Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Is it doublespeak at the CRTC?
There is a deadline fast approaching for Cabinet to finalize its variance of the CRTC's local forbearance decision from last year. The final order must be issued by April 6, 2007 - Good Friday.So the CRTC rushed out a forbearance order for Fort McMurray today, perhaps to demonstrate that it was still in-charge. Why do I say 'rushed'? The order was released at 11:00am but contained a significant enough typo that an amended order was released 3 hours later.
The caveat in the order was:
The Commission approves the introduction of local forbearance in the Fort McMurray residential relevant market once [TELUS] has demonstrated that it has met the CQ of S [Competitor Quality of Service] criterion that will be in effect at the time of its CQ of S filing.Both Bell and TELUS were incensed with the terms of the order. According to Janet Yale of TELUS:
It is an undeniable fact that Fort McMurray residents have a choice of competitors for their basic phone service, and yet the CRTC insists on maintaining outdated restrictions on TELUS' ability to make its best offers to customers. The conditions for deregulation they set out for local phone service are unattainable in any practical sense, and were rejected as such by the federal government. Their decision today runs entirely contrary to the government's directive.Lawson Hunter of Bell said:
This proves the need for the government to move forward on its commitment, as confirmed in the recent federal budget, for a new regulatory framework for local service forbearance that will bring the full benefits of open competition to consumers.Their concern is that cabinet may choose not to issue a final version of its variance announced in December.
When the kids were young, they would ask for a cookie before dinner, and my wife would answer them with a 'yes' - as soon as they finished their dinner. The CRTC said yes, you can have forbearance...
Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Bell, TELUS, local forbearance
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 3/27/2007 04:59:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
And interestingly enough, at the same age, I had aspirations of being a lawyer :-)
Posted by 
: 7:45 PM, March 27, 2007
: 7:45 PM, March 27, 2007
Here's what I don't get.
Wouldn't you pretty much have to show some kind of QoS to demonstrate that you are, in fact, a competitor in place?
Take cell phones. I have one. My office is in the basement. My cell phone doesn't work in the basement.
So how in the heck can cell phones be considered to be "present", if I can't use one to replace a wireline service? If they're going to be substitutes, shouldn't some basic quality criterion be in place to establish that they are good enough to be substitutable?
Wouldn't you pretty much have to show some kind of QoS to demonstrate that you are, in fact, a competitor in place?
Take cell phones. I have one. My office is in the basement. My cell phone doesn't work in the basement.
So how in the heck can cell phones be considered to be "present", if I can't use one to replace a wireline service? If they're going to be substitutes, shouldn't some basic quality criterion be in place to establish that they are good enough to be substitutable?
Posted by : 12:38 AM, March 28, 2007
: 12:38 AM, March 28, 2007
I don't understand what Janet Yale and Lawson Hunter are whining and crying about. Yes, the CRTC's deregulation process has two steps: prove you've lost 25% market share AND prove you meet 14 Q of S standards. The minister's proposal was also a two step process: prove there's enough players in market AND meet 9 Q of S standards. As Mr. von Finckenstein is quoted saying in the Financial Post this morning, 'what we (the CRTC) have said has to happen here "....is exactly what would happen if the Minister's rules were in place right now".
I don't think Ms Yale and Mr. Hunter are worried about whether or not Cabinet meets the deadline for Mr. Bernier's scheme to go into effect. Rahter, I believe they're worried about the cost and effort that will have to be incurrred to meet the Q of S standards whether or not there is 14 or 9 of them that have to comply with.
I don't think Ms Yale and Mr. Hunter are worried about whether or not Cabinet meets the deadline for Mr. Bernier's scheme to go into effect. Rahter, I believe they're worried about the cost and effort that will have to be incurrred to meet the Q of S standards whether or not there is 14 or 9 of them that have to comply with.
Posted by : 11:36 AM, March 28, 2007
: 11:36 AM, March 28, 2007
Mark, going back to your analogy for a moment, the CRTC's rules for local forbearance are very clear - no cookies before dinner. While the "cookie" in this case is local forbearance in Fort McMurray, the "dinner" is making local competition viable on a grander scale.
TELUS' competitor service quality is the worst in the country. The CRTC said it will grant forbearance in Fort McMurray when TELUS' competitor service quality meets acceptable levels.
In my experience, giving a screaming child a cookie doesn't lead to better behaviour. Let's not ruin everyone's dinner, TELUS knows what it has to do.
Post a Comment
TELUS' competitor service quality is the worst in the country. The CRTC said it will grant forbearance in Fort McMurray when TELUS' competitor service quality meets acceptable levels.
In my experience, giving a screaming child a cookie doesn't lead to better behaviour. Let's not ruin everyone's dinner, TELUS knows what it has to do.
Posted by : 8:54 AM, March 29, 2007
: 8:54 AM, March 29, 2007 << Home
Syndicate
