The CRTC has given approval to the acquisition of BCE by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (et al), subject to some conditions that do not appear to be onerous, subject to Teachers’ US partners being willing to be subservient to the Canadians.

Of significance is the guidance for structuring foreign ownership that this CRTC decision provides. The CRTC appears to have affirmed that the bar requires control by Canadians. Some had felt that simply being not controlled by non-Canadians was sufficient. Section 3(1) of The Broadcast Act states a positive requirement for ownership and control by Canadians. Contrast this with 16(3) of The Telecom Act, that uses a double negative: not controlled by non-Canadians.

This discussion, defining how Canadian do you have to be to pass scrutiny of foreign ownership, is likely to be helpful as alliances solidify for the AWS spectrum auction.

Technorati Tags:
Bell, Teachers, AWS

There is a theme in the comments on yesterday’s posting (and in the continued postings and comments on Michael Geist’s blog) that calls into question Bell adhering to its tariffs.

I have not seen anyone refer to the General Terms of Service (Item 10), which apply to all services purchased under tariff. It appears to me that Article 8 (Restrictions on Use of Service) seems pretty clear about Bell’s right to manage traffic loads, even those of resellers:

8.3 Customers are prohibited from using Bell Canada’s services or permitting them to be used so as to prevent a fair and proportionate use by others. For this purpose, Bell Canada may limit use of its services as necessary. In the case of any party line customer who unduly interferes with the use of any other service on the same line, Bell Canada may require the customer to obtain a higher grade of service, where facilities are available.

The growth in on-line gaming (from our kids Xbox or other systems) is putting some pretty strenuous demands on residential networks. Gaming isn’t as tolerant of latency as torrents or other large file transfers.

Our kids want responsiveness from their joy sticks. That would seem to be a factor in the reports that the network management seems to be time of day related to when the kids are out of school.

We’ll be looking at net neutrality at a special session at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

Is 2008 the year that broadband internet using fixed wireless hits its stride in Canada?

Service providers, technology developers, government officials and industry analysts (including yours truly) will try to provide answers to that question at “WiMAX – Canada Sets its Sights”, a one-day conference presented by CWTA on May 22, 2008 at the Renaissance Hotel – Toronto Airport.

Preliminary program information and a call for speakers can be found at the CWTA website.

Technorati Tags:
CWTA, WiMax

A reader sent me a note asking if I had any views on a recent Michael Geist posting that deals with an allegation that Bell’s wholesale internet service is throttling traffic.

In the interest of being responsive to a loyal reader (are there more of you out there?), these observations are dedicated to “GS”.

In his post, Professor Geist describes the issue as:

third party ISPs that buy their connectivity from Bell (“resellers”) are being left with irate customers who are suddenly subject to packet shaped services.

Michael posted the original news on Monday in response to chat room activity. He provided an update on Tuesday saying:

Bell has now reportedly confirmed that full throttling will be in place by early April. It claims that it is entitled to do so based on its contractual terms. Note that several people have written to emphasize the anti-competitive effects of this policy, given its impact on resellers servicing the business market.

Anti-competitive is a strong term. His readers’ comments on the blog are even stronger, with some suggesting that criminal charges should be filed. Others suggest nationalizing the internet – “Is the internet any less important that highways?”

Let’s try to look at this away from the hysteria.

What does it mean to say that there will be full throttling in place by early April? Does anyone really believe that no traffic will get through? Or, does it mean that Bell will apply the same types of traffic management to all of its customers, retail and wholesale? That is what a news report seems to be saying.

What can be meant by accusing Bell of anti-competitive behaviour.

The standard test for discrimination or undue preference is found in Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act. A carrier cannot unjustly discriminate against a competitor or confer an undue preference to itself or any of its customers.

No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

It seems to me that no one has said that Bell is providing its own customers with a different quality of service than that provided to its wholesale customers. Wouldn’t that be the first test? Then we could see if there is even a preference, let alone an undue preference.

It is worth looking at a number of cases where the CRTC has found that certain types of discrimination may exist, but are not unjust. Or, finding that certain preferences are not undue. I have written about some of these findings over the past two years – such as in Decision 2006-61, dealing with cable company VoIP versus over-the-top VoIP.

One of the affected resellers, Teksavvy, has been indicating in chat room postings that they do not believe in throttling traffic. In that case, I would suggest that the time has come for ISPs to start building out more of their own networks, if they want to remain true to their beliefs.

If an ISP is going to rely on reselling other carriers’ services, then its own beliefs are less relevant than the delivery practices of the underlying carrier.

An article in last Saturday’s New York Times talks about fading hopes for municipal wireless networks.

According to the article, the momentum from announcements in Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston and others has sputtered, “tripped up by unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches.”

The challenge has been to define a business model that works.

In Minneapolis, the Internet service provider agreed to build the network as long as the city committed to becoming an “anchor tenant” by subscribing for a minimum number of city workers, like building inspectors, meter readers, police officers and firefighters.

This type of plan is more viable, according to market analysts and city officials, because the companies paying to mount the routers and run the service are guaranteed a base number of subscribers to cover the cost of their investment.

Some others advocate a model of complete municipal ownership, as if taxpayers shouldn’t worry about the economic viability of the business plan.

Almost in passing, the NYT article noted that prices for internet services have been dropping below what municipal Wi-Fi providers were offering.

It again raises the question of whether across the board government subsidies should be replaced with an income-based credit.