- Related Stories
-
Canadian regulators to go easy on VoIP upstarts?
May 6, 2005 -
Canada leans toward regulating VoIP
April 7, 2004
"This decision will further the goal of building sustainable competition in local telephone markets," the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wrote. The ruling came as no surprise to the phone companies and their competitors.
In effect, the CRTC decided that voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls by customers of Canada's incumbent phone operators, Telus and Bell Canada, will be regulated in the same way as other calls the operators offer. Remaining all but unregulated is every other VoIP provider, from start-ups such as Vonage to well-heeled cable operators using VoIP to enter the phone business.
Canadian telco analyst Jon Arnold said he believes the ruling "ultimately makes it impossible for Telus and Bell Canada to be competitive in offering VoIP to consumers."
Telus executives have said that such a ruling would keep it from selling VoIP, which is software for turning broadband connections into phone lines. VoIP calls are much less expensive than those made over a traditional phone line. Representatives for Telus and for BellCanada could not immediately be reached Thursday to comment on the ruling.
The near-monopoly grip that Canada's incumbent phone operators have helps explain the regulators' tough line: Giving VoIP operators an advantage by leaving their calls unregulated helps level the playing field and creates new competition.
Without some kind of regulation on VoIP providers like Vonage and the cable companies, the phone companies, which control 97 percent of the market, could all but give away their VoIP offers in order to starve the competition. "You've got two phone companies that far and away have most of the customers, so if others benefit, so be it," said Bill Rainey, president of Vonage's Canadian operations.
The commission has been working on this issue since last April when, in a nonbinding decision, the agency opted to regulate most VoIP services. At the time, the CRTC wrote that it thought VoIP calls share enough "functional characteristics" to their circuit-switched competitors to merit regulating.
But the agency has since come under enormous pressure from Canadian cable operators, Vonage and other VoIP interests. Adhering to government regulations is an expensive proposition, VoIP upstarts argue, something that would quickly thin out the beehive of start-ups and force weaker providers to pare back their unlimited calling plans to just the United States, where VoIP remains unregulated.
See more CNET content tagged:
VoIP, TELUS Corp., Vonage Holdings Corp., Bell Canada, IP
Competitors on the other hand consider that the CRTC as it went into the right direction did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the cable carriers (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw & Videotron).
Acronym alert:
CRTC = Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
ISP = Internet Service Provider
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
LEC = Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC & CLEC together)
TPIA = Third Party Internet Access (cable modem service unbundled network element)
However, buried in 480 paragraphs of legal text are a few things that actually go beyond the status-quo and thus need to be pointed to out in the open.
In paragraph 242, the CRTC orders all LECs to allow their customers to select the long distance carrier of their choice.
In paragraph 260, the CRTC extends the winback restrictions to a full year to someone which switches from an ILEC VoIP service to a VoIP service from a competitor irrespective of the fact that this competitor may not be a CLEC.
In paragraph 291, the CRTC relaxes the obligation to provide Message Relay Services to that of the extent to which it is technologically feasible - right now it is complicated to transport anything but human voice over a compressed VoIP channel and the CRTC has recognized this.
In paragraph 325, the CRTC allows the ILECs to provide VoIP service using an out-of-territory number (anybody reads toll-free numbers here?), the service would not require a tariff.
In paragraph 344, the CRTC requires constrains non-dominant Canadian carriers and resellers to resell the services of the ILECs or the CLECs in order to obtain access to numbering ressources (paragraph 214).
In paragraph 369, the CRTC orders the industry to report by October 31st 2005 on a set of IP-to-IP interconnection interface guidelines along with a progress report outlining any outstanding issues. This is perhaps the most important portion of the decision as the output of this work will identify when competitors will stop having to invest into legacy circuit-switched technology to interface with the network of the ILECs.
In paragraph 429, the CRTC orders Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron to issue, by June 1st, revised tariffs for unbundled access to their cable modem services by competitors that remove the restriction on using such services for transporting VoIP.
