In its deferral account decision at the beginning of the year, the CRTC acknowledged that fixed wireless broadband that can deliver a service comparable to DSL.

However, as the CRTC ruled yesterday, not all fixed wireless service is the same.

In reviewing the fixed wireless service used by Mitchell Seaforth Cable TV to extend the reach of its service, the CRTC found that the $600 one-time service charge “is sufficiently large so as to be unaffordable for a large proportion of residents.”

As such, the Commission is going to allow Bell to draw funds from the deferral account in order to off-set the uneconomic portion of its business case to provide DSL service to certain portions of Dublin, Ontario. The Commission’s policy is that some variation in rates is to be expected and is acceptable. However, the rates cannot be considered comparable when a significant installation cost applies. The Commission makes an assessment of whether the service charges, alone or in combination with the monthly fee, make the service “unreasonably expensive for a large proportion of the general public in the identified community.”

There is no presumption that rates have to be subsidized; just a reasonably comparable affordability test.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, deferral account, Bell

Steve Silva heads up the connected home integration group at Cisco and he will be joining our cast of speakers at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit. The theme for this year’s conference is “Maintaining relevance for the Consumer” so it is especially relevant to hear Cisco’s vision of the connected home – the battleground between cablecos and telcos.

Steve’s background includes senior roles at major US cable companies Charter and Comcast. It is his job to pull together a cohesive CPE strategy across Cisco, coupling together the acquired capabilities of Linksys and Scientific Atlanta. He should bring an interesting perspective.

I was recently pointed to articles that speak of false starts into mobile wireless services by cablecos south of the border; Cable Digital News suggests that Rogers is an example to be followed:

If SpectrumCo is in search of a how-to guide, they would be well served by peering north at the successful broadband mobile deployment by Rogers Communications Inc.

Canada’s largest cable MSO and mobile carrier, Rogers has rolled out its High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) network in 25 markets covering nearly 60 percent of the country’s population.

Rogers President and COO, Nadir Mohamed, will deliver the opening keynote address on June 16, the first day of The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Technorati Tags:
Steve Silva, Cisco, Nadir Mohamed, Rogers, Canadian Telecom Summit

Nortel CTO John Roese writes in his blog posting about what he terms the journey to transform the company.

Among other areas, he comments on changes in the executive ranks (as I noted last April) and shifts in the company operating structure.

He speaks of Nortel CEO Mike Zafirovski’s plan to turn Nortel into

a high-performance company that is consistently profitable and is known for its technology innovation, outstanding quality and operational excellence.

Mike Z will be delivering a keynote address on the afternoon of June 16, the first day of The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Michael Geist’s column in the Toronto Star this week claims Canada is in the slow lane on traffic shaping regulation or enforcement. The article claims that “there has been near-complete inaction from Canadian regulators and politicians.”

What action from regulators and politicians is expected? Are additional laws and regulations really required? Are there complaints that aren’t being investigated?

The article acknowledges that there are already bodies that could address complaints.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and its chair Konrad von Finckenstein could seize responsibility for this issue. The Competition Bureau’s Fair Business Practices Branch could investigate the lack of transparency with Canadian ISP services. Industry Minister Jim Prentice could pursue net neutrality legislation or encourage the Industry Committee to conduct hearings on the issue.

I would think that CIPPIC – The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic – would be precisely the right body to launch a Part VII application with the CRTC if there are violations of the Telecom Act. Has the CRTC been unresponsive to a filed complaint? Is there really a Competition Bureau issue?

Do we really need the Industry Committee to hold hearings when the Telecom Policy Review Panel looked at the issue and came out with a statement that promotes market forces, not increased regulation, as I wrote last year.

The Star article raises the TELUS blocking incident as a reason why we need more legislation. One glaring violation in all the years of the internet’s existence – is this it? Almost a year ago, I wrote about Net Neutrality and rolling through stop signs. Do we need new laws to get people to obey the rules of the road or enforcement of the existing rules?

Net Neutrality will be the subject of a panel discussion on Wednesday June 18, the closing day of The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Initial impression of the CRTC’s Essential Services Decision [news release or full decision] is that it appears to deliver on what most of us would want from our government institutions: predictability and consistency.

I say that in a positive way.

The first thing I looked for was how the CRTC dealt with Billing and Collection – the concern had been that wholesale B&C; arrangements would be phased out, leading to the end of dial around companies like YAK and Telehop. The CRTC determined that B&C; was integral to long distance interconnection and will be preserved as part of the interconnection category.

Another bellwether was the treatment of unbundled local loops – maintained as a conditional essential service. In this case, the CRTC determined that it wasn’t enough that the cable companies had a retail service that was analogous to the services built with unbundled loops. The key determinant was making sure that there is really a wholesale alternative available.

Think about the approach to price deregulation on a retail level. We have a presence test: are there other players in the specific retail market. It isn’t enough that there could be other service providers – we require that there are choices available. The CRTC seems to be using the same kind of approach: do service providers have alternatives available to them for wholesale capabilities?

It is a reasoned approach – a reasonable approach. The decision delivers what we would expect [and should want] from a regulatory body.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, wholesale, essential services