The CRTC deadline for initial submissions on the VoIP reconsideration was June 5.
As would be expected, the cable companies said the CRTC got everything right the first time around.
The phone companies, as would be expected, said the CRTC got it all wrong first time around.
It was a little less obvious how some of the other parties would deal with the CRTC re-opening its VoIP regulatory file.
The Coalition for Competitive Telecommunications came out with a very strong position to keep hands-off in the first go-around two years ago. It largely echoed its initial position to keep out of economic regulation, but applauded the CRTC’s strong hand in social regulation. In general, not a major surprise, although it was nice to see a concession that in one of five areas examined by the Coalition, the CRTC got it somewhat right.
The bigger surprise was Nortel stepping back into the fray. The question is, why did Nortel risk alienating its cable company customers by voicing support for the telephone company position? Their intervention includes language like “Nortel is not a service provider for VoIP services, but Nortel offers technologies that make VoIP services possible.”
Why would an arms dealer want a seat at the peace talks?
The submission states that Nortel supplies VoIP solutions to Bell, TELUS, Sasktel, Allstream and Rogers, yet the positions put forward by Nortel seem to contradict the views of Rogers and the rest of the cable companies.
Nortel says:
In this submission, we provide a technology perspective on issues that the Commission may find useful to consider as it reviews current regulatory policy. Specifically, we discuss:
- how the most significant disruptive force in the industry today  network convergence  is impacting the evolution of networks and the telecom industry;
- how the use of IP technology continues to lower market entry barriers for new service providers and positions service providers of all types to change their network business cases; …
Rogers, on behalf of itself, Videotron and Cogeco, said
The principle is based on the idea that the regulator should not decide competitive outcomes by favouring one type of technology over another. This allows carriers to make technology choices based on economic characteristics and technical capabilities of a given technology, rather than on gaming the regulatory regime. Following the principle of technological neutrality also encourages carriers to pursue new technologies and least-cost solutions to service issues, demographics or topography.
In a joint press release, the cable companies said
The original decision to treat VoIP as a telephone service and not simply as a new technology, continues to make sense today as it did last year. The submission notes the fact that all industry participants agree that VoIP and traditional local exchange services offer the same end product in the minds of consumers.
In other words, Nortel says that the CRTC has to consider the impact of new technologies like IP while Rogers and the rest of the cable industry says that the CRTC should stick with its principle of technological neutrality.
It doesn’t matter which side is correct or even if both are correct. What matters is that a supplier of technology is publicly taking a position that may be in conflict with its cable company customers, while mentioning that it supplies Rogers. In this proceeding, Nortel looks like it picked sides, when it had very little to gain in participating in this regulatory dispute.
When each customer, whether telco or cableco, needs to be so carefully cultivated and nurtured, you have to wonder why this global communications leader forgot that silence is sometimes the most meaningful way to communicate.