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.
Yesterday, TELUS filed an expert economic study by NERA [pdf, 2.24MB] that concludes that a flawed auction design drove AWS spectrum costs up by an extra $2B.
That is $2 Billion transferred from the telecom industry that won’t be available for enhancing the speeds of broadband connections, accelerating wireless rollouts or serving remote and rural markets.
The study set out to answer two questions:
NERA posits that if the auction design was responsible for driving supernormal prices of the spectrum licenses, that this could confound the very policy objectives that Industry Canada sought to achieve.
As evidenced in the UK 3G (third generation) auction and other 3G auctions in the early 2000s, excessively high spectrum prices can negatively affect competition, as investors tend to sell their holdings when earnings decrease and/or debt ratings drop. In severe cases, it can lead to market exit (as evidenced by the fallout of the UK 3G auction) or market consolidation because weaker market participants go bankrupt or are acquired by a more solvent company, all of which has a direct effect on competition.
It also criticizes the definition of “new entrant”, as we had pointed out the day the rules were released.
Hard to say what will be done with this report. Is it more than a $2B “I told you so?”
Will incumbents be looking for relief to assist stimulating investment from other sides of their business?
If NERA is correct, how do we correct the impact of sucking $2B out of the industry that is supposed to be laying the foundation for Canada’s next generation economy?
I have been shopping for a new car for some time now. My kids don’t find my [not quite antique] car to be as amusing as I do. Do you really need an inside mirror? Air conditioning? A left turn signal that shuts itself off? Brakes?
So I have been doing a lot of internet research on various possibilities for a replacement. I get a lot of basic information from the company websites, but I get even more insights from third parties.
Whether it is consumer reporting websites, car magazine websites, or others, you can get all sorts of information about the performance and reliability of different cars. I notice that the manufacturers don’t provide all the details about the kind of paint or electroplating techniques being used – which some people would consider to be important for understanding whether the car will rust prematurely.
Actually, there are all sorts of details about the car that aren’t shown.
I go to the alternate sites because the level of detail that the collective wisdom of the internet provides contributes to my informed purchase decision.
I am saying all of this because of the amount of disclosure that some people are seeking for internet service providers to provide to customers.
There are all sorts of websites that provide continuous reviews of ISPs from around the world. There are quite a number that have sections about each of the Canadian ISPs.
In a competitive market, how much disclosure should the regulator require versus that which is available in the marketplace?
A couple weeks ago, I said I was moving to summer schedule for blogging, saying that posts would be less frequent.
Nay, nay!
At the time, I forgot that we had the CRTC hearing examining internet traffic management practices and that led to a busy week of posting. And it isn’t as though we have had weather that draws me away from the webcasts.
I’ll take some time away from the keyboard. Just not yet.
Michael Hennessy has recently started blogging and he points to a blog post by Stephen Taylor that found that the CRTC amended its new media decision (Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-329), excising a paragraph from the concurring opinion that was written by Commissioner Tim Denton.
Apparently, the following quote was removed:
The history of the regulation of speech in this country does not engender confidence that such powers will be used wisely. Canada has experienced several instances in recent times where regulatory commissions of another type and armed with a different mission have challenged the right to say controversial things. The struggles of Ezra Levant14, Mark Steyn15 and others have served as important warnings that regulatory authorities charged with combating racism, hatred, and other evils have consistently expanded their mandates, have abused their powers and eroded fundamental liberties. Wherever there is official orthodoxy, disagreement is heresy, and where there is heresy, there is usually an inquisition to root it out. After centuries ridding ourselves of thought control agencies, 20th century Canada re-invented them.
The original version was cited by Mark Steyn on his blog, who nominated Denton to head up the CHRC. Steyn also picked up the issue of the removal of the paragraph.
While one might wonder whether this paragraph should have ever been in a CRTC decision, the usual way the CRTC has amended an officially released document is to issue an amendment, erratum, correction – usually by means of a “dash” order – resulting in say, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-329-1.