| Subscribe via RSS

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

Videotron Surpasses 400K Customers

With more intense competition looming on the horizon from the soon-to-be-deregulated carriers, Videotron has proclaimed it now has more than 400,000 cable telephone customers after two years in the business. Of course, it helps to offer service for as low as $16.95 a month if you’re a triple-play customer but there’s no doubt Videotron has made life miserable for Bell Canada, particularly in Montreal.

The key question now is whether Videotron will be able to maintain this momentum when the local telephone market is deregulated, and Bell will be able to sell its service for whatever price it wants without seeking regulatory approval. Given Bell’s drive to improve revenue, it’s unlikely it will try to regain market share by slashing prices (that would be anathema to COO George Cope’s disciplined pricing approach) but you can expect Bell to do some targeting marketing in places where Videotron has a strong foothold. Should be fun to watch.

Technorati Tags: ,

Related Posts

Higher Cable, Telecom Bills for Canadians

Canadians have been blessed with some of the lowest telecom prices in the world due to a combination of competition and regulation. Since the long-distance market was deregulation in the mid-1990s, prices have continued to tumble. In the high-speed Internet business, prices have been below those paid by U.S. consumers, while local telephone prices have been controlled by federal regulations My prediction is consumer-friendly landscape will crumble in 2007 even there this is “competition” in most markets. Let’s take a look at each business.
- Local telephone: The federal government has finally decided to reduce regulation in the $10-billion market, which means incumbent carriers such as Bell and Telus will have the freedom to raise or lower prices without seeking regulatory permission. There have some suggestions, there could be a price war as carriers battle to win back consumers who have left for bundles from cablecos. Truth be told, the carriers aren’t crying much over many of these consumers, who are seen as fickle, demanding and far from lucrative spenders. So rather than lower prices, look for the carriers to raise local prices to boost revenue - and the cablecos to go with the flow. Bell COO George Cope doesn’t have the word “discount” in his vocabulary and, instead, will depend on better marketing. Meanwhile, the cablecos (other than Videotron) have been happy to sell no-frills telephone service at premium prices to pick off the low-hanging fruit.
- Wireless: It’s all about the ARPU, baby! Sure, Virgin is playing on the edges with an appealing pay-as-you-go package and Bell is trying to make some noise in the low-cost, pre-paid market with Solo but the wireless industry is all about higher prices and pushing more services such as mobile e-mail and video.
Why? In Canada, there really is no wireless competition. There are three large national carriers (Telus, Rogers and Bell) selling wireless service but the market is far from saturated so demand is still healthy, which means price doesn’t have to be used as a major tool yet. This means carriers can continue to focus on selling based on devices, features and services.
- High-speed Internet: Again, a market with little competition: in most market, you either get high-speed cable or DSL from your carrier. Like the wireless market, high-speed providers are looking for higher ARPU to drive revenue. It has seen prices climb, although service providers have tried to hide it by putting the focus on higher speeds so you download free music…er, surf the Web faster. Earlier this year, Rogers raised the cost of its Extreme service by 16% - and the silence from consumers was deafening. The reality is Canadians love their high-speed Internet and have begun to regard it as a utility rather than a competitive service.
- TV: What ever happened to IP-TV and the idea of competition for cablecos? Telus has rolled out IP-TV on a limited basis in Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton, while Bell is still in “trial mode”. Meanwhile, the cablecos are happily raising prices while Bell’s ExpressVu service has adopted the same approach to boost revenue while the number of subscribers remains relatively flat. With high-definition TV on the horizon, look for your average cable or satellite bill to keep climbing.

As a consumer, I’d like to see better and more competition to keep prices low and innovation high. Of course, this approach doesn’t always make for good business so it may be more of a dream than reality. That said, it would be good to see a fourth wireless carrier - one that’s not afraid to be aggressive and disruptive (Virgin on steroids, perhaps?). I’d also like to see SkypeIn be available in Canada if the concerns over 911 service can be resolved. I have little optimism for high-speed Internet even since Bell and Rogers took control of Inukshuk, which provides WiMax-like service. As for TV, Bell and Telus have declared they are not going to compete on price to gain a market foothold so don’t look for any deals from them or promotional specials from cablecos.

Related Posts

Skype’s Premium Plans

I had a chance to talk earlier today with Don Albert, Skype’s North American general manager, about the launch of the $30-a-year new all-you-can eat SkypeOut plan for North America. Albert said the move was driven by the fact North American consumers are more comfortable with a flat rate as opposed to the pay-as-you-go plans that Skype has offered in the past (under a different management team). “We got a lot of feedback from the community and potential customers,” he said. “They told us they would like the option of monthly payments so they could budget their costs each month.” Albert said Skype’s premium service portfolio will continue to be expanded with an array packages and features. “We think there is a lot of opportunity for Skype to grow its telecommunications revenue even as we are incubating revenue streams that are more e-commerce focused that need some time to grow,” he said.
While denying the suggestion, the new SkypeOut plan is disruptive, he said Skype is hoping it will cause long-distance users to take another look at their LD plans and whether they can swap some of the LD activity to Skype. One issue Albert kind of danced around was e911, which Skype does not offer. He said Skype would love to offer SkypeIn in Canada but its plans to move forward have to get over the e911 hurdle.
Update: Henry Gomez has been named president of Skype following the return of Alex Kazim to eBay. Om Malik has some thoughts, including the suggestion that Niklas Zennstrom has become the king of Skype again.

