However, given the reaction by some writers in the blogosphere, I think folks need a little bit better perspective on the Cabinet decision to send the CRTC’s VoIP Decision back for reconsideration.
Jon Arnold suggests that in 2004, Jeff told the CRTC to let market forces rule in order to drive ‘a highly competitive, innovative market, that in turn [would lead to] driving rapid adoption of VoIP.‘ If that is what Jeff was suggesting, it did not come across clearly, and it ironically seems to be in contrast to his current drive to have market forces set aside in order to have government regulation ‘Save the Internet’.
My reading of the pulver.com written submission to the original VoIP proceeding found that it cited two core principles:
- do not regulate unless necessary; and,
- ensure that no entity can leverage its market power to stifle choice and innovation.
Good principles. Bell would agree with these. Certainly the authors of the TPR report would agree. I think that even the CRTC agrees with those general views. The submission pulled out the big guns, stating that NAFTA obligates Parties (read that as ‘Canada’) to ensure that incumbents don’t wield their
monopoly position to engage in anti-competitive conduct… such conduct may include cross subsidization, predatory conduct and the discriminatory provision of access to public telecommunications transport networks or services.
In other words, the CRTC’s original VoIP Decision agreed with Jeff’s original filing. The incumbents were subjected to regulation in order to ensure that they didn’t use their market power to do all the things pulver.com’s submission was worried about. Which is it? Did cabinet side with Jeff or did Jeff side with the Commission? The submission was not really clear.
As Jon mentioned, Pulver’s oral testimony was not well received by the Commission:
Your written brief and your oral presentation had a rather high level of generality and to say possibly at a generic level and they don’t touch the ground of our public notice at very many points on this specific issue.
Jeff was asked if he was ‘familiar with our current sort of regulatory framework in terms of how we regulate… our broad approach to regulation of local competition?‘ Jeff’s reply?
It was suggested to me that you regulate based on other peoples’ reactions, you ask them to come into a situation and react, so you are reactive rather than proactive.
Yep. That’s Canadian regulation. Barely a step above good ol’ boy, ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ style justice. Up here in Canada, we just regulate based on which ways the howling winds are blowing, eh? Throw the combatants into an arena and see who yells the loudest. Hmmmm. And you were wondering why he might have felt a bit of a chill?
Jeff was not ‘the lone American invited to come up‘ to the CRTC’s 2004 VoIP hearings. Actually, like everyone else at those (and most) hearings, he asked the CRTC if he could speak, not the other way around. AT&T; and Vonage were also American speakers at the hearings, bringing global perspectives and similar ‘hands-off’ messages.
A suggestion for Voice 2.0 advocates wanting to have their viewpoints heard: as painful as it may be, you will need to remember that regulation needs to be backward compatible – covering all the legacy services as well as those pesky social issues.
My proposal was in one of my weekend postings. The CRTC needs an answer by Labour Day. If you had a magic wand – how would you help the CRTC craft a response to the Minister?