Do you ever wonder how your ISP uses personal info, including what they tell police? Every 3 months, @TekSavvyBuzz publishes a Transparency Report detailing requests from law enforcement for customer information. Today we're reporting on Q1 2022 #privacy 🧵👇🏼

1: Today, we are publishing our transparency report covering January 2022 to March 2022. You can download the report, and all our previous reports, at https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/legal-stuff/transparency-report/

2: The number of requests and disclosures in this report is in line with past reports. In Q1 2022, we got 59 requests and orders (compared to 53 in Q4 2021 and 44 in Q3, but 66 in Q2). It's a bit higher, but in a similar range.

3: Again this quarter, like in Q4 2021, we disclosed info to one "Administrative" agency. That describes an agency that is not "law enforcement" per se, but they had the authority to compel disclosure. This is typically a tax agency or the CRTC's enforcement folks. 👋🏼 @CRTCeng

4: Since this was STILL during the covid19 pandemic, and people were rightly concerned about public health measures affecting individual privacy, we're being clear: As far as we know, we still did not and have not received any requests or orders that are related to covid19.

5: If you're interested in learning more about how TekSavvy handles requests from police and others, you can read our Law Enforcement Guide. There you can learn about what info we have and when we disclose it (or don't). https://www.teksavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Law-Enforcement-Guide-2017-10-30.pdf (PDF)

6: Finally, as always: It's hard to perfectly keep track of every *informal* request. Some are so-called "jurisdiction requests" that look formal but aren't; other times an officer may just ask for information. So there may be small discrepancies in our numbers due to that. /end

PS: You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/kaplanmyrth/87FoCyZ

TekSavvy Transparency Report, Q1 2022

The independent Internet service industry is in crisis in Canada because of anti-competition decisions by the regulator (@CRTCeng) and the government's lack of action and urgency. The latest evidence: incumbent Quebecor has acquired competitor @VMedia. 🧵 

https://twitter.com/CarttCa/status/1552411512110817282

1. VMedia was a wholesale-based ISP (now a flanker), similar in many ways (but not as awesome ;-) as TekSavvy, and many other independent competitors. They were also a disruptive and innovative force in TV services, dragging licensed TV kicking and screaming onto the Internet.

2. Now they're the latest victim of the CRTC's failure to support a functioning wholesale industry. I say *failure*; whether it's been an active campaign against competitors or just bad regulation, telecom giants are now Katamari-like absorbing their competition.

3. Recall that earlier this year, Bell acquired the largest independent competitor in Quebec, EBOX, which had most of its subscribers on cable (on Quebecor's platform). https://cultmtl.com/2022/03/bell-big-telco-acquisition-of-longueuil-indie-internet-provider-ebox-sets-a-worrisome-precedent/

4. That article says it was the first time a big telco bought an independent competitor, but that's not even true: In 2020, Telus acquired "ABC" @abccomm, a key competitor in BC and apparently still a member of the competitive association BCBA. https://www.abccommunications.com/my-abc/telus-acquisition-faq

5. Look, yes, in a way, Quebecor's acquisition of VMedia, together with its proposed purchase of some of Shaw's mobile business, is an *interesting* development. The prospect of a huge hybrid facilities+wholesale business is new, and the bundling it enables is interesting. BUT…


https://twitter.com/bramabramson/status/1552434130708987904

6. …but, this acquisition is not a step toward stronger competition. It is the same pattern of consolidation that's played out for years, where large powerful telecoms buy up smaller competitors and innovators, keeping market power within a shrinking class of giant companies.

7. This market failure is a direct result of two longstanding regulatory failures: Inflated wholesale rates, and the lack of competitive access to fibre (FTTP). Here's pre-acquisition VMedia complaining about inflated rates last year: https://www.toronto.com/news/business/independent-isps-prepare-to-raise-prices/article_c1fb1002-3378-528e-83d5-21c57bd67f6e.html

8. Correcting this requires strong, urgent action. @FP_Champagne's new Policy Direction is *something*, but it isn't enough, not even with a new CRTC Chair. That's why TekSavvy is calling for ISED to give the CRTC timelines to lower wholesale rates and to make FTTP competitive.

9. Stay tuned for more about TekSavvy's submission to ISED about the Policy Direction. /fin

Quebecor bought VMedia, the latest independent competitor to get Katamaried

Another quarter, another Transparency Report from @TekSavvyBuzz, documenting requests we got from law enforcement for our customers' information, and how we protect their #privacy. Today we published our report covering October to December 2021. 🧵 https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/legal-stuff/transparency-report/

2: The number of requests and disclosures in this report is in line with past reports. In Q4 2021, we got 53 requests and orders (compared to 44 in Q3, but 66 in Q2). Pretty typical numbers.

