On the surface, the report of the Telecom Policy Review panel looks for sweeping changes in the way telecom is regulated in Canada. Less price regulation, faster decision making, responsive to consumer complaints.

But the way it gets there is by adding some new Ottawa bureaus. Watch for new acronyms like the TCT (Telecom Competition Tribunal) and the TCA (Telecom Consumer Agency). Certain spectrum functions from Industry Canada are recommended to be shuffled across the river to the CRTC.

It isn’t clear to me that the functions proposed for these two new organizations could not be handled under the existing organizations.

It is going to be a busy evening… the report from Canada’s Telecom Policy Review panel will be released at 4:00pm. We will be posting highlights and, of course, a little commentary later in the day and this evening.

Recall that the panel was struck almost a year ago by Industry Minister Emmerson, who at the time was part of the Liberal Government. The report is now being delivered to Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.

Keep in mind that nothing will change when you wake up tomorrow. This report will contain recommendations for reforms – not legal, policy or regulatory determinations. It is uncertain if and when any of these recommendations would be implemented, especially in view of the minority government and its current list of stated priorities.

Watch this space for more information.

I’m not crazy about the terminology being used in the discussions about Network Neutrality. On the surface, there is something seductively attractive about a concept like Network Neutrality. Of course users should be able to have any application they want ride across an open IP network, without limitations and interference from the carrier.

But I think we need to look at what is meant by that kind of statement. In an ideal world, no one would interfere with anyone else’s service; all the bandwidth capacity I ever need would be available whenever I needed it. But I don’t believe that is true. I know that my service degrades when my kids get home and start power-gaming or use some bandwidth hogging application.

I have seen our web site slow down when another company hosted with our shared server runs a promotion that drives too much traffic.

Isn’t it reasonable to have some shaping of the traffic to match the requirements of the application? Is there really an evil ‘bandwidth monopolist’ at work if my ISP throttles back traffic destined for file sharing in order to let me access my bank records a little faster – or to allow instant messenger services to be closer to instant messages?

The concept of a truly ‘stupid network’, where networks are unaware of the application, is an interesting academic theory, but I think it ignors economic realities. It only works if either capacity is unlimited or applications self-adjust to allow priority traffic to pass through.

Capacity can’t grow without economic conditions that encourage network development. And communism doesn’t work because human nature motivates individuals to try to try to provide advantage to themselves. In other words, people will always try to grab as much as they can for as little as they can – demand approaches infinity when the price approaches zero.

Rather than consider ‘stupid networks’, I prefer to think of Irrelevant Networks. Applications that can be developed independently of the underlying network facilities. Application developers can develop their own roaming and compensation schemes to address the issue of how they provide universal access to end users.

I am convinced that there are language issues: Network Neutrality versus Open Access. Over-the-top applications versus roaming… I think there is a common ground to be reached, but people have to start talking without the ‘manifesto’ type language getting in the way.

Ever since Allstream and MTS merged, there has been a schizophrenia for their policy department. On one had, MTS is an incumbent and is regulated the same way as Bell and TELUS. On the other hand, Allstream’s policy folks keep arguing that incumbents should continue to be heavily regulated to allow competitors to have a chance to get a foothold.

The need to file tariffs may now be biting back at Allstream. Public Works (the customer side of the Federal Government) was looking for national network and bidders were supposed to: a) provide unit pricing (regardless of in-territory or out-of-territory); and, b) certify that all applicable tariffs were in place.

Bell and TELUS both filed new tariffs to cover the possibility of them winning this network. Allstream did not, despite the apparent need to do so, given that part of the network falls in Manitoba (their incumbent base).

TELUS and Bell have asked for a review. It’s now up to the CRTC to check the replay cameras.

It seems to me that incumbent regulatory activity may be the best measure of how well a competitor is doing. We couldn’t help but notice that Bell is turning up the heat on Videotron, perhaps in response to the volume of CRTC complaints filed by Videotron over the past few months.

The latest Bell complaint is hard to swallow. Bell is upset that Videotron is telling their new voice customers that they have to cancel their Sympatico high speed in order to get Videotron service. There is a pretty simple technical issue: when Videotron connects its service, it unplugs the inside wire from the Bell local loop and connects the inside wiring up to the Videotron voice connection.

From Videotron’s perspective, when you unplug the Bell local loop, you lose all of the services carried over that loop.

Bell thinks this is unfair. Bell thinks that Videotron is providing itself with preferential treatment by forcing customers to cancel their Sympatico service when they sign up for Videotron voice. Bell claims that they are being unjustly treated and it cites an earlier CRTC Decision that ordered Bell to continue to provide high speed internet service to customers that chose an alternate local phone company. In Bell’s view the same rules should apply to Videotron: Fair is fair.

The remedy that Bell suggests is that Videotron should have to install alternate inside wire. I’m serious. Bell actually thinks that Videotron should have to pull new wiring inside all of their customers homes so that customers have the choice of keeping their Sympatico service. Right. Believe me; I’m not going to let ‘the cable guy’ try to get new wiring to my kitchen phone outlet or through any of the rest of the house.

Bell didn’t think that an alternative would be for Sympatico to install a single inside wire connection to a DSL modem in the basement and deliver high speed to computers over WiFi. After all, Bell’s local loop is still sitting at the demarcation point [in the basement or wherever]. And presumably, Videotron’s condition doesn’t apply to high speed service that customers are buying from wireless service providers.

Bell may be regreting the decision to transfer ownership of the inside wiring to end users. The inside wire doesn’t belong to Bell any more. If another service provider needs the wire, and the customer agrees to the conditions imposed by the alternate service provider [such as a service bundle], then it is Bell that needs to come up with a new way to reach their customers.

Any news from Inukshuk?