Friday, March 31, 2006
Inukshuk
At long last, Inukshuk's national wireless service took flight today with offerings by both of its owners, Bell and Rogers. Mark Evans writes about the two offerings and laments the lack of a real national broadband alternative. He rightfully acknowledges the interesting exception in Western Canada where Inukshuk's infrastructure allows Bell and Rogers to become two new alternatives to Shaw and TELUS.It all just doesn't seem to hold up to the dream that was announced by Inukshuk's founding shareholders Allstream, Microcell and NR Communications back in November 2003. At that time, John McLennan said:
This venture is very exciting and is part of Allstream's strategy to utilize disruptive technologies, as we continually look for new ways to serve our customers better and expand our addressable markets
Is there a market for pure roaming internet? We'll see how Sympatico Unplugged and Rogers Portable Internet play out. I'd still like to see any of the fixed line broadband players come out with Inukshuk-based churn-innoculation against the community broadband initiatives with an 'away from home' roaming service: Get the wireless service as an adjunct to your residential fixed service for when you are on-the-road.
Trouble for Canadian Wireless Maker
Just as RIM has emerged from its patent troubles south of the border, another Canadian manufacturer has been slapped with accusations that they have copied an American manufacturer's designs.
In what looks more like an early April Fool's story, Victoria's Secret has accused Montreal-based La Senza of infringing on its wireless bra.
La Senza appears to be saying the suit is without foundation. CEO Irving Teitelbaum expects this issue is getting media coverage because "it is a lot more exciting than softwood lumber."
And more fun than deferral accounts, too. It is somewhat uplifting for us to see that wireless technology is being used in other industries - it adds a new dimension to the level of wireless support Quebec has been providing.
Your comments are welcome.
In what looks more like an early April Fool's story, Victoria's Secret has accused Montreal-based La Senza of infringing on its wireless bra.
La Senza appears to be saying the suit is without foundation. CEO Irving Teitelbaum expects this issue is getting media coverage because "it is a lot more exciting than softwood lumber."
And more fun than deferral accounts, too. It is somewhat uplifting for us to see that wireless technology is being used in other industries - it adds a new dimension to the level of wireless support Quebec has been providing.
Your comments are welcome.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Deferral Account Appeal
I just received a copy of the 5 inch stack of paper that makes up Bell's Federal Court Application to appeal the CRTC's Deferral Account Decision. We wrote about this earlier in the week and I haven't seen it picked up by the rest of the telecom news business.
There is $650 million at stake here, folks. The appeal seems to be arguing two points: that the spending on rural broadband is actually just an option for ILECs (a $480M option); and, that the CRTC over-stepped its jurisdiction in ordering the ILECs to rebate any of the money that they don't spend on the broadband program.
Is this a case that the CRTC used poorly chosen language that allows ILECs to make the rural upgrade plan optional? The March 10 follow-up letter to ILECs has some strange language in it as well:
The CRTC didn't say 'equivalent'. They said 'comparable'. Does that mean that, as long as the ILEC provides a table indicating how the proposed services compares, it is permissible to have a slower, higher-priced offering?
In the meantime, the clock is ticking - proposals are supposed to be submitted by June 30. With a half billion dollars in Bell territory alone at stake, this appeal strikes me as something that merits wider coverage and analysis.
There is $650 million at stake here, folks. The appeal seems to be arguing two points: that the spending on rural broadband is actually just an option for ILECs (a $480M option); and, that the CRTC over-stepped its jurisdiction in ordering the ILECs to rebate any of the money that they don't spend on the broadband program.
Is this a case that the CRTC used poorly chosen language that allows ILECs to make the rural upgrade plan optional? The March 10 follow-up letter to ILECs has some strange language in it as well:
The proposed broadband services should be comparable to those provided in urban areas, i.e., comparable monthly rates, terms and conditions, upload and download speeds, and reliability.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking - proposals are supposed to be submitted by June 30. With a half billion dollars in Bell territory alone at stake, this appeal strikes me as something that merits wider coverage and analysis.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Local Forbearance
The CRTC has now confirmed that its long awaited Local Forbearance decision will be issued on April 6 at 4pm. There will be a lock-up from 2-4 for those people who just can't wait to get the word out onto the news wires.
