By Denis Carmel
GATINEAU – In the lengthy CRTC process reviewing its wireless policies, one player played an unusually central role.
Since it had no economic interest and because of its professed expertise, the Competition Bureau (which falls under the purview of the department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development) convinced the Commission to be allowed special access to confidential company data, despite strenuous objections, all of which we have reported on previously.
So, when the Bureau admitted it made a mistake in its final comments and issued corrections, Bell Canada jumped on it and requested that the Bureau’s evidence, especially its expert report, and conclusions be erased from the record.
In accordance with the procedure, the request by Bell was submitted for comments from the proceeding’s participants. Most of those who did reply wanted the Bureau’s report to remain while Telus backed Bell’s call to strike it. The Bureau’s reply was filed late Thursday and posted to the Commission web site on Friday.
To set the tone, the Bureau’s reply says “CRTC processes are adversarial in nature and, accordingly, not all parties will share common positions. The Bell Letter and the Telus Letter, however, characterize divergent positions as factual errors in an attempt to obtain an additional right of reply in this proceeding.”
Then, a more interesting argument: “Without the Matrix Report (commissioned by the Competition Bureau), there is a significant information asymmetry between the wireless carriers and other parties. Wireless carriers have the benefit of access to large quantities of industry data, which they can use to support their position. Much of this data is filed in confidence and not subject to scrutiny by other parties,” reads its reply. “This has been found to be fair by the CRTC.”
“Bell’s expert report also presented information in an incorrect or misleading manner, which it has failed to correct.” – Competition Bureau
Further, “corrections serve to improve the record and should be encouraged, when warranted, rather than deterred by serving as a basis to discredit entire submissions and strike unrelated information from the record. Several parties to this proceeding have filed corrections to their submissions, including Bell and Telus. Bell’s expert report also presented information in an incorrect or misleading manner, which it has failed to correct.”
Besides, it adds, “the Bureau’s corrections are unrelated to the Matrix Report, do not affect the Bureau’s findings and recommendations, and do not warrant the over-reaching revisions proposed by Bell.”
The CRTC confirmed there was no deadline for it to issue a determination and “the commission is still evaluating the matter and will make a decision in due course,” a spokesperson said in an email.
Even so, we expect a decision on this matter to be speedy. It’s been nearly 18 months since this policy review was launched.
