| Subscribe via RSS

Canadians Are Wired

July 16th, 2008 | 4 Comments | Posted in Telecom Regulation

According to eMarketer, more than 22 million Canadians, or two-thirds of the population, will have regular access to the Internet this year. By 2012, that number will rise to 25 million.

While the number is impressive, it will be far more interesting to see how Canadians use of the Web will be impacted if the proposed - and evil - new copyright legislation is enacted, and how (if?) the federal government does anything to address Net Neutrality.

With enthusiastic adoption of high-speed access, Canadians have been enthusiastic users of the Web but you will excitement and usage decline if there are restrictions on what you can do with it. Another issue is how the copyright bill and Net Neutrality could impact innovation.

Those are much more interesting and bigger issues than the Internet population.

Picture 3-26

Technorati Tags: ,

Related Posts

Canada Needs an Arrington!

April 7th, 2008 | 5 Comments | Posted in ILEC News, Analysis, Telecom Regulation

It has been interesting to watch Michael Arrington (aka the “Wizard of Web 2.0″) launch a tsunami of outrage against Comcast in California after his high-speed connection was cut off on Friday night, and Comcast failed to provide him with a sufficient response. As Jeff Jarvis notes, Arrington is one guy you “don’t want to piss off”.

What I found particularly interesting about Arrington’s high-speed temper tantrum is how much Canada needs a Michael Arrington - someone to lead the charge against high-speed ISPs that operate sweet profit machines in a market where consumers increasingly get the short end of the stick.

If you’re a high-speed customer in Canada, your troubles include:

- Steadily higher prices, although the ISPs contend you also get faster download speeds (in theory, I would argue).

- Bandwidth shaping/throttling - something the ISPs argue they need to do to “manage the network” to battle all those evil P2P. This includes Bell Canada throttling its wholesale customers that re-sell Bell’s high-speed service.

- Bandwidth caps (They’ve been around for several years, although didn’t get much publicity until recently.

- An unfortunate lack of competition. In most markets, there are only two players but price is never used as a competitive tool. It didn’t help that the Canadian government let Rogers and Bell acquire Inukshuk, our only national Wi-Max player.

- A federal government with no willingness to explore network neutrality, even though it’s becoming an issue that could impact our ability to compete and innovate

Canada needs something who’s willing to lead the charge, wave the flag and make it clear that I the consumer is “mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore! Maybe, it’s Michael Geist or perhaps the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which recently filed a complaint with the CRTC asking it to direct Bell Canada to cease and desist from throttling its wholesale Internet service.

We need an Arrington to galvanize our high-speed discontent into a loud and vocal rebellion. The time has come.

For more on the throttling issue, check out Wayne MacPhail’s story on Rabble.ca.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Related Posts

AT&T’s Big Brother Plans

January 17th, 2008 | 1 Comment | Posted in ILEC News, Analysis, Telecom Regulation

Orwell
This sounds crazy but an AT&T executive James Ciccioni has raised the idea of monitoring every single packet traveling over its Internet network to see if intellectual property violations are happening.

Slate’s Tim Wu picked on this bizarre notion - something he described as Orwellian. Since when did AT&T start to position itself as an IP policeman? Has it started to cave into pressure from the music and movie industrial for tighter regulation on how people use the Internet?

Along with Time-Warner’s plans to charge for broadband service by how much traffic you generate, it’s difficult not to sense that the broadband market in the U.S. is changing as ISPs look at new ways to impact how their customers use a service that has evolved into a utility.

Maybe AT&T thinking is not unlike how electrical utilities monitor usage, and how they can sometimes work with the police if they determine that a household is, for example, using an extraordinary amount of power (An indication of a grow-house being operated).

Is it time for broadband to be regulated? - as much as it pains me to suggest the idea. If ISPs are monitoring how customers use broadband, maybe there’s a need for someone to be monitoring the monitors.

More: Boing Boing’s Joel Johnson calls AT&T idea “retarded”, while CNet has an extensive analysis story.

Technorati Tags: ,

Related Posts

The Web is the New Postal Service?

September 7th, 2007 | 1 Comment | Posted in Telecom Regulation

According the U.S. Department of Justice, the delivery of Internet service should be no different than how the postal service delivers mail.

This means ISPs should have the ability to charge different fees to provide consumers with different kinds of service. If you want your traffic considered high priority you would pay a higher fee than traffic considered to be second or third-class - just like the post office has different rates for first-class, overnight and bulk service.

So goes the Justice Department submission to the Federal Communications Commission, which should be happy happy joy joy news for anyone who doesn’t believe in Net Neutrality - the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated the same. In making its decision, the Justice Department contends Net Neutrality could harm the Internet’s evolution by discouraging ISPs from upgrading or expanding their networks.