Related Posts

Deep Thoughts About VoIP's Future in Canada

With the Canadian government intent on de-regulating the country's $10-billion local telephone market and giving the incumbent carriers the freedom to set their own prices, it will be interesting to see the impact this decision will have on Canada's VoIP marketplace. To be perfectly frank, VoIP hasn't been overly successful in Canada. By this, I mean Real VoIP with all the bells and whistles that a Web-based service can offer. What Videotron and Rogers are offering right now is VoIP-lite because it's just plain old telephone service (POTS) with none of the online frills such as voice-mail to e-mail that rivals such as Vonage, Primus and BabyTel are offering.

Perhaps the reason the cablecos haven't rolled out the value-added features that makes VoIP such a compelling proposition is they haven't been compelled to do it yet. With the carriers being regulated in the local market and an unwillingness to become more aggressive with VoIP until the rules became more clear, the cablecos have been able to get away being an alternative option to attract consumers. In Quebec, Videotron has used ultra-low prices if you have a multi-service bundle, while Rogers and Shaw have been content to pick off customers pissed off with Bell and Telus respectively.

But what happens if Bell and Telus suddenly get more aggressive with their phone prices (both traditional and VoIP) to win back customers who may have strayed to the cablecos, Vonage, etc.? And what happens if Bell really starts to push Bell Digital Voice as a premium, multi-feature VoIP service, while cutting prices on traditional local service? This could become a strategic conundrum for the cablecos because they would have to determine whether to compete on price against traditional service, which looks and smells the same as cable telephone service provided by Rogers and Videotron. Or do the cablecos go upstream and go head to head with Bell Digital Voice by adding all the Web-based features of Real VoIP.

If I had to guess, the cablecos will go the premium route because it fits into their focus/obsession with disciplined pricing and ARPU. If this materializes, it would be terrific for VoIP and customers who want Real VoIP because the cablecos and carriers will have to compete on features and services - much like they do in the high-speed Internet access market where both sides are intent to increase speed and add more features as opposed to - heaven forbid! - drop prices.

Technorati Tags:

Related Posts

Can Anyone Say "Telephone Price War"?

The deregulation of Canada's $10-billion local telephone market took a big-time move forward today when the federal government unveiled a new structure that will let incumbent carriers set prices however they wish to compete against new and fast-growing rivals such as the cablecos (Rogers, Shaw, Videotron, Cogeco, Eastlink, etc.) and independents such as Vonage.

The decision overturns a CRTC ruling earlier this year that stipulated carriers couldn't have competitive freedom in a particular market until they lost 25% of the market. This decision was badly flawed because it failed to take into account wireless customers - many of whom don't have a local line - and the reality cablecos could pick off the carriers' best customers to the point where they could have 30% or 40% of total market revenue while still staying under the 25% market share threshold (based on customers).

So what does it mean? For carriers such as Bell and Telus, they will now have much more freedom in markets where there is another facilities-based network (aka a cable network) to use price as a competitive weapon to retain and attract customers. Of course, carriers are scrambling to grow/maintain revenue so they may be somewhat reluctant to reduce prices. Then again, when Videotron is winning major amounts of market share in Quebec with prices as low as $16.95 a month, Bell may have little choice but to fight on price.

Nevertheless, the decision will level the competitive playing field between the carriers and cablecos. The winners could be consumers IF a price war breaks out (that's a big if given the cablecos have embraced pricing “discipline” in the VoIP and wireless markets). You have to remember local phone service is seen as the key element within a consumer bundle so if you have/can keep a local phone customer, you'll likely be able to sell them lots of other services.

Now, let the games begin!

More thoughts: You can argue until the cows come home whether there is healthy competition within the local market, and whether the non-carrier players will be able to survive/thrive now that Bell, Telus, et al have more pricing freedom. Truth be told, the cablecos are well armed for battle so there's no reason not to let true competition happen. Who knows, maybe competition will lead to benefits other than lower prices such as new, innovative services as the cablecos, carriers and others battle for customers. For other thoughts, check out Mark Goldberg.

