Comments on: Canadian regulators smarter than Americans http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/canadian-regulators-smarter-than-americans/ A regular old blog Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:51:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Richard Bennett http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/canadian-regulators-smarter-than-americans/comment-page-1/#comment-427455 Richard Bennett Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:05:39 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/canadian-regulators-smarter-than-americans/#comment-427455 My understanding of the issue is the same as yours, minus the timeline. Bell Canada had to deal with congestion, which they did in a non-discriminatory fashion. The law professors are still upset, however. My understanding of the issue is the same as yours, minus the timeline. Bell Canada had to deal with congestion, which they did in a non-discriminatory fashion. The law professors are still upset, however.

]]> By: Jason http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/canadian-regulators-smarter-than-americans/comment-page-1/#comment-427454 Jason Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:30:24 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/2008/11/canadian-regulators-smarter-than-americans/#comment-427454 You should actually look at what was the issue under consideration. It is not about throttling but about what service discrimination. In Canada there is government mandated local loop unbundling which is supposed to provide DSL competition. Bell is supposed to provide local loop to CLECs (for a fee) in a non-discriminatory fashion (CLECs do their own backhaul). Bell began throttling their own customers and those customers started moving to the CLECs Bell states in their own CRTC submissions that it was unfair to Bell that they couldn't throttle CLECs because otherwise they would lose customers. Bell then started applying the throttling to CLEC customers at which point a complaint was filed: Bell is supposed to provide wholesale, non-discriminatory access. My understanding is that the ruling stated that since Bell was doing the same thing to their own customers that the throttling was not discrimanatory and therefore did not violate Bell's obligation to the CLECs. So the ruling doesn't really have anything to do with throttling. A ruling specifically on the issue of throttling will be decided in July 2009. You should actually look at what was the issue under consideration. It
is not about throttling but about what service discrimination. In
Canada there is government mandated local loop unbundling which is
supposed to provide DSL competition. Bell is supposed to provide local
loop to CLECs (for a fee) in a non-discriminatory fashion (CLECs do
their own backhaul). Bell began throttling their own customers and
those customers started moving to the CLECs Bell states in their own
CRTC submissions that it was unfair to Bell that they couldn’t
throttle CLECs because otherwise they would lose customers. Bell then
started applying the throttling to CLEC customers at which point a
complaint was filed: Bell is supposed to provide wholesale,
non-discriminatory access. My understanding is that the ruling stated
that since Bell was doing the same thing to their own customers that
the throttling was not discrimanatory and therefore did not violate
Bell’s obligation to the CLECs. So the ruling doesn’t really have
anything to do with throttling.

A ruling specifically on the issue of throttling will be decided in
July 2009.

]]>