Is this just another blow to Net Neutrality? Is it a sign that we’re rumbling towards a day when the Internet will stop being a level playing field. It sure look that way - at least from here. It is strange that while the Net Neutrality debate rages on in the U.S., the silence is deafening in Canada. It’s like the CRTC is closing its eyes, and hoping the issue somehow disappears or magically resolves itself.

You can read the U.S. Justice Department press release here. Cynthia Brumfield is puzzled why the DOJ issued a press release, calling it a “little weird, given the nature of the filing”.

Related Posts

Canadian Carriers: No Deals for You

September 3rd, 2007 | No Comments | Posted in Telecom Regulation

Bell-3
The Globe & Mail is reporting it’s been a whole month since Canadian carriers have been able to set their own prices without regulatory approval but, lo and behold, they haven’t dropped their prices at all.

Should anyone be surprised? Come on, we’re talking about an industry battling against the cable hordes for the hearts and wallets of local telephone customers.

Given local service is seen as the cornerstone for multi-service bundles, the last thing you’d want to do is raise prices. That would just piss off your customers and play into the hands of the cablecos, who would happily waste little time pointing out the fact.

Truth be told, the carriers will be hard-pressed to raise prices even though a $1/month increase by Bell Canada, for example, would boost annual sales by $150-million. There’s simply too much choice right now. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the carriers is avoiding the temptation to drop prices to slow down the cableco’s growth in the $10-billion a year local market.

This isn’t exactly the economic landscape Bell’s new owners want to see as they look for ways to increase cash flow and reduce debt but after decades of industry regulation, it is what it is right now.

Related Posts

Competition May Not be Consumer-Friendly

April 6th, 2007 | 2 Comments | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

The Canadian government’s announcement earlier this week to push forward with the deregulation of the $10-billion local phone market is being sold as a good thing for the industry and consumers. Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told the Globe & Mail that: “This reform will bring more competition that will be good for consumers”.

Bernier, a devout believer in free market forces, is obviously counting on the idea that more competition will lead to lower prices and/or better services. The reality, however, is that more competition may be a bad thing for consumers. Why? For one, the incumbent carriers (Telus, Bell, etc.) will no longer have to seek regulatory approval for their prices, which have been kept in check - and arguably artificially low - for decades. With the ability to finally establish prices the way they want, carriers - who are hungry for revenue growth - may, in fact raises prices for local services. And while consumers may be pissed off, the carriers will likely see little competitive pushback from cablecos, who have priced their digital telephone service at a much higher level (Videotron being the major exception) since getting into the market in recent years.

The dirty little secret within the cable and telephone industry in Canada is there’s very little real competition happening. Look at pricing in the wireless, high-speed Internet and television markets. With everyone focused on growing revenue and ARPU, you rarely see aggressive, consumer-friendly marketing campaigns. Don’t be surprised if the local phone market evolves into a similar kind of beast.

Note: For some reason, the Financial Post believes deregulation of the local phone market could lead to price wars. Ha! I’ll believe it when I see it.

Related Posts

Canada’s Murky Local Phone Rules

For anyone interested in telecom competition in Canada, Fort McMurray, Alberta could be a fascinating case study on what the future holds. As the town booms because of all the oil activity, Shaw (Canada’s second-largest cableco) has emerged as a major telephone service provider to the point where Telus applied to the CRTC to deregulate the market. Telus’ request was based on its belief that competitors now have 25% of the market, which meets a key criteria established by the CRTC. The CRTC, however, turned down Telus’ request because the regulator claims Telus hasn’t met “quality of service” standards, which Telus claims are unattainable.

In a nutshell, it’s a messy situation that reflects the continued murkiness of the deregulation of Canada’s $10-billion local telephone market despite decisions made by the CRTC. As much as the CRTC wants, in theory, to deregulate the local market, it is obviously intent on micro-managing the process so competition can flourish. It seems like the CRTC wants to eat its cake and have it too.

This regulatory uncertainty will likely compel the federal government (specifically Industry Minister Maxime Bernier) to directly get involved. Bernier is proposing that carriers can apply for deregulation in residential markets where there are at least three phone providers, and business markets with at least two suppliers. There would also be nine quality of service standards to meet. Bernier’s proposal is a different flavor of deregulation than the CRTC’s current rules. Of course, there are a lot of unknowns such as who qualifies as a service provider and whether these suppliers would have to have a minimum number of customers so it’s unclear if Bernier’s plan will work any better than the CRTC’s.

Note: Check out these stories in the Globe & Mail and National Post, as well as this blog post by Mark Goldberg.

