I expected the decision(s) Tuesday to be complex (and painful) reads. The simplicity of this weeks decisions, considered in the context of the complexity of issues and magnitude of the record of related proceedings with which those decision dealt, is fascinating to me. Firstly because the CRTC issued decisions unique by ILEC, which is unusual when dealing with them on similar issues, although sensible insofar as they were dealing with unique aspects in each case, even if language was recycled. Secondly because of a complete lack of follow up, especially when considered in conjunction with the lack of detail in the decisions themselves. The CRTC neither provided any detail supporting the amounts they arrived at, nor requested any follow up filing of schedules reflecting their determinations.

Not saying there won’t be appeals – clearly sounds like Bell isn’t finished – but considering arguments on amounts in dispute went all the way to the Supreme Court, it is amazing to me that decisions as utterly lacking in detail as those issued on Tuesday might be the culmination of this ill-conceived regulatory policy. In what appears to have been a very carefully considered strategy designed to “just make it go away”, the CRTC looks to have been very focused on winding up deferrals, while taking extraordinary caution to write those decisions vaguely enough that appeals – at least with respect to monetary estimates – are unsupportable. I like their approach.

I’m not speaking of geographic issues, but rather market segmentation. Wireless and satellite may simply fragment the market further. Wireless and satellite will likely never be a true replacement for wireline for a significant proportion of the market, simply because wireline is always likely to be a generation or two faster. They will be substitutable for some, certainly, but not all. Will this not be an important aspect of any future decision?