In paragraph 445, the CRTC concluded that resellers who chose to co-locate in the central offices of the ILECs for the purpose of providing DATA+VoIP services would not have to become CLECs as they cannot take advantage of direct access to numbers or subsidy for operating in high cost service areas.
In paragraph 480, the CRTC equates cable modem service unbundled network elements (Third Party Internet Access or TPIA) to the same level as ILEC unbundled loops. This paragraph is very powerful and opens the door to requests that cable carriers unbundle Quality of Service functionality of their cable modem services (see www.packetcable.com).
In paragraph 482, the CRTC denied the request of competitors that ILECs be requried to unbundle the quality of service functionalities of their DSL services. The CRTC is sending a message to CLECs & ISPs that they are not going to be considered as facilities-based providers (and thus protected by the CRTC as such) unless their business model revolves around co-locating + lease of unbundled loops or use of cable modem service unbundled network elements from the cable carriers. Paragraph 482 only difficultly reconciles against Paragraph 480 which is sure to give rise to several competitive disputes.
To summerize this article without noting the language of the dissenting opinions of two of the CRTC Commissionners, would be like kidding ourselves on the true chances of the CRTC decision to withstand the political lobby of the ILECs screaming blood and murder on Parliament hill about the CRTC going too far in daring to order the status quo. An operational Federal Parliament would certainly be more useful to the ILECs than the one currently in place (90 days to appeal).
With the Federal election coming up, those MPs that listen BCE legal personnel complain about the decision being an "historic mistake for Canada" probably have their attention on another historic mistake that can cost them the unity of the country.
One thing is certain, the immediate future will keep telecom regulatory consultants quite busy. Despite going far into the right direction, the CRTC did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour from the part of cable carriers.
Interventions in the ILEC VoIP tariff filings and competitive disputes against the cable carriers which are sure to come, will demonstrate that having forborne from price-regulating ILEC VoIP local telephone services, the CRTC would have made a far greater historic mistake...
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383
Competitors on the other hand consider that the CRTC as it went into the right direction did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the cable carriers (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw & Videotron).
Acronym alert:
CRTC = Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
ISP = Internet Service Provider
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
LEC = Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC & CLEC together)
TPIA = Third Party Internet Access (cable modem service unbundled network element)
However, buried in 480 paragraphs of legal text are a few things that actually go beyond the status-quo and thus need to be pointed to out in the open.
In paragraph 242, the CRTC orders all LECs to allow their customers to select the long distance carrier of their choice.
In paragraph 260, the CRTC extends the winback restrictions to a full year to someone which switches from an ILEC VoIP service to a VoIP service from a competitor irrespective of the fact that this competitor may not be a CLEC.
In paragraph 291, the CRTC relaxes the obligation to provide Message Relay Services to that of the extent to which it is technologically feasible - right now it is complicated to transport anything but human voice over a compressed VoIP channel and the CRTC has recognized this.
In paragraph 325, the CRTC allows the ILECs to provide VoIP service using an out-of-territory number (anybody reads toll-free numbers here?), the service would not require a tariff.
In paragraph 344, the CRTC requires constrains non-dominant Canadian carriers and resellers to resell the services of the ILECs or the CLECs in order to obtain access to numbering ressources (paragraph 214).
In paragraph 369, the CRTC orders the industry to report by October 31st 2005 on a set of IP-to-IP interconnection interface guidelines along with a progress report outlining any outstanding issues. This is perhaps the most important portion of the decision as the output of this work will identify when competitors will stop having to invest into legacy circuit-switched technology to interface with the network of the ILECs.
In paragraph 429, the CRTC orders Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron to issue, by June 1st, revised tariffs for unbundled access to their cable modem services by competitors that remove the restriction on using such services for transporting VoIP.
