The headline on the Victoria Times Colonist website reads “CRTC boss skeptical about proposed $52-billion BSE takeover.”

As in bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad-cow disease.

OK – so the Sean Silcoff story questions whether Bell should be as heavily regulated as it is – but Silcoff didn’t go so far as to suggest that anyone involved in the hearings was suffering from BSE.

We’ll see how long that headline lasts!

I am taking a few days break, so posting on the blog will be light this week, and possibly non-existent, depending on the quality of broadband access.

Maybe some of my more frequent commenters will fill the void by providing commentary on the Bell hearings or my weekend musings on Canadian Content regulations / user fees for new media.

In the meantime, let me remind you that early bird rates for The Canadian Telecom Summit end this week – March 1.

Registrations are running well ahead of last year’s record pace, so we encourage you to take advantage of the best pricing for the top gathering of telecom professionals in Canada. Book your place now!

As I mentioned on Friday, the CRTC will be webcasting the audio feed from its hearings examining the BCE privatization.

The hearings will open with a panel from Bell, led by COO and CEO-designate George Cope, Regulatory Affairs Chief Mirko Bibic, Chief Legal Officer Martine Turcotte and Expressvu president Gary Smith. They will be joined by Jim Leech, the President and CEO of Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. Also part of the panel are a host of internal and external lawyers, representatives of Providence Equity Partners, Merrill Lynch (both are equity participants with Teachers), KPMG (the valuators) and supporting executives.

Following the applicant’s panel, there are presentations from intervenors – mainly friendly, until Catalyst Asset Management will try to convince the CRTC to deny approval and get the BCE board of directors to look at a different approach. It is a long shot – a really far out long shot – but it is certain to make for entertaining listening.

The agenda is rounded out by Bell with a chance at the final word – its reply. The CRTC could have its decision out by the end of March.

The Ottawa Business Journal reported that a Harris Decima poll shows overwhelming support among Canadians for requiring Internet and wireless service providers to help finance production of Canadian digital media content.

Of course people would say that.

Until they stop to think about what it really means for ISPs and WSPs to provide financing for content.

Alan Goluboff, President of the Directors Guild of Canada is quoted in the press release saying:

ISPs and WSPs are as much ‘distributors’ of information and entertainment content as cable and satellite TV providers. They should be required to help fund Canadian digital media content in the same way that cable and satellite companies are required to financially support Canadian television programming. These companies are immensely successful and have ample resources to support the creation of Canadian content for new media.

The study was funded by the actors’ union (ACTRA), film producers (CFTPA), the directors guild, and writers guild (WGC).

Who do you think would actually foot the bill? Would it be the shareholders of the “immensely” successful companies or their consumers who pay the Canadian content surcharge?

I’m going to guess that if Canadians were asked “would you be willing to pay more for your internet and wireless service so that producers of Canadian content don’t have to produce economically viable content” the results of the poll would be somewhat different.

This smells a lot like a pitch for a hidden (or not so hidden) tax.

We know that Canadians think that wireless and internet service prices are too high as they are. Do we really need or want a new Content Access Fee added to our bills?

Let’s go back to the underlying premise itself.

Why don’t the Canadian content producers believe they can produce content that would attract advertisers or direct subscribers? Why are we starting with a presumption of a subsidy system to fund production of new media content?

What’s next? Preferential treatment of Canadian content on ISP networks?

Technorati Tags:
Harris Decima, Canadian content, wireless, internet

Just when we might have hoped that System Access Fees were as bad as it could get, the marketing folks at Bell Aliant have found a new way to stick it to consumers.

The CRTC approved plans by Bell Aliant to introduce a 30-day notice period when customers cancel certain bundles. I guess they figure that if you can’t charge the people who want your services, charge the people who want to go. That will sure leave them with a great feeling, won’t it?

Among others, the plan will affect students who may consider taking bundles for 8 months before going home for the summer. If they don’t remember to cancel their plans in March, the new fee is the equivalent of a 12% rate hike.

What is the fee for? Because Aliant can charge it. Call it a contribution to the Aliant Income Trust Profitability Relief Fund.

On one hand, I could argue that we should let market forces rule – let companies charge what they want. If consumers don’t like it, find another service provider. But this kind of fee is a ‘back-end load’. Customers are being hit with it when they leave – a set of handcuffs to try to get customers to think twice before switching.

Consumers have market forces to bring to bear as well. How could Bell Aliant customers respond? Maybe they could start by canceling their pre-authorized payment plans as an expression of disapproval. Or start shopping elsewhere – after all, you need to give 30 days notice when you switch.

Technorati Tags:
Bell Aliant