Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
To nobody's surprise, Bell Canada and Telus are appealing the CRTC's controversial VOIP decision that regulates ILECs while letting rivals such as cablecos and piggybackers such as Vonage and Primus the freedom to set their own prices. At a press conference this afternoon, I'm sure Telus and Bell will complain about the unfairness of it all, and how their inability to compete fairly in a brand new market will stifle competition. Not that there's anything wrong with this approach but what I want to know is what Bell and Telus plan to do with VOIP while Canada's cabinet considers their appeal - a process that could take a year to complete. Bell is only offering its Digital Voice service in a few Quebec cities while Telus has yet to get into the game. Bell, in particular, can't avoid to remain passive because Videotron is starting to make major inroads in Montreal with 42,000 subscribers since February. Meanwhile, Vonage has stepped up its marketing efforts in a huge way with an extensive television campaign, while Rogers has moved into the market - albeit cautiously to control demand.
Update: Not surprisingly, executives from Aliant, SaskTel, Bell and Telus have demanded the federal cabinet change the VOIP rules - citing a list that include: restrained abilty to compete, hindrance to innovation, the active VOIP marketplace and the need for a regulatory playing field that provides fairness. They also warn about artificially high prices for consumers, while giving Shaw, Vonage and Rogers, et al a “powerful advantage” in the marketplace.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
The best question on the conference call was from the journalist who asked, well, on one hand you say you don't want to price anticompetitively, and on the other hand you're circling the wagons around a decision that prevents you from pricing anticompetitively — what gives?
Not that there's anything wrong with this appraoch but what I want to know is what Bell and Telus plan to do with VOIP while Canada's cabinet considers their appeal - a process that could take a year to complete. Um, compete? They can go as low as about $8. I'd say they're doing just fine.
Incidentally, it's interesting that Bell's Digital Voice service, which claims to be an Internet Voice service that will work over any high-speed Internet access, is only available in three Quebec cities.
Huh? If I subscribe to it from Toronto, why wouldn't it work just as well? In other words, what isn't Bell telling us about its proposed service — and why hasn't any journalist pointed this apparent incongruity out?
July 29th, 2005 at 8:49 am
CRTCs stnace on comptetion was to give room for entities to enter the canadian market on a facilities basis. This meant tremendous capital investment from companies that had little revenue/cash flow. Rulke were meant to level the palying field - give the competition some advantage given their capital constaints, brand issues etc…, today's market is different. A comparison between Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and Unitel, fONOROLA, Sprint Canada, and London Telecom makes no sense. In essence this is what the CRTC is doing. Same ground rules for a marketplace that does not resemble the market from the 90s.