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.
Early last week, Bell filed an application [zip, 51KB] to change the process for Canadians to switch their phone company. While the application claims that their proposal will enhance competition and benefit customers, these results are less than obvious to me.
The way things work currently, customers agree to an offer from a service provider and give the new company the authority to act on their behalf to notify the old company. It is a process that has worked for the past 15 years.
Bell believes that the strength of competitive forces and the prevalence of services bundling have rendered the current processes to be unwarranted. It went so far as to suggest that the process is at odds with the Policy Direction requirement to minimize regulatory intervention.
Bell wants users to have to contact their current phone company themselves to cancel their service.
As I understand it, Bell wants you to:
agree to a new deal with your new service provider, then
try to get through to your current company to cancel your old service, listening to offers to “please stay, we’re sorry we mistreated you and made you feel like we overcharged you” and,
somehow coordinate so that your new company and old company make the transition happen somewhat seamlessly.
Of course, the fact that the old company will do their best to convince you to stay, is why Bell says this enhances competition to the benefit of customers.
The Companies submit that from the end-user’s perspective, winback activities can only serve to enhance consumer welfare. Furthermore, the current transfer process is detrimental to end-users by denying them important information regarding their existing contract obligations with their current TSP.
Of course, under Bell’s proposal, the old phone company won’t let you leave if there is an outstanding billing dispute, whether from a contract, a bundle or just plain errors. I’m not sure how this proposal enhances consumer welfare. I think that the ability for consumers to walk away is an important leveling of the balance of power in consumers dealing with big companies.
While Bell’s application deals with long distance and local services, it would likely be extended to wireless number portability processes, presenting a risk to wireless substitution from the new competitors.
Coincident with the Bell application, a US Court recently upheld FCC restrictions on Verizon win-back campaigns that relied on customer contact lists generated by the submission of transfer requests from competitor cable companies. Verizon had argued that the FCC violated its First Amendment rights of free speech, to which the Court ruled:
the executing carrier is disabled only from using an opportunity fortuitously placed in its hands by a technological necessity — the fact that its technical cooperation is essential to the implementation of the submitting carrier’s competitive victory.
Many of the arguments put forward by Verizon sound similar to those in the Bell application.
