Last Thursday, MTS Allstream lost its appeal for the CRTC to review and vary part of its essential services decision related to the classification of Ethernet access and transport services and related services.

MTS Allstream wanted these services to be considered “essential” in order to take advantage of cost-based rates which might be as low as half of the current tariff.

The CRTC seemed to rely on statistics that may have been self-fulfilling:

20. … MTS Allstream argued that the ILECs’ legacy digital access and transport services are not adequate substitutes for Ethernet services.

…

22. As noted above, the Commission based the classification of Ethernet services on the data regarding the extent to which competitors self-supply high-speed access and transport services or lease these services from third parties. The data indicate that competitors self-supply or lease from third parties a large proportion of their service requirements. The Commission notes that self-supply is a potential substitute to leasing services from ILECs.

Let’s try to understand this a little better. MTS Allstream said that access circuits like DS-0s, DS-1s, etc. aren’t substitutes for Ethernet access; they wanted ethernet access to be designated as essential. The CRTC looked at “the extent to which competitors self-supply high-speed access” and found a large proportion of their service requirements were self-supplied.

Well, duhh! Of course that was the case – competitors couldn’t affordably lease facilities from the ILEC because the CRTC has not mandated them as essential. So, pretty much the only way competitors would deploy high speed access, if they have them at all, was through self-supply or third parties.

The CRTC should have simply stated that it has always supported facilities-based competition. High speed ethernet accesses will generally depend on fibre and we have long held that there is no inherent advantage for ILECs over new entrants for such facilities.

The Commission may have reached the right conclusion to match its policy objectives, but for the wrong reasons – and the statistics were forced to produce the answer it needed.

How can we be sure its conclusion is correct for all markets across Canada?

I have to wonder if the Public Works / DND dispute with Bell and TELUS [see yesterday’s posting] be resolved any easier had the CRTC had ruled in favour of MTS Allstream in Decision 2008-118? That case may demonstrate that there could be a difference in how to regulate (or forbear from regulating) the very large enterprise market versus the smaller business markets.

The game of chicken being played with the communications network for our Department of National Defense (DND) is a demonstration of what is wrong with government contracting.

Read the file on the CRTC website and you would scratch your head with wonder [start from the bottom and work your way up].

Basically, here is what happened: Bell had been providing DND with its national communications services. Two years ago, TELUS won the replacement network RFP, which required that the transition be completed in 12 months. It missed.

For the past year and a half, DND has used up the 18 months of month-to-month of transitional renewals that were allowed under the customer specific arrangement (CSA) that governed their old network. That CSA expired on Monday, but service is continuing until the CRTC renders its decision. There was no provision to extend the old arrangement beyond these 18 monthly renewals.

TELUS is still not able to finish the transition of most of the network for about 6 more months and parts may not be ready for up to two years.

Bell has said that they no longer offer that arrangement; the service has been replaced by a new tariffed service, but that requires a 5 year commitment – just sign here please. Sorry, we don’t offer that any other way.

If this was a normal private sector customer, the old carrier would be helpful, sometimes to the point of bending over backwards to assist the new carrier.

Why? Because in the private sector, customers have long memories. RFPs don’t have to be fair; there can be all sorts of subjective points awarded for intangible, qualitative factors like service history. Not so for the government. Public Works, the contracting arm of our government, won’t be able to consider any of these antics when it comes time to award its next piece of business.

With government, contracts are awarded based on quantitative, unemotional points scoring. It is a clean slate for each procurement. Do you think the taxpayer is better off this way? Still, since there is no downside for Bell in future contract opportunities, they are behaving exactly the way their shareholders should be proud of.

Hopefully the government lawyers are learning how to deal with end-of-contract transition clauses a little better.

What does side of the net neutrality debate does Google really support?

That was the question raised in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ), although Google’s Washington-based Telecom and Media Counsel Rick Whitt reaffirmed the company’s support for net neutrality in his blog posting rebuttal.

The WSJ article suggests that support for net neutrality may be softening as companies understand more about the realities of delivering quality to users.

Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.

So where does Google stand on the issue of imposing net neutrality regulations?

Last week, I looked at some of the comments filed in the CRTC’s New Media proceeding.