What does it all mean? There are a number of questions being addressed in this proceeding. Most importantly, it is the first CRTC Decision to be released since the release of the report from the Telecom Policy Review panel. It will be interesting to see if any aspects of the reports recommendations find their way into next week's Decision. Watch for rulings on 'Winbacks' and use of Competition Law terminology.
Watch this space next Thursday, April 6, for late breaking news and analysis. Film at 11.
Update:
You know, I find it interesting that Aliant filed its original application on April 7, 2004. You could call it more of a plea for mercy, asking for relief from the pain being inflicted by Eastlink. Is there something in the CRTC's choice of a date, 2 years less a day, for the release of the Decision?
What does it all mean? There are a number of questions being addressed in this proceeding. Most importantly, it is the first CRTC Decision to be released since the release of the report from the Telecom Policy Review panel. It will be interesting to see if any aspects of the reports recommendations find their way into next week's Decision. Watch for rulings on 'Winbacks' and use of Competition Law terminology.
Watch this space next Thursday, April 6, for late breaking news and analysis. Film at 11.
Update:
You know, I find it interesting that Aliant filed its original application on April 7, 2004. You could call it more of a plea for mercy, asking for relief from the pain being inflicted by Eastlink. Is there something in the CRTC's choice of a date, 2 years less a day, for the release of the Decision?
Bamm!
Sometimes, I feel like Emeril cranking it up another notch.We have just received word that ADM Michael Binder will be stepping to the sidelines at The Canadian Telecom Summit to make room for his boss, Deputy Minister of Industry Canada Suzanne Hurtubise, to moderate the panel looking at the future of telecommunications and next generation networks.
Bamm!
Taming the wild west
Tom Evslin adds another voice to those who are on a lonely quest to try to partially tame the anarchy of the internet. In his entry, he notes that: For a couple years now, I have been campaigning on a similar platform, especially concerned about Evslin's item 5.
We'll be looking at this issue in a special session at The Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Speakers include D/Sgt Paul Gillespie, one of the world's leading experts in law enforcement tactics to combat child exploitation. You can also check out an earlier posting about this subject.
If the Internet is a law-free zone:
- Governments can do whatever they want there including spying and blocking. It’s naïve and illogical to think that governments are governed by law in a free fire zone when no one else is.
- Monopolies can do whatever they want including blocking competing services.
- Malicious people are free to attack not only other sites but the structure of the Internet itself including its routers and domain name servers.
- Threats, libel, and fraud gain immunity from investigation and prosecution by being carried out on the Internet.
- The Internet becomes a river in which any conspirator can wade to avoid the bloodhounds of law enforcement.
- There are no laws PROTECTING privacy in a law-free zone.
- SPAM is as legitimate as any other activity.
We'll be looking at this issue in a special session at The Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Speakers include D/Sgt Paul Gillespie, one of the world's leading experts in law enforcement tactics to combat child exploitation. You can also check out an earlier posting about this subject.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
It's the money
There is a story in today's Star that continues the discussion of Net Neutrality. Today's entry cites Tim Berners-Lee, who is called "chief architect of the World Wide Web" and he is said to be 'very concerned' about talk from phone and cable companies about their desire to collect tolls from content suppliers.
A couple points come to mind. First off, Berners-Lee may have been the inventor of the Web, but to suggest that there is a 'chief architect' implies that there has been an orderly design to the Web and its evolution. I think that the power of the Web has been enhanced by its chaotic evolution. Innovation has been added without the need to work through an office of the Chief Architect.
