A discussion on a recently released code of practice for telecoms operators that aims to safeguard the Open Internet and network neutrality in the Caribbean.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n
\nIn March this year, the Caribbean Association of National Telecommunications Organisations (CANTO) published a <\/span>Code of Practice on Safeguarding the Open Internet<\/i><\/b><\/a>, which its members, which comprise telecoms operators from across the region, would voluntarily sign as a demonstration of their commitment to maintain an Open Internet. Since the launch of the Code of Practice, a number of operators have become <\/span>signatories to the document<\/span><\/a>, including, but not limited to:<\/span><\/p>\n
According to the United States (US) <\/span>Federal Communications Commission (FCC)<\/span><\/a>, an Open Internet means \u201c<\/span>consumers can go where they want, when they want<\/span><\/i>\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n
The Code of Practice presented by CANTO is a relatively straightforward, three-page document, to which the Organisation and its members \u201c<\/span>support the concept of the open internet and the general principle that legal content, applications and services, should not be blocked<\/span><\/i>\u201d (Source: <\/span>CANTO<\/span><\/a>). Further, the document outlines the following four commitments to which signatories would be adhering:<\/span><\/p>\n
(Source: <\/span>CANTO<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
What might be some of the implications of this Code of Practice?<\/span><\/h3>\n
In the preamble to the Code of Practice it is made clear that the document seeks to balance \u201c<\/span>the needs and freedoms of end users and content providers with the requirement of Operators to run their networks and their corresponding freedom to innovate and develop new services and business models<\/span><\/i>\u201d. It therefore means that the Code of Practice will not only seek to be mindful of the needs and freedoms of their customers and of content providers, but also balance that with the rights and privileges Caribbean telecom operators should possess. In that regard, two issues are highlighted which could merit closer examination.<\/span><\/p>\n
First, throughout the document it is continually emphasised that legal.lawful content, applications and services should not be blocked. However, should an operator be of the view that a particular service (for example) is illegal, does it go ahead and block it, or should that matter be first decided by a third party, such as the local telecoms regulator or the courts? <\/span><\/p>\n
As most readers may recall, we have had situations in the past, especially with respect to over-the-top services, such as Viber, which Caribbean telecoms firms blocked first – on the basis that they were illegal \u2013 and it was only due to the furore and intervention of regulators that the posture was reversed. Hence, it may be useful for some clarity to be provided on this matter, with the hope that a common approach could be adopted across the region.<\/span><\/p>\n
Second, in the event that there is congestion on the network, and to assist in managing said congestion, it is implied that the operators could block or throttle some services and applications. While such actions should be done in an objective and transparent manner, so as to not single out a specific service or application, it can be done, \u201c<\/span>if there is a valid reason to do so<\/span><\/i>\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n
It therefore means that an operator ought not to block or throttle YouTube, for example, due to it popularity among end users and the amount of bandwidth it consumes (at certain times of the day). However, the code suggests that the operator could block or throttle video streaming services, including YouTube, due amount of bandwidth they tend to consume, especially when most residential customers are sharing capacity on the network, and to ensure basic minimum quality for all customers sharing that bandwidth.<\/span><\/p>\n
Another scenario could also occur, where on lower prices plans customers will not be permitted to access certain applications or services. The premise for that position could be that in order to protect or better manage congestion on a network, for high bandwidth Internet services or those that benefit from having a high speed connection, to access those services would be restricted to specific data plans.<\/span><\/p>\n
Final thoughts<\/span><\/h3>\n
Notwithstanding the observations made above, the Code of Practice is a useful document, as it establishes a common and known basis upon which signatories plan to operate their Internet networks and provide Internet services, which hopefully, should lead to greater transparency in how the telecoms firms operate, and especially with respect to their service contracts. However, as the previous section suggests, the Code raises questions that merit further discussion, with the objective of being preemptive, and possibly fostering a common approach among both the firms and telecoms regulators.<\/span><\/p>\n
Finally, and in the spirit of that transparency we hope CANTO will make the register of signatories to the Code of Practice public. Such information will become increasingly important to consumers, who – for a broad range of reasons – may need to know which Internet providers in their market have committed to the Code and which ones have not.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Image credit: \u00a0Jeremy Brooks<\/a>\u00a0(flickr)<\/em><\/p>\n
______________<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"