According to this post by Michael Geist, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (which Geist is a part of) has filed a privacy complaint (warning: PDF) against Bell Canada over their throttling practices because it uses Deep Packet Inspection to throttle customers and they don’t tell their customers that they are using Deep Packet Inspection:
“Neither Bell’s Terms of Service, its Privacy Statement, its Code of Fair Information Practices, nor its FAQs state that Bell will use Sympatico subscribers’ personal information to examine the nature of the data packets they send or receive, or that it will use the information garnered from this examination to limit their ability to use the Internet at certain periods.”
The use of DPI is a big deal as it has a broad range of uses that should scare any user of the Internet. The media has picked this story up. CBC for example has a story on it on their website about this story.
This comes on the same day an interesting post appeared on DSLreports.com that seems to indicate that Bell lied to the CRTC about what they throttle.
Hopefully the CRTC is watching and will act accordingly.
CAIP, Telus, Consumer Groups Say Bell Should Pay For Throttling Nonsense
Posted in Commentary with tags Bell, Canada, Net Neutrality, Throttling on September 22, 2008 by itnerdThe CBC is reporting that CAIP, a variety of consumer groups, and oddly Telus is telling the CRTC that Bell should pay up in more ways than one for the throttling dispute that they started:
“Telus agrees with PIAC that the apportionment for liability for costs be allocated solely to Bell Canada,” wrote the company’s vice-president of policy and regulatory affairs, Ted Woodhead. “The application by CAIP [to the CRTC] was precipitated by Bell Canada’s actions.”
I say oddly because Telus originally supported Bell’s throttling actions, but has since sensed a marketing opportunity changed its tune because they don’t throttle and as as result they think they can make a ton of cash because of that.
The reason why these groups want Bell to pay up is simple:
“Bell has manufactured a crisis, engaged in highly controversial self-help measures that it knew would disrupt the provision of retail services by CAIP’s members to their end-user customers and forcibly transferred to CAIP’s members the burden, inconvenience and entirely unforeseen expense of bringing this application,” wrote CAIP president Tom Copeland.
To nobody’s surprise, Bell has said FOAD rejected these calls to pay up:
“Bell has rejected suggestions that it should be liable for all costs, and that CAIP is not a non-profit group since it is made up of many smaller commercial companies. Bell has said CAIP should be responsible for one third of the investigation’s cost.”
I think the reason why you are seeing this is that perhaps the feeling is that Bell may lose this fight and these groups might as well make Bell hurt. Seeing as it’s lost a high profile case recently, that is entierely possible. It would be a good thing if that were true.
Leave a comment »