Internet evolution

Tech tips -

"Throughout this evolution, the Internet has seen greater strain than it sees today.

"Increased capacity has been the primary means of dealing with this evolution. ...The Commission should be careful not to adopt policies that encourage scarcity and dis-incent - I know dis-incent isn't a real word, but we all know what we mean - dis-incent network operators' investment in adding capacity." Jacob Glick for the Open Internet Coalition.

Last week we started looking at the CRTC's examination of internet traffic management practices and I encouraged you to go to the CRTC's website and view the transcripts of public hearing beginning the week of July 6.

There are three clear lines drawn between those who support and those who oppose internet traffic management. Obviously the dominant carriers, Bell, Rogers and Telus (and others) want to be able to control the traffic on their networks, if for nothing else, to reduce congestion during peak times of the day.

And, there are different ideas on how to control congestion. You can reduce demand by setting monthly bit caps, charging for abuse or charge based on usage like the electric company does for electricity. Or you employ traffic shaping technology to give priority to certain time sensitive applications during peak demand to kind of stretch out more performance from existing infrastructure. Or, option three, you can combine the two!

The "free, open internet side of the fence" want the carriers to spend more on infrastructure, to them, this is the only way to insure innovation remains alive.

However the carriers say they are already pouring hundreds of millions of dollars a year into modernizing technology and increasing capacity. From the carries point of view, there is a limit to the amount of cash available for increasing bandwidth. All extra costs will have to be passed onto the consumer and sooner or later, you reach a point of diminishing return.

Smaller ISP's (call them downstream ISPs), the third side of the fence, who in effect purchase their bandwidth from the major carriers (call them upstream ISP's) want the carriers to stop managing the bandwidth sold to them (wholesale).

Smaller ISP's don't have a problem with the carrier's traffic shaping for their own retail customers (i.e. the homeowner who purchased DSL directly from Bell for example) but they want their bandwidth unaltered so they can determine for themselves the best way to manage their own customers.

There might be a marketing hook to take advantage of here as well. A small ISP for example could advertise unshaped DSL access to the internet as opposed to buying from a carrier who is practicing shaping. This might become an important factor in you choosing what ISP to purchase from depending on your surfing habits (i.e. if you are a big downloader).

Unfortunately, I am running out of space again. Anyway, I will leave you with this thought. The point I got from the large carriers is that they want the CRTC to avoid passing broad regulations. They say this will stunt innovation. To them, each network is unique and each needs to be managed differently.

Carriers would prefer the CRTC examine each traffic shaping practice on a case-by-case basis and at present, the current technology in use (like deep layer inspection or DLP) does not infringe on anyone's privacy.

Look, go read it for yourself. Some of the people attending and presenting at this hearing are the real players in determining what direction internet access will take in Canada.

toddmusseau@gmail.com