In a Hill Times letter that was intended to critique my previous week’s Op Ed, Russell McOrmond actually helped prove my thesis: there are elements among net neutrality proponents that want to nationalize the communications infrastructure of Canada’s carriers.

In his letter, he comes clean with a statement that confirms his objective.

You can find the full text of Russ’ submission (pre-editorial chopping) on his blog.

If we built communications networks the way I believe we should, we would have a separate communications infrastructure utility that is separate from any specific product or service someone would want to connect to. … It should be just as easy to connect directly to the home of someone else in Ottawa, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service.

Let’s look at the design objective – to be able to connect as easily to someone else’s home, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service. I’d suggest that this objective is consistent with that of every carrier. Do any of you have any difficulty using the commercial internet to do just that?

The question I have is, why does he think that there needs to be a new “very-high-speed connection at my home (example: fiber)” connection to accomplish this objective? And if you believe that this new utility is a viable business plan, then go ahead and get it financed. Except for one little problem: I don’t think he wants a commercial venture to operate this network. The term utility, at least in Canada, is often a code word for a government-owned operation.

No – I am not a McCarthy commie conspiracy kind of guy. Still, up until this letter to the editor, it is rare for the neutralists expose their nationalization objectives in plain language. We generally have to infer their ultimate objective.

But Russ’ letter concludes with precisely such a statement:

Not only are the incumbent service providers in North America not a useful path for rolling out future services, but we need to wrestle this critical infrastructure out of the hands of existing telecommunications and cable companies.

And these are the folks who took umbrage when I warned in my Op Ed to beware of the People’s Republic of Net Neutrality.

I am happy you put such clarity into your letter to the editor. Thank you for your support.

There is a deadline fast approaching for Cabinet to finalize its variance of the CRTC’s local forbearance decision from last year. The final order must be issued by April 6, 2007 – Good Friday.

So the CRTC rushed out a forbearance order for Fort McMurray today, perhaps to demonstrate that it was still in-charge. Why do I say ‘rushed’? The order was released at 11:00am but contained a significant enough typo that an amended order was released 3 hours later.

The caveat in the order was:

The Commission approves the introduction of local forbearance in the Fort McMurray residential relevant market once [TELUS] has demonstrated that it has met the CQ of S [Competitor Quality of Service] criterion that will be in effect at the time of its CQ of S filing.

Both Bell and TELUS were incensed with the terms of the order. According to Janet Yale of TELUS:

It is an undeniable fact that Fort McMurray residents have a choice of competitors for their basic phone service, and yet the CRTC insists on maintaining outdated restrictions on TELUS’ ability to make its best offers to customers. The conditions for deregulation they set out for local phone service are unattainable in any practical sense, and were rejected as such by the federal government. Their decision today runs entirely contrary to the government’s directive.

Lawson Hunter of Bell said:

This proves the need for the government to move forward on its commitment, as confirmed in the recent federal budget, for a new regulatory framework for local service forbearance that will bring the full benefits of open competition to consumers.

Their concern is that cabinet may choose not to issue a final version of its variance announced in December.

When the kids were young, they would ask for a cookie before dinner, and my wife would answer them with a ‘yes’ – as soon as they finished their dinner. The CRTC said yes, you can have forbearance…