As we wrote yesterday, terminology in describing the industry participants is an imprecise art and it is complicated by mergers and acquisitions.

Allstream and Sprint Canada have vanished as independent national facilities based competitors and now are part of hybrid organizations. In Allstream’s case, as the national operations of MTS, it is now referenced by the CRTC as part of the ‘ILECs out-of-territory’ category. Sprint Canada, since its acquisition by Rogers, is presumably part of the ‘Cable BDU’ category.

These industry structural changes make it difficult to examine year-over-year shifts in the market. In the CRTC‘s monitoring report, the examination of the Business Internet access market (Table 4.4.6) may have been distorted by the M&A; activity.

M&A; also is a factor in looking at Table 3.1.1, Total telecommunications revenues by type of service provider. Revenues from ‘Other facilities-based’ carriers has declined from $3.4B in 2001 to less than $100M in 2005. The acquisitions by MTS and Rogers of Allstream and Sprint Canada respectively explain most of the shift.

As a result, much of the growth in ILEC out-of-territory revenue between 2003 and 2004 and in Cable BDU growth for 2005 over 2004 is actually due to M&A; activity, rather than organic customer acquisitions.

After leading with the Motorola Q for business users, Verizon has launched a new phone targeting the rest of the market: Chocolate by LG.

It’s a phone, a music player (with up to 2Gb of storage), photo and video camera and player, GPS navigator, Bluetooth stero headset.

The device sets a new standard for the non-business market – well beyond youth.

Verizon is selling the phone on a two year plan at $149, or $249 when you buy a 2Gb expansion card, leather case and car charger.

Will TELUS leverage its Verizon relationship to bring Chocolate to Canada?

The English language allows people to say the same thing using different words. A challenge in diplomatic initiatives and newspaper reporting is selecting which words to use. Different words express similar ideas in different ways. Some of the subtleties are often lost on mere mortals.

The same holds for regulatory decisions and reports.

As a result, carriers have been able to find inspiration from the CRTC‘s latest telecom industry monitoring report – with all sides claiming that their position has been bolstered. As I read the report, I have some concerns that, in at least one case, the report uses terminology that includes a subtle, yet unfortunate bias.

For example, in describing the participants in the Internet service space, incumbent local exchange carriers are refered to as ‘incumbents’ rather than ILECs. The CRTC is familiar with the term ILEC; it refers to ‘ILECs, out-of-territory’ on the same chart.

By using a term like ‘Incumbents’ on a chart describing internet service, it implies that the phone companies were there first – the phone companies are the ones to beat. Yet, the telcos have always been playing catchup with high speed.

Let’s be honest here. If there is an ‘incumbent’ for internet service, the title should go to the cable companies.