Bell Won't Back Down, Says Traffic Shaping a Must

A few weeks ago, the issue arose of Bell Canada engaging in Internet traffic "shaping" practices. Bell admits to purposely slowing down the Internet connection for heavy users of P2P and similar sites that are doing things like downloading full-length movies, and thus gobbling up a lot of bandwidth. Since then, there has been a flurry of commentary about the topic. Should Bell be able to shape or "throttle" its traffic? Should the use of P2P and torrent sites be considered "abuse" of Bell's unlimited plans?

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents many small ISPs that use Bell's network to offer their services, sent a request to the CRTC for Bell to stop its shaping activities. The CAIP claims that Bell is "in breach of a number of regulated activites", and called the behaviour "anti-competitive interference in the activities of Internet users." Bell's response was a big fat "no". The telecommunications company feels that slowing down P2P and BitTorrent use is necessary in order to improve overall bandwidth performance for all users. Interestingly, when speaking to CBCNews.ca, Primus President Ted Chislett, who agrees with the CAIP, said that he doubts Bell has any congestion issues related to bandwidth at all.

Assuming issues of traffic congestion do exist as a result of heavy bandwidth usage, does Bell have the right to slow things down? After all, these customers pay the same monthly fees that everyone else does; they're just using the services more. The situation can be likened to an unlimited cell phone data plan: some users might send hundreds of e-mails per month, and chat on the phone for hundreds and hundreds of hours, while others might send a couple of e-mails here and there, and chat less frequently. They're both paying the same monthly fee, but what they get out of their packaged plan is up to them.

In fairness, trying to curb illegal activity is a good thing: if someone is using up gross amounts of bandwidth to acquire loads and loads of illegal content, then really, who are they to complain about slow speeds? But it looks as though P2P and BitTorrent sites can, and are, also used for legitimate activities. Take CBC's recent experimental move, for example, to offer the TV show Canada's Next Great Prime Minister as a free download through BitTorrent. The CAIP reports that it took "thousands of fans" on Bell's network upwards of 11 hours to download the program versus the minutes it should have taken. If more and more legitimate content like this CBC show becomes available via BitTorrent and P2P sites, will Bell stop its traffic shaping activity?

Either way, this issue has initiated a well-needed discussion about regulation and control of the Internet, and opened people's eyes to the rapidly growing nature of the Web world as a whole. We have so much bandwidth, and people will only continue to want to use more of it, not less. Should those who are making frequent use of faster speeds, and thus justifying continued progress in this area, be punished for doing so? Or, on the contrary, are heavy bandwidth users just abusing the capabilities of the service, and ruining the experience for everyone else?

Canadian TV Remains in Flux

The Canadian TV landscape remains in flux, and the latest drama arises from CTVglobemedia Inc., which says its sick of letting cable and satellite distributors run its signals for free, and wants a piece of the action. I'm a little confused on this point. Aren't they happy to be given access to these provider's subscribers? Apparently, Rogers Communications Inc. agrees with my sentiment, arguing that companies like Rogers gives networks like CTV and Global access to "millions of Canadian homes."

On the flip side, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Sure, cable providers like Rogers give TV networks a platform to get their content out to consumers, and thus increase advertising. But without this content, cable providers would be selling empty space (or those swiggly lines that used to come on at 4 a.m.: remember those?!) But there could actually be something to fill the holes: U.S. stations!

I find it strange that a country that's supposedly struggling to compete with our neighbours to the south in providing good content would be taking steps to interfere with the distribution of its programming. It sounds as though the request is in attempt to find another means of making money, especially in light of issues like the writer's strike and online streaming and downloading that have been plaguing the TV industry as a whole. But will customers say "no big deal" to paying a few extra bucks for their cable and satellite TV companies (because, let's face it, the added costs to providers would be translated on our bills), or will this be the last straw that begins a boycott of TV altogether? I don't know about you, but every three or four months, my bill seems to increase anyway. So I wouldn't be too happy even if it meant adding yet another two-bucks to my monthly bill. No thanks.

