Is there something wrong with making a buck?

A couple of weeks ago, Michael Geist pointed out that a number of submissions to the CRTC’s Diversity of Voices Proceeding provide fertile reading material on net neutrality proposals from the content sector. To date, much of the net neutrality dialog in Canada has been heard from carriers, end users and academics.

It is good to see the discussion engaged by other groups with a perspective of content production.

In the submission from the Canadian Media Guild, I think that some of their language is unfortunately chosen. For example, among their recommended measures, they are seeking:

A guarantee of “net neutrality,” by establishing a rule prohibiting internet service providers from controlling clients’ access to websites for commercial gain.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with commercial gain.

In fact, I’d like to think that the ISPs are achieving some commercial gain; unlike the model for subsidized media creation of Canadian content, ISPs have to make a profit or they will be forced to shut down. Commercial gain is necessary to ensure long term viability and ongoing investment.

Network management control is commonly invoked because of commercial issues – it allows cost effective deployment of resources. The alternative is to vastly increase the assets such that capacity is never constrained, and recover the costs from subscribers or go out of business. The Media Guild’s proposal would seem to prohibit network management.

Isn’t the real issue whether ISPs control access in an unduly discriminatory manner? Undue discrimination is very different from commercial gain. Let’s not take a stand against profit.

We’ll look more at this proceeding later on.

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, CRTC, Michael Geist

I spent a few days this past week at a jewel of the Maritimes, the Fairmont Algonquin in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, attending preliminary festivities for the Barrett East Coast Amateur golf tournament.

I won’t dwell on the second hole of the Algonquin, where I sank a 130 yard approach shot for my first eagle, but I can tell you that one stroke will help burn the trip into my memory. I can also recommend a stop at Ossie’s seafood stand on Highway 1 between St. George and St. Andrews.

I have mentioned in the past that I act as an advisor to Barrett Xplore (BXI). BXI has focussed on serving rural Canada:

Our vision is simple — more for rural Canada: more choice, competition, and availability of broadband access, applications, and accessories.

BXI is continuing to succeed in delivering advanced network services without government assistance.

It was great to have a chance to spend some time with many of the company principals as well as their suppliers and associates.

Earlier this week, I ranted about The Ottawa Citizen publishing a lead editorial that was sloppy in its choice of language. The article said quite plainly:

Nobody with a cutting-edge product to sell wants to set up someplace where mobile phone and data connections are second-rate and cripplingly expensive, particularly if they’re in the information-age industries we prize so highly, any more than you’d build a factory in a place with no roads or rail.

Let me suggest that you can parse that sentence and apply syllogistic logic to see that all that was necessary to disprove a thesis – that Canadian “mobile phone and data connections are second-rate and cripplingly expensive” – was to find a single counter example of a company with a cutting-edge product that wanted to set up in Canada. I suggested in my original posting that all the Citizen had to do was look at Ottawa’s technology sector in its own backyard.

In his blog, Michael Geist tries to clarify what the intent of the Citizen might have been. Michael’s weekly Law Bytes column is carried by the Citizen. He wrote:

I believe that the Citizen was trying to make the case – rightly in my view – that the long-term ability to attract and retain that talent and investment requires a forward looking law and policy infrastructure that supports sufficient competition to allow for pricing that is globally competitive.

I think that most of us would agree that “a forward looking law and policy infrastructure” is at least a contributing factor to encourage attraction and retention of talent and investment.

But, what does that law and policy infrastructure looks like? To “allow for pricing that is globally competitive,” is a very different proposition from say, intervention in a market. How does one define “sufficient competition“? Would we use competition law tests?

Is there any solid academic, econometric analysis to support the assertions being put forward?

Does any of this sound like an interesting doctoral research project?

UBS says that while it is still possible, it is not probable that TELUS could still launch a hostile takeover of Bell.

According to the report that came out last week,

Our conclusion is that it would be very difficult for TELUS to gain the certainty that we think it needs from the Competition Bureau ahead of the BCE shareholder vote. We continue to believe that the probability of TELUS launching a hostile bid for BCE is 25% or less.

UBS says that without strong assurance from the Competition Bureau, there would be a significant regulatory risk that would have to be offset by a 5-10% premium to BCE shareholders. At $46.75, BCE shareholders would pick up the value of all the merger synergies.

TELUS is releasing its quarterly results on Friday.

Technorati Tags:
Bell, TELUS, UBS