An interview with Iain Grant of Seaboard Group, as reported in TechMedia Reports, [subscription required] includes a sentence that contains an inappropriate swipe at the CRTC:
This shows … a level of ignorance which is of serious concern for a regulator which is trying to balance the interests of the various parties.
Seaboard doesn’t just disagree with the outcome of the essential services proceeding; Seaboard concludes that there is no reasonable explanation for the CRTC’s determination other than ignorance. I think Seaboard has crossed a line.
Perhaps not wanting facts to get in the way of a good headline, Seaboard Group is promoting a report it released on the issues placed in front of Cabinet by the MTS Allstream appeal. The timing of “A Giant Step Backwards: Canada’s CRTC Moves to Re-Monopolize Communications Marketplace” is clearly designed to coincide with advocacy associated with the cabinet appeals.
Look at what else Seaboard said in the interview:
We have a half-baked decision. I too think the CRTC should be more timely in its decisions but I think there was evidence there which would have led a reasonable man to a conclusion other than the conclusion that [the Commission] came to.
The CRTC should be more timely? I think that Seaboard is the group that could have been more timely in its reporting. This is an April 2009 report that deals with a CRTC determination that was released in March 2008. That’s right – 2008. The CRTC decision was released more than a year ago. Where was Seaboard’s critique when the ink was still fresh on the CRTC ruling?
Let’s look at Seaboard’s primary concern: the re-monopolization of the communications marketplace. Seaboard has ignored the facts when it says:
The reach and breadth of the incumbent (former monopoly) telephone networks cannot be duplicated by competing carriers, and the fact that a competitor might be able to cobble together a roughly equivalent communications pathway from legacy offerings isn’t material to the real advantage that native Ethernet services have over Rube-Goldberg-like ad hoc solutions.
Surely Seaboard is aware that there are companies other than Bell and TELUS offering fibre connectivity in their ILEC territory. The CRTC solicited evidence, looked at the availability of such alternatives for supply of facilities and it sees the world quite differently from Seaboard.
As we wrote in our evidence [
pdf, 1.4MB] put in front of Cabinet last week as part of Bell’s reply to the MTS Allstream appeal:
The CRTC has examined the state of competition for digital access for the business market a number of times in the context of various regulatory proceedings.
First, in the examination of forbearance for retail high-speed Digital Network Access (“DNA”) and in the examination associated with its examination of essential services. In the examination of high-speed DNA forbearance, the test looks at each wire centre and examines the number of buildings having connections to competitors’ fibre networks compared to the number of buildings having connections to the incumbent’s fibre network. That process established that a substantial proportion of business locations are able to be served by more than one fibre optic facility, in wire centres representing the majority of Bell’s high-speed accesses.
Second, in the Essential Services examination, the CRTC looked at the issue from a different angle. Across all customers in all locations, the CRTC examined how accesses were provided to determine the percentage of connections that were self-supplied by competitors, leased from third parties or leased from an ILEC. Again, the CRTC determined that a substantial proportion of fibre optic accesses are being provided by parties other than the incumbent.
Both examinations indicated that there is a high incidence of alternate supply of fibre-based high speed access services, beyond the incumbents.
The supply of access from alternate companies such as Cogeco Data Services, Atria, Videotron, Shaw, Rogers and others is far, far better than Rube Goldberg-like. These companies offer high quality fibre based services with a reach that has been proven to be comparable to the fibre reach of the ILECs.
The record of the Essential Services proceeding also shows that many of these companies had their business plans disrupted when the CRTC created high speed CDNA, forcing the ILECs to offer high speed access at a price that made it uneconomic for competitors to build their own facilities.
Indeed, Seaboard’s proposal would likely have imposed such an effect: truly monopolizing fibre access.
“Ignorance” describes a person who is unaware. The CRTC made sure it was aware of the facts. Twice, the CRTC used public process for gathering information before issuing its determination on the availability of competitive alternatives.
The Commission should ignore the name-calling. Everyone else should ignore the Seaboard report.