It seems to me that there is an undertone of discontent in Ottawa concerning the state of the Canadian mobile wireless industry. Not acute pain, but an annoying chronic irritation.

Over the past couple years, there have been various signals that policy makers are not as comfortable with the state of competition between the big 3 national players (Rogers, TELUS and Bell). I think the first warning shot was the CRTC’s Decision on E911 – it served as a reminder to the wireless industry that the CRTC retained regulatory power despite its forebearance on price regulation.

Wireless Number Portability was next, with the clear intent to better empower users.

Yesterday’s report from the Telecom Policy Review panel is another voice shouting that all is not well in the mobile wireless sector, notwithstanding the exuberance on Bay Street. Investors like a comfortable, “disciplined” market. It sustains profits. That sentiment is not shared by the people who pay the phone bills.

In the Afterword to the TPR report, Canada’s poor performance in wireless pricing and penetration is cited as one of the primary reasons that foreign investment rules should be liberalized.

Will the Wireless Association and the major industry participants hear the underlying message?

When the CRTC released its original long distance decision in 1992, the title on the cover and their press release was “Consumer Friendly Competition.” If that terminology hadn’t already been used 14 years ago, it would have been an appropriate title for today’s release from the Telecom Policy Review panel.

While there are voices from the fringe that are deeply critical, the report of the Telecom Policy Review panel is a thorough and detailed ‘Modern Telecom Policy for Dummies’ handbook, with step-by-step instructions telling Canada that “you too, can be a 21st century economy.” We can quibble about the details (and there are so many details in the 400 pages that everyone will find something to quibble about), but let’s be clear, this report is well thought out and holds together nicely.

There is a vision of an open marketplace that repeats throughout the report. Empowered, connected and protected consumers. Carriers that have freedom to compete and seek funding from global markets.

The report expresses confidence in market forces being brought to the forefront – not to benefit telco or cableco shareholders – rather, these are changes to better position Canada’s overall competitive position. Electronic Communications Networks (a European term that captures all types of infrastructure) are critical inputs for a modern economy. It turns the presumption of regulation upside down.

The panel clearly is trying to encourage more players at the facilities level, opening up our markets to foreign capital and investment in order to create a better environment for innovation and price competition. Mobile wireless was specifically cited as not delivering sufficient benefits and there are a host of recommendations to try to fix that important growth area.

Consumer friendly competition. This report is a good read. Will it all be implemented? Who knows. Should it all be carefully considered? Absolutely.

MTS Allstream was quick to trash the report of the Telecom Policy Review panel, calling it “Hopelessly Complicated and Impractical.”

Let’s look at this statement and parse it.

“In the near term, we see no practical effect on our business. ” Correct. Of course, even if MTS Allstream loved the report, it would have no effect on anybody in the near term. It is a report, not a CRTC Decision, not a new Telecom Act, etc.

“Longer term, the recommendations appear hopelessly complicated and impractical.” To start with, let’s remember that this is a panel whose mandate was:

With these objectives, we had to be expecting something more substantial than a weekend school report!

The report is 400 pages long and it uses detailed technical language. Not just geek technical terms, but economist terms, lawyer terms and social policy terminology. Of course the report is complicated. Hopelessly though?

After you get past the first look, you realize that the report contains step-by-step instructions on how to do it. How to build a 21st century policy and regulatory framework.

There are precise wording changes recommended for various sections of the Telecom Act. Details on how to open up foreign ownership. Recommendations for follow-up work to cover the issues that were beyond the scope of this panel. Complicated? Yes. Impractical? Hardly.

“They appear based on the rather implausible notion that greater bureaucracy will result in greater efficiency for Canadian consumers and businesses.” My initial read of the report led me to a similar set of thoughts. Why create new arms of government if we are trying to streamline regulation and paperwork? How is the creation of bureaucracy consistent with migration to market forces?

More than most companies, MTS Allstream should be familiar with the disruptive benefits of reorganization once in a while. Could the Telecommunications Consumer Agency exist within today’s CRTC. I think so. But those are not the major issues.

I am certain that the heartburn being felt at MTS Allstream has little to do with overall complexity and bureaucracy. Their pain is summarized in the opening statement from the panel:

In other words, the panel believes in facilities-based competition, just like the CRTC has been saying. MTS is heavily reliant on its competitors for access. It has been relying on regulated wholesale rates rather than build its own access. In fact, it sold off its holdings in Inukshuk, the one opportunity to economically control its own destiny.

MTS Allstream: Be grateful for the recommendations to relax foreign ownership restrictions. It may be just the thing to get you back on your feet.

You have heard of FTTN [fibre to the node], FTTC [fibre to the curb], FTTH [fibre to the home]. How about FTTM: Fibre to the Moose?

The Telecom Policy Review panel has endorsed broadband access to be ubiquitously available by the year 2010. Their definition of ubiquity is for broadband access to be as available as the telephone. It is a noble objective but it may prove to be costly.

One of the questions, of course, is what kinds of technology are considered to be broadband. Is satellite good enough? If not, this has a risk of being a prohibitively costly initiative.

I note that Sasktel, an incumbent carrier owned by its provincial government, has had an aggressive program to roll-out broadband to every community greater than 200 people and every school, police station, etc. Yet Sasktel’s broadband still misses about 20% of their population.

We’ll be hearing from Sasktel and other regional broadband initiatives at The Canadian Telecom Summit.

The Telecom Policy Review panel report weighed in on many issues, including Net Neutrality. While it seeks to allow the marketplace to be able to settle many such consumer issues, the report suggests that the regulator be able to intervene.

The report seems to balance the interests of consumers to have open access with economic realities of ISPs that do not have infinite capacity to provide wide open access to everybody all the time.

While the report acknowledges that certain illegal content should be able to be blocked, its resolution: “the Panel believes that blocking access to content and applications should not be permitted unless legally required.” In practice, it is unclear how this would be operationalized. In order to block illegal child exploitation images, would a separate court order be required for each instance or could a Canadian version of Internet Watch Foundation or other tribunals such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission be legally empowered to create a list of illegal content?