‘TIS THE SEASON for telecommunications pricing studies: In the next two weeks, a trio of important reports will be made public: The CRTC Telecommunications Monitoring Report, the OECD Digital Economy Outlook Data and the so-called Nordicity Report.
All three are important as government officials speak often of the importance of evidence-based policy making and this research provides evidence which feeds into public policy.
Over time, a range of studies have been published by the likes of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), or the Yankee Group or other organizations. The narrative was generally that Canadians, compared with other countries, paid more than other countries for their telephone services. That narratives support that perceived in Canada, amply supported by anecdotal evidence.
Everybody feels they pay too much for cell phone and other services, and everybody has experienced directly or indirectly an instance where they paid far less in the U.S. or Europe, while travelling.
Other studies often provided as evidence by participants in regulatory proceedings support a different position which reflects the views of enterprises or groups commissioning them often contradicting the conclusions, implied or not, of the previously mentioned studies.
It can then be difficult for government to discern useful evidence so with that in mind the CRTC and Industry Canada (now ISED) sought in 2008 to get a report which would be as objective as possible. Thus came the reports like the Price Comparison Study of Telecommunications Services in Canada and Select Foreign Jurisdictions, also known as the Nordicity or Wall Report, depending on who was hired to compile it.
Over the years, government has resisted changing the report’s methodology because they want the study to be backward-compatible, in order to monitor evolution in the market. Also, a perceived weakness was the absence of conclusion or thorough analysis, but that was left to commentators and the department.
As anybody who tried to purchase wireless service in Canada, we realize how difficult it is to compare prices for the different services which depend on a myriad of plans, baskets, bundles of other services, and the fact that a provider does not necessarily offer identical speeds, number of minutes, number of texts and so on as their competition. Imagine trying to do so when comparing plans and prices between different countries.
Throughout the past 10 years, some have argued the Nordicity Report was flawed and mischaracterized the telecommunications market in Canada and therefore should not be used by government decisionmakers in establishing policy.
For example, it was used when the Governor-in-Council relied in part on the 2016 edition in requesting the CRTC reconsider its decision to limit access to regulated domestic wholesale roaming rates. Various parties have also used editions of the Study to advance their own causes by attempting to convince the CRTC and ISED to provide them with preferential regulatory treatment. Finally, the media routinely and indiscriminately cites the study, sometimes out of context or without sufficient background explanation.
In a briefing note provided to the Minister of ISED in the fall of 2017 and obtained through Access to Information by Cartt.ca, “for wireless… average Canadian Prices remain high internationally. For the Internet… Canadian Prices are still high internationally.”
The document highlights the main communication objectives as the following: “To highlight price reduction progress is being achieved in some areas of wireless prices and ‘To highlight that the Government will be taking action to address areas of Price increases.’
The same note included questions and answers responding to criticisms about the methodology of the report: “The Study has been conducted annually for 10 years and provides in depth analysis on domestic market pricing examining unique Canadian issues such as regional differences and Data is collected from a number of different service providers including: national incumbents, regional providers and resellers.”
We wonder what this year’s version will say. Is it candy canes or coal? Might depend on your point of view…
