Undue Preferences in Context of Mobile Data Provision - Paper Example

Basically, undue preferences in the provision of mobile data mean unfairness or discrimination of the mobile wireless carriers and other customers accessing this service. These undue preferences vary from country to country but in this analysis, Canada is the core subject of the research. Furthermore, I will examine the exploration of telecom act of Canada, section 27 of telecommunication act, (net neutrality), and the CRTC Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission decision and reports. According to the telecom regulatory policy, all the Canadians should be able to access services such as voice and broadband internet access on the mobile networks and fixed networks. The CRTC is a commission that is concerned with the terms and conditions at which wireless mobile data is roaming.

The CRTC was established in 1976 and it was conceived to act like an administrative body, which would maintain different cultures in Canada and the increasing rate of competition in the environment which has been developing a strong domestic telecom industry. It was considered as a regulatory tool that would serve by ensuring that the dissemination of telecommunications and all the broadcasting services were affordable and reliable to all the Canadians. However, the internet has not been disseminating its content in a restricted manner, unlike the broadcasting services. These restrictions should be applicable to the internet as well so as to prevent discrimination of the consumers.

Technologies have advanced and every mobile device user wants to access wireless internet. The provision of mobile data allows them to access all the information they need as they roam from one place to another. However, in Canada, there have been cases of undue preferences regarding wholesale roaming. Allegedly, the national wireless carriers have been discriminating against other carriers unjustly. These national wireless carriers have been engaging in activities such as proposing to charge or even charging wholesale mobile wireless roaming rates for text services, voice, and data. Mostly, these rates are higher than the rates they normally charge other Canadian and U.S-based mobile wireless carriers, their own cost to provide wholesale mobile wireless roaming services, proposing to impose or already imposing another restrictive term in the wholesale roaming agreements, and also at the rate which they charge their own retail customers for these services.

Moreover, there are continued complaints on other undue preference provisions such as the pay-tv regulations prohibited pay. Also, to acquire exclusive rights to pay-per-view licenses are demanded. Nevertheless, CRTC analyses and makes decisions on those proposed regulatory policies. Later on, these regulations will be published in the Canadian Gazette.

Telecom act of Canada, section 27 of telecommunication act, (net neutrality)

Essentially, net neutrality is the concept in which all the traffic on the internet is provided with equal treatment by the internet providers without any interference, manipulation, prioritization, preference given or any discrimination. Canada is looking forward to strengthening net neutrality where all the Canadians have the ability to freely access the internet to choose, innovate and share ideas. The CRTC is known to support net neutrality; it ensures that the internet providers treat data traffic the same way, irrespective of the content. This is a very good strategy because no content is treated differently, especially when internet providers compete on the quality of their networks. If one is not satisfied with the price and data allowances of their services, then they have a right to demand better. When users realize this then the internet providers can lower their prices and increase data allowances.

In the past decisions, the CRTC commission inspected issues related to network neutrality agreeing with its mandate under section 27 of the Telecommunication Act. This Act was to address matters of unjust discrimination and unfair preferences when providing telecommunication services. The implementation of section 27 of the telecommunication Act was a very important strategy because Canadian carrier will not, in terms of services provided by the telecommunications and its charging rate, give an undue, unjustly discriminate, or give any unreasonable preferences to any person. This includes the organization itself, or subjects any other person to unreasonable or undue disadvantage.

Furthermore, the commission identified issues which would be addressed before making that decision. Some of the issues identified included, assessment, framework and evaluation criteria, and the application of subsection 36 of the Act of differential pricing practices. Also, the issue of interventions regarding data caps was considered. After the examination of these issues, the commission was able to make a final decision.

However, differential pricing practices raised concerns about unfair and unreasonable preferences. Consequently, the commission received complaints regarding subsection 27(4) of the Act. Additionally, these practices impacted Canadians in a major way, there was now competition, consumer choice, privacy, innovation, easy access, and affordability. These are the positive impacts, on the other hand, differential pricing practices also have negative impacts which do not raise significant concerns but still are acceptable. Some of these practices include social good, content-agnostic offerings, and the administrative functions.

When the commission's framework is set, various internet service providers can implement differential pricing practices before even the approval from the CRTC. All they expected was any practice that could be implemented and still consist the evaluation criteria. After the commission received a complaint receipt, they initiated investigations and promised that they would look at those criteria and general specific facts involved. This helped them to determine whether the differential pricing practice will be allowed.

