The CRTC has issued a policy statement that is intended to improve access to broadcasting and telecom services by Canadians with disabilities.

In the accompanying press release, the Commission summarizes seven new requirements:

Telecommunications services

• require IP relay, a new service to convert internet text messages into voice calls, and vice versa
• require improvement of accessibility of customer service
• request wireless companies to offer at least one type of phone to serve the needs of people with disabilities, and
• investigate improvements to 911 services for Canadians with disabilities.

Broadcasting services

• improve closed captioning, and develop standards for it in digital and HDTV
• make available high-quality audio descriptions of programming, especially for news broadcasts, and
• provide at least four hours per week of described-video programming

The CRTC used the phrasing of “requests” rather than “required” for wireless handsets. When it forbore from regulating the mobile industry, it retained the power to regulate under sections 24 [the power to impose conditions of sales] and 27(2) [unjust discrimination / undue preference] of the Telecom Act.

The Commission is asking nicely so far, with the implicit threat that if accessible cell phones aren’t in stores by October 21, it will order the carriers to maintain inventories of accessible devices.

The CRTC has decided to hold a public hearing to examine the ownership structure of Globalive as part of its process to approve the test of Canadian ownership and control.

The Commission has set aside 2 days for the review: September 23 and 24.

The Commission considers that Globalive’s corporate structure meets the criteria for a Type 4 review. Specifically, the Commission considers that given the complexity of Globalive’s corporate structure and financing arrangements, the determination with respect to its compliance with section 16 of the Act would contain valuable precedents concerning the Commission’s understanding of eligibility under that section. Moreover, the Commission considers the evidentiary record would be improved by third-party submissions and that the appearance of third parties will assist the Commission in its completion and examination of the evidentiary record.

The operative section of the Telecom Act will be the test of Canadian control of the company, found in Section 16(3):

a corporation is Canadian-owned and controlled if

1. not less than eighty per cent of the members of the board of directors of the corporation are individual Canadians;
2. Canadians beneficially own, directly or indirectly, in the aggregate and otherwise than by way of security only, not less than eighty per cent of the corporation’s voting shares issued and outstanding; and
3. the corporation is not otherwise controlled by persons that are not Canadians.

Although a company may structure itself in a manner that conforms to the first parts, the CRTC will likely focus on “otherwise controlled.”

This makes for an interesting situation: companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase wireless licenses and their ownership has been reviewed and approved by Industry Canada using the same test and the licenses have been issued. Still, the CRTC, in a public and transparent process, could require significant changes to the corporate structure in order to ensure conformance.

The duplication of review processes is one of the reasons why Recommendations 5-10 and 5-11 from the Telecom Policy Review panel sought changes to the way spectrum is managed and regulated in Canada. The report has languished on the shelf for more than 3 years now.

Is it time for government to act?

Update [July 21, 5:40 pm]
The CRTC has issued an erratum on its Globalive review notice. The initial notice indicated that a decision would be issued within 120 days of the conclusion of the hearings. The erratum indicates that the decision will be out within 30 days.

In practice, ownership reviews are usually issued even faster.

If we look at the experience in the BCE ownership review, the CRTC indicated areas of discomfort and suggested that the company could examine an alternative structure that would cause less regulatory angst over the evening break.

The opportunity to allow the company to review alternate control structures may be a reason that the CRTC has allocated 2 days for the review.

Xchange magazine has started a series on why DPI is necessary for operating networks.

In the first article, Karl Wale speaks of the need to integrate DPI in building 3G and LTE wireless data networks.

The story leads with a potential provocation:

Mobile broadband is set to explode, and the bottom line for maintaining service quality is this: DPI will be an integral part of 3G and LTE networks. It delivers tangible benefits to both operators and subscribers – despite negative publicity associated with it.

The author is a product line management director with Continuous Computing, a DPI company, so of course he is bullish on the need for the technology.

Read the article for a review of the technology motivators. As other articles in the series emerge, I’ll provide the links. Part II is supposed to be “DPI: Consumer Friend or Foe.“

One of my non-communications suppliers apparently found a creative way to manage its cash flow: take extra cash from its consumers.

Last month, I received an extraordinary bill from the supplier. They had charged me a the equivalent of two full years in advance on my maintenance plans. When I called to inquire, I was told that credits were being applied – don’t worry, they will show up as a credit on next month’s bill. However, in the meantime, the full amount was deducted from my bank account.

So I was supposed to have a credit balance for $772.44 sitting on my account, that they get to use instead of me. I was told that the company doesn’t issue refund cheques and they don’t pay interest.

Of course, that was before they ran this on me.

The best line was from their outsourced executive support centre telling me that this isn’t really cash out of my pocket, because there is a credit on my account.

No ombudsperson. No Commissioner of Complaints to go to. Telecom consumers have a variety of means to seek recourse; this company doesn’t seem to answer to anyone. I had money grabbed from my account and I was told I had no recourse. Their CFO had found a cheap line of credit – take the money from the consumers.

Instead, I searched the company website until I found a real name and phone number – and told my story to the head of media relations. I started off with a line like “I guess you folks are having some financial problems, eh?” and that seemed to get his attention.

Media relations triggered a call from the real executive offices who agreed that they should be couriering a refund cheque to me.

It shouldn’t have been that hard. Of course, with the cool and rainy summer we are having so far, I may have had more cottage time available for research in customer service methodologies.

In the internet traffic management proceeding, final comments were originally due a week from tomorrow.

The CRTC has just granted an extension until the following Tuesday.

The Commission considers that the opportunity to reply to the written and/or oral submissions of other parties would be beneficial given the important issues raised in this proceeding.

Reply is limited to 10 pages.

That will close the record of the proceeding.