Another coalition of competitive ISPs has written [pdf, 266KB] to the CRTC to block interim approval of a Bell / Bell Aliant proposal [Tariff Notice 7181, zip, 148 KB]to implement usage based billing on wholesale internet access services.

This closely follows a coalition filing that we described on Tuesday.

Today’s filing comes from a broader group of 8 ISPs plus CAIP: Accelerated Communications, AOL Canada, Cybersurf, Execulink Telecom, EGATE Networks, MNSi, Telnet Communications, Yak.

The coalition says Bell’s filings anti-competitive, are not accompanied by proper cost studies and may be based on erroneous data:

In one case Bell has provided data indicating a residential end user consumed 1 TB (terabyte) of data over 20 hours of use.

I think that would imply better than 100Mbps sustained for 20 hours – not bad for a DSL service!

Two preliminary observations.

Are we beginning to see a more united ISP industry coalescing that provide better quality regulatory participation than we have typically seen in the past?

Can usage based billing at a wholesale level be accompanied by removal of the application of traffic shaping from these lines?

I had a call yesterday with Ian Collins of Cogeco Data Services as part of the company coming out with their new brand image.

Cogeco Data Services is the brand established after last summer’s acquisition of Toronto Hydro Telecom.

The company is in the process of doubling its route kilometers of fibre as it implements a 10-year, $40M contract with the Toronto District School Board that was announced in December [news release pdf, 60KB]. The project, being implemented over a 30-month transition period, will deliver fibre connectivity to 600 sites.

With the school board as an anchor customer, Cogeco Data Services is significantly expanding the reach of its access network, offering a facilities-based alternative for high speed data services.

How do we ensure that policies encourage investment in fibre and expansion of these kinds of competitive options?

Technorati Tags:
Cogeco Data Services

Network World reports that some people in the US are arguing that any economic stimulus funding for broadband service expansion should be tied to strong net neutrality commitments.

the stimulus legislation says that any networks built with the funds must adhere to the “nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations” that the Federal Communications Commission first outlined in 2005. These principles state that networks must allow users to access any lawful Internet content of their choice, to run any legal Web applications of their choice, and to connect to the network using any device that does not harm the network. Additionally, the principles state that consumers are “entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers.”

However, some net neutrality advocates argued during the debate Monday that these principles are not written strongly enough to specifically bar networks from slowing down competitors’ content in favor of their own.

We have two relevant sessions at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. On June 15, we have a panel looking at building broadband networks – what issues are there for universal service. The panel includes Ian Collins (Cogeco Data Services), Mike Dixon (Motorola), John Maduri (Barrett Xplore), Derek Slater (Google) and Robert Watson (SaskTel). On June 16, we are taking an in depth look at the Net Neutrality debate in Canada, with Mike Lee (Rogers), Chris Libertelli (Skype) and Dave Caputo (Sandvine).

Have you registered yet to attend Canada’s leading telecom industry event?

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, broadband, Canadian Telecom Summit

About 2 weeks ago, the Federal Cabinet was served with sets of appeal documents filed by three different companies, addressing 4 CRTC decisions. At the time, I called the event a “time for action on broadband policy.”

What is our national broadband vision?

Are we ready to declare that access to broadband service is a right? Have we given sufficient thought to how competition is fostered when programs (such as rural subsidies) are rolled out?

The theme that can be found in all of these pieces is that of competitive access.

The Bell / TELUS appeal deals with mandated speed matching between retail and wholesale bundled internet services. Those companies are arguing against the CRTC requiring them to provide competitors with access to their ongoing infrastructure upgrades. In effect, their argument is that Bell and TELUS shareholders are absorbing all of the risk associated with expensive investments. Shareholders are spending billions of dollars, hoping to see a return on that investment while the CRTC is allowing competitors to be able to gain all of the benefits at a substantial discount and with no risk.

The MTS Allstream appeal is distinct. It deals with the Commission refusing to mandate an unbundled wholesale ethernet access service, which is needed by MTS Allstream when offering its business grade network services.

While some have been lumping the appeals together, the issues are different in a number of respects.

Bell and TELUS say that having to share their access networks changes the business case for continued investment in upgrading their networks.

MTS Allstream argues that there is a severely limited choice of suppliers of alternative access for the business market and absent regulatory action, it is difficult for competitors to offer advanced broadband services to business customers.

Only government action will ensure that Canadian businesses of all sizes have competitive alternatives necessary to fill their business-critical telecommunications needs and thereby meet the challenge of ensuring Canada’s economic success.

The common ground in both sets of cabinet appeals is a call for a policy decision on the kinds of access we want to mandate Canadian telecom carriers to make available to competitors, businesses and consumers.

A coalition of competitive ISPs has called for [pdf, 220KB] the CRTC to register its speed matching decision with the courts in order to permit enforcement through contempt proceedings.

The group is frustrated that the day before tariffs were due to be filed (March 13), the ILECs filed for a stay, which has not yet been granted.

Telus Communications applied for a stay of these decisions on 11 March 2009 and Bell Aliant and Bell Canada applied for a stay on 12 March 2009; however, at law both decisions continue in force and must be complied with unless and until a stay is granted. A party cannot grant itself a stay merely by applying for one.

The letter is signed by executives of Distributel, Yak, Primus, Cybersurf Corp and CAIP.