3: The only uncommon item is that we disclosed info to one "Administrative" agency. That describes an agency that is not "law enforcement" per se, but they had the authority to compel disclosure. This is typically a tax agency or the CRTC's enforcement folks.

4: Since this was STILL during the covid19 pandemic, and people were rightly concerned about public health measures affecting individual privacy, we're being clear: As far as we know, we still did not and have not received any requests/orders that are related to covid19.

6: For example, I was asked recently whether we inform customers about disclosures. Yes, as long as we can. There may be a nondisclosure order but, once that expires, we generally send the entire package to the customer with a copy of the order and our disclosure.

7: Finally, as always: It's hard to perfectly keep track of every informal request. Some are so-called "jurisdiction requests" that look formal but aren't; other times an officer may just ask for information. There are sometimes small discrepancies in numbers due to that. /fin

TekSavvy Transparency Report, Q4 2021

Canada's Internet is now being filtered by court order to enforce copyright. 🧵⤵

1. Long story short: Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor got a court order against major ISPs plus relatively tiny TekSavvy and Distributel, to block whatever IP addresses they tell us to, in the name of filtering out unlicensed hockey games. Read the order: https://2173091.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2173091/SiteBlocked/NHL/T-955-21%20-%20Public%20Order.pdf

2. For years, media companies in Canada have asked the government to use Internet filtering—or "site blocking"—to help enforce copyrights. In 2017, through a coalition called FairPlay, they asked the CRTC to create a site-blocking regime. They lost. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-384.htm

3. They made a similar pitch to the federal government committee reviewing the Copyright Act in 2018. I was there to oppose it. In its report, the INDU committee recommended studying a limited, copyright-specific injunction that balanced interests. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Reports/RP10537003/indurp16/indurp16-e.pdf

4. In particular, I pointed out to the INDU committee that any effort to block sites will just lead to a slippery slope. After all, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” (John Gilmore). What happening now (⤵) and what's sure to follow, is what I meant.

5. How to treat unlicensed or unlawful content online is a policy question, and should rightly be addressed by the government, through consultations and independent experts who understand the many factors at play. Since that report, the government has not proposed any such remedy

6. That didn't stop Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor, who went straight to the Federal Court in 2019, asking for an order against themselves to block a streaming service called GoldTV. They also asked the court to order other ISPs to do the same, including TekSavvy.

7. TekSavvy was the only ISP to oppose that order on substantive grounds, including that it violated the principles of Network Neutrality. But the order was issued, and our appeals were not successful, even though we pursued it to the @SCC_eng.  https://twitter.com/kaplanmyrth/status/1430653851368034309

8. You can read more about the GoldTV blocking order at TekSavvy's information page, the same page our customers see when they try to access a blocked GoldTV-associated site. http://goldtvblock.teksavvy.com/

9. By the way, the GoldTV order was supposed to last for two years, but (surprise!), Bell and friends are asking the court to extend it indefinitely. Because of course they are.

10. Even before the GoldTV appeals were done, Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor took the next leap, springboarding from GoldTV (a short list of blocked domains they can change through the court) to the NHL (a feed of IP addresses they can change at will, blocked during hockey games).

11. Applying GoldTV, they asked the court to order specific ISPs (not every ISP, mind you) to block whatever IP address they tell us to, targeting unlicensed streaming of NHL games. This time, to their credit, other ISPs stepped up and opposed it 👍🏼, but the media giants won 👎🏼.

12. On May 27, the Federal Court ordered named ISPs (including TekSavvy) to take a feed of IP addresses from the media companies and block them during NHL games. The list will change, so they call it "dynamic site blocking". I call it Internet filtering. https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/521629/index.do

13. As much as I respect Justice Pentney and how he handled the case, the court is not the right place to create a policy framework with so many factors to balance. At least the wonderful @cippic intervened in the case to represent the public interest. https://cippic.ca/en/news/court_issues_novel_copyright_order_blocking_live_NHL_game_streaming

14. So, as we were ordered to, TekSavvy is now complying with the order, and we will be blocking access to whatever IP addresses Rogers' consultant tell us to block. This sucks. It's not how the Internet works. But we have to comply with the order. https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/internet-filtering/nhl/

15. What comes next? Well, for starters, why would they stop with NHL games? I fully expect the media giants to keep springboarding: Watch for orders filtering other unlicensed sports content, then channels and shows, movies, illegal gambling sites, and on to defamatory content.

16. I don't defend unlicensed content. My concern is with creating telecom policy through adversarial court process, repeatedly dragging innocent ISPs through court, and finally making us juggle multiple orders and lists of blocked sites. It's just an absurd, bad solution. /fin

Internet filtering in Canada: Rogers' NHL blocking order

The government's decisions last week on Internet affordability and telecom policy are too little too late. Consumers and competitors needed rate relief, and they needed it years ago or (at the latest) right now; instead, they got no price relief at all. Rant🧵⤵

1. For years, big telecom has inflated costs for independent competitors, while squeezing them in the market. The only way to stop them is to reduce rates and strengthen competition. The gov had a rare opportunity to do that, but last week the government just... took a pass.

2. Instead, the gov is proposing a draft [ie. brace for more lobbying] of a "Policy Direction" hoping to make the CRTC more pro-consumer and pro-competition. I guess maybe that will help? eventually? in some way? But it does _nothing_ to reduce prices. Nothing.

3. In fact, by delaying any relief and requiring further process, it gives the big telecoms exactly what they want: More time. Time to keep rates high, to deny services, to squeeze out competitors, and to solidify their monopolies.

4. Sure, yes, it's good to repeal the old Policy Directions—those were contradictory and confusing. And yes, it's clear the government is not happy with the CRTC's recent decisions. But instead of fixing it, they're proposing a slight course correction and just moving on. /end

2022 Government decisions on wholesale rates petitions

Hey look, @TekSavvyBuzz published another Quarterly #Transparency Report, documenting requests we got from law enforcement for our customers' information, and how we protect their #privacy. Today we published our report covering July to Sept 2021. 🧵 https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/legal-stuff/transparency-report/

2: This quarter we got somewhat fewer requests (42 compared to 66 Q2, 2021). In fact, once again, there's really not much unusual or noteworthy about this quarter's data.

3: Since this was during the covid19 pandemic, and people were rightly concerned about public health measures affecting individual privacy, we're being clear: As far as we know, we still did not and have not received any requests/orders that are related to covid19.

4: If you're interested in learning more about how TekSavvy handles requests from police and others, you can read our Law Enforcement Guide. There you can learn about what info we have and when we disclose it (or don't). https://www.teksavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Law-Enforcement-Guide-2017-10-30.pdf (PDF)

5: Finally, as always: It's hard to perfectly keep track of every informal request. Some are so-called "jurisdiction requests" that look formal but aren't; other times an officer may just ask for information. There are sometimes small discrepancies in numbers due to that. /fin

TekSavvy Transparency Report, April 2022

Every 3 months, @TekSavvyBuzz publishes a Quarterly #Transparency Report documenting requests we got from law enforcement for our customers' information, and how we protect their #privacy. Today we published our report covering Apr to June 2021. 🧵https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/legal-stuff/transparency-report/ 

2: This quarter we got somewhat more requests, but not a large increase (66 compared to 58 Q1, 2021). In fact, once again, there's really not much unusual or noteworthy about this quarter's data. 

3: Since this reporting period was during the covid19 pandemic, and people were rightly concerned about public health measures affecting individual privacy, we're being clear: As far as we know, we did not and have not received any requests/orders that are related to covid19. 

4: Finally—as always—note that it's hard to perfectly keep track of every informal request. Some are so-called "jurisdiction requests" that look formal but aren't; other times an officer may just ask for information. There are sometimes small discrepancies in numbers due to that.

TekSavvy Transparency Report, January 2022

Every 3 months, @TekSavvyBuzz publishes a Quarterly #Transparency Report documenting requests we got from law enforcement for our customers' information, and how we protect their #privacy. Today we published our report covering January to March 2021. https://www.teksavvy.com/policies/legal-stuff/transparency-report/ 

This quarter we got about the same number of requests (58 compared to 54 in Q4, 2020). In fact, there's really not much unusual or noteworthy about this quarter's data. 

Since this reporting period was during the covid19 pandemic, and people were rightly concerned about public health measures affecting individual privacy, we're being clear: As far as we know, we did not and have not received any requests/orders that are related to covid19. 

Finally—as always—note that it's hard to perfectly keep track of every informal request. Some are so-called "jurisdiction requests" that look formal but aren't; other times an officer may just ask for information. There are sometimes small discrepancies in numbers due to that.

TekSavvy Transparency Report, October 2021

The government of Canada announced an improved program for affordable Internet for low-income seniors and families, called Connecting Families 2.0. As Good as this goal is, the way it is being done is a case study in regressive policymaking. 🧵⤵  https://twitter.com/NewsroomGC/status/1425453738358153217.

To be clear, people need access to affordable high-speed Internet services, and it is appropriate for government to play a role. How to accomplish that goal is a policy choice. The OG Connecting Families helped some folks. This reboot will help more people at higher speeds. 1/16

On its own, ignoring other issues, then yes, getting some people connected is a good outcome. 👍🏼

But that's a very narrow view of the issue. 2/16

Simply put: Some people can't afford critical Internet services, and you can fix that problem to some extent by helping those people get services. I like helping people and I'm glad some people got service that they otherwise wouldn't have, or could afford it more easily. 3/16

But that focuses on the surface issue and ignores the underlying reasons why people can't afford ever-increasingly-critical-yet-expensive Internet services. Worse yet, in this case, the bandaid solution on the surface actually allows the deeper infection to fester. 4/16

The fact is, Canada has a highly concentrated market for home and mobile Internet services. We also have some of the highest prices in the world for both services. 5/16

And beyond telecom, if you aren't seeing the broader social unrest in response to the wealth and opportunity gaps and structural inequality in this country, then you're not paying attention. 6/16

Now, the main way Canada introduced Internet competition for consumers, called wholesale-based competition, is utterly broken right now, and is the subject of nearly a decade of regulatory study, conflict, and capture. 7/16

The details would take their own long thread, but it's clear to all observers that telecom competition in this country has been dismantled piece by piece over the past 5 years. Some context: https://blogs.teksavvy.com/crtc-outrage-speak-out-over-skyrocketing-prices-and-big-telecom-bias 8/16

So the first problem with Connecting Families is that it's a bandaid solution that ignores underlying structural problems. Fixing telecom competition—restoring the wholesale market, advancing access to fibre—would reduce prices everywhere immediately. 9/16

The second problem is that the bandaid is actually a poison pill that exacerbates those underlying structural problems. Affordability is an issue in part because of low competition and unbridled market power, but this program reduces competition and reinforces market power. 10/16

As I've said before, the whole program was designed with oligopolist carriers in mind. Behind the scenes, the contracts and program design, and even the price point, simply do not allow wholesale-based competitors to participate. That's why none are! https://twitter.com/kaplanmyrth/status/1356659421397532676 11/16

Not only can we (TekSavvy) not participate, but we actually lose customers who qualify for the program. That is, this government program helps people by driving them to incumbents, further undermining competition.  12/16 

Now in rebooting the program for more people and higher speeds (and prices), they had an opportunity to also include competitors. Did they talk to us? Did they even consider the impact? (spoiler: no, they didn't) 13/16

No, they worked with their "partners" (i.e. all the biggest carriers and a few small ones) and ignored the deeper structural problems.

This is not Building Back Better; it's disaster capitalism dressed up as "corporate giving". 14/16

At the same time, there are glimmers of hope. The Competition Bureau released a report with recommendations from a Summit they hosted, titled "Canada Needs More Competition". The report talks in broad strokes about the need for major change:
https://twitter.com/CompBureau/status/1425509571838238724 15/16 

Takeaway #3 in the Bureau report calls for regulators to use a "competition lens" to inform policy choices.

Connecting Families is a great example of where that lens was missing. The outcome achieves narrow goals, but ignores myriad ways it undermines competition.  16/16 

PS: Don't @ me about what TekSavvy should do on its own. Having been excluded from this program, TekSavvy does our own thing in terms of low cost plans where we can, as well as contributing to our community in many other ways. I'm talking about a competition lens for policy.

Canada's regressive policy to address the digital gap for low income consumers

This is extremely disturbing: After a contentious and critical 4-yr proceeding, Bell appealed back to the CRTC on Dec 13. Less than a week later, Dec 19, the same Bell exec who oversaw wholesale for a decade, Mirko Bibic, met for beers alone with the Chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott. https://twitter.com/StarBusiness/status/1403678486686932992

I've met with CRTC staff and Commissioners. Let me tell you how that generally goes: They start every meeting by saying they will not discuss any file that is open before the Commission. We point out that EVERYTHING is in an open file before the Commission. They ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

These meetings with CRTC staff or Commissioners are never one on one. They always have staff in the room. In my most cynical moments, I didn't imagine a top Bell exec was having private one-on-one meetings with the CRTC chair. That is shocking, and should not happen.

Maybe Mirko and Ian are old buds and they're just catching up? No. I used to be friends with someone who became a CRTC Vice Chair. The first time I saw them in that capacity they would not even say hello to me, they were that concerned about propriety. We haven't talked since.

The CRTC's role is to be an independent arbiter. One side says rates are too high, the other says too low. How do we decide? The CRTC has the independence and expertise to decide. Except they have neither now: They're having beers with Bell and making up numbers. It's a outrage.