immediately be notified of this.

An ISP should also disclose any "deals" they have with companies that will effect said throttling.

Finally, an ISP should have to update their customers about any new deals they have made with other companies that could potentially effect the users flow of traffic to and fro their computer and their requested resource.

[updated 2009-04-02 20:44]

All traffic management attempts should be announced as well as put in the TOS. If I had a alternative I would never subscribe to an internet service provider that interferes with my data with traffic management technology.

[updated 2009-04-03 10:29]

Described in detail, by physical mail for every major change. When bandwidth restrictions are in place, an easy to use online tool (preferrably with open specifications so alternative interfaces could be developed) should be able to report specifics on protocols, bandwidth, and transfer.

[updated 2009-04-03 11:40]

they should disclose all their information and be completely transparent. with no exceptions.

if I order a meal at a restaurant and ask what kind of surfaces they use, sanitary or unsanitary, and they give me an answer of "I'm sorry, we can't disclose that information" then I'm going to leave.

I'm paying for bandwidth and if I want to use that bandwidth to distribute homemade media and open source software, then I should have the right and legal backing to make sure I get those transfer speeds and be able to find out who is going to be limiting my network access so I can make an informed decision.

ISP's refusing to tell you if they shape our traffic when you are looking to set up with a provider is like asking a car manufacturer what kind of milage the car you're prospecting gets and the dealership tells you "sorry, that kind of information has the potential to drive you away as a customer.. so we can't tell you".

give me a F'ing break.

[updated 2009-04-03 18:46]

Any vendor of any service should disclose exemptions or limitations that apply to their product. If you claim to provide "Internet Service" -- the facility to transmit arbitrary data across computer networks -- then any exceptions (such as restrictions on data quantity or type of data) should be disclosed. This is not specific to Internet Service; in general any commercial or advertising claim should accurately describe the product the consumer will receive.

I am amazed that many currently employed ISP and telecom contracts are even legal in a civilized country-- they usually state that the service provider can change any terms of the contract, fees, or service at any time. It should hardly be called a "contract" if one party is under no obligation to honour any of it's terms.

[updated 2009-04-05 10:45]

In my opinion, ISPs should be forced to disclose all traffic management practices, the services and applications that are influenced by it (and to what degree) as well as the cost for different tiers of services in order to give the customer an overview over all her options and limits BEFORE she signs a contract.

Although I am sure that many people would not understand all technological details, I think it would contribute to a more transparent market situation, in which more competition could arise. Providers who have the most attractive traffic management measures or the least utilized at all might surely be favoured by the respective user. This could not only lead to more competition, but maybe to an adjustment of current management shaping behaviour as practices by the big ISPs and raise awareness of the need for physical networks with higher bandwidth capabilities in order to avoid traffic management practices at all.

[updated 2009-04-07 09:47]

ISPs need to disclose everything regarding their policies so that the consumer knows what they are getting when they sign up their service with a particular provider. And this information should be readily available to both existing and new customers in a format that is easy to understand without a law degree. For all subsequent changes to their policy customers should be informed immediately by explanatory letters (or other formal communication, but should not include the ISPs website) to the affected customers/areas.

[updated 2009-04-07 09:58]

ISPS should define the techniques they are employing- and justify why they are using them. They should also outline how these techniques do not interfere with their ability to sustain network neutrality techniques.

.

[updated 2009-04-07 10:45]

Customer expectation is that the network is agnostic of protocol (i.e. the network is neutral). Therefore, ISPs should be required to clearly state in their Terms of Service and on their website any managment technologies that they use on their network and how this will affect customer experiences with the service (i.e. which protocols are affected, what are the bandwidth caps, how much latency is introduced, etc.). Customer service personal should also be trained to honestly identify to customers when their service issues could be caused by traffic management technologies.

[updated 2009-04-07 21:10]

THERE SHOULD BE NO THROTTLING AT ALL!

[updated 2009-04-08 01:55]

Sympatico has changed their traffic policies much to my aggravation. I've been convinced its my computer, the server I'm using or an application I'm running that is causing the problem. Calling Sympatico's tech support is useless because they only blame the end user. After reading online forums and seeing other users experiencing the same slow down in speeds do I realize that Sympatico has changed my bandwidth again without informing a paying customer.

