Last December, Yak filed two applications with the CRTC to “protect Canadians against consumer gouging.” Today, the CRTC ruled on those applications.

At issue was a new network access fee that TELUS introduced for those local customers that had TELUS as their primary long distance carrier but had not subscribed to a calling plan. Yak characterized the fee as a fee associated with local service, since it applied whether or not long distance calls were made. The CRTC agreed and has ordered TELUS to refund the fee to any subscriber that did not make calls over the TELUS network during a billing period.

The CRTC noted that the definition of local service

consists of the provision of service and equipment necessary for telephone communication between customers in the same exchange and between such customers and the message toll office or facilities for that exchange. On that basis, the Commission finds that access to the long distance network is included in [TELUS]’s local exchange service

It is the first time that the CRTC has come down on system access fees. At issue in this instance was the fact that the fee was applied to non-forborne areas as well as forborne. In the case or areas where local rates are still regulated, the CRTC has to approve any change in local rates. In the rest of the territory, there is a price cap in effect that was likely exceeded.

The CRTC made a pledge last year to watch out for consumers in a forborne environment. Today’s decision affirms the CRTC’s commitment to that promise.

A little over a week ago, CAIP filed its Part VII complaint on Bell traffic shaping. The CRTC gave Bell until this past Tuesday to respond with its answer. CAIP has a few days left to submit its reply – the final word before the file goes into the Commission’s hands.

Bell has explained its actions, not just to the CRTC but to the public in an interview with the Montreal Gazette and with CBC Radio.

In my post last week (“CAIP’s application“), I described the 3-pronged test that will be applied by the CRTC in assessing whether to grant interim relief. Bell’s answer asserts that CAIP has failed to clear any of the 3 hurdles, all of which are necessary in order to have interim relief granted.

Bell also suggests a lot of mis-information has been circulated. Bell puts forward ^{[para 46]} its clarification of what the ISPs have been reselling:

for many ISPs, GAS is the cheapest and thus the most economical solution. It is the most economical solution because it is designed to take advantage of the Bell retail network infrastructure (in contrast to the more expensive HSA service) by co-mingling its traffic with that of the Bell retail network. For this reason, ISPs cannot expect their traffic to be subject to preferential treatment on the shared network.

Will the CRTC will grant interim relief? The ball is now in CAIP’s court.

On March 14, Yak filed a Part VII application asking for the incumbent phone companies to file updated cost studies for their billing and collection services. Recall that 2 years ago, Yak first raised the issue of excessive profits being reaped by the ILECs for billing and collection services back in late 2006.

At the time, the ILECs asked the CRTC to delay hearing the case until the essential services proceeding finished. Their position was that billing and collection wasn’t essential, so it would be a waste of time to review the rate structure.

Fast forward to March 3, when I noted that the CRTC sided with Yak. So, a week and a half later, Yak asked again for the telcos to be ordered to file new cost studies.

Bell waited until 31 days later – a day late – to say that the dog ate their homework. TELUS didn’t write in until a day later, possibly having realized that oops, it too missed the deadline and said it agrees with everything those other ILECs said.

My favourite line from the extension letter:

The Companies are writing without prejudice to their rights to file substantive comments should that be necessary, to request that the Commission defer consideration of the Application at this time.

What rights? Under the rules, you have the right to reply within 30 days. Translate that sentence into layman’s terms: I know that my term paper is late, so please grant me an extension and if you disagree, then I don’t want the fact that I asked for an extension to be held against me when I finally get around to submitting the paper.

Both groups asked for an extension because they said that they plan to appeal the CRTC’s ruling about a month from now. Bell said:

Deferring consideration of Yak’s Application is consistent with the principles of efficient, informed and timely regulation enshrined in section 1(c) of the Policy Direction.

It would have made a far more credible argument for “timely regulation” if Bell and TELUS hadn’t waited until after their term paper was due to ask the teacher for an extension.

Efficient, informed, and timely regulation would call for timetables to be adhered to. If and when the ILECs get around to filing their appeals, they can make their case to stay the process.

If they were in school, their professor would give them a zero. Maybe the CRTC should take the opportunity to send a clear message about efficient, informed and timely regulation. Why not immediately make the current billing and collection rates interim and rule immediately in Yak’s favour – order the new cost studies to be done within 30 days. Now that would be efficient and timely.

Shane Schick of IT World has produced a list of Canada’s top 10 technology bloggers and I am proud to see that this site was included in that list.

Joining me are:

• Mark Evans
• Rob Hyndman
• Maggie Fox
• Stephan Ibaraki
• Michael Geist
• Alec Saunders
• Kate Trgovac
• Jevon McDonald
• IT World’s blogs

Thanks for the recognition. Check out the others on the list. We may not always agree with each other – indeed we are often on opposite sides of issues – but it is always helpful to understand other perspectives, especially when presented in such fora.

Keep those cards and letters coming!

Technorati Tags:
itWorld

There was a story in Monday’s Financial Post about some new behavioral advertising technology from a company called NebuAd, based in Redwood City. In the article, NebuAd co-founder Bob Dykes said the company is testing its hardware with a number of Canadian ISPs.

We simply map what people are interested in and then sell advertising which is more relevant to their person than previously could be done.

Bob Dykes, NebuAd’s co-founder and CEO, will be speaking at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 16 on a panel looking at Consumers in a Multi-screen World.

Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
NebuAd, Bob Dykes, Canadian Telecom Summit