Industry, others, provide feedback
OTTAWA – On February 26th, the Government of Canada proposed new CRTC Policy direction to put Canadians at the forefront of future telecommunications decisions, as Cartt.ca reported.
By law, this proposed Order must be put for comments for a period of 30 days after being published in the Canada Gazette. April 8th was the deadline for intervenors to make their comments known to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
(Ed note: By law, the federal government doesn’t have to listen to any of the recommendations, if it has already made up its mind, which could be the reason many of the submissions were rather short.)
Cartt.ca has read through a few of the submissions and we’ve tried to quickly summarize them. The likelihood of the comments having an impact is remote (off-the-record consensus is the federal government’s proposed order likely shows minds are already made up) but good points were made.
Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee (DWCC): “The Accessible Canada Act, also known as Bill C-81… has been publicly amended to include technology and communications that would apply to DDBHH (deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing) Canadians. We welcome this legislation—but our experience of the past several decades nevertheless leaves us seriously concerned that without explicit direction from the Governor-in-Council, the CRTC will continue to ignore the concerns set out by, and the recommendations made by, DWCC on behalf of DDBHH Canadians. We emphasize that we ascribe no ill motives to any agency; but without direction from the Governor in Council, we fear that the interests of accessibility will continue to suffer, as have the interests of consumers and the issue of affordability over the past decade.”
Some plainly like the wording. “Cogeco Inc. supports the proposed policy direction as outlined in the Canada Gazette. It is our view that the proposed policy direction has the potential to improve the competitive landscape of Canada particularly in the wireless services market, if federal agencies ensure that policy and regulatory frameworks rightly balance the openness to all forms of competition without compromising ongoing investment in wireline and wireless.”
Some suggest getting rid of the old 2006 Policy Directive, like CNOC, TekSavvy, Iristel and VMedia, when implementing the new Proposed Order.
Telus objects to some of the order’s premises and says the wireless market’s overall performance “brings into question the need for the proposed direction. The timing of the release of the proposed direction also overlaps with the work of the Broadcasting and Telecom Legislative Review Panel, the mandate of which is to review the Canadian communications legislative framework, including the Telecommunications Act, and to submit recommendations for change to the Government of Canada to ‘maximize benefits that the digital age brings to citizens, artists and creators, the communications industry, and the economy’,” reads its reaction to the Order.
“In contrast to the timing of the release of the 2006 Policy Direction, which was formulated and released after the release of the 2006 Telecommunications Policy Review Panel Final Report, the Governor in Council is proposing a new Policy Direction before the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel has had an opportunity to review public submissions and release its interim report, which is to be provided no later than June 30, 2019, and its final report, which is to be filed in January 2020,” Telus’ submission continues.
“Encouraging all forms of competition, including in the form of MVNOs and other types of ‘service competition,’ will not achieve the Government of Canada’s goals." – Telus
“Encouraging all forms of competition, including in the form of MVNOs and other types of ‘service competition,’ will not achieve the Government of Canada’s goals outlined in the proposed Direction and will undermine the incentives for continued investment required to advance the digital economy. Enabling facilities-based competition remains the best public policy approach to ensuring the public policy goals of promoting competition, ensuring affordable services, and advancing consumer interests and innovation,” Telus concludes.
Bell’s submission worries about sacrificing the future for the present. “We are also concerned that the Proposed Direction is focused on near-term results at the expense of long-term policy goals. We do not believe the Government intends to direct the…CRTC to abandon facilities-based competition and the investments in telecommunications networks that it brings. Yet with no reference to investment and a direction to ‘encourage all forms of competition’ the Government is seemingly directing the CRTC to promote resale rather than facilities-based competition,” reads the Bell document. “Further, the Proposed Direction's requirement that the CRTC foster ‘lower prices’ directs the regulator to ensure that prices perpetually decline without any consideration to the impact on network and service quality over the long term.
“Any policy direction from the Government to the CRTC,” Bell’s submission argues, “must have a long-term perspective and apply to multiple technologies and economic circumstances to remain relevant over time. The Proposed Direction satisfies neither of these requirements.”
Regional facilities-based provider Eastlink is generally on board with the Telus and Bell viewpoint “In Eastlink’s view, the concerns the government seeks to address in the Order are already being addressed and there is no need for a second Policy Direction. The Government has already been actively involved in various broadband funding initiatives through the Connect-to-Innovate programs, which are resulting in expansions of broadband networks across Canada. Provincial governments are also engaged in these goals with separate funding regimes in place or being established. The CRTC is at the cusp of implementing the Broadband Funding regime to which $750M will be allocated from telecom service revenues over the next five years to provide broadband service to underserved and unserved Canadian communities.”
Quebecor argues this Policy Direction would hurt the regional entrants which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new facilities and provide significant competition in some regions and that competition is resulting in lower rates.
“The Proposed Direction comes at a time of opportunity, and risk, in Canadian telecommunications,” reads the Shaw response to the order. “Strong, sustainable competition is beginning to gain momentum in Canada’s wireless market, as evident in declining prices and the availability of useful yet affordable data packages. This has been made possible by the significant investments of Canada’s regional new entrants, including Shaw. These investments were encouraged by pro-competitive Government policies, such as spectrum set-asides and mandated wholesale roaming. However, this nascent competition remains vulnerable to ongoing barriers and requires a stable policy environment to flourish.”
Rogers, for it part, proposes changes on affordability language of the direction. “An unbounded requirement to promote continuously lower prices would lead to pricing below economic levels and would undermine the Government’s objectives as expressed in the Proposed Direction and the Telecommunications Act. Rather, the direction objective should be to foster affordability when telecommunications service providers exercise market power and thereby reduce the effectiveness of competitive market forces and the achievement of efficient competitive prices. Understood in this manner and written as we propose in our revision, the objective is not inconsistent with ensuring that Canadians have access to a full suite of high quality competitive telecommunications services.”
One of the newest regional wireless providers, Xplornet, also wants its investments protected. “First, we recommend that the Order recognize the need for continued investments in network infrastructure. As discussed above, keeping pace with technological development requires continuous and sustained private investment. Without this ongoing investment, our networks will fall behind and rural Canadians will not be able to benefit from the new technologies and services that they require and deserve. Enabling investment in infrastructure by facilities-based providers must be part of the regulatory equation considered by the CRTC.”
On the other hand, Iristel, which runs a regional wireless competitor in the far north, Ice Wireless, is on board with the proposed directive. “The proposed direction to the CRTC is, from Iristel’s point of view, an important step in the right direction,” reads its reaction.
“Iristel submits that, in order to avoid ambiguity and to provide clarity, the proposed new order from ISED giving direction to the CRTC should supersede SOR 2006-355 issued by the previous government. If this is not possible, then at a minimum the new order should indicate that, where there is a conflict between the two orders, the new order takes precedence.
It’s not known yet when the federal government will announce a final decision on its proposed order.
