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

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.