Given the ongoing debate, the CRTC is supposedly conducting a massive review of the entire TV broadcast landscape, examining issues like if providers should pay networks for distributing their content, and if Canadian content regulations should be re-examined? Right now, a good portion of the programs airing on Canadian networks are U.S. programs that certain subscribers could, in theory, watch through the U.S. networks instead.

My proposal: get rid of the U.S./Canada divide when it comes to TV, and just air programming that consumers want. Air Canadian shows in the U.S. and vice versa, and let the viewers decide what's great. After all, in the movie and music scene, it's often a surprise nowadays to find out that a popular artist or actor is actually Canadian. Why does that distinct divide still exist in TV land?

As for the network vs. provider debate, it surprises me that companies like CTVglobemedia are asking for money from the distributors of its content when much of it is actually U.S. programming. What's more, as I discussed in an older post, the programming is also often not broadcast up to par with the U.S. version, particularly when it comes to high-def versions.

I just think that, given the current state of the TV industry, causing a stir that could potentially lead to more money out of consumer's pockets probably isn't the best idea. And if the CRTC decides that yes, we should just allow U.S. programming to enter direct in order to help the ailing industry, Canadian broadcasters could be in real trouble. It would be a surprise if the CRTC does decide to go this way, but I think it might just be the kind of shake-up we need. I've always wondered whether forcing Canadian "culture" onto residents is actually promoting anything but a nation that's scared of losing its culture.

The End of an Era: U.S. Best Buy Stores Say No More Analog TVs

According to a Reuters report, Best Buy's U.S. stores will no longer be offering analog TVs, opting for a digital-only tuner environment. Of course this goes in line with the FCC's decision to stop all analog broadcasts by February 2009.

In Canada, the CRTC has not made a similar mandate, and a spokesperson for Best Buy Canada tells me that the retailer will continue to sell analog products "as long as there is a demand for them".

Although a demand certainly still does exist, there's no telling for how long. After all, even my 60+ year old parents recently expressed to me that they'd like "one of those TVs that you can hang on the wall." Not to mention that both plasma and LCD TVs are available for reasonable prices that even the severely budget-conscious could afford.

That said, I do think it's a good move on Best Buy U.S.'s part to help push lagging customers toward digital TV.

Will the CRTC follow suit with the U.S. FCC and make similar moves for digital TV? Although the organization has taken steps to encourage the adoption of digital TV (like requesting that, by the end of this year, Canadian broadcasters offer at least two-thirds of their TV schedules in HD), there has been no specific deadlines (to my knowledge) that would absolutely ensure that this happens. Stay tuned (pun intended).

Do Not Call is Coming

Hi, my name is Christine from Company XYZ, and you have been demographically selected to….(*click*). Ever experienced such a scenario? It’s highly likely that you have, with telemarketing running rampant in Canada. Well, your hopes and prayers to stop being bothered during dinner time, or while your favourite TV show is on might be answered. Today, the CRTC is one step closer to the creation of a National Do Not Call List. If your number is on this list, telemarketers can’t call you.

I’m skeptical as to how well such a list would work: according to a prepared CRTC press release, some callers would be exempt from the list due to the Telecommunications Act. These include: registered charities; political parties; nomination contestants, leadership contestants or candidates of a political party; opinion polling firms; general circulation newspapers; organizations that have an existing business relationship with a consumer; and organizations to business consumers. Pardon my asking, but who exactly is left? Can't pretty much any company find a loophole that would slot them in one of these categories?

For example, my cell phone and cable TV is from Rogers making me an existing Rogers customer. Does this mean one of Rogers Publishing magazines can call me? After all, it is technically the same company when you reach the top of the organizational chart, right? Note: this is just an example: I do not, as it stands, receive any unsolicited phone calls from Rogers!

Nevertheless, if you hate late night calls and prodding tele-sales tactics, I’d advise you get on this list as soon as the opportunity becomes available. The CRTC says that once it has located an independent operator to manage the list, Canadians will be able to add their number to the database at no charge.

I hope whatever company is found to operate this list understands the importance of high security: can you imagine what would happen if such a list was hacked?