Which brings me to the concern of charging tolls. My brother once told me that in his first litigation class in law school, the professor said that whenever people come into the office and say "it isn't the money, its the principle of the thing" that a good lawyer will recognize that it really is about the money.
I just can't get past the feeling that so many of the free access advocates are just plain cheap. They want someone else (like the government) to pay for their stuff. Whether it is stolen intellectual property like music or movies or software, or government funded fibre.
I wonder if these same people know that supermarkets collect fees for shelf space and companies pay money to have their products placed in movies and TV shows.
A couple points come to mind. First off, Berners-Lee may have been the inventor of the Web, but to suggest that there is a 'chief architect' implies that there has been an orderly design to the Web and its evolution. I think that the power of the Web has been enhanced by its chaotic evolution. Innovation has been added without the need to work through an office of the Chief Architect.
Which brings me to the concern of charging tolls. My brother once told me that in his first litigation class in law school, the professor said that whenever people come into the office and say "it isn't the money, its the principle of the thing" that a good lawyer will recognize that it really is about the money.
I just can't get past the feeling that so many of the free access advocates are just plain cheap. They want someone else (like the government) to pay for their stuff. Whether it is stolen intellectual property like music or movies or software, or government funded fibre.
I wonder if these same people know that supermarkets collect fees for shelf space and companies pay money to have their products placed in movies and TV shows.
Monday, March 27, 2006
VoIP revenue is Broadband revenue
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?
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?
More TPR on Network Neutrality
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.
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:
- first, concerns arising as a result of anti-competitive conduct
- second, concerns arising as a result of business decisions taken in the context of normal commercial business practices
- third, concerns arising from decisions taken for non-commercial reasons.
... could include legitimate legal prohibitions, for example, national security, child pornography or other criminal concerns. Restrictions on access might also arise because of copyright. In such cases, the Panel believes that blocking access would be legitimate because the access provider would merely be implementing the law.
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'"
Given the complexity of this area, the rapid evolution of technologies and the market dynamics, the Panel believes the regulator here should have more discretion than in other areas of regulation. However, the Panel also believes this discretion should be exercised with a view to encouraging reliance on market forces and customer choice as much as possible. For example, there may be situations in which a customer wants an ISP to block access to particular applications or content. In addition, some customers may be willing to accept a reduced degree of access in exchange for a lower price. Such consumer choices should be respected.
In the Panel's view, the purpose of a customer access rule should be consumer protection, and there should be a strong emphasis on ensuring that customers have the information required to make informed choices. In this way, the rule would promote the efficient operation of market forces.
Bell Appeals Deferral Account Decision
Last week, Bell has filed an appeal of the CRTC's Deferal 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.
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.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Consumer Privacy Lawsuit
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.
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.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
mesh conference
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.
System Access Fees
I just got off the phone with a telemarketer for a local phone carrier that will remain un-named to protect the guilty.
I refused to tell them who my current local phone carrier is (would you want them collecting that kind of detail about you?). The pitch was savings over my current rate. As the representative tallied up the options, it was $XX for basic service and yy cents for 911 and yada-yada-yada and then my ears perked up as she mumbled something about $4.95 for a 'system access fee'.
I don't need one of those, thank you. She said the fee is mandatory and that all the carriers charge a system access fee - it covers costs like the network. Gee, I thought that the monthly rate was for the network and all that jazz.
This 'System Access Fee' concept started with the cellular industry as a thought that a discrete charge could be attributed to recover the costs of spectrum licenses. Quickly, the fees became a source of substantial extra profit as the number of subscribers rose and the monthly rates climbed well above the amounts needed to pay for spectrum.
As long as people think that this must be some kind of government license fee, carriers would hold their rates fixed, but continue to have the System Access Fee rise outside the contract. Industry Canada tried to intervene in the latest set of license conditions to have carriers clarify that this was not a tax. Many consumers still blame the government and continue to be misled by some confused sales representatives.
