Shaw has found itself caught in a squeeze between two arms of the City of Thunder Bay. A review of CRTC Decisions this year indicates that there isn’t a great deal of warmth in the relationship between Shaw and the city owned phone company, TBayTel.

There are some facilities that Shaw leases from TBayTel. A year ago, TBayTel tried to discontinue the lease arrangements, but the CRTC denied the application to withdraw service in March.

Shaw asked the CRTC to order the phone company to sell them the lines. Last Friday, the CRTC said that such an order would require a level of interference in the operations of the telco that would not be justified. The CRTC denied Shaw’s application.

Now, those lines are attached to poles owned by a combination of the phone company and Thunder Bay Hydro, which also happens to be entirely owned by the City.

Thunder Bay Hydro has been separately charging Shaw for each hydro pole that supports the plant used by Shaw, even though the wires are owned by TBayTel. But, the rates TBayTel charges Shaw includes a fee for the poles, whether telco or hydro owned. Which means that Shaw is paying double for some of the poles.

So, Shaw went to the CRTC looking for TBayTel’s rates to be changed to reflect the fact that Shaw is paying for the hydro poles separately.

Unfortunately, the CRTC said that they aren’t the right ones to provide relief:

The fact that Shaw is paying Thunder Bay Hydro support structure rates for a facility that Shaw does not own is not justification to reduce TBayTel’s PSO service rate. The Commission notes that it is not the appropriate body from which to seek relief with respect to the rates charged to Shaw by Thunder Bay Hydro.

It appears that the next step is for Shaw to go to the Ontario Energy Board. Why are they paying the electric company for wires owned by TBayTel?

Technorati Tags:
Shaw, TBayTel

The CRTC has issued a public notice to take a fresh look at a few of the telemarketing rules, showing that consumer protection continues to be a focus.

In addition, the Commission issued an Erratum, correcting a few minor errors in the original Decision on dealing with complaints in respect of its Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

The new public notice is calling for comments on 3 areas:

1. Political parties are exempt from the Do Not Call List (DNCL) rules, but currently, independent candidates are subject to those rules. Should the exemption be expanded?
2. Current DNCL registrations expire after 3 years, because of original concerns that people move or discontinue service. Should the registration period be permanent?
3. The CRTC has rules on acceptable times of day for auto-dialers to call people. Certain provinces have different hours. How should the conflicts be resolved?

Comments are due on December 4, with reply due December 19. A decision is expected by the end of April.

A thought – how long will it take before every number is on the DNCL, if registrations become permanent? How do we avoid a Hotel California registry?

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, telemarketing

Ericsson issued surprisingly strong quarterly results today which seems to indicate that not all equipment suppliers are feeling the same level of pain.

Ericsson has now beaten the street for the past 3 quarters. Will it be able to close out the year in the same manner?

Ericsson Canada president Mark Henderson will be returning as a keynote speaker at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

Technorati Tags:
Ericsson, Canadian Telecom Summit

There are three ways to appeal a CRTC decision.

The first and most common approach is to apply to the CRTC to review its decision and ask that the Commission varies all or some of the conclusions. To get the CRTC to even review the decision, you need to demonstrate that they made an error in law, made an error in fact, failed to consider something or that the circumstances have changed since the original evidence.

The second channel is to seek leave to appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court will deal with legal issues that arise from decisions, such as questions of CRTC jurisdiction.

The third option is to ask the Cabinet to review the decision and either overturn the decision, rewrite all or part of it or return the matter back to the CRTC for the Commission’s reconsideration with a direction based on policy.

In the case of Decision 2008-1, dealing with the use of deferral account funds for broadband expansion, all three courses of appeal were launched. Interestingly, the appeals came from consumer groups who wanted more of the money returned to subscribers and from incumbent phone companies who wanted more of the money to be used to pay for their rural broadband expansion.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the original Decision. That would be strike one, except that the Supreme Court agreed in late September to hear an appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. So the court challenge is still alive.

On Friday, the CRTC denied the review and vary application that had been submitted by TELUS, and supported by Bell.

the Commission’s determination in Telecom Decision 2008-1 to order a rebate of the remaining funds, rather than to allow for additional process for the submission of new communities, was consistent with ensuring efficient and effective regulation. In the Commission’s view, this negates the regulatory burden and industry uncertainty that would result by initiating another public process to consider new broadband expansion proposals from the ILECs.

The regulatory route for the appeal is now closed. The umpire’s call on the judicial route has gone to the video replay booth for review.

As to the political route, it remains to be seen if the federal cabinet has an appetite to play ball by overturning the CRTC.

---

Update [December 23, 3:20 pm]
Cabinet has rejected the appeal. The only channel remaining open at this point is the Supreme Court.

In the next few days, Prime Minister Harper will be naming his new cabinet to lead Canada’s 40th Parliament.

No doubt, the new Ministers will ask their senior departmental bureaucrats to identify key priorities.

How will Industry Canada respond?

As I wrote last week, the Conservatives had a number of telecom related planks in their platform, dealing with anti-spam legislation and rural broadband. There were other consumer protection initiatives and a discussion of strengthening the powers of the CRTC and the CCTS.

The Minister of Industry has responsibility for telecom policy and the Telecommunications Act, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage has responsibility for broadcasting and the Broadcast Act. There are some who are calling for a new converged Communications Act which would bring all activities regulated by the CRTC under a single umbrella.

If we are opening up the Telecom Act, what about moving forward with implementing more of the recommendations of the Telecom Policy Review Panel? Or any of our other task forces and review panels?

In the list of priorities, where does relaxation of restrictions on foreign ownership fit?

The leaders of the opposition parties said all the right things in their concession speeches Tuesday evening. But will a sufficient spirit of bi-partisanship in the House emerge to enable effective progress in this minority government?