Related Posts

UofT to Roll Out Free Anti-Censorship Tool

November 27th, 2006 | 2 Comments | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

The University of Toronto's Citizen Lab will make free software available later this week that will help people deal with Web censorship issues in countries where access is restricted or limited. A downloadable tool, called psiphon, can transform anyone's personal computer into encrypted servers (or access points) that can access blocked sites and associated Web pages. People who want to access these sites connect to a psiphon server or psiphonode by logging in through an encrypted connection and using it as a proxy. The user does not have to install any software on their machine. The technology was created by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies, as part of an Open Society Institute-funded project. The psiphone Web site is here - with free downloads available on Dec. 1. A New York Times story on the psiphon software can be found here.

Update: A comment (see below) raised an interesting point that the UoT is trying to fight Web censorship while a group of Canadian ISPs and Cybertip.ca introduced a plan last week to block Web access (specifically child pornography). If anything, it makes for a fascinating discussion on the right approach, who gets to do it and why.

Related Posts

Vive le VoIP, Libre

November 16th, 2006 | 4 Comments | Posted in ILEC News, Analysis, Main Page, Telecom Regulation

In a decision that will dramatically change the $10-billion local phone market in Canada, the federal government has decided the VoIP market should be regulation-free. “Barriers to entry in this market are low; there is no reason to regulate it,” Industry Minister Maxime Bernier said. “In a competitive sector, there is no reason to regulate some companies while others can offer the services they want at the prices they want.”
   So what does this decision mean? For one, incumbent carriers will be able to offer VoIP service at any price they want without having to seek approval regulatory approval. As a result, you can expect Bell Canada to become much more aggressive on pricing while ILECs such as Telus, Manitoba Tel and SaskTel will get into the VoIP market after sitting on the sideline until the regulatory uncertainty was resolved. This could mean bad news for Vonage and the cablecos, which have been able to roll out VoIP service without having to worry about competition from the ILECs.
  Another key development is regulation of the traditional local phone market will likely disappear soon (expect in rural communities where there is little or no competition). After all, how can you deregulate VoIP and not deregulate traditional phone service? Depending on how aggressive the ILECs want to be to keep and win-back customers, it would not be surprising to see price wars for local phone service in many markets, particularly places such as Toronto and Montreal where the ILECs, cablecos and VoIP service providers are already going to head to head.
  One wildcard is how ambitious the ILECs will become about VoIP given they could easily cannibalize their traditional phone businesses, particularly high-end customers who would gravitate to VoIP because of the features. If the ILECs do come out with guns ablazin' it may be bad news for the cablecos, who have been enjoying free ride with cable telephony, and the VoIP players such as Vonage who may find themselves on the outside looking in.
Tags: , ,

Related Posts

The Dawn of Net Neutrality in Canada?

November 2nd, 2006 | 2 Comments | Posted in ILEC News, Analysis, Main Page, Telecom Regulation

While the Net Neutrality has raged in the U.S., it's been quiet in Canada….until now. Yesterday, Videotron CEO Robert Depatie said the federal government should levy a “transmission tariff” on content providers so they can support the cost of building and maintaining networks. “If the movie studio were to mail a DVD . . . they would expect to pay postage or courier fees,” he told Canadian Press. “Why should they not expect a transmission tariff?”. Depatie said he also concerned “Canada lags behind in pricing competitives and technology because the regulatory regime discriminates against new providers like Videotron”. If there was ever a public shot across the bow of the federal government and telecom regulator, Depatie just delivered a one-two punch. In a sense, his move is a positive because it could compel the CRTC (Canada's telecom and media regulator) to finally get involved in the Net Neutrality issue/controversy. So far, the CRTC's standard response to inquiries about Net Neutrality is it won't act until it receives a complaint, which is hardly pro-active or forward-thinking. It is somewhat interesting to see a cableco push forward the Net Neutrality issue given it's the carriers who are losing customers and revenue as cablecos get deeper in the local telephone business. Then again, the cablecos are being forced to make large investments in their networks to stay competitive with increasingly-desperate carriers so the interest in external “help” is hardly a surprise. As for Depatie's contention the CRTC discrimminates against providers such as Videotron, that's just off-base given Canadian cablecos are barely regulated while carriers are still in regulatory shackles. I wonder my what my friend, Mark Goldberg, thinks about Depatie's comments.For more, check out Rob Hyndman, who describes some of Depatie's statements as “bizarre”, and Michael Geist, who runs with the Net Neutrality theme.

Related Posts

North Korea: Luddite Nation

October 23rd, 2006 | 1 Comment | Posted in Main Page, Telecom Regulation

For all of us techno-geeks obsessed with gadgets and having a big, honking connection to the Web, the New York Times has a fascinating story about North Korea, which isn't connected to the Internet at all (although some high-power politicians apparently have access). Can you imagine a world with no e-mail, no Google, no YouTube, no Daily Show clips? There's a wonderful quote from Julien Pain, head of the Internet desk at Reporters Without Borders, who describes North Korea as ”by far the worst Internet black hole”. One more thing, North Korea banned cell phones in 2004.

Related Posts


  • TwitterCounter for @markevans


  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Technology