[updated 2009-04-08 22:07]

First and foremost, ISPs should be required to show that they actually need to do traffic management and only be allowed to use TM techniques on segments of their own network where there are problems. As for Bell, there has been no public evidence that a "global" problem even exits! Their problems are likely isolated to network segments that they have negelcted to properly provision for the level of service subscription and traffic.

ISPs should be required to fully disclose their Internet traffic management practices. Consumers should also be able to tell at any point in time whether their current connections are subject to being throttled. Consumers should be able to get a timely report within minutes (not 60 hours later!) of any connection end-point site/protocol etc. that has been "managed".

Slow response due to traffic shaping (the way that Bell currently drops packets) actually causes more Internet traffic to be sent over time. Bell should not include packets that are caused to be "resent" otherwise they can articially increase bandwidth usage (i.e. revenues).

As an incentive to the ISPs to upgrade their network they should count against bandwidth usage only a percentage of the traffic that has been "managed". For example, when my connection is throttled to 1/10th the speed of my "up to speed" of my contract, then only 1/10th of my bandwidth sent/received under such "throttle" conditions should be counted towards my bandwidth usage. The provider is, afterall, not providing the level of service that I subscribed to.

Finally, I suggest that the quality of service that an ISP has provided (% of consumers affected, % of connections affected, % delay in traffic, % of total traffic carried that has been managed, etc.) be publically disclosed... it will help consumers pick an ISP that provides better service.

[updated 2009-04-10 14:08]

All information has to be disclosed in both paper and online. Traffic management is a change in the service I paid for and how I use it.

There also has to be advance warning like at least a month in advance. How do you expect a consumer who does not approve of the change of service? He can't just suddenly switch to a new provider. Especially since companies have a "you must tell us 30-day in advance to cancel" clause in their Terms of Service. There are also people in contacts. These people paid for a certain level of service and suddenly it is changed. They have to have the ability to cancel with no penalty. Do credit card companies just suddenly change your interest rate? No! They provide a notice!

[updated 2009-04-15 00:12]

ISPs should be forced to disclose all traffic management practises as well as better traffic statistics to individuals and the CRTC.

Information should not just be "made available" buried somewhere deep on their site, ISPs should be required to make obvious to each individual customer this information. Rogers already has a bulletining system in place to inform users of bandwidth statistics and caps; something similar to that would be appropriate.

[updated 2009-04-15 12:01]

ISPs should be required to inform their customers of all their traffic management practices before the customer signs a contract with that ISP (i.e. Terms of Service). That way, people know in advance what they are signing up for. An ISP who wants to make any changes to billing, traffic management, speed, reduction or removal of services previously offered should be required to inform their clients in writing by mail at least 90 days before any change takes place, giving the client enough time to give notice if they decide the new terms are not what they want. As it is now, any ISP can change anything they want without giving notice, and the customer has no recourse because the TOS states the ISP can change whatever they want without penalty. If an ISP can change whatever terms they want whenever they want without penalty, I should be able to drop said ISP without penalty if they make a change in service I disagree with. And yet, my "contract" says I must give them so many days notice if I wish to no longer have them as an ISP. Why is it that an ISP can unilaterally change the Terms of Service under which you signed the contract (thereby effectively nullifying the contract) and still claim that you are bound by said contract when the original conditions under which you signed no longer exist?! Both parties should be bound by the terms under which the contract was signed unless BOTH parties agree to the changes.
Caileigh

[updated 2009-04-15 12:27]

My view is traffic management practices should not be hidden. Those whose use of the internet is affected by these practices should be able to obtain accurate information just by asking.

[updated 2009-04-15 23:13]

Internet service providers should disclose their traffic management practices but at the same time the "major" corporations, such as bell and rogers, should not be allowed to dictate what they "feel" is fair and fulfilling of their obligations to the consumer. Just because we are told we are going to get "screwed" should not mean they have the right to back out of what they have advertised. Just say NO to the "fine print"! Give me what I have paid for.

[updated 2009-04-16 00:45]

Internet providers should be required to disclose their management practices in their ads the same way car companies have to disclose their financing terms when they advertise 0% financing for a vehicle.

