Did Bell Canada’s deferral account application force the Commission to look at restoring some of its regulatory powers under sections 24 and 27(2) of the Telecom Act?
In Telecom Notice of Consultation 2010-43, the CRTC said that it wanted comments on whether it was appropriate to restore some regulatory authority over mobile data:
The Commission notes that there is a link between issues regarding high-speed Internet service and mobile wireless data services, as well as the associated service providers. Accordingly, as part of the proceeding initiated by this notice, the Commission will review the appropriateness of the mobile wireless data services forbearance framework.
The CRTC asked for comments fairly broadly: “Should the Commission change the scope of forbearance with respect to mobile wireless data services, and if so, to what extent?”
Recall that Bell asked for authorization to use deferral account funding to provide broadband services that it has traditionally provisioned using DSL technologies. While all of the carriers enjoy forbearance from economic regulation, in Telecom Order 99-592, the CRTC retained S. 24 and S. 27(2). Section 24 regulatory authority was retained explicitly to continue to regulate confidentiality. When the CRTC granted forbearance to mobile services in Decision 96-14, it included release of Sections 24 and 27(2) for any non-voice mobile services.
In 1996, we had not yet seen the first Blackberry. Non-voice mobile services were hardly-used text messages and one-way pagers. Times have changed.
Now let’s go back to Bell’s deferral account application. If Bell uses its mobile data service capabilities to provide residential broadband, then consumers would be receiving a completely unregulated substitute (mobile data) as a substitute for a partly regulated service (DSL). That would raise questions about regulatory asymmetry; the principle that rules should be technology agnostic. If DSL is subject to Sections 24 and 27(2), why wouldn’t its proposed substitute also have these sections apply?
If the CRTC approves Bell’s deferral account plans for HSPA to deliver residential broadband, then it seems that the Commission would first need to reimpose certain regulatory authority over mobile service. The CRTC needs a consultation process before taking such a step. Which brings us to the current process.
But that raises another question. Has approval of Bell’s deferral account plan hit a delay? How can HSPA for deferral account projects be approved until after the 2010-43 process is complete (with a decision sometime in 2011)?
The Globe and Mail carried a story with the CRTC Chair saying that the Commission has no intention to regulate wireless or new media.
The stupidest thing we could do is take the existing regulatory regime and transfer it holus bolus to new media. We can’t do and we shouldn’t do it.