Yesterday, the CRTC sided with MTS Allstream in a billing dispute with TELUS.
In early September, TELUS had reinterpreted its tariff for aggregating digital channels and began billing its competitors at a higher rate.
While the CRTC agreed that the wording in the tariff was a little ambiguous on the point, the Commission found that TELUS’s reinterpretation was contrary to long standing industry practices. Further, the Commission felt that there should not be discretion in how to interpret the ratings, in that this lack of predictability could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory practices.
As a result, TELUS was ordered to refund any money it collected under the new interpretation and revert to the former method of calculation.
Are there solutions to give Canadian content access to the fast lane on our domestic network?
An idea floated in a conversation with GlassBox TV was whether Canadian ISPs should treat “.ca” traffic with priority.
GlassBox seemed to be more concerned about access to Canadian content from within walled gardens – such as mobile TV services offered by wireless service providers.
Does this accomplish enough to satisfy the concerns of Canada’s creative community that our content needs support to ensure that Canadian voices will have a platform?
Questions from both vice-chairs touched on this kind of discrimination. One question went so far as to ask about using deep packet inspection to give preference to Canadian content.
I’ll go further: what if Canadian content was exempted from monthly download caps? Would that help ensure opportunities for content distribution?
The global competition issue is where the new media proceeding meets the net neutrality debate. Elements of Canada’s creative community, seeking to impose content regulation on defined Canadian websites may end up handicapping the ability of web operators to succeed by limiting their flexibility in business models.
Are there forms of incentives that make for a better approach than allocating a pre-set percentage on content availability?
In a decision released on Friday, the CRTC set out its reasons for choosing Bell’s proposal to apply to transition services being provided to the department of defense network while TELUS completes its transition.
I think the key statement in the decision is:
Based on the past failures to accurately predict the time required for transition and the amount of work left to be done, the Commission considers that there is a significant risk that DND will not have issued disconnect orders to Bell Canada for all remaining Other Services within PWGSC’s proposed transition schedule.
The Commission chose Bell’s final proposal because it balanced the risk that the transition may take longer to execute than planned (given the record to date), while passing through cost savings should the targets be met.
When contracting for complex services, are you paying enough attention to transition clauses and developing appropriate strategies to manage supplier risk?
There are lessons for service providers and customers alike.
With new entrant wireless carriers scrounging for capital, some incumbents seem to be trash talking their business opportunities in the Canadian wireless industry.
At CIBC’s Whistler Investor Conference, TELUS’ CFO Bob McFarlane poked fun at the willingness of investors to put money into a wireless start-up. [You can listen to the webcast here. His comments about investing in AWS can be found around the 11:00 minute mark. Listen to the interview and see if you pick up any other signals.]
Bill Linton of Rogers spoke at the same conference [available here] of how tough a business case it will be for new entrants, even as he told the attendees of expectations of continued growth for Rogers.
An article about the Friday session quotes McFarlane talking about a general retreat in wireless spending, reflected by the lower average revenue per user being reported by most carriers in the 4th quarter. He is quoted in the story as saying that this is not just due to the general economic pullback, but can be attributed to reductions in voice pricing.
Long term industry observers also recognize that 4th quarter ARPU is often down from 3rd quarter. Look at Rogers’ results from a year ago and you can see that 4th quarter ARPU declined by $2 compared to their 3rd quarter. After all, business activity typically declines in the last few weeks of the year so there would be a significant seasonality.
It seems a strange strategy to play down opportunities in your core growth sector. Maybe the investor relations strategy is to try to make fund raising more difficult for new entrants.
In a speech delivered yesterday to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein reiterated the four principles that guide the work of the Commission: transparency, fairness, predictability and timeliness.
On predictability, he said:
We should be consistent, and follow clearly articulated directions. Or, if we deviate from these directions, we have to explain why – that is, what drove us to the departure, and whether it is an exception or a change of course.
He closed his speech with a statement of his view of the hallmarks of Canadian broadcasting: a preponderance of Canadian content; access to the system for Canadians both as participants and audiences; reflecting the bilingual character of our country; and our unique diversity.
I think it will be important for participants in the new media proceeding to reflect on their proposals in view of these principles and hallmarks. Perhaps the best indicator of predictable success would be to assess how well the proposals align with these 8 points.
