We’re coming up on the CRTC’s universal broadband service proceeding.
They don’t call it that. Instead, the formal name is: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43-3, Obligation to Serve and Other Matters, which is a rephrasing of the original Proceeding to review access to basic telecommunications services and other matters.
Of course, no one understands those terms, which may be why the public consultation only attracted 14 comments and the response to the online consultation appears thin [English here, French here]. Did enough people understand what was being asked?
So last Friday, before we packed up for the long weekend, we received a letter from the CRTC clarifying the upcoming hearings and focussing the discussion. People have until November 12 to file a brief with the CRTC, up to 15 pages which includes an executive summary of up to 5 pages. The CRTC has asked that comments be structured to respond to the following questions.
Reassessing the obligation to serve (O2S) and the basic service objective (BSO):
-
In which markets (i.e. forborne, non-forborne) should the O2S and the BSO apply, if at all?
-
Should only the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) be subject to the O2S and the BSO where the measures are maintained?
-
Can wireless voice service satisfy the O2S and the BSO?
Determining the role of the Commission with respect to high-speed Internet access:
-
Should the Commission establish a target consisting of technical specifications for access to high-speed Internet service? If so, what should those technical specifications include (e.g. targets for upload/download speeds) and in what time frame should the target be achieved?
-
Should the Commission mandate the provision of access to such a service in areas where it is not provided?
-
Should the Commission establish a fund to enable Canadians to access high-speed Internet service in areas where it is not provided?
Reassessing the local service subsidy regime:
-
Should the Commission modify the local service subsidy regime? If so, how?
-
Should the Commission review costs and/or high-cost serving area definitions used in the calculation of subsidy amounts?
Re-examination of local competition in the territories of the small ILECs:
-
Should local competition continue to be introduced in small ILEC markets? If so, what should the terms and conditions be?
-
Given your position on O2S, BSO, and local subsidy, should the small ILECs be subject to any special considerations? If so, what should those considerations be?
What is the “O2S” and “BSO”?
Will enough people understand the economic implications in a non-monopoly, unregulated rate of return environment? Will the media help sort out the issues for the public?
Should the CRTC administer a fund to manage a subsidy program that has the majority of Canadians pay extra each month for some of our communications services so that others can get their services subsidized?
Sometime in the next 12+ months there will be broadband satellite service that can likely avg at least 10mps down to as many as 1,000,000 households or 300,000 more households than currently identified as unserved. In the next 12 months capacity or speed of new 3G HSPA+ networks will double and 2 years later we will see the rollout of LTE both of which will be capable of delivering current urban broadband speeds(or better) to many of these same unserved households. Currently competitively supplied HSPA networks cover 95% of population. It begs the question if these investments are being made absent subsidy today, why is the CRTC considering mandating either an obligation on to serve (a monopoly construct from the last century) or a subsidy to deliver what the market will do probably faster than the CRTC will be able to identify targets and design said subsidy program.