Despite the best efforts of some of the incumbents and long distance phone companies to convince you otherwise, Network Access Fees are not charged by 'all carriers' and they are not mandatory.
These fees sound like airline and courier fuel surcharges.
Hint to the local phone competitors: if you are going to charge a separate Network Access Fee, then show me a service that can provide a correlated benefit. Like, how about using the money to provide access to alternate long distance networks?
I refused to tell them who my current local phone carrier is (would you want them collecting that kind of detail about you?). The pitch was savings over my current rate. As the representative tallied up the options, it was $XX for basic service and yy cents for 911 and yada-yada-yada and then my ears perked up as she mumbled something about $4.95 for a 'system access fee'.
I don't need one of those, thank you. She said the fee is mandatory and that all the carriers charge a system access fee - it covers costs like the network. Gee, I thought that the monthly rate was for the network and all that jazz.
This 'System Access Fee' concept started with the cellular industry as a thought that a discrete charge could be attributed to recover the costs of spectrum licenses. Quickly, the fees became a source of substantial extra profit as the number of subscribers rose and the monthly rates climbed well above the amounts needed to pay for spectrum.
As long as people think that this must be some kind of government license fee, carriers would hold their rates fixed, but continue to have the System Access Fee rise outside the contract. Industry Canada tried to intervene in the latest set of license conditions to have carriers clarify that this was not a tax. Many consumers still blame the government and continue to be misled by some confused sales representatives.
Despite the best efforts of some of the incumbents and long distance phone companies to convince you otherwise, Network Access Fees are not charged by 'all carriers' and they are not mandatory.
These fees sound like airline and courier fuel surcharges.
Hint to the local phone competitors: if you are going to charge a separate Network Access Fee, then show me a service that can provide a correlated benefit. Like, how about using the money to provide access to alternate long distance networks?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Wanted: University Thinkers
Every time I read parts of the report from the Telecom Policy Review panel, I pick up on something else. It continues to validate my view that this is a well thought piece of work with considerable depth.
I noticed a comment in Section 9 this afternoon:
The report's recommendation 9-2 attempts to address this:
With the recent cynicism about areas of research such as the mating habits of flying squirrels expressed by Ontario's Tory leader, I hope a Conservative Minister of Industry takes this issue seriously. It seems to me to be one of the easier recommendations to implement and one that will be able to have both immediate and long term benefits, on our under-funded campuses and for our institutions of government.
I noticed a comment in Section 9 this afternoon:
Canadian universities that had been active in the area of telecommunications regulation, notably McGill, Toronto and Simon Fraser, have seen departures of their leaders to other areas of study, retirement or to other countries.
Industry Canada should make a multi-year commitment to fund ongoing policy research to support improved policy making and regulation in the telecommunications and information and communications technology sectors. Research grants should be awarded by a qualified, independent panel, and the research results should be made publicly available in a timely manner.
Always time for Tim Hortons
With the investor euphoria surrounding the IPO of Tim Hortons, I couldn't help but write some thoughts about such a great Canadian institution. After all, what other firm holds such a tender place in our collective nationalistic hearts that the Royal Canadian Mint would launch its Remembrance Day commemorative quarter exclusively through Tim Hortons.But Professor Goldberg, this blog is about Telecom Trends. How is Tim Hortons relevant?
Good question - and yes, this will be on the final exam. Tim Hortons is an example of how a Canadian icon can be acquired by a multi-national firm and yet retain its special character and keep its roots. This view, of encouraging foreign investment in Canadian telecommunications, is shared by the Telecom Policy Review panel in its report.
Tim Hortons impresses me with its success in a fiercely competitive market, a market that has seen entry from major global competitors, transforming its product line and implementing technology change. Sounds like the telecom business.
There are lessons to be learned from Tim's place. Why did Tim Hortons succeed while Krispy Kreme battles accounting issues and Atkins diets? Beating Country Style and commanding their turf while letting Starbucks and others go after a different segment.
