Normalizing telecom competition

April 7, 2007
All businesses are regulated in some way or another, whether it is workplace safety, public health or consumer protection. Wednesday’s announcement from the Minister represents a move toward the continued normalization of regulation of the telecom industry.

As the statement from the CRTC says,

Both the Commission’s original framework and the modifications made by the Government today have the common objective of fostering competition in the Canadian telecommunications market.

The Cabinet directive gets us to that state faster.

Still, existing consumer safeguards, such as a price ceiling for stand-alone residential service will be maintained as well as continued price regulation in regions where there is little competition. Further, safety and social regulations, such as 9-1-1 and services for the disabled will remain.

Sheridan ScottThe Competition Bureau will be an increasingly important guardian to address anti-competitive issues in the deregulated markets. The government has added $10.5 million over five years to its budget in order to strengthen its role in policing newly deregulated telecommunications markets.

Sheridan Scott, Commissioner of the Competition Bureau, will be a keynote speaker at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit on the afternoon of June 13.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

A twist in the cabinet order

January 25, 2017
Wednesday’s final version of the variance on Local Forbearance establishes a simplified presence test to determine if there are at least two sources of facilities-based competition for consumers to from, in addition to the incumbent.

In the descriptive section of the Industry Canada Regulatory Impact Statement, this test is described as:

Forbearance can occur in a residential market if there are, in addition to the incumbent, at least two independent facilities-based telecommunications services providers, including providers of mobile wireless services, each of which offers services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75% of the number of residential lines that the incumbent is capable of serving in that market, and at least one of which, in addition to the incumbent, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider.

But, in the actual Order, the phrase is slightly different, changing the general term “services” to specify “local exchange services”:

… if the ILEC offers residential local exchange services, there are, in addition to the ILEC, at least 2 independent facilities-based telecommunications service providers, including providers of mobile wireless services, each of which offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75% of the number of residential local exchange service lines that the ILEC is capable of serving, and at least one of which, in addition to the ILEC, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider [emphasis added]

Does the clause “each of which offers local exchange services” also apply to the clause “providers of mobile wireless services”?

The phrase “local exchange service” has a specific meaning by the CRTC. Recently, it appears in the CRTC’s VoIP Decision as “local exchange service (i.e. PES or local VoIP service)”. In the Decision that was the subject of the Cabinet variance order, “Local exchange services have, historically, been provided on a monopoly basis by the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).”

By definition at the CRTC, most of Canada’s mobile service providers do not generally provide local exchange services, presumably unless they are also CLECs, such as Fido.

Considering how some significant dollars have depended on the regulatory interpretation on a lowly comma, will the phrase “local exchange service” create anxious moments?

Net neutrality and consumers

January 25, 2017

In the US, since August 2005, the FCC has a set of 4 principles that define net neutrality issues as a series of consumer rights:

to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet:

  1. consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
  2. consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
  3. consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
  4. consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

On Wednesday, the Canadian Cabinet ordered the establishment of an independent consumer agency, what I have called C-5, Canadian Communications Consumer Complaint Commission. The federal government said that it believes that the mandate of the agency should include resolving complaints from individual and small business retail customers. C-5 would be an integral component of a deregulated telecommunications market.

Further, the CRTC is to begin annual reports to Cabinet on such issues. Its initial consumer complaints report is supposed to include

an identification of issues or trends that may warrant further attention by the Commission or by the government, such as the availability of consumer choice, the impact of marketing strategies and practices, consumer billing and contracts

Should net neutrality be framed in Canada as a consumer issue? Would or could this new consumer body be tasked with exploring net neutrality as an ex-post complaint centre, dealing with violations as they occur?

Canadian Communications Consumer Agency

April 4, 2007
CRTCThe Federal Cabinet has launched what I will call a C-5 body: the Canadian Communications Consumer Complaints Commission.

The CRTC currently receives complaints and inquiries from consumers. The Cabinet considers that an effective consumer agency should develop an industry code of conduct; publish an annual report for each telecommunications service provider; and, identify issues or trends that may warrant further attention by the CRTC or the government;

The cabinet wants to ensure independence of the C-5 agency from the industry through: a majority of governors who are unaffiliated with telecommunications service provider; a CEO also unaffiliated; and a budget funded provided by the industry.

The CRTC will need to report annually, beginning April 2008:

  1. each report shall outline complaints received from individuals and small business retail customers regarding services provided by telecommunications service providers and shall include:
    1. statistical information, for each telecommunications service provider and in total, on the nature and number of complaints received and the standing of these complaints when the report was compiled,
    2. an identification of issues or trends that may warrant further attention by the Commission or by the government, such as the availability of consumer choice, the impact of marketing strategies and practices, consumer billing and contracts, and
    3. a report on progress made toward the establishment of a Consumer Agency; and
  2. the Commission shall continue to make reports until such time as a Consumer Agency has been established by industry and approved by the Commission.

This is the implementation of another recommendation (6-2) of the TPR, which spoke of the need of a new Consumer Agency.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Accelerating wide open telecom markets

January 25, 2017

Last December, Minister Bernier announced a variance to the CRTC’s local forbearance decision. This afternoon, the order was finalized, accelerating the deregulation of the industry. According to the Minister, this order is in the interests of customers and taxpayers, to deliver lower prices, recognizing the level of competition in major urban centres across the country.

The order was issued, despite a report from the Parliamentary Industry Committee (INDU) to withdraw the variance order, but it took into account the concerns of parties that provided responses to the consultation process, especially targetting the concerns of smaller cable companies.

The final order maintains the simple test that was set out last December, but clarifies a few points – it broadens and clarifies the definition of who are competitors, tightens the definition of a forbearance region.

The Telecom Policy Review panel had made an extensive number of recommendations to update the industry framework in a competitive global environment. Some of these will require legislative changes and it seems unlikely that the current incarnation of INDU will set aside politics to move forward on policies that should attract bipartisan support. Recall that the TPR panel was created under the Liberal government and its report was delivered to the current Minister. Still, we may need to wait for a majority government to bypass the tone of the committee meetings.

As we have noted before, it strikes me as more than a little ironic that the initial implementations of the TPR’s recommendations are derivatives of cabinet appeals that may not be permitted when reform is completed.

Scroll to Top