The NFL has called interference on the CRTC for meddling into its mobile content licensing agreement.

As I wrote in December, the CRTC told Bell that it was anti-competitive for Bell to have exclusive agreements for carrying prime time NFL games, the Pro Bowl game, all playoff games (including the Super Bowl), NFL Network programming, NHL games and video highlights. The CRTC chair said “Canadians shouldn’t be forced to subscribe to a wireless service from a specific company to access their favourite content. Healthy and fair competition between service providers will promote greater choice for Canadians.”

I disagreed.

The CRTC ordered Bell to report back by the end of January on how it planned to ensure that TELUS had access to the content at reasonable terms. Late today, Bell filed its report saying there are no steps that can be taken to ensure third party access to the the NFL programming because Bell lacks the necessary rights to license or sub-license the content; the right to amend the agreement with the NFL; and the right to terminate the agreement.

Bell included an abridged copy of a letter from the NFL, confirming these points and indicating that there are still an undisclosed number of seasons remaining under the current deal.

As you know, NFLI engaged in a competitive bidding process for its mobility rights in Canada that included several wireless providers in the market. We offered a package of rights focused on exclusive content for live games along with a variety of non-exclusive rights. It was our belief that this model, which is one we have used often in countries throughout the world, in the best model for offering this set of rights in Canada. Bell was the winning bidder for these rights, and we continue to believe in the desirability of this model. Therefore, at this time, NFLI has no interest in amending the Mobility Agreement. NFLI fully expects Bell to honor its obligations under the Mobility Agreement throughout the full remainder of the term.

The CRTC doesn’t regulate the NFL, but it could theoretically order Bell to stop carrying the content. As satisfying as it may be for the regulator to show its power, it is hard to see how that kind of action could possibly be in the public interest.

Let’s have a little perspective here. Bell doesn’t have an exclusive for access to voice calling or emergency services. It is football – American football at that.

I continue to believe that healthy competition doesn’t mean all service providers should have all the same services, any more than all service providers should all carry the same devices. If one service provider has really hot content, then other service providers will have to respond with another compelling offer.

If a customer really wants mobile access to the NFL, then their current service provider is going to have to work that much harder to keep their voice and data business.

That is competition in the public interest.

Only one event gathers Canada’s communications and ICT leadership together each year.

The Canadian Telecom Summit is the conference that delivers convergence in a physical sense, bringing together the leading people who shape the evolution of our digital economy.

Last week, a number of top industry personalities confirmed their participation in The 2012 Canadian Telecom Summit.

There are now an even dozen leaders confirmed keynote addresses, with more to be announced in the coming weeks. Another 50 thought leaders will be engaged in panel discussions.

It is shaping up to be another great programme for the annual gathering of Canada’s ICT industry, taking place this year from June 4-6, again at The Toronto Congress Centre.

Here is a quick look at some of the people who are new additions to the agenda.

For the past couple years, we have moved to a fireside chat format for the head of the CRTC; Acting Chair Len Katz is now confirmed for Tuesday morning, June 5, just before the Regulatory Blockbuster that features a debate between Canada’s most prominent telecom policy chiefs.

OpenText Executive Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Tom Jenkins is being pressed into double duty on Wednesday June 6. In the morning, he is participating in our Building a Digital Canada discussion and he will deliver the conference’s closing address that afternoon. Having chaired the Federal Government’s R&D Policy Review and the Ontario Innovation Roundtable, we can expect some powerful messages on what we need to do to successfully transform Canada to a digital economy.

As EVP of English Services, Kirstine Stewart heads the delivery of programming across multiple platforms, including the development of mobile and broadband content strategies. Kirstine has re-established the CBC as a leader in Canadian-made television programming and broadcasting, commissioning the highest level of Canadian content the CBC has ever had in prime time. She will be speaking on June 6.

There are many more speakers confirmed and the panels are shaping up nicely as well. Be sure to visit the conference website to stay on top of programme updates.

Join us this year as we mark the 10th anniversary of The Canadian Telecom Summit.

Just 4 weeks remain to book your seat and save more than $200 with Early Bird rates. Have you registered yet?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the artificial distinction that is being maintained between business and residential lines on a wholesale level.

In the olden days, these distinctions made sense. We cross subsidized to keep residential rates low, justifying it based on the value of service and all sorts of reasons that made sense in an era of regulated rates. In the case of internet service, especially wholesale internet service, this distinction no longer makes sense.

