A couple months ago, we wrote that Israel continues to be a hotbed for telecom technology development, especially photonics and IP. It is amazing that such a small country can be such fertile ground for technology development.
We have been watching and participating in the Israeli telecom market and encourage others to look at attending the Israel Telecom trade fair taking place November 6-9 in Tel Aviv. We’re planning to go and we would love to be part of a Canadian contingent. Let me know if you’re interested in joining us!
As would be expected, the cable companies said the CRTC got everything right the first time around.
The phone companies, as would be expected, said the CRTC got it all wrong first time around.
It was a little less obvious how some of the other parties would deal with the CRTC re-opening its VoIP regulatory file.
The Coalition for Competitive Telecommunications came out with a very strong position to keep hands-off in the first go-around two years ago. It largely echoed its initial position to keep out of economic regulation, but applauded the CRTC’s strong hand in social regulation. In general, not a major surprise, although it was nice to see a concession that in one of five areas examined by the Coalition, the CRTC got it somewhat right.
The bigger surprise was Nortel stepping back into the fray. The question is, why did Nortel risk alienating its cable company customers by voicing support for the telephone company position? Their intervention includes language like “Nortel is not a service provider for VoIP services, but Nortel offers technologies that make VoIP services possible.”
Why would an arms dealer want a seat at the peace talks?
The submission states that Nortel supplies VoIP solutions to Bell, TELUS, Sasktel, Allstream and Rogers, yet the positions put forward by Nortel seem to contradict the views of Rogers and the rest of the cable companies.
Nortel says:
In this submission, we provide a technology perspective on issues that the Commission may find useful to consider as it reviews current regulatory policy. Specifically, we discuss:
how the most significant disruptive force in the industry today  network convergence  is impacting the evolution of networks and the telecom industry;
how the use of IP technology continues to lower market entry barriers for new service providers and positions service providers of all types to change their network business cases; …
Rogers, on behalf of itself, Videotron and Cogeco, said
The principle is based on the idea that the regulator should not decide competitive outcomes by favouring one type of technology over another. This allows carriers to make technology choices based on economic characteristics and technical capabilities of a given technology, rather than on gaming the regulatory regime. Following the principle of technological neutrality also encourages carriers to pursue new technologies and least-cost solutions to service issues, demographics or topography.
In a joint press release, the cable companies said
The original decision to treat VoIP as a telephone service and not simply as a new technology, continues to make sense today as it did last year. The submission notes the fact that all industry participants agree that VoIP and traditional local exchange services offer the same end product in the minds of consumers.
In other words, Nortel says that the CRTC has to consider the impact of new technologies like IP while Rogers and the rest of the cable industry says that the CRTC should stick with its principle of technological neutrality.
It doesn’t matter which side is correct or even if both are correct. What matters is that a supplier of technology is publicly taking a position that may be in conflict with its cable company customers, while mentioning that it supplies Rogers. In this proceeding, Nortel looks like it picked sides, when it had very little to gain in participating in this regulatory dispute.
When each customer, whether telco or cableco, needs to be so carefully cultivated and nurtured, you have to wonder why this global communications leader forgot that silence is sometimes the most meaningful way to communicate.
Consumers need to be able to access all the content that’s available over the Internet without being impeded by the access provider. But at the same time, we recognized that the people that are deploying these networks may offer differentiated speeds and differentiated products to the consumer.
And if you offer different tiers of speeds, a consumer chooses the lowest tier, and he wants to access content that would require higher speeds than he has purchased, he’s not being blocked from access. He just hasn’t purchased the speed that’s necessary.
At first, I was skeptical that an email being circulated really did start with Meg Whitman, President and CEO of eBay. Despite references to the email on seemingly credible websites, some of the language in Whitman’s message just didn’t seem to be right. I tend to be concerned that these things start out from the same people who send emails telling you that your pet will die from your household cleaning with a Swiffer [false].
So my antennae are still on alert, but given the presence of an eBay Government Relations website with similar themes, I suspect that Meg has thrown her two-cents on Net Neutrality into the fray.
Right now, the telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future.
The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would divide the Internet into a two-tiered system.
The top tier would be a “Pay-to-Play” high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net.
The bottom tier – the slow lane – would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information “super-highway,” the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road.
Today’s Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods, services, information and ideas. We can’t give that up. A two lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies – the companies that can’t afford the high fees – will be unable to succeed, and we’ll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them.
The power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies. Let’s use that power to send as many messages as possible to our elected officials in Washington. Please join me by clicking here right now to send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late. You can make the difference.
Powerful words. An empassioned plea to battle the evil empire – the converged cabal of anti-competitive collaboration: apparently, on eBay you can find a partnership between telephone and cable companies.
Like the digestive effects of my Superbowl chicken wings, the issue of Net Neutrality just won’t go away [stay tuned next January for my recipe for wings]. And like my wings, I’ll bet you can’t help but come back to this issue for more!
xchange magazine has staked its turf in the battle, and it appears to be more to the right than even I would venture. As part of the magazine’s e-book series, there is a piece of propaganda that confuses Net Neutrality and Fair Use in a free download.
Part of the nature of independence in my consulting is my willingness to take shots at either sides of an issue – awarding darts and laurels where appropriate. There is cause to present both types to each both side of what should be a more serious discussion of a reasonable set of operating rules for compensation for use of private assets that make up the global network.
Apparently, some network operators, looking for a catchy term for their position on the issue of net neutrality have hijacked the term ‘fair use’ from the copyright dialog. As we have written before, the issues are related, so I am somewhat concerned that using ‘fair use’ to refer to the antithesis of net neutrality will do nothing more than add more confusion to an already difficult discussion. Dart to the service providers. Get better marketing and be sure to distance yourselves from this piece in Xchange!
