Last November, I wrote about the CRTC’s wholesale services proceeding, Public Notice 2006-14. The Commission received the first wave of evidence on Thursday and on Friday, it issued an amended schedule, pulling up the hearings by almost 3 weeks. The new schedule gets rid of a round of reply argument and cuts 30 days off its own review.
The net change is that a decision is now expected around the first week of April (2008), a full three months ahead of the original schedule.
Aggresive timeframes for the Commission and for the industry’s regulatory departments. Is this a sign of things to come?
Beware the ‘peoples’ republic’ of ‘net neutrality,’ says Goldberg
“Net neutrality” is a catchy term, with a simple, if superficial, appeal to all who believe in non-discrimination: let all information move without interference on the internet; and don’t allow a two-tiered internet to develop. Easy principles that should appeal to any thinking democratic leader, especially when less democratic countries like China are restricting access to content on the internet. Appealing, that is, until you start to scratch the surface of the arguments.
“Net neutrality” advocates actually believe in a layer of government intervention that would shackle the future development of advanced internet services, constraining Canada’s economic development in the information economy. Quite the opposite of what we’ve come to expect from the internet. In a recent newspaper column, one such advocate observed that the federal government’s Telecom Policy Review (TPR) panel had urged the government to “confirm the right of Canadian consumers to access publicly available internet applications and content of their choice by means of all public telecommunications networks providing access to the internet.”
Who wouldn’t agree? Unfortunately, “net neutrality” advocates tend to stop citing the TPR report at this point. They seem to forget to mention the rest of the panel’s recommendations that contain a number of exceptions sought by network operators and community organizations. The panel’s recommendations included: letting the CRTC deal with complaints; allowing ISPs to manage their network in recognition that some types of traffic (such as TV, voice and file sharing) isn’t the same as web browsing; and acknowledging that not all traffic is legal and allowing the courts to impose bounds on such freedom. Moreover, no matter how often “Net Neutralists” try to ignore it, the TPR panel also recommended that in ensuring access “discretion should be exercised with a view to encouraging reliance on market forces and customer choice as much as possible.”
The fact is that internet companies are investing massively to add capacity to their networks, enabling better and faster services. Videotron recently announced trials of 100Mbps cable broadband service in Montreal, faster than any other cable company in North America. Service providers have to look for innovative business models to justify the investments in these service enhancements, including models where the cost of new services are paid not just by the retail consumer, but also in part by the companies who stand to benefit from those new services.
Yet “Net neutralists” oppose any differentiation in the financial relationships between networks and the content that rides on them. That makes no sense. Would we prohibit the relationship that Yahoo has with Rogers? That Bell has with MSN? Would one prohibit Google from putting servers into an ISP site in order to improve responsiveness? Shouldn’t we allow a company to pay for a high quality internet service to be installed into a residence to allow part time employees to work from home? “Net neutrality” advocates, in their zeal to enforce non-discrimination provisions, would prohibit all of these. Out of a concern that some might fall behind, they would rather keep others from moving ahead.
It sometimes seems that we are seeing a call to nationalize the internet backbone — returning to central planning and control by government. I suppose life would be simpler that way — some benevolent Crown corporation to manage the internet with our best interests always in the forefront of their planning. I am sorry to say that the era of such public telephone utilities has largely become a distant memory. I seem to recall that we actually found those government monopoly phone companies ended up restraining innovation and charging way too much for lousy service. They fell out of favour, along with “peoples’ republics,” when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.
“Net neutrality” may sound good on the surface, but I, for one, still place more faith in an internet free of such government constraints.
Mr. Goldberg is president of Thornhill based Mark H. Goldberg & Associates Inc., a telecommunications industry advisory firm and he is co-founder of The Canadian Telecom Summit, Canada’s largest annual telecommunications industry event.
I had an interesting call last week from a customer response person who left me with her direct phone number in Montreal. Apologizing that her toll-free number was not yet connected, she told me to call collect – just in case I needed to get in touch.
Call collect? When long distance rates are this low, if not free, think about it: when was the last time you needed to call collect?
Fast forward to this week when I was speaking with a colleague about a project she is working on to implement a toll-free network, replacing a regime of collect calling. What do people do when they are in need of help – at a payphone; on a cell phone; in a hotel; away from home. In other words, vulnerable with less than optimal control over their costs.
On the flip side, think of some of the complications with collect calling these days. Numerous local carriers – VoIP, mobile, resellers, MVNOs, Skype-in. Many new service providers don’t even have billing systems that could handle collection agreements. Some new phone companies don’t have operators to allow you to place a collect call.