Bell Canada, and many others were advertising Unlimited High Speed Internet access for the longest time, but were at the same time limiting people's traffic by traffic shaping, and bandwidth caps. Thankfully these companies no longer advertise in this way but they still do not disclose their practices to their clients up front, and they should be required to do so.

[updated 2009-04-16 06:50]

Traffic management is hurting consumers. ISP's ought to disclose all information regarding traffic management so that consumers can make the decision to go elsewhere.
I know that I want an ISP that does not manage traffic. I am sick and tired of paying High speed prices for dial-up speeds. It's criminal.

[updated 2009-04-20 07:18]

Everything. We deserve the right to know exactly what we are purchasing and decide whether or not it's what we want to buy. There should be no changes to the agreement made afterwards unless absolutely necessary, with total disclosure as to why the agreed upon contract is to be emended. or it's one of those extremely rare times when a service provider gives us something more instead of taking something away we paid/are paying for lol.

[updated 2009-04-20 07:38]

Any alteration to complete neutrality, including traffic-shaping, packet spying, and bandwidth caps, should not only be widely available for all users, but should be upfront and notified on every bill and any changes should be consulted and agreed upon by the customers before they can continue billing. Changes in service MUST be agreed upon by the customer, or give them the chance to change service providers, assuming there is actual fair competition in a market area, which there often isn't. There must be 100% transparency, as the secrecy we have seen has lead to extreme corruption, and it's the people and Canada's future that have been suffering.

[updated 2009-04-20 08:41]

Companies that produce food products are required to print nutritional information and lists of ingredients on their products. Companies that provide internet access should be required to clearly disclose the limits, ie traffic management, they utilize on the internet connection being purchased.

[updated 2009-04-20 08:57]

Traffic management should be outlawed so that no notifications will be necessary. Compliance with net neutrality will, of course, have to be monitored and verified.

[updated 2009-04-20 09:04]

To put it simply, they should disclose that they are not doing it, because they should not be allowed to.

[updated 2009-04-20 10:31]

It should be illegal for the corporations to make this text hard to find. it should be written on its own page with a link on the front page of the ISP's homepage. so that it is readable by current and potential customers.

the writing of the text should be in plain English and even the most tech illiterate should be able to understand how this will impact them.

[updated 2009-04-20 12:56]

"All" information should be disclosed by ISPs regarding their internet traffic managment practices so we can make the "choice" as to whether we want that vendor.

Notification can be through a website that is searchable so the public can access it at any time.

[updated 2009-04-20 18:26]

Net neutrality needs to be the norm. The last mile was paid for by Canadian taxpayers so I own it as much as Bell and Rogers do. I want to know how much damage they've done then give us our money back.

[updated 2009-04-20 19:53]

Nationalize it. Let the people (the real gov. of Canada) own a free/neutral net.

[updated 2009-04-20 20:10]

All practices should be clearly spelled out at the time of purchase of the service.

[updated 2009-04-20 21:38]

Internet service providers should fully disclose what they're doing with their customer's information and reveal potential privacy breaches or other related concerns.

Obviously the CRTC is pondering whether to allow ISPs to manage traffic and throttle. Traffic management shouldn't be allowed to happen. If the CRTC were to make the wrong decision and give permission to the ISPs to manage traffic then this practice would definitely have to be disclosed to internet subscribers.

[updated 2009-04-21 06:27]

Internet service providers should fully disclose what they're doing with their customer's information flow and reveal potential privacy breaches or other related concerns and detail exactly which protocols and/or ports they are manipulating.

The CRTC seems to be pondering whether to allow ISPs to manage traffic and throttle. Traffic management shouldn't be allowed to happen. If the CRTC were to make the wrong decision and give permission to the ISPs to manage traffic then this practice would definitely have to be disclosed to internet subscribers.
It should be a point of law that any change to a contracted service should allow a 90 day penalty free period for the customer to seek an alternate service and any degradtion of service should be accompanied by a reduction in fees.

