In December, I provided a roadmap to the timetable for the final Cabinet directive on the Local Forbearance file.
Comments were due this past Monday. The submissions are available for viewing on the Industry Canada website.
I have been going through them over the past couple days. There are over 100 submissions, ranging from individual citizens sending email messages through to more substantial submissions with attached research studies.
I note that at least one of the incumbent telcos has an extremely politically aware workforce judging by the number of employees that chose to participate in the Gazette process.
As an aside, I’d like to apply for a grant to study whether there is a correlation between increased media production (Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prarie) in Saskatchewan and the elevation of awareness in CRTC and Industry Canada consultative processes.
Clearly, for many professionals in the telecom policy business, it was a busy holiday period.
I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of detailed implementation input that I have seen. There are exceptions to be found the submissions by Bell, Bell Aliant and TELUS, providing suggestions to assist in clarifying specific aspects of the final version of the Order. Shaw also provided a couple recommendations that seek to improve the conditions for forbearance by emphasizing QOS on interconnectivity.
Bell Aliant’s submission is a plea for special consideration for Halifax – the region that has demonstrated the fastest market share loss for any Canadian telco and likely most competitive market for local phone service in the country. I have to sympathize with Aliant. Its application for forbearance in Halifax started off the whole process in April 2004 and yet it isn’t one of the 10 listed regions slated for examination in the first wave.
Generally, the non-incumbent local service providers chose not to try to improve the specific conditions. Some argued that the proposed variance will act to keep smaller players from even trying to launch service. To help ensure that the smaller cable companies aren’t disincented to introduce telephony, I might have tried a difference approach. Instead of suggesting use of a complex set of competition law tests, why not be helpful and ask for a specific head-start? That is, perhaps define the existence of a competitor (wireline or wireless) as one that has been offering the service for greater than 6 months, 12 months, whatever.
I did not see input from new entrants on how to deal with measuring presence of competition for business services, a particularly difficult issue, given that most competition in that market is not facilities-based. I would have expected to see suggestions that certain wholesale services, such as types of access facilities, be mandated. While the area of essential services is the subject of a major CRTC proceeding to last the next 2 years, competitors could have used the current consultation to ensure the linkage between forbearance and essential facilities is maintained.
Many of the submissions seemed to be trying to get Industry Canada to do an about-face – reverse the course completely. I have to believe that isn’t going to happen. These arguments were made and rejected over the course of the period leading up to the December proposed variance. I am at a loss as to why these companies didn’t put forward more concrete, constructive suggestions during the current consultation.
I am intrigued by the coordinated submissions of four small ILECs: WTC, Wightman, NRTC and Execulink that seem to propose changes that could limit the flexibility of their own competitive activities as ILECs. I applaud them for their involvement in the process.
The Minister is trying to put forward clear, ‘bright-line’ tests and rules for the market. Still, I sympathize with the frustrations expressed by some who want broader reform, including legislative changes, as I discussed in yesterday afternoon’s posting.
As I pointed out in December,
Recommendation 9-5 of the report of the Telecom Policy Review panel recommends that the ability to launch cabinet appeals be eliminated.
A little ironic, isn’t it, that these initial implementations of the report’s recommendations are derivatives of appeals that may not be permitted when reform is completed?
It was a tight timetable including the Christmas – New Year’s holiday period. Perhaps that is why some important implementation issues were missed.
Still, I just don’t think it was productive for some parties to kvetch, wring hands and pine for the good ol’ days of regulatory handcuffs on the incumbents. Why weren’t more submissions based on helping write specific rules to enable consumers – both residential and business – to benefit from a free marketplace?