Only 5 weeks until The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit opens in Toronto.

 No other event brings together the leadership of Canada’s telecommunications and IT industries.

From the opening with Canada’s Industry Minister, Tony Clement, sixteen industry leaders will deliver keynote addresses, offering insights into the future of Canada’s Communications and Information Technology industries, examining technology, services, consumer & business trends and policy. More than 60 experts will participate in panel discussions to explore areas of interest to all stakeholders in the Canadian information and communications industries.

For 3 full days, The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit delivers thought provoking presentations from the prime movers of the industry.

This will be your chance to hear from and talk with them in both a structured atmosphere of frank discussion and high-octane idea exchange and schmooze in a more relaxed social setting of genial conversation.

The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit takes place June 7-9. Have you registered yet?

On Friday, the CRTC announced that it was going to conduct a review of the office of The Commissioner for Complaints for Telecom Services [TNC 2010-247]. The consultation will include an oral hearing, scheduled to take place September 27-29.

As the CRTC notice indicates, a Federal Cabinet directive in April 2007 originally ordered the creation of “an independent agency with a mandate to resolve complaints from individual and small business retail customers”. Cabinet considered this to be “an integral component of a deregulated telecommunications market.”

When the consumer agency was established in December 2007, [Telecom Decision 2007-130] the CRTC committed to a review within 3 years:

117.	The Commission considers that it would be appropriate to conduct a review of the Agency’s structure and mandate, as well as related matters, in the future to examine how well the Agency is operating.
118.	Accordingly, the Commission determines that it will initiate a review of the Agency, no later than three years after the Agency meets the conditions of approval set out in this Decision. The scope of the review will be determined at that time.

That time is now.

The Commission has asked for input on 5 questions in respect of the office of the Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services: 

(a) membership, (b) governance and voting structure; (c) mandate; (d) remedies; and (e) other matters, including the accessibility of the Agency’s services its public awareness and outreach campaigns and the Agency’s overall effectiveness

Comments are due June 28, with reply comments to be filed 2 weeks later. The oral phase is in late September, as mentioned above.

More material to be discussed at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit. Have you registered yet?

In my post on Wednesday, I raised the question of whether it is appropriate to continue the system of subsidizing telecommunications services based on the cost of providing service to certain geographies.

rural and remote does not equate to low-income; often, there are substantial savings in housing costs that can offset higher prices for other services. Similarly, lower cost areas may still have prices for services that exceed the affordability level for some households.

When telecom services are usually a fraction of housing costs, why are we so focussed on subsidizing everyone in a certain geographic area to offer discounts of a few dollars per month. If we are so concerned with broadband affordability, shouldn’t the subsidy be needs based independent of where the person lives? Shouldn’t low income families in an urban setting be more deserving of help paying the bill than someone who can afford the upkeep on an estate in the country?

Two years ago, in our opening remarks at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit, we called for a needs based subsidy program to enable affordability, regardless of where people live. Such a system would be competitively neutral and would focus on demand, rather than supply.

Isn’t it time to try a new approach?

If you haven’t attended The Canadian Telecom Summit, you have no idea about how entertaining debates on regulatory and policy issues can be, while various constituents bring forward their positions on the key issues of the day. That is why the regulatory blockbuster, taking place this year on Tuesday June 8, is certain to be a highlight at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit.

There will be lots to talk about. As I wrote yesterday,  parties filed their initial positions earlier this week on the issue of broadband being part of the universal service obligation. Is a universal service subsidy still needed? Should broadband in high cost areas be subsidized by users in lower cost areas?

In May, the CRTC will hold hearings into whether it should mandate wholesale access to certain high speed access services, which could shape the competitive landscape for alternate ISPs and other business services.

National digital strategies, consumer complaints, anti-spam legislation, competitive disputes. All these issues and more will spring to life when the gladiators of government policy enter the arena for the regulatory blockbuster.

The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit takes place June 7-9. Have you registered yet?

On Monday, most parties filed their proposals in respect of the CRTC’s Consultation (2010-43): Obligation to serve and other matters. A few straglers came in late. Most of the material will be available shortly on the Commission website. In the meantime, the hyperlinks in this post will take you to a Scribd version of the referenced filings.

PIAC, representing a coalition of consumer groups, stood with the government of Saskatchewan and Sasktel as parties calling for an expansion of the current contribution regime to include a sustainable subsidy for high cost high speed internet services. The current system involves a tax on telecommunications services (other than internet services) to fund basic telephone services in high cost areas.

PIAC introduces its plan with a cautionary note, warning against doing any harm to the current system:

The Commission’s first goal in this proceeding should be to preserve Canada’s commitment to achieving universal and affordable voice (telephone) service. Therefore, whatever other adjustments are made for example to the basic service objective, obligation to serve or the local service subsidy, the Commission should ensure that such service is accounted for and protected.

Interestingly, on first review of the filings, it is hard to find service providers who support a subsidy program, even among the independent ISPs. The CRTC is urged to:

Not make any changes to the contribution regime that would increase the amount of contribution payable or result in the payment of contribution on retail Internet service revenues

and

Not introduce a high-speed Internet access element to the basic service objective
or to levy contribution on retail Internet services

This becomes one of the challenges of the universal service funding. How would the CRTC create a program to subsidize high cost broadband and avoid applying a tax on broadband internet services to fund the subsidy. If only legacy telecom services are taxed, then it artificially inflates the costs, serving to stimulate migration to IP-based over-the-top services, leaving fewer to fund the subsidy fund, raising the tax rate and thereby accelerating the migration.

How could this be considered technology neutral?

Although I did not go through all of the filings yet, it would be interesting to see evidence that there is actually a universal need to provide subsidies to all residents of high cost serving areas.

As we have observed before, rural and remote does not equate to low-income; often, there are substantial savings in housing costs that can offset higher prices for other services. Similarly, lower cost areas may still have prices for services that exceed the affordability level for some households.

Is it appropriate to artificially raise prices for economically disadvantaged households who happen to be in lower cost urban areas in order to benefit all residents of high cost serving areas?

Has anyone looked to see if there are more rural and remote residents who will be brought online by universal service proposals than the number of low income people who may be chased off the network?

Which group is representing these households?