Let’s return to Google’s comments, in part because the submission provides wonderful evidence of the emergence of diverse Canadian new media content and also because the company appears to endorse a vision of the internet that keeps regulators at bay. It is understandable that the WSJ is finding it tough to follow Google’s position.

Google’s filing with the CRTC includes examples of Canada’s presence on YouTube that should serve as notice to those who rely on traditional handouts that there is already a vibrant Canadian production presence in new media, without having waited for incentives.

I cited one quote from Google’s 20 page submission last Wednesday, but I left out the last two sentences from that paragraph, which may be relevant to the WSJ discussion. So let me repeat this quote from Google, emphasizing those last two sentences:

Without regulation the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been, and will continue to be, implemented on the Internet. The New Media Exemption is the best regulatory approach to keeping the Internet awesome. It should remain in place without change. It should not be varied, removed, replaced, or supplemented with regulation. [emphasis added]

Catch that? Google is not asking to vary, remove, replace or supplement current internet regulation – presumably, not even supplementing with net neutrality legislation.

Google continues a few paragraphs later with a further endorsement of how the internet has succeeded without regulation.

New and evolving tools put the power to easily and inexpensively create and disseminate legal content in the hands of users. All this has been made possible by creators experimenting with Internet business models, without regulation influencing their development.

Which begs the question of why, in the context of net neutrality, Google so often appears to be asking for regulation that might prevent experimentation by ISP’s with various business models. Google uses a footnote in its submission that is a little confusing:

In this submission, Google uses the term “access” to mean the ability of Internet users to view, hear, and find content, and not network neutrality issues.

Google defines the access issue as one that appears to largely be covered by existing non-discrimination regulations and rational business behavior:

So long as the broadband “on ramps” to the Internet remain open to all, and the broadband providers themselves supply sufficient capacity to support robust Internet access, the Internet can serve as an important content distribution platform.

Other parties, such as Primus, address this point in submissions, noting that the Sections 27(2) and 36 of Telecom Act ensure that internet-based content will continue to be widely and easily available.

As Google says in its submission, why would we want regulation to inhibit experimenting with Internet business models?

So, is the WSJ correct that Google may be softening its stance on new net neutrality regulation?

Technorati Tags:
Google, new media

Last week, Cisco announced medianet, a network architecture to accommodate the accelerating growth of video and rich media traffic on the internet.

Consider this to be the end of the stupid network theory.

A medianet is an intelligent network optimized for rich media that can help drive video strategy for enterprises, consumers and service providers. Cisco is the only company that, along with our partners, can address rich media from an end-to-end perspective by taking advantage of deep expertise in IP networking, video and consumer premise solutions.

According to Cisco’s Visual Networking Index Study, global IP traffic will reach 44 exabytes per month by 2012 with video being the dominant driver of growth, accounting for 90 percent of consumer IP traffic.

This has led Cisco to propose a comprehensive lineup of technologies under the medianet label.

To deliver the visual, social, and personalized media experience that customers demand, service providers need a broad range of new capabilities. They need a media-aware network that can manage unprecedented new content on an unprecedented scale.

Medianet applies intelligence in home, business and service provider networks, working together.

It is a recognition that a stupid network is not equipped to deliver the kinds of services that users are demanding.

Cisco Canada president Nitin Kawale will be speaking at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

Technorati Tags:
Cisco, medianet

The Globe and Mail is reporting on a story that has its roots on this blog more than two years ago.

It took more than two years for prosecutors to demonstrate to a grand jury that US freedoms of speech don’t protect the kind of venom that has spewed from websites under the control of Bill White, who describes himself as “commander” of the American National Socialist Party.

As the Globe and Mail story reports:

Thursday in Virginia, acting U.S. attorney Julia Dudley said some lines had clearly been crossed, as she announced the new charges against Mr. White. “When freedom of speech turns into threats against innocent people, it is the responsibility of the law enforcement community to intervene and protect its citizens,” she said.

Two years ago, we asked how Canada should defend its citizens from threats against its own citizens. We suggested that a regime is needed to establish sovereignty over such threats against Canadian citizens and Canadian residents.

There has been a lot of hostility directed against Canada’s Human Rights legislation over the past few months, but even the US considers that lines can be drawn that set bounds on First Amendment freedoms.

What is the right approach for Canada to apply on speech? How should Canada defend its citizens from threats that originate outside this country?

You can find the complete indictment here [ pdf, 44KB].