They have created new products, liked Steeped Tea last year, hot smoothies, yogurt and berries and other 'healthy' choices while continuing to dominate the market for coffee and donuts. On my drive home from the cottage, a drive-through clerk at one of their competitors asked if my dog would like a Timbit. Their brands have become generic terms among Canadians.
Succeeding in a commodity business - I think more of us in the telecom industry should take a look at how at least one company has done this. I've always got time for Tim Hortons.
Lucent - Alcatel
The consolidation dance party is on again. Lucent and Alcatel are in talks again, according to AP. Partly driven by the consolidation among customers, the AP story says that the combination would benefit from Lucent's strength in the wireless business and Alcatel's strength in DSL. Lucent isn't too bad in that area itself!I think consolidation talks are also a statement about the rise of new suppliers from Asia. Reports out of the CeBit show in Hanover are talking about the presence of equipment suppliers from China and Korea and software houses in India. This is a global business and companies may feel a need to combine in order to gain appropriate global perspectives and efficiencies derived from even greater scale.
What does consolidation mean for Canadian R&D? Alcatel's acquisition of Newbridge kept high quality research jobs in Ottawa. Ericsson continues to operate a major R&D presence in Montreal. Both of these companies would seem to demonstrate that Canada provides a favourable environment for such positions to remain. Lucent has a variety of R&D functions in Canada as does Siemens.
Canada's concern, from an industrial policy perspective, should be to ensure that any of these combinations see opportunities for R&D growth in Canada. That means looking beyond the companies heaquartered here, like Nortel or RIM and continuing to foster conditions to encourage high quality employment, entrepreneurship and competitiveness.
Lucent and Alcatel have dated before but never made it to exchange vows - so don't start figuring out whether the new name is Alcacent or Lucatel. In what talks are Mike Z. involved to ensure Nortel isn't left alone plopping Alka Seltzer?
Thursday, March 23, 2006
He can't wait!
Industry Minister Bernier can't wait 'til June 14 at the Canadian Telecom Summit to respond to yesterday's report from the Telecom Policy Review panel.
So he is going to speak on June 13th instead!
The conference website, www.telecomsummit.com is always the most current view of the schedule.
So he is going to speak on June 13th instead!
The conference website, www.telecomsummit.com is always the most current view of the schedule.
Wireless under fire
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Consumer Friendly Competition
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.
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.
Therefore, we concluded that it's time to reverse the current presumption in the Telecommunications Act that all services should be regulated unless the CRTC issues a forbearance order. This should be replaced with a presumption that telecommunications services will not be regulated except in specified circumstances, where regulation is clearly necessary to protect consumers or to maintain competitive markets. [opening remarks of Hank Intven]
Consumer friendly competition. This report is a good read. Will it all be implemented? Who knows. Should it all be carefully considered? Absolutely.
Hopelessly Complicated?
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.
In the near term, we see no practical effect on our business. Longer term, the recommendations appear hopelessly complicated and impractical. They appear based on the rather implausible notion that greater bureaucracy will result in greater efficiency for Canadian consumers and businesses.
"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:
...to make recommendations on how to move Canada toward a modern telecommunications framework in a manner that benefits Canadian industry and consumers.
The government’s objective is to ensure that Canada has a strong, internationally competitive telecommunications industry, which delivers world-class affordable services and products for the economic and social benefit of all Canadians in all regions of Canada.
The panel is asked to make recommendations that will help achieve this objective.
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:
One significant proposal will phase out the regulation of the wholesale prices and conditions on which the major telecom companies make their networks available to competitors. Our goal here is to provide incentives for telecom companies to invest in new advanced infrastructure - and not just to buy it from the major companies at low regulated rates.
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.
FTTM
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.
TPR statements on Network Neutrality
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?
The Panel believes in most cases network operators and ISPs will have little or no incentive to interfere with customer access. However, open access is of such overriding importance that its protection justifies giving the regulator the power to review cases involving blocking access to applications and content and significant, deliberate degradation of service.
