Comcast and Level 3 get into a tiff over interconnection fees and the blogosphere screams out “net neutrality”. This issue does not mean the end of the internet as we know it, despite the rhetoric of the blogosphere that has been conscripted by Level 3 to their side of the issue.

Level 3 was first to invoke the FCC’s Policy Principles in its statement on Monday. Comcast responded, saying that Level 3’s traffic was out of balance by a 5:1 ratio on its peering interconnection. Level 3 replied today.

Comcast has a clearly stated peering policy [Settlement-Free Interconnection] that would seemingly apply to all parties. Among other requirements, it says:

Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic.

Level 3 appears to have failed that balance, by a very large margin. This is not a naive, unsophisticated customer that had the traffic imbalance come out of the blue. This is a straight commercial issue between two very large companies.

It appears to me that any other interconnecting company would be told the same thing, that it no longer qualifies for Settlement Free Interconnection, so here is our other product: Wholesale Dedicated IP Transit.

Comcast has to treat all interconnecting carriers the same. Anything else would be discriminatory.

The CRTC is in the midst of the oral phase of its Review of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services.

This proceeding is examining the independence of the agency and its effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate. In addition, the Commission is re-visiting the existing membership requirement.

In its comments, Shaw sets out a strong position against mandatory membership:

Shaw submits that the Commission does not have the legal authority to mandate membership in the CCTS and that it is neither necessary nor appropriate from a policy perspective to do so. Shaw also believes that the funding mechanism for the CCTS is a deterrent to voluntary membership.

In the opening session of the oral proceeding, the Commissioner acknowledged that he does not enjoy a consensus of his Board on a number of issues.

The mandatory membership requirement is contentious and it has already been the subject of a review and vary application. In ruling on that [Decision 2008-46], the CRTC said:

The Commission considers that once the Agency has operated for a few years, consumers would be aware of the organization and would rely upon it to resolve their complaints. In such circumstances, the Commission considers that market forces could be relied upon to ensure sufficiently comprehensive membership in the Agency and, therefore, that mandating membership would no longer be necessary to ensure its effectiveness.

Have the market evolved to the point that consumers will consider membership in the CCTS when choosing a service provider?

As one of the CRTC Commissioner asked, if the competitive marketplace can be trusted to discipline pricing, is there a reason why competition and market forces can ensure that complaints are dealt with as well?

I used to advise clients that disputes shouldn’t be taken to the regulator right away – too lengthy a process was just one of the complaints.

But every so often – perhaps too often – there are issues that simply can’t get resolved by negotiations. When I was looking through the CRTC’s weekly listing that previews coming attractions, I noticed that there are three files dealing with related matters: It appears that there have been some issues in the way TBayTel in Thunder Bay has been providing digital access services to its competitors. TELUS and MTS Allstream want refunds on overcharges; TBayTel wanting to change the tariff that is causing the complaint. 

Some things need the CRTC to step in, hear the facts and issue a ruling. In this case, the process has worked its way through the system pretty quickly: TELUS originally filed with the CRTC in late June; MTS Allstream in mid-July; the exchange of answers and final comments didn’t conclude until the end of September.

And the CRTC will resolve all three complaints later this week – about two months into its deliberations. The CRTC wrote to the applicants to let them know that these files were considered to be “Type 1 Part VII applications” as defined by Circular 2006-11:

• Type 1 Part VII applications – 90 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within four months of the close-of-record; and
• Type 2 Part VII applications – 85 percent of determinations to be issued on an interim or final basis within eight months of the close-of-record.

How do you resolve issues quickly? Try to deal with the issues on your own – playing nicely with the other kids in the sandbox. Otherwise, try to keep the complaint simple: Type 1 applications are those that generally don’t involve multiple parties or raise significant policy issues.

After any CRTC decision, there are 3 avenues for an appeal, as I have described in the past.]

As promised yesterday, I am going to continue the theme of Digital Government, today examining the role of public safety in the discussion of strategic sourcing and and pursuit of an innovation agenda.

In an emergency, the FCC observed that you can send a text message for help to almost any working phone number, other than 911.

It is no better in Canada.

Emergency bureaus are often using equipment that is outdated and not able to take advantage of the communications capabilities that are in the hands of most Canadians. No video chat. No sending photos from the scene. Activating GPS? Ha!

As FCC Chair Genachowski says, it is time to bring 9-1-1 into the digital age.

In order to be able to respond to an emergency, our public safety answering points should be early adopters of advanced technologies. Too often, budget squeezes have them ‘make do’. 

Who will take the lead in ensuring that Canadian first responders aren’t left behind. As I mentioned Wednesday, Minister Clement’s Digital Economy status report chided Canadian businesses for failing to exploit technologies:

the best infrastructure, with the highest speeds, is of little use if businesses are not exploiting it. Canadian businesses, large and small, have to adopt technology in order to become more productive, innovative and competitive.

Shouldn’t our public safety agencies be model customers? Like Canadian businesses, it appears that many government agencies “have to adopt technology in order to become more productive, innovative and competitive”.

Iain Marlow interviewed Blair Levin at this week’s IIC conference in Ottawa. Levin led the creation of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan prior to joining The Aspen Institute.

There are 3 audio clips available. 

In the first of these, I heard statements that inspired me to wonder if governments are doing enough as a role model for the adoption of digital technologies. Levin says:

… that the Government makes sure digital literacy is part of its overall culture…. Government is the single largest provider of education. It is the single largest provider of Public Safety. It is the single largest buyer of telco services. It is the single biggest deliverer of other government services such as social security or whatever.

Let me paraphrase: Is the government buying and delivering services in a way that stimulates the supply, adoption and use of digital technologies in the general marketplace?

Example: I can pay my federal small business taxes with no service charge if I personally go to a teller at the bank. On the other hand, I have to pay a $2 fee if I choose to pay on-line. Does this make sense? Shouldn’t the government be taking steps to discourage paper and incent digital transactions?

Another example: Ontario charges a “convenience fee” for renewing a license plate at a kiosk (presumably to avoid the inconvenience of facing a human?); how is this consistent with a digital innovation strategy? Imagine what would happen if the incentives worked the other way – lower cost automated delivery of services, increased use of ICTs, improved levels of comfort in interacting with digital technology. The “convenience fee” comes across as just another tax imposed without any strategic consideration of its impact on the adoption of digital delivery of government services.

What about the government’s purchasing of services?

Ontario’s ORION research network has announced that it is now extending the types of organizations that are using its connectivity to include the Hamilton Public Library. Is there still a need for privately operated “research” networks? If the most sophisticated network requirements continue to be peeled out of the public network domain, is there a reduced incentive for investment that could only be recovered from residential rates?

Government spending on communications requirements should be incorporated into a more strategic type of sourcing – helping to ensure that the general public benefits are considered. Embedding these advanced services requirements can serve to improve the economics of extending the geographic reach and enhanced capabilities delivered to all of us.

Enough ranting for today – I’ll save the issue of public safety ’til tomorrow.