How does a distant phone company get confirmation that when you accept charges, your phone company will actually be able to bill for the call and collect on their behalf? Number portability, that allows migration of landline and wireless numbers, adds more complexity.
For most people, domestic long distance is so cheap that you might be embarrased to call collect. Alternatively, there is always toll-free, although these numbers usually only work within a country code. In an age of global commerce, what does a service provider do to provide easy global access? [My daughter was overcharged by an overseas cable TV provider while she was away at school last year. The cableco’s only published number is a domestic toll-free line. I can’t call them, even though I would be happy to pay for the call.]
Are we seeing the end of collect calling? Maybe it will evolve to a more uniform system of payment by commercial credit or debit cards. Thoughts?
I think an editorial in the most recent issue of Computing Canada misses the point on the impact of net neutrality for businesses.
The editorial laments the fact that net neutrality has been handed losses in the US Senate and it is disturbed by statements from Industry Minister Bernier. Still, Computing Canada believes its readers’ voices need to be heard to convince government to pass laws requiring all Internet traffic to be treated the same by ISPs.
Net neutrality is indeed an important issue for business users large and small. If anything, the business community needs to clearly shout its rejection of net neutrality. While superficially, the objectives of net neutrality may sound noble and democratic, its effects are bad for business. Not only should carriers be concerned, but customers too.
Among the most problematic statements in the column:
As enterprises shift to more Web-based applications for everything from sales force automation to self-service customer tools, the need for a level online playing field is more important than ever.
In fact, the last thing companies deploying Web-based enterprise applications should want is vanilla-flavoured net neutrality restrictions.
Business-grade web-based applications often have to perform better than average. Enterprises and applications providers are happy to pay for the performance that matches their requirements. Enterprises often demand flexibility to leap-frog ‘best-efforts’ internet. Businesses want their applications to be handled in a discriminatory manner.
Net neutrality restrictions would preclude preferential treatment.
Enterprise customers don’t just want a two-tiered internet; they demands two, three and more tiers. Business requirements dictate a complete spectrum of internet services, a continuum of performance metrics, variable business models.
The editorial says
This is not the same thing as choosing between a T1 connection and dialup service: this is putting a premium on some URLs over others, a cost and legal burden that would not easily be borne in a country made up largely of small businesses.
Small businesses are precisely the kinds of customers that should oppose net neutrality.
Net neutrality would provide no better service for hosted banking than for movie downloads. Travel agents looking to grab a seat for their clients will compete with every other application on the internet, because net-neutrality will prohibit the reservations system from securing preferred treatment. Work at home virtual call-centre agents would have no choice but to put up with voice quality that may be less than acceptable, because net neutrality would forbid assigning a priority for that integrated application.
If net neutrality is imposed by legislation, large enterprises will return to more costly private networks to ensure their competitive edge. As a result, it is small business that could suffer the most. The answer isn’t for small travel agents and SOHO operations to be forced into dedicated data access lines. The answer is to let carriers and their customers work it out in the marketplace.
It is precisely because Canada is so dependent on the health of Canada’s small business engine that enterprises, large and small, should be so strongly opposed to net neutrality legislation.
Minister Bernier fully understands the importance of net neutrality, not just for carriers, but for the economic performance of Canada’s business community. That is why the Minister of Industry, charged with the responsibility of policy to support an information economy, understands why he cannot support net neutrality.
It’s more than just bad for business; net neutrality is bad policy.
Are you lining up to change wireless carriers today? Exercise your franchise. Vote with your feet. Show them who’s boss.
Are you cutting the cord and moving your home number to your cell phone? Will anyone go the other way and move their cell phone number to a nomadic VoIP line? That may be the smartest move for frequent travellers. Use find-me forwarding capabilities from your VoIP provider to route calls to whatever number you may have as a way to avoid roaming charges.
Despite the media blitz this week (my colleague Roberta Fox was coast-to-coast on CBC radio on Monday morning and on CBC Newsworld on Tuesday), how many people outside of the telecom industry fully understand the term ‘number portability’? With long term contracts, how many people are actually in a position to switch, now that portability is available?
How does someone switch? What does it cost? Where are the best deals? Will retailers really know how to make it work?
What if they threw a portability party and nobody came?
Update: [March 14, 3:30 pm] See industry FAQ for more info on how to change carriers without changing your number.
