Yesterday, the initial filings were due for the CRTC’s review of wholesale internet pricing (PN 2011-77 as amended).

Even before Bell had filed its comments, Open Media was quoted by the Post as endorsing the filing [its press release can be found here]. The Globe and Mail quoted Industry Minister Tony Clement as unimpressed. Bell waited until nearly 9:00pm before releasing its new Gateway Access Tariff for Fibre to the Node [Filing, Tariff Page, Economic Study]. Bell has asked for interim approval (see page 4 of the filing), which will allow independent ISPs to begin to offer services at the new speeds as of May 29, with the rates retroactively adjusted once the CRTC completes its deliberations.

For those who would like to actually read the filed comments prior to expressing an opinion, here is what I have seen:

• PIAC / Consumers Association
• Rogers
  • University of Calgary economics professor Jeffrey Church
• MTS Allstream
• Cable Carriers joint submission (Cogeco, Videotron, Rogers)
• CNOC
• Distributel

There may be others that will be available on the CRTC website in the coming days. Reply comments are due April 29, and parties may ask questions of each other on that date as well. Answers to these interrogatories will be due on May 24.

All of which leads to good discussion material for The 2011 Canadian Telecom Summit: May 31 – June 2, in Toronto.

It’s election time in Canada. I have a wish for the political parties: tell us clearly your vision to lead Canada in the 21st century digital world.

It seems to me that we need to stop the dithering around developing Digital Economy Strategies and actually put a stake in the ground.

Last week, Network World asked me to comment on what we should be looking for in the upcoming election campaign. I pointed out that we have studied communications issues enough, with the 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel, the 2008 Competition Policy Review, together with last year’s consultation on foreign direct investment and the digital economy consultation, combined with the consultations and hearing for the recent Anti-Spam bill and the soon-to-die Copyright Bill, and finally the recent parliamentary Industry committee review of wholesale high speed Internet access.

Given all of that analysis over the past few years, it is hard to understand why we couldn’t have clear platform statements from each of the parties setting out their positions on foreign telecommunications investment, telecom and broadcast regulatory reform, copyright reform, incentives for investment in telecommunications facilities and development of digital media.

A comprehensive digital vision would include how we get connectivity to Canada’s lowest income earners, starting with ensuring all school aged children have access to computers with internet at home; how we will develop digital literacy in under-represented segments; and increased measurements, reporting and tracking to objectives.

I will be disappointed if all we hear about are current hot topics. That should be a signal that the candidates and parties lack vision and will be reactive, not proactive in their policy development.

Canadians have been waiting too long for digital policy leadership.

 

Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford and author of the recently released book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.

There is a 10 minute animated lecture available that describes his perspectives on “The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?“. This new RSA Animate video was adapted from a talk given in 2009, and so it pre-dates the current events in the Middle East. As such, his alternative take on ‘cyber-utopianism’ – the seductive idea that the internet plays a largely emancipatory role in global politics – may be rejected too quickly by many viewers.

I found it to be thought provoking. I hope it will help stimulate discussion around the dinner table this weekend for you.

Yesterday, the CRTC issued Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-206: Proceeding to review network interconnection matters, which will review the local, wireless, and toll network interconnection regulatory regimes.

The toll interconnection regulatory regime was designed nearly 22 years ago – it was my team that did the original design back in the fall of 1989. We will had to contend with some electromechanical switches and it was long before the first Internet Protocol switches were placed anywhere in the Canadian networks.

As the notice acknowledges:

Currently, there are three distinct regulatory regimes related to the interconnection of telecommunications networks for the purpose of exchanging voice traffic: (i) local network interconnection between local exchange carrier (LEC) networks, (ii) wireless network interconnection between wireless carrier networks and LEC networks, and (iii) toll network interconnection between toll (long distance) networks and LEC networks.

