Last week’s Price Cap decision has a few elements that create a lot of flexibility for ILECs in areas that aren’t fully competitive.
Optional services have been designated as uncapped – those are features like call waiting, voice mail, calling line ID, etc.
Couple that with the CRTC allowing an unprecedented flexibility in price de-averaging, down to the individual subscriber, and you need to ask what is left to be forborne?
The Commission retains the ability on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether the particular pricing strategies of the ILEC lead to discrimination that is unjust or confer a preference or disadvantage that is undue or unreasonable. To this effect, the Commission notes that subsection 27(4) of the Act places the onus on the Canadian carrier to demonstrate that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable.
Commissioner Langford’s dissenting opinion asks some interesting questions:
What’s the difference between deregulation, forbearance in other words, and [this third price cap regime]? For consumers, the answer will be, very little. In fact, in the future, consumers living in forborne regions will be better protected. At least they’ll have competition to rely on.
As always, there is certain to be lively discussion of these issues and others at the Regulatory Blockbuster on June 13 at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Stuart Langford, Price Caps