The CRTC's authority has been settled in the Telecommunication Act and also the Broadcasting Act which is the only two federal acts. The most relevant Act is basically the latter Act which is purposefully used to regulate net neutrality. The Canada Supreme Court decision in rebroadcasting act, which was made in 2010 was very necessary and effective, this is because regulations concerning the internet would be justified. Nevertheless, when CRTC was established, it was in a position where it could not be referred to as a coherent policy position and therefore, it was not in a position to regulate the internet policies. For that reason, despite the fact that CRTC organization's competency, it was limited from regulating internet policies, it was only allowed to regulate audiovisual mediums.

Telecommunication industries, lawmakers, communication scholars, and the media reformers have found the idea of net neutrality to be the most prominent policy, this is because there is a high possibility that net neutrality will face intense opposition. The enforcement of this framework should be strengthened so that the internet service providers (ISP) can modify their services so as to satisfy user's needs. However, the introduction of net neutrality has brought up a political debate which has affected the understanding of the public on the nature of the problem, and also the possible solutions to solve it. In Canada, there has been competition in the telecommunication industry and some of the internet service providers have been exploiting other providers by taking advantage of the existing policies. Therefore, the mention of net neutrality scared some of those ISPs.

The issue of network management has been problematic especially on the provision of mobile data, where there are complains of undue preferences. Therefore, implementation of the net neutrality policy is necessary; this will make internet service providers compete and hence providing better services to their users, and also showing transparency towards the consumer. Nevertheless, there are polarizing issues such as economics, access by the consumer, freedom of speech, and most importantly competition between the service providers and all of these issues need to be addressed and debated at the end of the day.

Konrad Von Finckenstein who is the chairman of the CRTC, had a relevant idea when he declared that these vexed debates, over the new policy of net neutrality needed to be addressed. Consequently, his idea would solve all the technological fundamental issues. Moreover, Konrad brought together the top telecom organizations and regulators in the country so that they could discuss the emerging technologies and policy issues in telecommunications. In July 2009, the public hearing to discuss traffic shaping ISPs practices was held and the decision was released in October same year.

Despite the decision made after the public hearing, critics never lack in Canada. It is worthless to call for transparent policies and traffic management practices done by the internet providers but still criticizes it. Apparently, Canada appears to be a global leader in many ways, especially for that calling. However, the CRTC hearing generated a lot of activity amongst the Canadians. Many advocacy groups and companies and also individuals highly reacted to the final decision. This was a very encouraging move to promote net neutrality.

Additionally, the independent media and public interest groups elevated net neutrality. They also encouraged citizens to be aware of the issues. The democratic media which is also an open media to the Canadian citizens went ahead and released a snappy video on "Internet of Canada Explained", this described very well the necessity for net neutrality, especially for the Canadian content, entrepreneurs and the businesses, activists, and the community groups. The snapping video was downloaded not less than 8000 times on YouTube alone. This must have been impressive because also the federal opposition parties agreed with the net neutrality legislation.

There was a private member's bill which was introduced by the new Democratic Party, this bill would be used for the net neutrality principles in parliament. One year later, it was introduced again into the Parliament Bill C-398, which is basically an Act which would be used in amending the Telecommunications Act (Network neutrality), this adds a new section to the Act. As a result, this Act defines network neutrality and gives a list of several prohibitions for internet service providers. Additionally, it was beneficial that the Liberal party also released a statement to support net neutrality.

In addition, a decision on traffic management practices was issued by the CRTC in October 2009. Under their determination, the CRTC considered innovation, transparency, competitive and clarified neutrality. These allowed a balance between the generated traffic to be managed by the carriers and maintain an open internet innovation. However, the CRTC's decisions still received criticism from the public interest groups; they complained that traffic shaping policies haven't been sufficiently obtained by most of the internet service providers. For that reason, ISPs are held accountable by the consumers, otherwise, these service providers should reshape their traffic management policies for consumer's satisfaction.

In the year 2010, around July, the public interest law clinic (CIPPIC) and Canadian internet policy, also acting with the OpenMedia.ca, together with various internet service providers, the internet Advocacy Centre as well as the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Associations (CWTA), successfully managed to reques...