Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

jeff.gallagher at bellaliant

Oct 21, 2009, 8:54 AM

Post #1 of 8 (269 views)
Permalink

CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices

For those following the regulatory / net neutrality debate, the Canadian
Radio and Telecommunications Commission released this morning a decision
requiring additional transparency with respect to the traffic management
practices of Canadian service providers.

News Release:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r091021.htm

Policy Details:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm

Jeff Gallagher
Network Engineering
jeff.gallagher [at] bellaliant

michael at linuxmagic

Oct 21, 2009, 9:03 AM

Post #2 of 8 (259 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

Holy Hannah!

ISP actions affecting content
According to the Telecommunications Act, a telecommunications company must
obtain the Commissionâ€™s prior approval to â€ścontrol the content or influence
the meaning or purpose of telecommunicationsâ€ť carried over its network. The
Commission does not consider such disruptive actions to be proper Internet
traffic management practices, and they will always require prior approval.
An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commissionâ€™s approval before it
implemented a practice that would:
block the delivery of content to an end-user, or
slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or Internet
telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the extent that the
content is degraded.
When faced with these requests, the Commission will only grant its approval in
the most exceptional cases.

The email marketing lobby already got the legislation watered down on the spam
front, but does this in essence say that ISP's are no longer allowed to block
email content, viruses et al?

On October 21, 2009, Jeff Gallagher wrote:
> For those following the regulatory / net neutrality debate, the Canadian
> Radio and Telecommunications Commission released this morning a decision
> requiring additional transparency with respect to the traffic management
> practices of Canadian service providers.
>
> News Release:
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r091021.htm
>
> Policy Details:
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm
>
>
> Jeff Gallagher
> Network Engineering
> jeff.gallagher [at] bellaliant
>

--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.

jabley at hopcount

Oct 21, 2009, 9:14 AM

Post #3 of 8 (261 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

On 2009-10-21, at 12:03, Michael Peddemors wrote:

> The email marketing lobby already got the legislation watered down
> on the spam
> front, but does this in essence say that ISP's are no longer allowed
> to block
> email content, viruses et al?

No more null-routing targets in your own network as a DDoS mitigation
technique?

Joe

tim at broadlinenetworks

Oct 21, 2009, 9:59 AM

Post #4 of 8 (258 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

Realistically this has to do with one main thing, traffic throttling
(Mainly of bittorrent and other p2p applications).
In previous decisions and hearings they discussed at length the
management of networks in regards to spam and viruses.
These have nothing to do with what this ruling is about and they stated
that there is a clear distinction
between managing spam and viruses and management of traffic for specific
applications.

This ruling really doesn't amount to much at this point as bell, rogers,
shaw, cogeco etc will all still throttle whatever they
want, whenever they want without much regard for the rulings of the
CRTC. They ignore many other rulings every day,
why would this one be any different.

Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Holy Hannah!
>
> ISP actions affecting content
> According to the Telecommunications Act, a telecommunications company must
> obtain the Commissionâ€™s prior approval to â€ścontrol the content or influence
> the meaning or purpose of telecommunicationsâ€ť carried over its network. The
> Commission does not consider such disruptive actions to be proper Internet
> traffic management practices, and they will always require prior approval.
> An ISP would therefore need to seek the Commissionâ€™s approval before it
> implemented a practice that would:
> block the delivery of content to an end-user, or
> slow down time-sensitive traffic, such as videoconferencing or Internet
> telephone (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, to the extent that the
> content is degraded.
> When faced with these requests, the Commission will only grant its approval in
> the most exceptional cases.
>
> The email marketing lobby already got the legislation watered down on the spam
> front, but does this in essence say that ISP's are no longer allowed to block
> email content, viruses et al?
>
>
>
> On October 21, 2009, Jeff Gallagher wrote:
>
>> For those following the regulatory / net neutrality debate, the Canadian
>> Radio and Telecommunications Commission released this morning a decision
>> requiring additional transparency with respect to the traffic management
>> practices of Canadian service providers.
>>
>> News Release:
>> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2009/r091021.htm
>>
>> Policy Details:
>> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm
>>
>>
>> Jeff Gallagher
>> Network Engineering
>> jeff.gallagher [at] bellaliant
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Tim Lampman
Co-Owner/CTO
*Broadline Networks Inc.*
57 Colborne Street West, Brantford, ON, N3T 1K6
*c.* 905-746-3114
www.broadlinenetworks.com <http://www.broadlinenetworks.com/> |
tim [at] broadlinenetworks <mailto:tim [at] broadlinenetworks>

jabley at hopcount

Oct 21, 2009, 10:09 AM

Post #5 of 8 (259 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

On 2009-10-21, at 12:14, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 2009-10-21, at 12:03, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>
>> The email marketing lobby already got the legislation watered down
>> on the spam
>> front, but does this in essence say that ISP's are no longer
>> allowed to block
>> email content, viruses et al?
>
> No more null-routing targets in your own network as a DDoS
> mitigation technique?

Some better-informed person dropped me a note off-list, pointing me to
the following. On the face of it it seems like consideration for this
aspect has already been incorporated into the ruling.