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?
Will Conservatives endorse more bureaucracy?
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.
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.
TPR Report Today
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 determiniations. 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.
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 determiniations. 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.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Net Neutrality or Open Access?
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.
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.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Videotron's infinite power
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?
MTS Nexxia
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.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Is Net Neutrality like Universal Healthcare?
I had an interesting discussion this afternoon with some family members about the challenges of living within our celebrated Canadian health care system.
It seems that conversations about privatizing portions of the system always seem to polarize people. The main concerns are creation of two tiers of health care and taking resources away from the vulnerable. The assumption is always that the public side will lose the best providers.
Which seems to me to be an acknowledgement that we are not properly compensating the health care providers. But this isn't a blog about health care; how, Professor does this connect to Telecom Trends?
I'm glad you asked. It seems to me that discussions about Network Neutrality have some elements in common with the debates about universal health care. People who are concerned about the emergence of a multi-tier Internet are ignoring the fact that business already has created just that. Not satisfied with the vagaries of public internet quality of service, enterprise IP networks are often built on private or managed networks. Much like the wealthy and our politicians seem to be able to jump the queue for MRIs and elective surgery.
Complaints about evil, profit minded 'broadband monopolists' (as Russell Shaw calls them) sound like the way the Toronto Star writes about those evil American firms offering MRIs and CT scans to Canadians. How dare they want to offer a service that people are willing to pay for at a price that makes sense for the investors! Quick, we need legislation to protect these feeble minded citizens who don't know how to make decisions for themselves.
At the same time, I agree that there is much to be said for the creativity and breadth of applications that have been generated using the current model of open internet - just as there is much to be said for the Canadian principle that says you don't lose your life savings just because you got sick.
Is it not possible to have both public and private models co-exist? When mediocrity [and I say that in the nicest possible way!] is good enough, the current model works just fine. But if an application, or an application provider, needs something more, what is wrong with them paying to get it?
It would help if someone can explain the wide-open view without resorting to Communist style language that I thought died out when the Berlin Wall fell. Let's have an open discussion of the issues without resorting to calling telcos and cablecos 'broadband monopolists'. If Bay Street or Wall Street really believed that there is a monopoly for broadband access, BCE wouldn't still be hovering below $30.
It seems that conversations about privatizing portions of the system always seem to polarize people. The main concerns are creation of two tiers of health care and taking resources away from the vulnerable. The assumption is always that the public side will lose the best providers.
Which seems to me to be an acknowledgement that we are not properly compensating the health care providers. But this isn't a blog about health care; how, Professor does this connect to Telecom Trends?
I'm glad you asked. It seems to me that discussions about Network Neutrality have some elements in common with the debates about universal health care. People who are concerned about the emergence of a multi-tier Internet are ignoring the fact that business already has created just that. Not satisfied with the vagaries of public internet quality of service, enterprise IP networks are often built on private or managed networks. Much like the wealthy and our politicians seem to be able to jump the queue for MRIs and elective surgery.
Complaints about evil, profit minded 'broadband monopolists' (as Russell Shaw calls them) sound like the way the Toronto Star writes about those evil American firms offering MRIs and CT scans to Canadians. How dare they want to offer a service that people are willing to pay for at a price that makes sense for the investors! Quick, we need legislation to protect these feeble minded citizens who don't know how to make decisions for themselves.
At the same time, I agree that there is much to be said for the creativity and breadth of applications that have been generated using the current model of open internet - just as there is much to be said for the Canadian principle that says you don't lose your life savings just because you got sick.
Is it not possible to have both public and private models co-exist? When mediocrity [and I say that in the nicest possible way!] is good enough, the current model works just fine. But if an application, or an application provider, needs something more, what is wrong with them paying to get it?