Technorati Tags:

Related Posts

The Silence About WNP in Canada is Deafening

February 27th, 2007 | 11 Comments | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

Wireless number portability (WNP) is coming to Canada in just over two weeks but judging by the lack of media coverage and non-existent advertising by the major carriers (Telus, Bell and Rogers), you’d think it wasn’t a big deal. Truth be told, WNP was hoisted upon the carriers who argued there was no demand for it by consumers. Of course, the carriers hate the idea of WNP because it means they’ll have to treat customers better and - heaven forbid - offer them deals to stick around. In other words, WNP could encourage competition in Canada - and none of the carriers really want to see that monster emerge.

This explains why the carriers have been so quiet about WNP. I mean, why advertise when WNP looks like zero-sum game: you may attract some customers from other carriers but chances are you’ll lose some of your own customers. That said, Rogers looks like it has the most to gain from WNP because as Canada’s only GSM carrier, it has the coolest phones, roaming out of the country is a snap, and you can move to another phone by simply putting your SIM card in. I expect Virgin Canada will also do well with some aggressive marketing.

That said, do not be surprised if the carriers somehow make it difficult for consumers to take their business and telephone numbers to a rival carrier. Perhaps they will charge a “transfer fee” to cost the administrative costs of moving a customer, or maybe the process will take several weeks to happen rather than a few days. Call me a conspiracy theorist but the carriers never wanted WNP and will likely to do their best to downplay its existence.

For other thoughts, check out the David Rotor.

Related Posts

Less Regulation in Canada; Less Competition

February 24th, 2007 | 6 Comments | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

In today’s Globe & Mail, there is a small story with a big message on how the new chairman of Canada’s telecom and broadcasting regulator, Konrad von Finckenstein, wants to see more deregulation within the $30-billion telecom sector. This approach mirrors that of federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, who believes free market forces should play a key role in determining how the competitive landscape unfolds.

The fundamental problem, however, with deregulation in Canada is it comes after decades of micro-management by the CRTC, which has scrambled to achieve a balance of regulation (protect consumers from being gouged and competitiors from being blown to smithereens) and competitive. At the end of the day, however, there is little competition in Canada’s telecom sector. In many markets, you only have one or two choices for local telephone, high-speed Internet access and wireless service. And with service providers and investment analysts focused on average revenue per user (ARPU), prices are creeping up with nary a whimper from consumers who have little choice but to chew and swallow.

So what will deregulation mean in Canada? My guess is a less competitive environment because it will give the stronger players (carriers and cablecos) more flexibility than ever to prevent newcomers from establishing a foothold in the market. Look at Vonage Canada, which is seeing nowhere the kind of success it’s seen in the U.S. With deregulation of the local phone market, Bell Canada, Telus and other incumbent carriers will have more freedom to use price as a marketing tool. If you’re a major player and you can easily attack smaller competitors, don’t be surprised if the small competitors disappear.

Another competitive/regulatory issue is fair access to facilities. Take the high-speed Internet access market, for example. To encourage competition and choice, the CRTC has mandated the carriers and cablecos provide wholesale access to other service providers. While Bell has complied (although not too aggressively), the cabelcos have managed to put off the CRTC for nearly a decade. As a result, there’s little competition in high-speed. And if the CRTC and federal government really wanted competition in high-speed, they would have never approved the purchase of WiMax-based Inukshuk to Bell and Rogers. If you want competition without forcing new players to make major investments in new facilities/networks, you need to ensure fair access to existing networks.

In many ways, deregulation is something that, in theory, makes sense because it means a more competitive environment. In reality, however, deregulation in Canada and a focus on free market forces will see the stronger players get stronger, and the small players disappear or be marginalized. Going forward, keep in mind this adage: Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it”.

Update: For more thoughts on the competitiveness of Canada’s telecom landscape, check out Mark Goldberg and Balraj Dhillon’s Telecom Canada blog. Another telecom issue looming on the horizon is Net Neutrality, which the federal government appears NOT to support. See Michael Geist’s post for more.

Related Posts

Let’s Just Ban the Internet, Period

February 15th, 2007 | 4 Comments | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

Tubes
Why is Sen. Ted Stevens got this thing for the Internet. First, he disses it as a series of tubes (here’s the YouTube video), and now he wants to ban Wikipedia, MySpace and social networking sites from schools and libraries that receive federal Internet subsidies. The initiative, called Bill 49 (or Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act.), was introduced into the Senate in January. It’s a mystery why the 84-year-old Stevens doesn’t understand or like the Internet but he’s certainly persistent given Bill 49 is a reprise of the Deleting Online Predators Act, which failed to gain much support after he introduced it last year. Bill 49’s back in the spotlight in the wake of a comment by Preston Galla, but it first got on peoples’ radar in January. (Peter Cashmore had a good post on it).

Technorati Tags:

Related Posts




  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Technology