>> ITMPs used for network security or employed temporarily to protect
>> network integrity
>>
>> 44.
>> The Commission notes that Canadian ISPs have used certain ITMPs
>> for the purposes of network security and integrity. Specifically,
>> these
>> ITMPs have been employed to protect users from network threats such
>> as
>> malicious software, spam, and distribution of illicit materials. In
>> the
>> Commission's view, such activities are unlikely to trigger
>> complaints or
>> concerns under the Act and are a necessary part of an ISP's network
>> operations.
>>
>> 45.
>> The Commission is therefore not addressing, in this decision,
>> ITMPs used only for the purpose of network security, nor those
>> employed
>> temporarily9 to address unpredictable traffic events (e.g. traffic
>> surges due to global events and failures on part of an ISP's
>> network) in
>> order to protect network integrity.

jmaimon at ttec

Oct 21, 2009, 10:16 AM

Post #6 of 8 (259 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

Tim Lampman wrote:
> Realistically this has to do with one main thing, traffic throttling
> (Mainly of bittorrent and other p2p applications).
> In previous decisions and hearings they discussed at length the
> management of networks in regards to spam and viruses.
> These have nothing to do with what this ruling is about and they stated
> that there is a clear distinction
> between managing spam and viruses and management of traffic for specific
> applications.
>
> This ruling really doesn't amount to much at this point as bell, rogers,
> shaw, cogeco etc will all still throttle whatever they
> want, whenever they want without much regard for the rulings of the
> CRTC. They ignore many other rulings every day,
> why would this one be any different.
>

The issue that interests me most is the reputed filtering and throttling
performed by these companies for broadband L2 connections backhauled to
ISP's doing the L3 on them, such as with ATM or L2TP.

In that scenario, a broadband user who is a customer of Mom'N'Pop ISP is
getting throttled by a third party providing a L2 backhaul.

From what you have posted, this would now require prior approval. As I
feel strongly that this behavior is quite wrong and should not happen, I
am encouraged by these rules.

Joe

tim at broadlinenetworks

Oct 21, 2009, 10:22 AM

Post #7 of 8 (254 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Tim Lampman wrote:
>> Realistically this has to do with one main thing, traffic throttling
>> (Mainly of bittorrent and other p2p applications).
>> In previous decisions and hearings they discussed at length the
>> management of networks in regards to spam and viruses.
>> These have nothing to do with what this ruling is about and they
>> stated that there is a clear distinction
>> between managing spam and viruses and management of traffic for
>> specific applications.
>>
>> This ruling really doesn't amount to much at this point as bell,
>> rogers, shaw, cogeco etc will all still throttle whatever they
>> want, whenever they want without much regard for the rulings of the
>> CRTC. They ignore many other rulings every day,
>> why would this one be any different.
>>
>
> The issue that interests me most is the reputed filtering and
> throttling performed by these companies for broadband L2 connections
> backhauled to ISP's doing the L3 on them, such as with ATM or L2TP.
>
> In that scenario, a broadband user who is a customer of Mom'N'Pop ISP
> is getting throttled by a third party providing a L2 backhaul.
>
> From what you have posted, this would now require prior approval. As I
> feel strongly that this behavior is quite wrong and should not happen,
> I am encouraged by these rules.
>
> Joe
>
It would appear this is how it should be, however the track record of
Bell heeding the CRTC's rulings has not been good. Last year Bell was
ordered to offer matching speeds to their wholesale GAS customers to
that of their retail offerings, they simply never complied. This ruling
only applies to time sensitive traffic, most of which Bell does not
currently throttle. While I think most people would agree that its
completely wrong to throttle the traffic of a third party wholesale
customer, the reality is that Bell does this every day and will continue
to do so regardless of what the CRTC tells them.

--
Tim Lampman
Co-Owner/CTO
*Broadline Networks Inc.*
57 Colborne Street West, Brantford, ON, N3T 1K6
*c.* 905-746-3114
www.broadlinenetworks.com <http://www.broadlinenetworks.com/> |
tim [at] broadlinenetworks <mailto:tim [at] broadlinenetworks>

jmaimon at ttec

Oct 21, 2009, 11:42 AM

Post #8 of 8 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: CRTC rules on Traffic Management Practices [In reply to]

Tim Lampman wrote:
> Joe Maimon wrote:

>> In that scenario, a broadband user who is a customer of Mom'N'Pop ISP
>> is getting throttled by a third party providing a L2 backhaul.
>>
>> From what you have posted, this would now require prior approval. As I
>> feel strongly that this behavior is quite wrong and should not happen,
>> I am encouraged by these rules.
>>
>> Joe
>>
> It would appear this is how it should be, however the track record of
> Bell heeding the CRTC's rulings has not been good. Last year Bell was
> ordered to offer matching speeds to their wholesale GAS customers to
> that of their retail offerings, they simply never complied. This ruling
> only applies to time sensitive traffic, most of which Bell does not
> currently throttle. While I think most people would agree that its
> completely wrong to throttle the traffic of a third party wholesale
> customer, the reality is that Bell does this every day and will continue
> to do so regardless of what the CRTC tells them.
>

Disappointing, but at least it is not a step in the wrong direction.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads