CRTC says Rogers is guilty of Internet openness violations

Image from mkreyness on Flickr

Breaking news! The CRTC has sent Rogers an ..er... irate letter, informing the big telecom company that it has been found in violation of Internet openness (net neutrality) rules.

Rogers has two weeks to either present a rebuttal, or providing the CRTC with a plan to come into compliance with Internet openness rules.

This is a milestone for the many individuals and groups—most notably the Canadians Gamers Organization’s (CGO)–that have been fighting Rogers about slowing or blocking access to legitimate content.

Canadians can learn more about Internet openness at http://openmedia.ca/saveournet. Readers can also learn about how the CGO is fighting for access to online services, and sign a petition calling for an open Internet at http://openmedia.ca/gamers.

Find the full letter from the CRTC to Rogers here, or read only the body below:

BY EMAIL
Mr. Ken Thompson
Director and Counsel Copyright and Broadband Law
Rogers Communications Inc.
333 Bloor Street, East
Toronto, ON M4W 1G9
ken.thompson@rci.rogers.com

Dear Mr. Thompson:

Re: File 545613,
Internet Traffic Management Practice (“ITMP”),
Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, as amended (“Act”), and Paragraphs 126 and 127 of Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657 (“TRP CRTC 2009-657”)

I am writing with respect to the above noted file that was transferred to the Compliance and Enforcement Sector by the Telecommunications Sector on October 27, 2011.

Compliance and Enforcement Sector staff has been reviewing this file since its referral to our sector. Based on the preliminary results of our ongoing investigation, Commission staff is of the belief that Rogers Communications Inc. (“Rogers”) applies a technical ITMP to unidentified traffic using default peer-to-peer (“P2P”) ports. On the basis of our evidence to date, any traffic from an unidentified time-sensitive application making use of P2P ports will be throttled resulting in noticeable degradation of such traffic. Enclosed please find a summary of our evidence. Full details, if necessary can be obtained by request through my office.

As you know, prior Commission approval is required pursuant to section 36 of the Act, as described at paragraphs 126 and 127 of TRP CRTC 2009-657, for implementing a technical ITMP that results in:

• noticeable degradation to time-sensitive traffic, or
• the slowing of non-time-sensitive traffic to the extent that it amounts to blocking the content and therefore controlling the content and influencing the meaning and purpose of the telecommunication.

Within two weeks, I look forward to you either presenting us with a rebuttal of our evidence or providing us with a plan to come into compliance with the Act. Failure to provide a meaningful rebuttal or an effective plan will result in my recommendation to Commissioners to hold a show-cause hearing. I look forward to your response by 12:00 pm, February 3, 2012.

Sincerely,

Andrea Rosen
Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer