CRTC’s botnet-blocking proposal draws telecom opposition

Telecommunications companies big and small have expressed opposition to a CRTC proposal that would require Canadian ISPs to block malicious botnet traffic on their networks. Interventions filed this week in response to a public consultation spelled out a host of concerns with the CRTC’s idea, with several companies suggesting that it is a “one size fits all” plan that would likely be ineffective. Echoing an earlier intervention from open internet advocacy group the Internet Society, a number of telecom companies expressed concerns that this kind of framework would overzealously restrict Canadians’ access to legitimate websites, possibly undermining the principle of net neutrality. The big three telecoms — BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., and Telus Corp. all unequivocally opposed the Commission’s idea of attempting to block botnets at the network level. In its intervention, Telus wrote that attempting to block malicious entities “does not address the root cause of the botnet issue”, stating that security weaknesses in end-user devices are a much greater source of botnet infections. “Mandating network blocking for places the burden of protecting insecure end user devices on TSPs, while in fact it is the hardware and software companies that should address their inherent security vulnerabilities in their products,” Telus wrote. Also questioning the effectiveness of the idea, Bell criticized the CRTC’s proposal as “static top-down”, and said that a heavy focus on blocking botnets would likely result in bad actors figuring out workarounds. “A regime that limits the ability of TSPs to one, or a subset of network-level blocking techniques, will increase the possibility for bad actors to circumvent existing mitigation solutions.” Some interveners, including Rogers, questioned whether cybersecurity was the responsibility of the CRTC, and noted that this issue was more likely the purview of other government agencies such as Public Safety Canada or the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. The big three were joined in opposition by smaller players such as Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, TekSavvy Solutions Inc., and Xplornet Communications Inc. In its intervention, Xplornet stated that a blocking framework was “reactive” and not nimble enough to address botnet infections effectively, giving Canadians a “false sense of security”. “As a network-level blocking framework would be reactive in nature, blocking botnet harms as they become known, ISPs would not be able to block botnet traffic until after harms have already been inflicted on Canadians,” Xplornet wrote. Taking a different angle, TekSavvy expressed concerns that it would interfere with open internet access for Canadians. “Network-level blocking ... would break the Internet and introduce risks to the open Internet without effectively addressing its intended target or enhancing the security and safety of the Internet in Canada” Eastlink took that concern further, predicting that networking blocking would be unwieldy, and cause unintended consequences for Canadian internet users. “All three types of blocking proposed by the Commission (DNS-based, IP-based and protocol-based) present a significant risk of false positives and over-blocking, which would be very disruptive to impacted consumers and businesses,” the company wrote. According to Rogers, this would in turn impact the reputations of telecommunications companies, who could be saddled with a system outside of their control. “This has the potential to generate additional burdens for TSPs including increased customer complaints to call centres, which we would have no ability or power to deal with.” Although the majority of telecoms involved in the consultation were against the CRTC’s proposal, it did draw a little support. An intervention from Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation gave general support to the concept of a botnet blocking framework, suggesting that it would be more efficient than making end-users responsible for protecting against botnet infections. “Attempting to achieve the adoption rate necessary to prevent the spread of botnet infections at the individual consumer level is inefficient, impossible, and therefore, ineffective.” However, SaskTekl also cautioned the CRTC to tread carefully in implementing such a system so as to avoid “unintended consequences from well-intended interventions.” Similarly, Cogeco Inc. stated in its own intervention that the company is “open to collaborating” with the CRTC, but expressed concerns about the implications that a network-level blocking framework might have for net neutrality. Meanwhile, Quebecor Inc. offered relatively unconditional support for the plan, writing that this kind of framework, if executed as a “coordinated action”, would be an effective measure against botnets. — Reporting by Tim Forster at tforster@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

CRTC’s botnet-blocking proposal draws telecom opposition

Broadcast | March 17, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CRTC’s botnet-blocking proposal draws telecom opposition

Broadcast | March 17, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

CRTC launches Streaming Act consults on CanCon definition, radio regulations

Rogers, Cogeco, Eastlink ask CRTC to block Big Three from wholesale access

CRTC opens door to participation funds for Online News Act

CRTC planning consult on cabinet order that it revisit blocking Big Three’s wholesale access to fibre in Ontario, Quebec

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us