Weekly Buzz Volume #3

The Bell Debacle Update:


The CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) submitted its answer to Bell Canada on the need for throttling Bells networks and wholesale providers on Thursday. It was an answer that I found quite entertaining and very informative as a whole, and does provide a lot of background as to what problems DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) has, including hinting that this technology implemented by Bell and other ISP’s such as Rogers may infact be against our privacy laws here in Canada. From the CAIP’s recent submission to the CRTC:

68. By way of response, CAIP notes that Bell has admitted in its Answer that it is using Deep Packet Inspection (‘DPI”) to shape its competitors’ traffic. While Bell may assert that this technology is only used to examine packet “headers”, the literature on DPI does not support these assertions. For example, the description of DPI contained on the “dPacket.org” web-site defines DPI as follows:

Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI) is a computer networking term that refers to devices and technologies that inspect and take action based on the contents of the packet (commonly called the “payload”) rather than just the packet header. The following analogy helps clarify the role of DPI:

A packet is analogous to a physical postal mail message. The address on the outside of the envelope is analogous to the “packet header” and the information inside the envelope is analogous to the “payload.” DPI is analogous to taking action on that mail message not only based on the address on the envelope, but also making considerations based on the contents of the envelope.

69. CAIP notes that dPacket.org identifies itself as a “non-profit corporation founded for education and scientific purposes to foster and support community interest and progress in deep packet inspection and processing (DPI/DPP).” CAIP further notes that one of the founding “Gold Sponsors” of dPacket.org is Ellacoya, the company that manufactures Bell’s DPI equipment.

70. Even Ellacoya’s descriptions of its DPI equipment do not support Bell’s assertion that it is only examining packet headers and not the payloads of the packets themselves. According to Ellacoya, “[U]nlike most policy-based network devices, the Ellacoya switch can identify traffic based on application signatures in addition to standard TCP/IP header information.” Ellacoya’s product literature also states explicitly that its DPI technology allows a service provider “to identify the application being used” by a particular end-user, but “does not identify the specific files being shared

71. In essence, what this means is that Bell is examining packet headers and inspecting packet payloads in order to determine what type of content is being sent by or delivered to the customers of competitors. Although Bell is quick to point out that it does not examine the actual contents of the packet payloads, it is clear from these descriptions of Bell’s traffic shaping practices that Bell can identify, inter alia, the type of data being transferred, the ISP upon whose network the data is being transferred, an end-user’s intention to acquire certain types of Internet content and the IP address and, hence, the identity of the end-user customer who is sending/receiving the data.

72. As indicated in CAIP’s 3 April 2008 Application, the collection and use of such information by Bell, which in this case would have clearly been done without the prior
consent of the end-user customers so affected, violates the privacy of such individuals.

This could end up a major issue with customers and ISP’s. This basically opens the door now for civil action against these ISP’s for implementing this technology, which is something the CAIP foresees in happening should the CRTC not grant an immediate cease and desist order on the throttling practises as Bell. These points made by the CAIP could very well pave the way to other lawsuits with other ISP’s that use DPI technology, like Rogers for instance, who have NO legal standing on the use of DPI, nor have informed their customers about the use of DPI in their contracts.

This is now in the hands of the CRTC and we have no expected date on when a decision is due.

It’s amazing how us as customers get nailed by these big corporations when it comes to not abiding by our end of contracts made (very swiftly I might add with little or no legal recourse), but as soon as these corporations break their abiding contracts with consumers, the politians, and the publicly funded regulators who are supposed to be protecting the public from this do NOTHING!!

As noted in an earlier blog, the CRTC does not handle “consumer” complains on ISP’s. We desperately need a complaints commission to on the digital end to handle consumer complaints with the ISP’s and are able to act accordingly should ISP’s break their end of the contract with consumers. I urge those following this to write into the Minister of Industry Jim Prentice along with their local politicians, to get a telecom complaints commission set up to handle “consumer complaints” that has the power legally to act on them if necessary.


Public Forum on Copyright Against "Fair" Copyright Debate?

The Who’s Who of the copyright debate is gathering today for a Public Policy Forum around copyright without a key speaker. Howard Knopf a Canadian Copyright lawyer and respected blogger was initially on the list of speakers, but got a slap in the face from this “Public Forum” last week when they uninvited Knopf from the speakers list. Most of the speakers on this list are the ones fighting for stronger copyright policy from Canada, however the sole responsibily to make sure consumers are heard in this forum lies with Dr. Micheal Geist. I have every confidence that Dr. Geist will do very well on this aspect, however feel that someone who’s dealt with the copyright debate before our Justice System on a day to day basis has a strong knowdlege of where our laws are now should have been welcomed and accepted by this forum. Dr. Geist is excellent when it come to the political side of this debate, and feel that Knopf would have added that extra support since he deals with the practical side it on a day to day basis. The fact Knopf was uninvited may question in many academic circles the validity and credibility of this forum since all sides are clearly NOT represented.

With the growing misuse, and misrepresentation of the data copyright lobbyists (which have been “invited” to this forum) are using to make their point with regards stronger policy, the public, governments and industries rely on the academics of the this debate now. Over the past several months, we’ve seen the global community start to slide away from stronger policies pushed by the lobbyists, as more and more questions are raised with regards to the data presented to governments, and the factious need to trump fundamental freedoms over copyright. The argument for stronger polices are not compatible towards the digital reality on these industries not following the consumer to a digital platform, and the logistical nightmare it has caused with some of these industries still trying to cling to the old analog platform. These industries must at some point need to realize and explore opportunities to monetize digital mediums, rather than fighting them. Being a part of the entertainment industry and the internet community the answer is quite simple, but I will have to let my peers and counterparts figure that out on their own. I think a major restructuring of sales and marketing staff is needed in a lot of these industries in order to really understand and compete in today’s marketplace.

Knopf is a well respected expert in his field, and his comments will be very much missed by those attending this forum, however his presentation that he was going to make at this forum is now available in his blog.