How internet providers manipulate and manage the speed of the internet for different types of data will be examined by Canada's telecommunications regulator during six days of hearings in Gatineau, Que., starting Monday.

Canadian law and internet traffic management The Telecommunications Act makes it illegal for internet service providers to: Engage in "unjust discrimination" against or give "undue or unreasonable preference" to any person when providing or charging for telecommunications services.

Control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public without the CRTC's approval. But the CRTC has not yet ruled on whether any internet traffic management practices would violate provisions of the act. While the Conservative government has not waded into the debate, the federal Liberal party expressed support for net neutrality in June. Earlier in June, the federal New Democratic Party's Charlie Angus, critic for digital issues, re-introduced a private member's bill, C-552, designed to enshrine net neutrality in law.

Whether the online traffic management practices used by internet service providers such as Bell and Rogers violate Canada's Telecommunications Act is a question that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission is trying to answer.

The commission hearings scheduled for the first week of July will look at how some internet service providers are dealing with alleged congestion on the internet, and how that affects consumers and businesses that favour "net neutrality." Net neutrality is the principle that says ISPs should not interfere with information transmitted over the internet and no users or applications should be treated preferentially over others. Advocates say the principle is needed to ensure customer choice and foster innovation.

The CRTC has the power to impose conditions on the way wholesale and retail internet is offered in Canada.

Some of the internet traffic control practices being put under the microscope are:

Throttling — that is, purposely slowing down the internet speeds of certain online applications such as peer-to-peer file transfers (P2P) relative to others.

Deep packet inspection, a technology used to examine traffic to figure out what type of data it is so it can be monitored and directed.

Imposing download limits and excess bandwidth usage charges on heavy users.

ISPs that engage in traffic management practices say they are necessary to manage network congestion caused by certain bandwidth-hungry applications like P2P transfers of large files such as movies.

As part of the probe, the commission is also looking into:

The level and growth of congestion on networks.

Other potential methods for dealing with it, such as upgrading network capacity.

Throttling ruling in November

The hearings are part of an investigation launched by the CRTC following a complaint from smaller ISPs that their customers were being throttled by Bell — that is, their customers' internet speeds were being selectively slowed down when they used certain online applications at certain times. The smaller ISPs buy network access wholesale from Bell, which is required to sell it to them because its networks were built decades ago at taxpayer expense, when phone companies were government-owned monopolies.

In November, the CRTC ruled that Bell's throttling of its competitors' customers was not discriminatory as it also throttles its own customers in the same way. The decision was specific to Bell's wholesale customers and did not deal with throttling in general, the commission said.

The same day as that decision was announced, the CRTC said it would open a new probe into the larger issue of internet traffic management, which is also done by other large internet service providers such as Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw Inc. The probe was to include an online public consultation and end with the July public hearings.

Meanwhile, a group of smaller ISPs and public advocacy organizations is challenging the November 2008 Bell ruling. The appeal alleges the ruling could unfairly influence the CRTC's probe into internet traffic management practices.