[updated 2009-04-21 11:34]

The future of wireless needs to advance along with the rest of the world and Canada is lagging more and more every year. The days of minutes, voice plans and data "options" will come to an end once 4G gets a foothold. Where will Canada be once this happens? The Canadian Wireless establishment is trying to slow that progress and halt innovation and competition.

It’s a pretty simple concept that the wireless industry is trying to protect its own interests and continue with their present business model. If they had their way everything would stay the same and the Telco's would continue to make deals with other companies in order to use their network to advertise or sell its product with exclusive deals. The side effect of this is that innovation and competition gets stalled and the internet is now managed and manipulated as the carriers see fit to fulfill the advertising goals of its partners. The thing is the internet is not owned by a Company, it is owned by the public and should remain that way. Companies need to advance their network in a way that sustains and adapts to a neutral internet that is free of bias information and advertisment if they wish to base their network on the internet. I realize that it’s a fine balance of supply and demand for ISP's to offer data on a network, but the world is global and Canada needs to compete with similar costs and tech. So if there is one common thing that all of us should share, then this would be to allow an internet that is free from restrictions alongside more competition. If a company wants to offer caps and higher costs to balance capacity then this is fine, but governments must regulate in order for competition and inovation to flourish in Canada so Canadaian companies are kept in check and Canadians productivity keeps pace with the world. I don’t mean allow foreign ownership but to allow foreign companies to have an attractive reason to invest in Canada, similar to Vodapone and Verizon or AT&T and Rogers deal way back when. Also, to allow new companies to grow and not be swallowed up by the established ones.

With an unrestricted wireless internet alongside real competition, this will open itself to Mobile VOIP, video chat, IPTV, internet radio, real time road conditions and other forms of communications from a multitude of providers along with an unlimited amount of ip based devices which combine to increases innovation and productivity throughout Canada and constant contact with the world including more and more remote areas.

So don’t get caught up in the idea that Rogers, Telus, Bell want you to believe their network will “fall apart” and be less "secure" if data is made more available or if any device would be allowed to connect to its network to VOIP and stream ect... This would not be true if the wireless industry was identified as an ISP and regulated more closely by the CRTC in order to increase and sustain competition which in turn forces wireless to innovate and overcome todays capacity and security issues. By doing so this increases productivity and additional competition for Canadians forcing more inovation, leading to more jobs and so on..

[updated 2009-04-21 15:48]

they should disclose that they are going to use the network neutrality approach, and they should abjure at once any ideas of traffic management through DPIS and manageing traffic flow according to content. the Internet should be provided like a Utility...the city doesn't investigate WHAT you are using your power or water for, unless it is extremely out of whack with the "normal" useages....of course, Power prices go up past a certain cut off...i suppose this would work with ISP's too, as long as the "cut-off" level is not too low., after all what is the use of broadband internet if we are only getting dial-up traffic flows?????? if the ISP's feel that one is abusing the service, or committing some kind of crime through the internet, by all means then communicate this to the police and let them investigate...and get a WARRANT if necessary to peek into people's internet content.

[updated 2009-04-21 18:57]

Traffic management practices being performed by an ISP should be presented immediately alongside any internet package being provided to the consumer (i.e. along with the price, traffic limits, speed, etc), not squirreled away in another document buried elsewhere.

[updated 2009-04-22 23:47]

ISP's should fully disclose traffic data so it can be analyzed and determined if the network is being overburnded or if traffic shaping is justified as they claim it is. When cities become too clogged with cars, we build more roads, or a public transit system, or HOV lanes, but we do it because the problem is right there in front of us. In this situation we can't see the problem as they ISP's claim exists, so let them disclose all the data to show what the demand is and if the network needs to be improved or upgraded and why it may not be getting done. ISP's should only have to notify their customers if there is going to be a network outage, not becuase their customer us using too much bandwidth, however, under certain circumstances, certain individuals who use far more then the average user should be held accountable and have to pay for premium service.

[updated 2009-04-23 00:52]

ISPs should disclose any and all Internet traffic management practices they employ. That disclosure should be clear and comprehensive and included in all ISP advertisements and service contracts (so no legalese, no mealy-mouthed disclaimers or clauses allowing the ISP to introduce new traffic-shaping practices down the road, no small print).