It would help if someone can explain the wide-open view without resorting to Communist style language that I thought died out when the Berlin Wall fell. Let's have an open discussion of the issues without resorting to calling telcos and cablecos 'broadband monopolists'. If Bay Street or Wall Street really believed that there is a monopoly for broadband access, BCE wouldn't still be hovering below $30.
iPod U
I never cease to be amazed at how creative the university campus environment can be. Taking technologies and finding serendipidous uses.A story on the AP wires speaks about the way a number of faculty at Georgia College & State University are using podcasting as a way to distribute course material. A history class has made better use of lecture time by having films downloaded to the small screen that otherwise would need to be seen in class.
A psychology professor has found an iPod supplement to office hours and tutorials: he podcasts the week's most asked questions. Other ideas could turn iPods into portable yearbooks and replace campus brochures with podcasts.
At Duke University, incoming freshmen handed iPod devices as welcoming gifts; foreign language students use iPods to immerse themselves in coursework.
There are trends here worth considering, beyond the move to upgrade the quality of correspondence courses. As websites start generating podcasts, storage requirements will increase, there will be room for a content mediation business to emerge - kind of an eBay for podcasts.
Telecom and technology executives and product development folks need to go back to university - just to spend time watching what is happening on campus.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Net Neutrality in Canada
I'm not sure that it is fair to say, as Mark Evans does today, that Canada and the CRTC lags the rest of the world in addressing Net Neutrality issues. A number of such issues came up in the original VoIP proceeding in 2004 and 2005 and the CRTC addressed them. You may not like how the CRTC resolved the issues, but it isn't fair to say that the issues are being ignored.
For example, as early as 1997, the CRTC made statements about technological neutrality for network interconnection. This principle was upheld in 2005 in requiring IP interconnection and ongoing monitoring to ensure carriers are playing nicely. One of those monitoring reports came out earlier this week.
During the VoIP proceeding, the CRTC specifically addressed a few issues that are part of the Net Neutrality debate. They ruled that tariff restrictions for both cable companies and telcos that limited voice services being offered by competitors over cable and DSL broadband pipes had to be removed.
In assessing the issue of discriminatory access, the CRTC reviewed submissions and determined that it already had sufficient tools to guard against abuses of neutrality. For example, Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act already forbids unjust discrimination.
Just because the CRTC chose not to come out with a new rule called 'Internet Neutrality' doesn't mean that elements of the principle aren't already enshrined in our laws and rules.
It is on the basis of these existing rules that Vonage filed its complaint against Shaw. We have due process in this country - both sides get to air their positions.
In dealing with the new frontier, we don't necessarily need to throw out all the old rules and start writing new ones. We have been looking for consistency and predictability from our regulator.
Its position on net neutrality is pretty good for an agency that was one of the first in the world to address VoIP.
For example, as early as 1997, the CRTC made statements about technological neutrality for network interconnection. This principle was upheld in 2005 in requiring IP interconnection and ongoing monitoring to ensure carriers are playing nicely. One of those monitoring reports came out earlier this week.
During the VoIP proceeding, the CRTC specifically addressed a few issues that are part of the Net Neutrality debate. They ruled that tariff restrictions for both cable companies and telcos that limited voice services being offered by competitors over cable and DSL broadband pipes had to be removed.
In assessing the issue of discriminatory access, the CRTC reviewed submissions and determined that it already had sufficient tools to guard against abuses of neutrality. For example, Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act already forbids unjust discrimination.
Just because the CRTC chose not to come out with a new rule called 'Internet Neutrality' doesn't mean that elements of the principle aren't already enshrined in our laws and rules.
It is on the basis of these existing rules that Vonage filed its complaint against Shaw. We have due process in this country - both sides get to air their positions.
In dealing with the new frontier, we don't necessarily need to throw out all the old rules and start writing new ones. We have been looking for consistency and predictability from our regulator.
Its position on net neutrality is pretty good for an agency that was one of the first in the world to address VoIP.
Friday, March 17, 2006
How much competition is enough?
