ISPs demand action on speed parity

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19099

Distributel, Yak, Primus, Cybersurf Corp and CAIP want the CRTC to, “register its speed matching decision with the courts in order to permit enforcement through contempt proceedings”. They’re, “frustrated that the day before tariffs were due to be filed (March 13), the ILECs filed for a stay, which has not yet been granted,” blogs Mark Goldberg, going on: “Telus Communications applied for a stay of these decisions on 11 March 2009 and Bell Aliant and Bell Canada applied for a stay on 12 March 2009; however, at law both decisions continue in force and must be complied with unless and until a stay is granted. A party cannot grant itself a stay merely by applying for one.”

Here’s the letter »»»

1. Telus Communications applied for a stay of these decisions on 11 March 2009 and Bell Aliant and Bell Canada applied for a stay on 12 March 2009; however, at law both decisions continue in force and must be complied with unless and until a stay is granted.  A party cannot grant itself a stay merely by applying for one.
2. The ILECs’ wholesale speed parity requirement was first ordered by the Commission in 2006 but then rescinded in Telecom Decision 2007-77 in light of the Government’s December 2006 Policy Direction which required the Commission to conduct a full review of wholesale services.  On 11 December 2008, in Decision 2008-117, the Commission reinstated the wholesale speed parity requirement and directed the ILECs to file tariffs within 45 days. Telus Communications requested and received a delay in that filing date for all ILECs.  In response to an application filed by Cybersurf, in Order 2009-111 the Commission reiterated the wholesale parity requirement and directed the ILECs to file the required tariffs on 13 March 2009.
3. Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and Telus Communications have deliberately chosen to flout the Commission’s directives by failing to file the required tariffs on 13 March 2009 as ordered.  This brazen disregard for their obligations under the Telecommunications Act is illegal and undermines the rule of law and the Commission’s authority as a regulatory body.  Such behaviour cannot be tolerated if the Commission’s decisions and orders are to have any meaning or status.
4. The behaviour of these three ILECs is especially troubling given the ongoing decline in Canada’s international ranking in the area of telecommunications.  As you are undoubtedly aware, the International Telecommunication Union very recently released its 2009 report - The ICT Development Index - and Canada has fallen to 19th place from 9th place in 2002 in respect of the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs).
5. As you also know, according to the OECD Canada has fallen from 2nd place in broadband penetration in 2002 to 10th place in 2008.  Moreover, again according to the OECD, in 2007 Canada ranked 27th in terms of broadband rates among the 30 OECD countries.
6. These international comparisons by independent bodies are extremely important since they provide a clear and unambiguous signal that Canada is falling behind.  Canada is shifting from being a leader to a loser in the area of ICTs - an area that is critical to Canadians’ quality of life and to Canada’s economic success in the present and especially the future.
7. Competition in the area of Internet services is a key driver in ensuring that Canada has a world class telecommunications system.  And wholesale speed parity is necessary to ensure a level playing field in Internet services.  The Commission has come to that conclusion three times - first in 2006, a second time in Decision 2008-117 and a third time in Order 2009-111.  Each time, the Commission considered all relevant factors - including the ILECs’ incentive to invest in their network - and concluded that wholesale speed parity is in the public interest.
8. Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and Telus Communications clearly do not care about the public interest, the needs of Canadians or Canada’s international competitiveness.  All they care about is preserving an unlevel competitive playing field and protecting themselves from full and fair competition.
9. The self-interested and illegal behaviour of these three companies must not betolerated.  The Commission must take strong action to preserve the integrity of the ruleof law and of the Commission’s regulatory decisions.  In our view, the Commission should immediately register with the Federal Court both Telecom Decision 2008-117 and Telecom Order 2009-111 so that these directives can be enforced by contempt proceedings in the Federal Court should Bell Aliant, Bell Canada and Telus Communications continue to flaunt the Commission’s orders.

It seems certain ISPs think the law doesn't apply to them and they can carry on carving up the internet purely for their benefit. 

[GhostShip]

What also seems certain is that the quality of service has dropped sharply in recent years, the more astute amongst you may tie this in with the onset of throttling and capping after the various ISP's oversold their capacity, it seems pretty clear that capping and throttling then are signs of poor management and such companies implementing these tactics are acting against their own customers and costing their country vitally needed revenues due to the poor performance they offer.