In what appears to be a contradiction to its previous policy, the CRTC now says that Voice over IP is a new broadband internet service, at least for the purpose of calculating the broadband subsidy. This seems to contradict its VoIP decision that said VoIP is just a new technology delivering plain old telephone service.

In a letter to ILECs [not available for on-line viewing] as part of the follow-up to the Deferral Account decision, the CRTC told ILECs that their calculation for broadband revenues should include: retail broadband Internet service revenues, wholesale broadband Internet service [Gateway Access Service/High Speed Access] revenues, broadband backbone service revenues (e.g. dark fibre), and other retail broadband service revenues, such as Wide Area Network, Voice over Internet Protocol, and Internet Protocol Television (specify).

If VoIP is really just a new way of delivering plain old voice service for regulatory purposes, why wouldn’t the revenue from VoIP be excluded from broadband revenues?

Michael Geist wrote more on the subject of the TPR statements on Network Neutrality (see our views on what the TPR says about this in this link.) We also wrote about the concept of Network Neutrality versus Open Access and believe that much of the discussion confuses the two similar but distinct issues.

Open Access principles in the TPR report means that people should be able to reach any “publicly available” content and applications. The Report in no way suggests that this would be without additional fees.

Indeed, the report describes 3 types of issues:

The report suggests that the first issue can be dealt with using anti-competitive conduct mechanisms. The third issue:

This seems to be suggesting that the panel agrees that there are some circumstances that justify restricted access to ‘publicly available’ content. However, “In general, the Panel believes that blocking access to content and applications should not be permitted unless legally required.”

Regarding the issue of business decisions – which I think is what most people are really up-tight about in Net Neutrality – the report seems to recognize the basic Milton Friedman economic principle “You don’t get nothin’ for nothin'”

A Solomonic balance of interests, I think.

Last week, Bell has filed an appeal of the CRTC’s Deferral Account Decision with the Federal Court, arguing that the CRTC overstepped its mandate in ordering rate reductions in the form of rebates to subscribers.

Here is the idea.

The CRTC sent a follow-up letter on March 10 to the ILECs with details on what the proposals for the broadband expenditures should look like. In that letter, the CRTC said that the rural plans should have similar pricing and service characteristics as that available in urban areas. Also, the CRTC’s letter asks the telcos to show studies based on providing competitors with access to Bell’s backbone facilities.

So, if you are a telco, you are being asked to spend a lot of time and energy on a broadband roll-out plan that may provide no reasonable rate of return (given the pricing intervention by the regulator) and enable your competitors to ride on the backbone for free (or awfully close to free).

Considering the fact the high speed internet is not currently price or service quality regulated, the CRTC’s letter seems to indicate that it is getting into a mode to regulate it in certain areas. The Court filing may be Bell’s way of pushing back.

While this is some high stakes poker (it looks like $1M legal bill already!), there is more than half a billion dollars at stake here.

Stay tuned to this station for further details and see our earlier discussion of the Decision. Film at 11.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has turned his head to the issue of email privacy. Spitzer’s office began an investigation of companies involved in “data mining” and sale of marketing lists and have now filed suit against Gratis Internet. Spitzer’s office is seeking penalties and injunctive relief under New York’s consumer fraud statutes.

It would be nice to see some aggressive action on the Canadian side of the border. Despite an announcement late last week of more research funding for privacy policy issues, I haven’t seen prosecution or penalties that will act as a deterrent to abuses. As Michael Geist has pointed out, an expensive and lengthy application to the federal court is needed in order to levy a penalty under Canada’s privacy laws. The Privacy Commissioner’s practice of keeping the identity of targets of complaints secret doesn’t help.

Maybe that is why N5R hasn’t been too concerned with the recent breech in their security of their email database. N5R is an internet marketing agency that has done campaigns for telecom carriers, car companies and packaged goods firms among others. They inappropriately used one of my email addresses from one client in order to run a campaign for another.

So what if Spitzer takes on these high profile prosecutions (Wall Street, insurance, environment), to shore up a future campaign for governor. Canada could use some of this kind of judicial activism.

Mark Evans sent me a note last night about his upcoming conference, mesh, taking place in Toronto May 15-16 at the MaRS Collaboration Centre. Interesting group of speakers and it is looking at the evolving area of next-generation web technology and its impact on various sectors.

Good luck to you Mark and your group of co-founders of the event: Mathew Ingram, Rob Hyndman, Mike McDerment and Stuart MacDonald.

I’m thinking that I should start up a newspaper, now that Mark and Matthew are getting into the conference game. Of course, I invaded their blogosphere world, so I guess it is only fair.

I hope you’ll report on some of your findings at The Canadian Telecom Summit in June.