A flood of documents arrived in my email late yesterday, with parties filing their comments in response to the seventh amendment to Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-261.

The filings should be available on the CRTC website in the next couple days.

In the meantime, here are some highlights.

From TELUS [para. 12]:

While new investment is completely in line with macro-economic policy, unbundling is not. In fact unbundling actually increases the risk of investing in facilities that are required to compete with the market leader in broadband and broadcast distribution. Unbundling is an absurd proposition at best if the goal is to promote competition.

From Bell [para. 19]:

In the end, the trade-off faced by the Commission can be summarized as follows: is it better to mandate access to NGNs and depress investment, in the hope of spurring some hybrid or resale competition in those limited well-served areas where each of cable, ILEC and wireless providers will have built high-speed broadband networks, at the expense of competition in “lost” areas, or is it better to not impose regulatory measures and let ILECs invest as much as market forces allow, in order to provide as many Canadians and communities as possible with the benefits of competition from at least three competing facilities-based networks?

From Rogers and the major cable carriers [para. ES14]

The international evidence points to some risk that wholesale access requirements would have a negative impact on incentives for investment by facilities-based broadband service providers. A review of the literature provides no strong evidence that the benefits would be sufficient to outweigh this risk.

From MTS Allstream [para. E3]:

Based on the U.S. experience, withdrawal of regulated wholesale services is more likely to discourage investment than to stimulate it. In contrast to the existing situation in the U.S., in Europe it is recognized that replication of existing infrastructures is neither practical nor desirable, even in densely populated areas, and that unbundling networks and providing wholesale access is a proven enabler of both competition and investment.

Surprisingly, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers had no comments. Their two page submission consisted of a restatement of the subjects upon which CRTC was seeking comments and a statement that the Competitors “look forward to reviewing the submissions of interested parties.” Considering the association’s declaration of importance of this issue, it is somewhat surprising that there was no substance to its filing, no evidence filed to address the question that seemed to be crying out for input from CAIP et al.

At paragraph 11.B.b, the notice asked for evidence to support or counter:

whether, in the absence of the speed-matching requirement and the mandated provision of the high-speed access services under consideration, there would be competition sufficient to protect the interests of users;

This point seems crucial for the various appeals that were mounted by CAIP over the past year. It seems bizarre that the Competitors wouldn’t put forward evidence to address this point. They need to do more than just look forward to reviewing other submissions. CAIP and the Competitors should have put forward a strong case and prepare to defend it.

---

Update [February 9, 7:15 am]
Teksavvy filed a complete set of comments, with supplementary expert evidence, including a literature review that could result in the CRTC being the first quasi-judicial body to pronounce upon the Harvard Berkman study that was released last October [see our many posts such as here, here and here, describing critiques of that piece]. Most importantly, there is a paragraph in Teksavvy’s submission that begs the question of why its evidence wasn’t filed by the CAIP coalition.

TSI notes that the competitive sector is not in good health. Evidence of this is demonstrable through the reduction that has occurred in recent years in the number of competitors participating in the regulatory process and the reduced vigour of the participation of those who are left. The result has been that TSI has had to expend considerable resources in order to ensure that competition does not die, and with it, TSI itself. This is a big burden for one competitor to bear, and it is not a burden that can be sustained indefinitely.

Last week, John Ivison wrote an article in the National Post, suggesting that liberalization of foreign ownership rules will be among reforms introduced by the government this spring. It is one of many recommendations that have been suggested by various expert panels, including the Competition Policy Review Panel and the Telecom Policy Review Panel.

Over the weekend, Dave Coles, president of the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada wrote a letter to the editor to cite the risks of having Canadian infrastructure fall into the hands of Americans – AT&T in particular:

If communications were knocked out by a disaster (such as floods or another ice storm), we might feel less secure with, say, a U.S. company that might focus on getting services for Americans up and running first. Our personal security is also at stake — Canada’s protections for individual privacy are more extensive than elsewhere. The U.S. Patriot Act allows emails and users’ records across the country to be seized on the order of a judge. If AT&T owned and controlled our communications, our privacy laws would be undermined.

Our cultural identity is also at risk –our stories, our music, our own perspective on the news. We live just north of the largest cultural machine in the world. Do we need foreign companies to pipe in yet more U.S. programming?

I think this may be a little bit over the top.

In the executive summary of the Final Report of the Telecom Policy Review Panel, we find a call to open our markets to allow increased foreign investment to increase the competitiveness of the sector and improve productivity.

The Panel concludes that liberalization of the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian telecommunications common carriers would increase the competitiveness of the telecommunications industry, improve the productivity of Canadian telecommunications markets, and be generally more consistent with Canada’s open trade and investment policies.

Last week also saw a warning from Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of Canada, that every Canadian stands to lose $30,000 in income over the next decade – a figure that amounts to nearly $1-trillion – unless Canada improves its “abysmal” productivity levels. He is quoted saying that the US enjoys lower unit labour costs, which have boosted its competitiveness and should, ultimately, encourage job creation.

Clarity in foreign ownership regulations are essential to the communications industry; liberalizing rules will reduce the cost of capital, facilitating further investment and increasing the competitiveness of the sector.

Looking beyond the fearful concerns raised by the communications union, will existing laws and regulations, buttressed by increased competition, be sufficient to defend consumer and social interests?

If you can read this posting, you have succeeded in reaching my new blog host and I have succeeded in migrating 4 years of blogging via Google over to a self-hosted installation of WordPress.

Earlier this week, Aricent announced an initiative called Experience Engineering and I received a briefing on what was meant by the term.

In effect, Aricent is offering its range of expertise to help service providers develop a holistic approach to delivery of customer services and applications. It means more than just buying switches and support systems and devices that inter-operate. As many of us have found first hand, it is one thing for a device to work on a network; it is something different for a customer to enjoy a ‘wow’ experience.

Arun Sarin, the former chief executive of Vodaphone, has joined the Aricent board. He said:

Service providers are in a unique position to deliver innovative mobile services that integrate best in class devices, high performance networks, and a virtually unlimited set of applications and services into a single compelling subscriber experience. Aricent’s Experience Engineering is the first engagement model of its kind that assists operators through the innovation, development and delivery phases of their experience strategies. It’s very timely given the top strategic concerns of carriers today.

Aricent includes “frog design“, continuing to operate as an independent division.

With new service providers launching low price offerings in Canada, which carriers consider the total customer experience as a means of differentiation and a justification for premium pricing?

Mark Goldberg has more than 30 years of international experience in strategic planning, managing, designing and implementing telecommunications carrier networks. His background includes heading the Network Services organization for one of Canada’s largest long distance companies, developing the network architecture for competition in Canada, design of the US Government Voice Network, creating the business plan for Canada’s Information Highway initiative, and helping international entrepreneurs launch traditional and enhanced telecommunications services.

In naming him as one of Canada’s top 10 technology bloggers in April 2008, itWorld Canada wrote: No one does a better job of exploring, interpreting or criticizing telecommunications policy in Canada. Period.

Please contact Mark H. Goldberg and Associates to discuss how we can help you exceed your business objectives.

Mark H. Goldberg & Associates Inc.
91 Forest Lane Drive
Thornhill, Ontario, Canada, L4J 3P2
Phone: +1 905 882-0417
Fax: +1 905 882-2219
E-Mail: info@mhgoldberg.com