The government was clearing out files in the past couple weeks. Cabinet rejected a couple appeals of CRTC decisions, allowing the decisions to stand.

In one, the Cabinet rejected an appeal by Imagine Canada and the Association of Fundraising Professionals, who wanted to overturn the CRTC’s Decision 2008-6 requirement for charities to register and pay fees in respect of violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

In the other, Cabinet denied two concurrent appeals of the Deferral Account decision (2008-1). TELUS wanted an additional process to file further broadband proposals to avoid rebating remaining funds in the deferral accounts to residential subscribers; Axia SuperNet wanted to preclude TELUS from using deferral account funds to subsidize construction of competing transport facilities.

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to subsection 12‍(1) of the Telecommunications Act, hereby declines to vary or rescind Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1 or to refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration.

The Deferral Account proceeding is still the subject of a case before the Supreme Court.

Both decisions by Cabinet demonstrate an endorsement by this government for the current Commission and its chair.

---

Update [December 23, 3:30 pm]
More background on the Deferral Account appeals process and history can be found here.

With so many readers taking a break over the next two weeks, my own writing will also slow down. Try to shake things up a little to break the routine – maybe a new variation for your traditional holiday recipes. Earlier this week, I made two variants on the traditional latke potato pancake: Cajun latkes, made with extra pepper; and, Acadian latkes, topped with cheddar cheese and pareve gravy. Both sit just as heavy.

I plan to resume daily blog articles January 5.

Let me wish all of you a happy and healthy holiday season with hopes for a peaceful new year.

Have you registered yet for The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit?

The CRTC issued a series of cost awards today that appear to take aim at CAIP’s failed application to have the Commission reverse Bell’s traffic shaping of wholesale internet services.

It is possible to apply for an award of costs in a CRTC proceeding if you: (i) represent a group of subscribers that have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; (ii) participate responsibly; and, (iii) contribute to a better understanding of the issues [note: the procedures are set out in CRTC PN 2002-5].

The Commission found that 3 groups met these tests: the Campaign for Democratic Media ($10,355); l’Union des consommateurs ($14,950); and, Public Interest Advocacy Centre ($13,709).

Frequently, the CRTC divides the costs among the telecommunications services providers based on their relative size, measured by telecom services revenues. However, in this case, the CRTC decided to have CAIP pay 20% of the costs in order to make the amount “meaningful.” Bell is ordered to pay the other 80%.

The Commission also notes that CAIP has, relative to Bell Canada, a very small share of the telecommunication revenues. However, the Commission considers that CAIP’s contribution should be meaningful.

As a result, CAIP is going to pay about $7500 towards the costs of the third party participants in their dispute.

This may be an indication of how the costs could be apportioned for the bigger network management proceeding that is underway.

Bell had originally suggested that costs be shared two-thirds to one third, or alternatively, with 100% of the costs paid by the losing party [the arguments were filed prior to the CRTC’s decision]. On one hand, CAIP may be wondering why the Commission is varying from its apportionment on the basis of revenues. On the other hand, it could have been stuck with 100%

The Telecom Policy Review Panel made two recommendations to change the way costs are handled in CRTC proceedings. It said:

Recommendation 9-29
The CRTC should enact a rule or regulation establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs in proceedings before it. The criteria should be based on the principles that costs shall be awarded to successful complainants in clear cases of inappropriate behaviour and against them in clear cases of frivolous complaints.

Recommendation 9-30
The government should review the issue of public interest group participation in telecommunications regulatory proceedings. Funding for such participation should come from a multi-year commitment by government to subsidize such participation, rather than costs awards imposed by the CRTC on individual telecommunications service providers.

Should these recommendations be moved upon?

Anyone else catch the news about how Estonia is going to introduce voting by cell phones in 2011?

Last year, Estonia used internet voting, which proved to be secure despite worries about hacker attacks, identity fraud and vote count manipulation.

Given the low voter turnout in Canada’s last election, why wouldn’t we look at similar ways to increase the participation rate?

Technorati Tags:
Estonia, election, e-government,

I found out about the latest way telemarketers get around the Do Not Call List.

Like other people, some of my mobile phone numbers are now getting calls from shady Florida timeshares and cruise lines, quite possibly as a result of appearing on the DNCL. Annoying calls haven’t slowed down; they just start with a survey.

Last night, there was a new twist.

I received a call with Private Name and Number in the display. That wasn’t too unusual. I have a number of colleagues who call that way, not just sleazy call centres. It was from a company that has duct cleaning equipment ‘in my neighbourhood’.

When I asked them for their name and number, they gave me a phone number for a small independent contractor who has nothing to do with the call centre. How could we prove otherwise?

The only way to truly find out who is violating the telemarketing rules will be to book an appointment with these guys.

Has anyone seen any real benefits from the DNCL? It seems to me that we have legislation that adds costs to the good guys while doing close to nothing to stop the bad guys. In this economy, did we really need to add another cost of doing business?

I would prefer to chop yet another government database and just teach Canadians that modern etiquette permits slamming the phone down on unwanted calls. It’s cheaper, and let’s face it, it feels so good.

Will the government repeal the DNCL?

Technorati Tags:
DNCL