Last week, I wrote that MTS Allstream filed a letter with the CRTC asking for it to enforce its orders for the ILECs to provide various wholesale access services associated with DSL and ethernet. At the time, I promised to key an eye on the file.
I received an email this morning with a copy of a letter that registered those 6 Orders with the Federal Court by Fasken Martineau on behalf of Rogers.
Section 63(1) of the Telecommunications Act provides that a decision of the Commission may be made an order of the Federal Court and enforced in the same manner as an order of that court.
Now let’s see if the ILECs move to file wholesale tariffs in accordance with those orders, first issued on January 25. The original CRTC Orders required that tariffs be filed 25 days later.
Competitor quality of service (CQOS) metrics have taken on greater significance as a key to unlocking the gates to forbearance from regulation of local phone services.
As a result, the CRTC launched a proceeding a few weeks ago to examine whether any exceptions should apply to a rigid interpretation of fulfillment of the CQOS standards. Exceptions like strikes, fires, natural disasters, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Over the past week or so, the CRTC issued rulings on the applicability of certain exceptions for paying service quality rebates – at a retail level. Specifically, TELUS had asked for, and has now received, waivers on customer service outages in BC dating back to late 2003: a particularly bad forest fire season in the summer, flooding in the fall, and a major (10,000 copper pair) cable cut. A matching decision was issued to address flooding in Alberta in 2005.
Last week, the CRTC reversed itself on earlier determinations with Bell Aliant and has now ruled that its 2005 labour dispute also qualified for an exemption from consideration for the purposes of the rebate plan.
Besides the possible implications for the CQoS considerations, there are two other interesting observations.
The first is a statement that
The Commission will, in the near future, initiate a public proceeding to consider whether, for the purposes of consideration of exclusions from the calculation of rate rebates for failure to meet prescribed retail and competitor Q of S standards, natural disasters, acts of terrorism and labour disruptions should be considered as adverse events without the necessity of making that determination on a case-by-case basis.
The other observation is the dissenting opinion on the TELUS rulings filed by Vice Chair Richard French with concurrence from Commissioners Arpin and Noel. The essence of their dissent is that there is questionable value in issuing insignificant rebates to the entire current customer base, up to 4 years after the service disruptions.
The retail rebate plan needs an overhaul and the scope of the upcoming public notice should allow an examination of the concerns expressed in the dissenting opinions.
Rather than using the current rebate plan, we see an urgent need for that C-5 consumer agency.
There is a serious billing dispute in front of the CRTC right now, the likes of which some of us haven’t seen in more than a decade.
Look Communications has asked the CRTC to help stave off a disconnection by Bell Canada for non-payment of approximately $13M. The original disconnection notice was scheduled to take effect today (May 10).
The CRTC agreed to an expedited review process and final arguments were to have been submitted on Tuesday of this week.
It is somewhat voyeuristic to read through the materials filed by the two companies. Look provided transcripts of voice messages and emails from Bell personnel that acknowledge amounts that are in dispute. Bell’s response says that the disputed amounts are trivial compared to the massive outstanding balance.
While Look claimed that Bell was conferring an undue preference (contrary to Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act) by threatening disconnection, Bell replied
Contrary to Look’s contentions in this proceeding, it is not the suspension or termination of service to this customer that would be contrary to section 27(2) of the Act but potentially, instead, the continued delivery of services to Look on the terms set out by this Customer.
We’ll be looking for a determination on this file in the next few days. Watch this article for an update.
US cable executives have proudly unveiled DOCSIS 3.0 at The Cable Show in Las Vegas, demonstrating channel bonding to deliver up to 150 Mbps internet.
I can barely conceal my yawn.
Did they miss the news in Canada last January when Cisco and Videotron launched the same technology? At the time, Videotron indicated that they could achieve up to 320 Mbps.
Videotron will be participating in The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit next month with a keynote address from CEO Robert Depatie and participation by SVP Manon Brouillette on the Consumer Services panel. Robert will also be speaking about Videotron’s mobile services intentions in our panel discussion looking at Wireless Competition.
The Associated Press carried a story about a survey on the use of technology conducted by Pew Internet / American Life Project. The study was designed to classify Americans into different groups of technology users.
In order to classify users, the group examined people’s relationship to information and communications technology. According to the report’s author, the results identified a wide variety of Web 2.0 users and non-users.
At one end of the spectrum, the survey
identifies the heaviest consumers, most active users, and happiest denizens of the information society. It also locates those who find great satisfaction in the use of ICT even though they have fewer network resources. In the middle range, the typology highlights some users who have invested a lot in services and hardware, but feel uncomfortable with the extra connectivity. And at the other end of the spectrum, it identifies those who get along – many of them just fine – with a relative scarcity of information goods and services.
8% of Americans are deep users of the participatory Web and mobile applications
Another 23% are heavy, pragmatic tech adopters – they use gadgets to keep up with social networks or be productive at work
10% rely on mobile devices for voice, texting, or entertainment
10% use information gadgets, but find it a hassle
49% of Americans only occasionally use modern gadgetry and many others bristle at electronic connectivity
There is an online quiz to help you discover what kind of technology user you are.
Do you cringe when your cell phone rings? Do you suffer from withdrawal when you can’t check your Blackberry? Do you rush to post your vacation video to your Web site?
I took the quiz and I ranked at the high end as an Omnivore. Not surprising.
What are your results?
As service providers and policy makers, is important to understand that most consumers aren’t the same – and generally aren’t like people who work in the industry. The study found nearly 60% of Americans fit into categories called Connected but Hassled (10%), Inexperienced Experimenters (8%), Light But Satisfied (15%), Indifferents (11%), Off the Network (15%).
How does the industry attract these users?
Looking back at the Economist e-readiness rankings, are there policy initiatives that can help migrate folks toward the more technophilic classes of Productivity Enhancers and Connectors?
