Speaking of Michael Geist, I found an article on his site about Rogers and Net Neutrality. It’s from back in April and I may have referenced it here on my site already (I’m too fucking lazy to check) but it’s still worth having a look at.

Rogers is notorious for their “traffic shaping” and “bandwidth caps” whereby they decide what content gets priority and what content they will constrict. Users pay for packages that (theoretically) provide a certain amount of bandwidth but the reality seems to be that Roger’s customers are being consistently and systematically hosed, sometimes only being able to use half the speeds they pay for.

This, from Geist’s post:

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the Rogers traffic shaping issue and the resulting impact on consumer rights, competition, and non-P2P applications. If you read my original posting and the many comments that followed, the column covers similar terrain. I therefore think it might be more useful to respond to an interesting posting from Matt Roberts on the Rogers issue. Roberts confirms the Rogers shaping (as does Mark Evans in a posting that refers to it as bandwidth management, a distinction without a difference in my view) but then takes me to task for wrapping it into the net neutrality debate.

The post raises an interesting and important question - is throttling/traffic shaping a net neutrality issue? I should note that regardless of the answer, I believe there is no question that there are problems with the current Rogers approach. The lack of transparency, the misleading service claims, and the inclusion of bandwidth caps that are rendered difficult to achieve all point to an issue that should attract the attention of regulatory agencies (and perhaps class action lawyers).

As for whether there is a net neutrality problem, that likely depends on your definition of net neutrality.
The Telecommmunications Policy Review Panel called for a net neutrality provision on the following terms:

“The Telecommunications Act should be amended to confirm the right of Canadian consumers to access publicly available Internet applications and content of their choice by means of all public telecommunications networks providing access to the Internet. This amendment should
(a) authorize the CRTC to administer and enforce these consumer access rights,
(b) take into account any reasonable technical constraints and efficiency considerations related to providing such access, and
(c) be subject to legal constraints on such access, such as those established in criminal, copyright and broadcasting laws.”

Does the Rogers action run afoul of this definition? Possibly - the traffic shaping certainly makes it difficult to access certain applications and content. The issue is whether the technical constraints are “reasonable”. Given the impact on all encrypted data, the fact that consumers have paid for a set amount of monthly bandwidth, and the fact that the constraints render some applications all but unusable, I think that the constraints are arguably unreasonable.

I know Rogers fucks with me whenever I’m using BitTorrent. They have specifically targetted P2P programs and will (without warning) squeeze your “pipes’ shut, rendering your software and downloading abso-fuckin-lutely useless. I use BitTorrent for a wide range of things, including transferring large media files amongst my colleagues. It’s a legitimate use of the bandwidth I am paying for. And those bastards are blocking my pipes with their shit.

Time to call RotoRooter.

Anybody else having the same nonsense from their ISP … Rogers, Bell, whomever? I’m going to get active on this topic because it affects me directly and I’ll be damned sure my views are expressed to the CRTC so that bunch of lame-arse bureaucrats can slap ol’ Teddy Boy upside his noggin and make Rogers (and everybody else) conduct their business openy, transparently and fairly.

Cheers.