The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today announced that it has denied the Canadian Association of Internet Providers’ (CAIP) application to end Bell Canada’s practice of “throttling” its wholesale internet services.
In a decision that defies all logic, the federal agency told the coalition of 55 ISP’s that Bell Canada’s decision to discriminate against particular applications and types of content was “not discriminatory” because Bell throttled both wholesale and retail customers in an equal fashion.
“Based on the evidence before us, we found that the measures employed by Bell Canada to manage its network were not discriminatory. Bell Canada applied the same traffic-shaping practices to wholesale customers as it did to its own retail customers,” said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC.
CAIP and advocates of Net Neutrality argued that, if Bell and other internet service providers can’t keep up with subscriber demands and must throttle traffic, then they should implement neutral measures for dealing with internet congestion rather than arbitrarily picking on one type of application and content.
Read the full story in Digital Home Canada here.
4 Comments
Rohan Samarajiva
I see the logic of the decision. They were looking to see if undue discrimination, in terms of competition law, was being exercised. The assumption that many people have that all discrimination is bad is simply wrong; we would not be able to get through life that way.
All that competition law and public utility regulation says is that one may not unjustly or unduly discriminate, with the prohibited forms being defined in the statute, subsidiary legislation or case law. It is always acceptable to treat the members of one class differently from those of another, as long as those within the class are treated the same.
The difficulty arises in defining the class. Sometimes the regulator/judge will not accept the class that has been defined and thus find the discrimination unjust or undue.
Here they have been looking to see if Bell Canada treated its own traffic differently from those of the ISPs. Bell was treating different classes of traffic differently, but not different suppliers. Therefore, no anti-competitive effects. So the CRTC found no unjust discrimination.
This goes to one of the founding myths of this debate. The Internet has always discriminated among classes of traffic, but most of the proponents of net neutrality want to believe that in the Golden Age there was no discrimination, and do so irrespective of contrary facts.
Rohan Samarajiva
A different view: http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/network-neutrality-the-first-word-is-in/
Rohan Samarajiva
The opinion of one of the co-chairs of the Canadian Telecom Policy Review: http://news.mccarthy.ca/en/news_template_full.asp?pub_code=4235&news_code=952
Pakistan’s AI ambitions require strong data governance
Pakistan’s Indus AI Week reflects a growing shift in how the country is approaching artificial intelligence, not simply as a technological trend, but as a strategic tool for economic growth, public sector reform, and national competitiveness. In an article published on March 5, 2026, in the ProPakistani news platform, Muhammad Aslam Hayat, Senior Policy Fellow at LIRNEasia, notes that discussions during the event highlighted ambitions to use AI to improve productivity, create new economic opportunities, and enhance government efficiency.
Advancing Electricity Reforms in Sri Lanka
Efforts to reform Sri Lanka’s electricity industry have been ongoing since the late 1990s, but little progress has been made. In the aftermath of the economic crisis, the removal of distortions affecting the industry and the creation of conditions for economic growth were seen as necessitating significant reform.
Balancing privacy and transparency: Thailand’s data governance at a crossroads
In an op-ed article published on 20 February 2026 in the Bangkok Post, Jompon Pitaksantayothin, Country Researcher for Thailand for LIRNEasia’s D4D Asia project, discusses the growing tensions within Thailand’s data governance framework following the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). While the PDPA was intended to strengthen privacy protections, its interaction with existing transparency laws has created confusion within government agencies about what information can be disclosed.
Links
User Login
Themes
Social
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Contact
9A 1/1, Balcombe Place
Colombo 08
Sri Lanka
+94 (0)11 267 1160
+94 (0)11 267 5212
info [at] lirneasia [dot] net
Copyright © 2026 LIRNEasia
a regional ICT policy and regulation think tank active across the Asia Pacific