An interview with Iain Grant of Seaboard Group, as reported in TechMedia Reports, [subscription required] includes a sentence that contains an inappropriate swipe at the CRTC:

This shows … a level of ignorance which is of serious concern for a regulator which is trying to balance the interests of the various parties. 

Seaboard doesn’t just disagree with the outcome of the essential services proceeding; Seaboard concludes that there is no reasonable explanation for the CRTC’s determination other than ignorance. I think Seaboard has crossed a line.

Perhaps not wanting facts to get in the way of a good headline, Seaboard Group is promoting a report it released on the issues placed in front of Cabinet by the MTS Allstream appeal. The timing of “A Giant Step Backwards: Canada’s CRTC Moves to Re-Monopolize Communications Marketplace” is clearly designed to coincide with advocacy associated with the cabinet appeals.

Look at what else Seaboard said in the interview:

We have a half-baked decision. I too think the CRTC should be more timely in its decisions but I think there was evidence there which would have led a reasonable man to a conclusion other than the conclusion that [the Commission] came to. 

The CRTC should be more timely? I think that Seaboard is the group that could have been more timely in its reporting. This is an April 2009 report that deals with a CRTC determination that was released in March 2008. That’s right – 2008. The CRTC decision was released more than a year ago. Where was Seaboard’s critique when the ink was still fresh on the CRTC ruling?

Let’s look at Seaboard’s primary concern: the re-monopolization of the communications marketplace. Seaboard has ignored the facts when it says:

The reach and breadth of the incumbent (former monopoly) telephone networks cannot be duplicated by competing carriers, and the fact that a competitor might be able to cobble together a roughly equivalent communications pathway from legacy offerings isn’t material to the real advantage that native Ethernet services have over Rube-Goldberg-like ad hoc solutions. 

Surely Seaboard is aware that there are companies other than Bell and TELUS offering fibre connectivity in their ILEC territory. The CRTC solicited evidence, looked at the availability of such alternatives for supply of facilities and it sees the world quite differently from Seaboard.

As we wrote in our evidence [ pdf, 1.4MB] put in front of Cabinet last week as part of Bell’s reply to the MTS Allstream appeal:

The CRTC has examined the state of competition for digital access for the business market a number of times in the context of various regulatory proceedings. 

First, in the examination of forbearance for retail high-speed Digital Network Access (“DNA”) and in the examination associated with its examination of essential services. In the examination of high-speed DNA forbearance, the test looks at each wire centre and examines the number of buildings having connections to competitors’ fibre networks compared to the number of buildings having connections to the incumbent’s fibre network. That process established that a substantial proportion of business locations are able to be served by more than one fibre optic facility, in wire centres representing the majority of Bell’s high-speed accesses.

Second, in the Essential Services examination, the CRTC looked at the issue from a different angle. Across all customers in all locations, the CRTC examined how accesses were provided to determine the percentage of connections that were self-supplied by competitors, leased from third parties or leased from an ILEC. Again, the CRTC determined that a substantial proportion of fibre optic accesses are being provided by parties other than the incumbent.

Both examinations indicated that there is a high incidence of alternate supply of fibre-based high speed access services, beyond the incumbents.

The supply of access from alternate companies such as Cogeco Data Services, Atria, Videotron, Shaw, Rogers and others is far, far better than Rube Goldberg-like. These companies offer high quality fibre based services with a reach that has been proven to be comparable to the fibre reach of the ILECs.

The record of the Essential Services proceeding also shows that many of these companies had their business plans disrupted when the CRTC created high speed CDNA, forcing the ILECs to offer high speed access at a price that made it uneconomic for competitors to build their own facilities.

Indeed, Seaboard’s proposal would likely have imposed such an effect: truly monopolizing fibre access.

“Ignorance” describes a person who is unaware. The CRTC made sure it was aware of the facts. Twice, the CRTC used public process for gathering information before issuing its determination on the availability of competitive alternatives.

The Commission should ignore the name-calling. Everyone else should ignore the Seaboard report.

On Friday, the CRTC issued a Notice of Consultation that combines two proceedings into a consultation that will look at the future of wholesale access for next generation ILEC and cable broadband networks.

The idea is to look at the evolution of broadband access given that ILECs and cablecos are upgrading their local access networks in order to enhance their high-speed retail Internet services.

The Commission had two separate processes looking at competitor access to the telco and cable networks [telco proceeding, cable proceeding] despite requests from the ILECs to merge the processes. The CRTC has apparently come around to see the benefit of considering the issues of competitive and technical neutrality between the access networks. The downside is the frustration felt by competitors seeking access to the networks; this extends the timeframes before the record is complete.

The CRTC has said that the review will be held within the context of the Essential Services decision.

this proceeding is not intended to establish a new regulatory policy framework, but rather to apply the existing regulatory framework as set out in Telecom Decision 2008-17. Accordingly, the issue of whether the provision of the high-speed access services that are the subject of this proceeding should be mandated will be addressed in the context of that framework.

No changes to the Essential Services framework – this proceeding will look at the applicability of the essentiality definitions. This will likely hinge on the examination of the question of “It is not practical or feasible for competitors to duplicate the functionality of the facility.”

The merged process includes oral hearings beginning November 16.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, wholesale access

Industry Canada has granted an extension on responses to the Cabinet appeals until the end of the day today (May 8).

in the interest of ensuring that a full spectrum of perspectives is available, a short grace period will be allowed. Filing of submissions regarding these petitions will be accepted if received on or before May 8, 2009.

A request for an extension had been filed by PIAC on Monday, asking for an extension until May 18.

Technorati Tags:
Cabinet, CRTC

Amid telecom results published yesterday, the attention in Canada was focussed on TELUS and Bell and the impact of the economy on wireless activations.

In the meantime, south of the border, where the impact of the recession has been far more pronounced, MetroPCS released results that showed record activations of 684,000 new subscribers in the first quarter of the year, representing 37% subscriber growth when compared to the same quarter a year ago. Keep in mind that MetroPCS does not have national coverage and it is operating in the US, a market that is more saturated with higher mobile penetration rates than Canada. MetroPCS is specifically targeting landline replacement with some of its plans.

These results point to the opportunities that may lay ahead for the new entrants in the Canadian market.

Alec Saunders has a post about Twitter and RSS feeds that caught my eye.

It brought to mind a conversation about Twitter with a friend on Tuesday and our theme was similar: the interplay of Twitter, blogs and RSS feeds. Alec writes:

To say that RSS is dead is to say that the only television worth watching is CNN News. All Anderson, all Sanjay, all Larry, all the time.

I think it’s worth considering some of the messages in a piece that Nicholas Carr wrote last year in Atlantic Monthly, called “Is Google making us Stupid?”

media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

With Twitter’s limit of 140 characters, it is Coffee Crisp compared to dining. Twitter makes a nice light snack but it is no replacement for a complete and balanced dinner. Of course, we don’t always have time for a multi-course balanced spread, but I have to think that a diet comprised solely of junk food will catch up to you in time.

By the way, you can follow this blog on RSS or Twitter or the old fashioned way. I doubt I will ever be able to keep to the bite-sized Twitter, but you can always click on the link.