Furthermore, ISPs should not be allowed to introduce any additional traffic-shaping practices once a customer has signed up for a contract. Should an ISP feel compelled to introduce traffic-shaping at some point, then it should provide a minimum 3-month notice to all its customers and allow them to switch to a different provider without any penalties (this would apply to all contracts, including term service subscriptions with introductory bonuses).

The goal ought to be complete network neutrality and I hope the CRTC will introduce and enforce strict net-neutrality requirements for all ISPs.

[updated 2009-04-23 01:01]

We pay for Internet connection so ISPs can exist. What right do they have to control the Internet, invented by the people for the people?

[updated 2009-04-23 01:20]

ISPs like Bell who resell their infrastructure to smaller companies should not be able as a matter of course to use the infrastructure to unfairly inhibit competition created by the companies buying the use of the lines. Smaller companies cannot be put in a position where they are how to run their buisnesses by a competetor. More to the point, Bell and other ISPs should not be allowed to make a summary decision to impose traffic shaping on another companies clients.

[updated 2009-04-23 08:03]

All 'managment' they do, and also when they will start doing it. There should be a least a 30 day period before they make a change that they have to notify a user of the change.

Notification would be on invoices, and big and bold and in front.

[updated 2009-04-23 16:44]

Notifications from ISP's are irrelevant.

We cannot trust ISP's to provide accurate data. They have a history of lying and hiding things. They can't even provide accurate metrics for bandwidth usage per customer, often overstating bandwidth usage, and overcharging for that use.

ISP's would rather bilk us for as much money as they can, and provide little in return. They have an agenda, and that doesn't include the CRTC.

We need a regulatory body with direct access to, and report on the data.

[updated 2009-04-24 02:08]

The i.s.p. knows best, if not then they go out of buisness. That's the beauty of a free market in a free world.

[updated 2009-04-25 09:23]

Well, yes, I beleive that Bell Canada should have to tell all potential subscribers and all existing subscribers that every single day, Including Christmas Day - and all of the other holidays, their bandwidth will automatically be reduced by 90% between the hours of 4pm and 2am. I think that everyone should be aware of this. But then again, perhaps the CRTC could play some sort of role in ensuring that Canadians actually get what they pay for. I am still not prepared to acknowledge that what Bell Canada is doing to me has anything to do with network traffic management. The idea that the network is at risk every single day precisely between 4 pm and 2 am is ridiculous.

[updated 2009-04-25 10:41]

ISPs should be required by law to disclose all traffic shaping used by them and *their* providers (as it is often the ISPs above the ISP we pay for who do the traffic shaping). This should include the full details of the traffic shaping: When it is limited, what exactly is limited, how much it is limited, what the rationale is for limiting it.

--
Raven Morris
AstraVera IT Solutions
Vancouver, BC

[updated 2009-04-25 19:43]

They should:
1. notify the public that they are not restricting traffic by protocol or encryption
2. have a website where the congestion of all nodes is reported
3. tell the public of their plans and schedules to relieve the congestion

tOM Trottier

[updated 2009-04-25 21:07]

I recently discovered my wisp near Edmonton, Alberta does bandwidth throttling when I contacted them about extremely erratic internet service, and their response was a terse "Your problem is that you are running peer to peer file sharing programs. This is what is causing the slowness. Get rid of them and you will see things go back to normal within 20 minutes". Considering I've been with this provider for five years, and their website has been essentially static since 2005 (including their Terms of Use, which was last amended in 2005 and makes no reference to peer-to-peer software policy), I was more than a little vexed to find out my issue was caused by my account unknowingly being flagged for "peer to peer activity". Their apparent response was to throttle my entire connection to a full stop upon detection of any peer-to-peer activity. Not just the peer-to-peer traffic, but the whole ball of wax, for minutes at a time.

Notwithstanding that software such as bittorrent can actually be used for good in addition to evil (ie: "Sharing the load" in distributing open-source software by its author), it is suddenly expressly forbidden by my ISP (again, as per their e-mail response, but not their posted terms of use). Annoying and overly restrictive, perhaps, but I'd be more than happy to follow the rules whenever possible if I had a clue what the bloody rules were (aside from respecting my monthly cap, which I diligently monitor).