The rumour is that Qwest might be the next major acquisition in the US consolidation sweepstakes. It is ironic that the first Baby Bell (US WEST) to get hooked up with a long haul provider (Qwest) is the last one standing in search of a suiter.The word on the street is that Verizon, the company that beat out Qwest in bidding for MCI, may be looking at bulking up across the northwest to better prepare to go to battle against the new AT&T.
At what point will US cable companies tie up with Sprint to offer a competitive triple/quad play? Cable needs the wireless and Sprint needs local access. Sounds like a match to me.
How Blackberry will Survive
My brother mentioned to me that his office installed a Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES) recently and he says that it is saving him 20-30 minutes per day. Now that his corporate mail is completely tied into his Blackberry, he only reads a message once - either at his desk or on his mobile, but not both. He files messages once, deletes them once.The time saving is the big benefit to the user; but the BES represents major handcuffs on users looking at alternative solutions for mobile email. That is a bonus for RIM.
At the end of the day, mobile devices are consumer electronics - subject to fashion and style trends (the "cool" factor) as much as they rely on having raw capabilities. Technology advantages can be transient - creative manufacturers will add features to match or beat their competition. Cool is harder to copy and cool makes it harder to stay on top: look at the current wave that Motorola is riding and ask Nokia about suddenly losing consumer momentum.
It seems to me that BES is an answer to how RIM can insulate themselves, in part, from some of the fickleness of the marketplace. Analysts should look at the percentage of subscribers that use carrier Blackberry Web Clients versus subscribers with Blackberry Exchange Servers. It is a metric that will help understand how secure is the Blackberry client base.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
And the Minister makes 21...
Latest news for The 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit is that Industry Minister Maxime Bernier has been confirmed as a Feature Keynote. He is scheduled to speak on June 14, the closing day of the 3-day schmooze fest. The Minister joins 20 other top leaders who will appear as keynote speakers. More than 50 other key personalities will appear on panels.Early Bird rates expire April 1 - Book early!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Acting on internet content
Yesterday, TELUS announced that it was "taking a byte out of spam" with new technology being added to improve their email services.TELUS is pleased to introduce this leading edge security technology, a second layer of spam and virus control that will screen out the most obvious problem e-mails before they make their way to customer in-boxes...
The next stage is to implement network-based blocking of truly illegal content. Strange that ISPs have no trouble blocking the merely annoying, but when it comes to truly illegal content, like child exploitation and hate, they claim that there is nothing they can do.
It doesn't seem to make sense that the ISP community is telling users that they should have PC-based blocking tools for illegal content, but ISPs boast about their network based anti-spam tools.
Leaving blocking to users is like airlines fixing their on-board food selection, but telling passengers to bring their own parachutes if they are concerned about safety.
This ties in somewhat with the legal case being fought in the US between Google and the Justice Department over access to certain search records.That case started with the government wanting to study the effectiveness of filtering tools to screen sexually explicit content from children.
Filtering explicit (legal) images is one thing - blocking illegal content is another matter. I am interested in solutions targeting the digital loophole currently enjoyed by smugglers of illegal content.
Going Handsfree
A variety of Private Member's bills have been proposed across Canada seeking to ban the use of handheld cel phones while driving. Never mind that no one is also seeking specific legislation to ban cigarette smoking or coffee drinking or car pool fighting or other similar distractions. I'm not convinced the police need another law on the books - Dangerous Driving for any reason should be enough.
But in Australia, a judge took their handsfree-only laws seriously when he found a man guilty of violating Rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules:
I am all in favour of people using handsfree on their cel phones. I love Bluetooth equipped cars where the system is built
But in Australia, a judge took their handsfree-only laws seriously when he found a man guilty of violating Rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules:
The driver of a vehicle must not use a hand held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parkedThe man was holding his earpiece in place to keep it from falling out.
I am all in favour of people using handsfree on their cel phones. I love Bluetooth equipped cars where the system is built