Initial impression of the CRTC’s Essential Services Decision [news release or full decision] is that it appears to deliver on what most of us would want from our government institutions: predictability and consistency.
I say that in a positive way.
The first thing I looked for was how the CRTC dealt with Billing and Collection – the concern had been that wholesale B&C; arrangements would be phased out, leading to the end of dial around companies like YAK and Telehop. The CRTC determined that B&C; was integral to long distance interconnection and will be preserved as part of the interconnection category.
Another bellwether was the treatment of unbundled local loops – maintained as a conditional essential service. In this case, the CRTC determined that it wasn’t enough that the cable companies had a retail service that was analogous to the services built with unbundled loops. The key determinant was making sure that there is really a wholesale alternative available.
Think about the approach to price deregulation on a retail level. We have a presence test: are there other players in the specific retail market. It isn’t enough that there could be other service providers – we require that there are choices available. The CRTC seems to be using the same kind of approach: do service providers have alternatives available to them for wholesale capabilities?
It is a reasoned approach – a reasonable approach. The decision delivers what we would expect [and should want] from a regulatory body.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC, wholesale, essential services