In the days since I have done a lot of research on the issue of peer-to-peer file sharing and the bandwidth it consumes, in addition to the broader issue of people making a mockery of their monthly download quotas. Frankly, I have a great amount of empathy for internet providers who do not over-subscribe their services, but are in need of a resolution for those who saturate their entire available bandwidth for hours and days at a time. However, I have no tolerance for an internet provider that changes it's network policies without even amending their documentation, leaving me to wonder why my internet connection has become spastic and unreliable over the last few weeks.

To avoid the situation I outlined above, it is absolutely imperative that any internet provider fully disclose any bandwidth controls and measures they employ which are intended to shape or eliminate targeted internet traffic, as well as specifying enforced bandwidth and volume limitations. Further, it is also imperative that the Terms of Use / AUP documentation is updated immediately upon a change of service or policy, so that current customers are aware of the changes. Lastly, notice of a change of policy should be given to existing customers, possibly as an e-mail, but preferably accompanying the next monthly bill.

Based on this accurate information, I could then make a fully informed decision when choosing an ISP / WISP, or deciding to switch providers if their policies and services no longer reflected my needs.

[updated 2009-04-28 02:07]

The key to fair competition is to reduce or eliminate the "information asymmetry" that ISPs currently benefit from: customers are blind to the effects of traffic shaping.

Complete transparency is required so that customers can make rational decisions when purchasing Internet access. In addition, customers should ALWAYS have the option to purchase a service which is "net neutral" (unbiased).

Transparency must include:
a) timely disclosure of descriptive traffic shaping policies, with meaningful, quanitative examples.
b) establish and publish industry-wide metrics that enable meaningful comparisons of traffic-shaping policies.
c) Metrics to be published every 3 months by each ISP, for each class of service sold.
d) Right of customers to annually demand a quantitative study of the impact of traffic shaping policy on their own traffic.
e) effective, independent dispute resolution mechanism.

[updated 2009-04-28 20:44]

“[A] description of traffic management techniques employed, how and when these practices are employed, and the effect on a user’s Internet service” sounds good to me.

This information should be provided:
1) in ToS before signing up
2) on bill/statement in advance of any changes to those practices

This is only truth in labelling.

The CRTC could help keep an offical, public record of these disclosures by requiring annual filings by ISPs detailing their practices and any changes to them during that yesr.

[updated 2009-04-30 01:40]

Nothing less than a full disclosure of how customers' Internet services are being affected is acceptable. This should include a full statement on the methods being used, the protocols affected, and the time which these measures are in place.

The practice of applying measures without public notice and denying its use are purely unacceptable.

[updated 2009-04-30 09:17]

Some day, the Internet is going to be the conduit for all communications. Customers need to know up front if their phone calls or television are going to be throttled or managed -- they might run aground of their bandwidth cap or experience poor quality.
These restrictions should be spoken in any radio or TV ads the ISP produces, similar to the way drugs are advertised.
"Please note that a 60GB download cap is in effect. Customers of VoIP or video on demand services should call Rogers for a free consultation to see if Rogers Express is right for them. During peak hours, some customers will not be able to play online games due to higher than normal latency."

[updated 2009-04-30 10:05]

"The ways Internet service providers disclose their traffic management practices and inform customers can have an impact on consumer decisions."

This a MUST! Traffic management practices are no different from the Mailman not opening "private" mail -- it is against the Law!

"Relevant information to be disclosed could include, but is not limited to, a description of traffic management techniques employed, how and when these practices are employed, and the effect on a user’s Internet service"

This is no different from the comment above, opening "private mail" is against the Law!, unless there is a summons from a Court of Law requiring this. REMEMBER, Court of Law requires this. NOT something that is happening in the USA -- https://secure.eff.org/site/Donation2?idb=998035801&df_id=1220&1220.donation=form1

"Discussion question: What information should ISPs disclose regarding their Internet traffic management practices and how should they notify their customers?"

Once again, gors back to the 1st response, inspecting packets of email or whatever means of checking contents is against the law.

Finally, signing up for a service has to be honoured!, if service providers are going to follow the lead of airlines overbooking their flights, then both have to provide what the customer signed up for.

[updated 2009-04-30 13:43]