The interconnection arrangements all start with a premise that the primacy exists with the incumbent wireline networks. With wireless substitution and significant migration to alternate local networks including IP, the CRTC is looking to conduct a broad policy review of network interconnection matters. The objective is to determine whether existing interconnection can be simplified and consolidated, which would ultimately enhance competition (to the benefit of consumers), and whether changes are necessary to ensure technological neutrality.

There will be an oral hearing in late October, following interrogatory phases taking place through the summer. The process should wind up with a decision around the time of the 20th anniversary of the landmark long distance competition Decision 92-12. Not sure that any of us involved in that proceeding 20 years ago thought that our interconnection arrangements would still be operating 20 years later!

It is time to go shopping for a new model.

Michael Geist endorsed a YouTube propaganda piece by François Caron in his tweet, saying:

The UBB Deception – new YT video explains #UBB and some of the real reasons behind it.

The endorsement isn’t justified. Much of the video, appropriately named The UBB Deception, is filled with deceptive statements. For example, at close to the one minute mark, there is the false statement that says:

In fact, the equipment used to relay these signals doesn’t really care how much data is actually passing through the system.

Whenever a statement starts with “In fact,” my antennae get raised.

That “pseudo-fact” is news to any of us who have networks as simple as a home router, let alone managing a regional or national network. Think about your home WiFi router. If you are home alone, the whole home network is yours, including the internet access pipe. When someone else is home with you, both of you may be able to use the equipment without noticing each other, unless both of you are using a data intensive service such as simultaneously streaming HD video. But, if one of you is just casually looking at web pages while the other is into a heavier use application, the local congestion is not noticeable, despite both computers being connected at WiFi speeds of say, 11 Mbps or more, sharing a 10 Mbps internet access line. Clearly, your home network really does care about how much data passes through the system, not just the connection speeds.

Now multiply the number of users by millions and consider the network not being a local area, but instead, a regional access network and you can see how the “In fact” from video is just plain wrong.

The video continues saying:

which is why corporate internet service providers bill their customers based on the speed of their connections.

The real reason that corporate network connections are often not usage sensitive is because the monthly rates assume a heavier usage load than residential connections. The kinds of connections that are used by most corporate networks are presumed to be engaged nearly all the time. The vast majority of residential customers don’t use their internet access service that way today and so the networks haven’t been engineered for that kind of usage. Most residential users don’t want to pay the kind of rates that are paid by corporate networks.

Around the 0:45 mark on the video, it says that data is not a manufactured product and it’s not a consumable product. Come on now. This is a clever semantical word game. ISPs don’t charge for the data; the charges are for transporting the data the same way Canada Post charges to deliver the package, but not the goods inside.

The video continues to promote a scheme where the only pricing options for customers are based on speed. Low speed connections would cost less and high speed connections would cost more with no options for low volume customers to opt for a higher speed connection with a price break that considers their reduced traffic. As I have written before [such as here and here], this is hardly consumer friendly and serves to banish customers with lower internet access budgets from ever tasting higher speed applications.

The video continues to promote the false statement at the 2:10 mark that the CRTC “is staffed by former and future employees of the corporations”. It is not true, it is a cheap shot and it is an unfair slur against the integrity of the staff and commissioners at the CRTC. I trust the endorsement of the video with a statement that it provides “the real reasons behind” the UBB decisions, was meant to exclude the statement about the CRTC’s people.

I had to wonder what was considered to be the “real reason” behind UBB when I watched the video a few times. And then I saw it. At around the 1:33 mark, the video almost inadvertently provides exactly the motivation behind the fairness principle at the heart of usage sensitive pricing:

It is one of the few services in the world which increases in value the more you use it.

Actually, most flat rate priced services increase in value the more you use the service: local phone service, cable TV, health insurance, extended warranties, maintenance contracts, health clubs. In fact, it is hard to think of a service that doesn’t increase in value the more you use it, whether you pay on a flat rate basis or pay based on usage. You are willing to pay more because you are deriving more value. Would people be happier if the billing principle was called Value Based Billing?