More moves on telecom policy reform

January 25, 2017
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier introduced legislation in the House of Commons to give the Competition Bureau powers to fine dominant carriers up to $15M in cases of abuse of dominant position.

The proposed legislation seems to open the way for an increased role to be played by competition law in disciplining the behaviour of the incumbents, rather than the CRTC. This is consistent with the elements of the report of the Telecom Policy Review panel. The amendments to the Competition Act are specifically in the part dealing with Abuse of Dominant Position. Section 78 of that part defines a number of anti-competitive acts that should be helpful in a forborne regulatory environment.

Competition Bureau chief Sheridan Scott is already confirmed to speak at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

Update: [December 7, 6:25 pm]
I did an interview with Bloomberg this afternoon.

TELUS: Whose money is it?

December 7, 2006
On October 30, TELUS filed an application with the CRTC to review and vary its decision that retroactively adjusts the rates that competitors pay for a number of wholesale access services. Collectively, TELUS says that the CRTC wants it to rebate more than $20M to the competitors.

Part of TELUS’ complaint is the length of time that the refund covers – leading to refunds of 4-6 years worth of over-payments. In a reply filed last night, Yak blames TELUS itself for part of the delay, charging that

TELUS, not having an interest in seeing lower costs to competitors… contributed significantly and intentionally to the delay in establishing final rates

Yak provides at least 3 examples of TELUS’ delaying tactics.

In an interview with Network Letter, TELUS argues that it doesn’t want to be a savings bank for the competitors. TELUS’ application characterizes the refund as a “windfall to the competitor” and “gifts from the regulator”.

I am pretty sure that the competitors didn’t want TELUS to be their savings bank either. Most of them needed the money – they didn’t want to have it tied up. Ask the bankrupcy trustees.

Let’s be perfectly clear: a return of the competitors’ money isn’t a windfall. It is refunding what is rightfully theirs.

A windfall “gift from the regulator” would be the case of the CRTC telling TELUS that the rates all along were wrong, but keep the change. That would be a windfall for TELUS. That would be how you define a gift from the regulator.

I wonder if TELUS has the same view about tax refund cheques in the spring.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

4 degrees of impersonal communications

August 27, 2016

It was once suggested to me that people say things in emails that they would never say to someone over the phone. And, over the phone (especially in a voice message), we seem willing to speak in ways that one would never consider saying face-to-face.

I will add that people say things in anonymous comments on blogs that add a further dimension. Perhaps it is a sign of the indifference associated with mass anonymity.

Face-to-face communications (a first degree interaction) has no record, no evidence beyond the memory of the participants. Telephony (second degree) may have a record, such as an audio voice message. Email (3rd degree) gets circulated, over and over. Thanks to search engines and web-archiving tools, the web (4th degree) offers a permanent record.

Paradoxically, we seem to take more care in communications when the conversation can most easily be private and candid. Conversely, we pay less attention to etiquette and courtesy when the audience is global and of diuturnal impact.

In the impersonal space of the cyber-world, are we seeing a deterioration of respectful social intercourse? Is it a necessary accommodation that we need to make in order to extend the accessibility of information to all?

At the risk of being called a moron (which would prove my point), I found a coincidence of these thoughts with a recent piece by Andy Rutledge:

The social aspects of social media are often as anti–social as it gets. In our online community discussions, we say things we’d never say to another face–to–face and we behave in a manner that would likely otherwise get us punched in the face. And rightly so. We’ve grown comfortable with the idea of dispensing with our subjectivity to one another. This is a very bad idea.

Much of the social media has become a venue for us to practice our most anti–social behavior and exercise our basest motivations. And we’re rewarded for this activity by the fact that others delight in engaging us at a similar level, fueling the engine.

As Michael Geist recently wrote, we need to consider the boundaries between transparency and privacy in the current environment. Etiquette and taste are changing, as they have for generations.

Just a few observations of the characteristics of a new reality. Let me don my asbestos suit as I await your comments.

The 11 hallmarks of hate messages

February 25, 2019
A recent determination by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sets out a listing of hallmarks of hate. These provide insights into the assessment of defining hate speech in Canada.

An analysis of the growing body of s. 13 [of the Canadian Human Rights Code] jurisprudence reveals that there are a number of hallmarks of material that is more likely than not to expose members of the targeted group to hatred or contempt. It may be useful at this point to provide a list of these hallmarks

  1. The targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving others of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
  2. The messages use “true stories”, news reports, pictures and references from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about the targeted group;
  3. The targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
  4. The targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
  5. The targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
  6. The messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any
    redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
  7. The messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
  8. The targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
  9. Highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
  10. The messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution or tragedy involving members of the targeted group;
  11. Calls to take violent action against the targeted group.

All of these attributes involve an attack on the inherent self-worth and dignity of the members of the targeted group. As noted in the tribunal’s ruling, material that bears the hallmarks of a hate message disparages and ridicules other people “just for drawing breath, for living”.

Turning net neutrality upside-down

December 4, 2006
SportsnetOn Friday, the CRTC issued a broadcasting decision in a case that examined the terms for Bell Canada to carry a sports channel (Sportsnet) owned by its competitor, Rogers. I’m going to leave the merits of the case and the details of the resolution aside for now.

For the purpose of this discussion, the important point to glean from the decision is that the CRTC re-affirmed the principle that specialty channels – the content provider – cannot grant more favourable terms to an affiliated distributor. In this particular case, the CRTC determined, in effect, that Sportsnet’s deal with Bell would need to be on terms “that are no less favourable than those accorded [Rogers Cable].”

It strikes me that a different twist on the net neutrality issue arises from this kind of decision.

We tend to think of net neutrality as seeking to ensure that ISPs don’t engage in bit-boinking – degrading the traffic of content providers that refuse to pay for protection. Is there a corollary that examines whether content providers can or should deny an ISP access to their content on equivalent terms to other ISPs?

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Scroll to Top