In many cases, residential users are more demanding on their internet service provider than their business clientele. Imagine an airline that insisted that all people travelling for business purposes had to buy business class seats and no vacationers were ever allowed up front. Or if businesses had to buy different printer cartridges and paper than school kids – by government fiat. There may be very good reasons to buy a different grade of office supplies, but it is up to the purchaser to decide.

I continue to be troubled by the resolution of the wholesale internet access decision. There are many who think the rate setting process was unfair because competitors aren’t given the chance to go through the incumbents’ financial details. They need to get over that; we have competent regulators who are able to review the numbers, balancing the public interest with reasonable provisions of corporate confidentiality.

The wholesale regime correctly tries to emulate the way that networks are built – with lumpy amounts of capacity being acquired by the independent ISPs and then managed as best they can toward profitability.

Except for one big management tool. The way the wholesale regime got structured, independent ISPs can’t mix business and residential customers on their access network connections because the CRTC created two different wholesale regimes.

Since the beginning of time – at least since the beginning of telecom networks – service providers have been able to take advantage of non-coincident busy periods. Residential customers make greater use of telecommunications in the evenings and weekends; businesses place heavier demands during weekdays. It’s why we call them business hours.

So when intercity and interconnecting facilities get built, they are engineered for the busiest period of the week and the rest rides for free.

The capacity-based billing for ISPs was the intent of the CRTC approach. It is sound policy except for one important piece. By artificially separating business traffic from residential traffic, independent ISPs have to buy double the real requirement. They need to buy the capacity for their business peak separate from capacity required for their residential peak. In a normal network world, the traffic would be intermixed and there would be just one peak driving the capacity requirements for the interconnecting group.

There are strong public policy reasons to combine business and residential traffic: it will increases overall competitive market intensity. Allowing the mixing will ensure that ISPs try to balance their business users with residential clients, with an eye toward keeping traffic loads balanced.

The independent ISPs have expressed concerns about the rates that were set in the CRTC’s UBB decisions [business, residential]. I am somewhat inclined to think that the rates may be close to the right numbers, but the problem is more fundamental. The inability to combine residential and business traffic means that independent ISPs will be unable to optimize the utilization of the facilities through balancing of their customer mix.

It is a point worth re-examination.

Let’s say you have a long term lease on an apartment and the landlord decides he wants to demolish your building. You might think that the landlord would need to share the costs of you relocating. At the very least, you would want the landlord to waive the “move-in” fees – your key money – for the new place.

Well, in the world of telecommunications, that isn’t how it works.

TELUS is redeveloping a city block in Vancouver as part of its $750M TELUS Gardens headquarters project. About 6 months later, TELUS advised Allstream that it had 5 months to relocate its equipment colocated in a TELUS building at 720 Seymour Street to an adjacent building at 768 Seymour.

Allstream went to the CRTC saying that the 5 months wasn’t enough time and asking in any case for TELUS to be ordered not to charge one-time fees for the new installation.

The CRTC told the parties that the co-location agreement would govern the issues of timing of notice and responsibilities for costs. The outcome is not what you might expect.

You would think mobile devices should have killed off payphones by now. Those of us who have an alternative don’t go looking for a couple quarters to make a call from the shopping centre or the airport.

Most Canadians now have a mobile option, but 25% of households don’t. That is what is behind a request by PIAC for the CRTC to take a fresh look at the issue of access to pay telephones. The last time the CRTC looked at the issue was in 2002, with a Decision that came out in 2004.

The CRTC wrote at that time:

Based on information presented in this proceeding, the Commission considers that low-income Canadians, especially those without access to basic residential service, are more likely to use pay telephone service for important personal and emergency calls. The Commission notes that although wireless service may constitute an alternative for many consumers, it is not an affordable option for all.
…
The Commission concludes that, although demand for pay telephone service is declining, pay telephone service is still an important public service that wireless services have not rendered obsolete.

PIAC’s letter is asking the CRTC to expand the scope of a recent tariff filing to allow it to update the evidence last reviewed nearly a decade ago.

PIAC expects to raise issues of social utility of payphones and ideally to introduce evidence of payphone use by the public, in particular those persons living on low income. However, commissioning and compiling this information will take more time than is allotted for intervention.

PIAC raises a valid point. The CRTC should take a fresh look at payphone accessibility.