In paragraph 445, the CRTC concluded that resellers who chose to co-locate in the central offices of the ILECs for the purpose of providing DATA+VoIP services would not have to become CLECs as they cannot take advantage of direct access to numbers or subsidy for operating in high cost service areas.
In paragraph 480, the CRTC equates cable modem service unbundled network elements (Third Party Internet Access or TPIA) to the same level as ILEC unbundled loops. This paragraph is very powerful and opens the door to requests that cable carriers unbundle Quality of Service functionality of their cable modem services (see www.packetcable.com).
In paragraph 482, the CRTC denied the request of competitors that ILECs be requried to unbundle the quality of service functionalities of their DSL services. The CRTC is sending a message to CLECs & ISPs that they are not going to be considered as facilities-based providers (and thus protected by the CRTC as such) unless their business model revolves around co-locating + lease of unbundled loops or use of cable modem service unbundled network elements from the cable carriers. Paragraph 482 only difficultly reconciles against Paragraph 480 which is sure to give rise to several competitive disputes.
To summerize this article without noting the language of the dissenting opinions of two of the CRTC Commissionners, would be like kidding ourselves on the true chances of the CRTC decision to withstand the political lobby of the ILECs screaming blood and murder on Parliament hill about the CRTC going too far in daring to order the status quo. An operational Federal Parliament would certainly be more useful to the ILECs than the one currently in place (90 days to appeal).
With the Federal election coming up, those MPs that listen BCE legal personnel complain about the decision being an "historic mistake for Canada" probably have their attention on another historic mistake that can cost them the unity of the country.
One thing is certain, the immediate future will keep telecom regulatory consultants quite busy. Despite going far into the right direction, the CRTC did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour from the part of cable carriers.
Interventions in the ILEC VoIP tariff filings and competitive disputes against the cable carriers which are sure to come, will demonstrate that having forborne from price-regulating ILEC VoIP local telephone services, the CRTC would have made a far greater historic mistake...
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383
Competitors on the other hand consider that the CRTC as it went into the right direction did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the cable carriers (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw & Videotron).
Acronym alert:
CRTC = Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
ISP = Internet Service Provider
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
LEC = Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC & CLEC together)
TPIA = Third Party Internet Access (cable modem service unbundled network element)
However, buried in 480 paragraphs of legal text are a few things that actually go beyond the status-quo and thus need to be pointed to out in the open.
In paragraph 242, the CRTC orders all LECs to allow their customers to select the long distance carrier of their choice.
In paragraph 260, the CRTC extends the winback restrictions to a full year to someone which switches from an ILEC VoIP service to a VoIP service from a competitor irrespective of the fact that this competitor may not be a CLEC.
In paragraph 291, the CRTC relaxes the obligation to provide Message Relay Services to that of the extent to which it is technologically feasible - right now it is complicated to transport anything but human voice over a compressed VoIP channel and the CRTC has recognized this.
In paragraph 325, the CRTC allows the ILECs to provide VoIP service using an out-of-territory number (anybody reads toll-free numbers here?), the service would not require a tariff.
In paragraph 344, the CRTC requires constrains non-dominant Canadian carriers and resellers to resell the services of the ILECs or the CLECs in order to obtain access to numbering ressources (paragraph 214).
In paragraph 369, the CRTC orders the industry to report by October 31st 2005 on a set of IP-to-IP interconnection interface guidelines along with a progress report outlining any outstanding issues. This is perhaps the most important portion of the decision as the output of this work will identify when competitors will stop having to invest into legacy circuit-switched technology to interface with the network of the ILECs.
In paragraph 429, the CRTC orders Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron to issue, by June 1st, revised tariffs for unbundled access to their cable modem services by competitors that remove the restriction on using such services for transporting VoIP.
In paragraph 445, the CRTC concluded that resellers who chose to co-locate in the central offices of the ILECs for the purpose of providing DATA+VoIP services would not have to become CLECs as they cannot take advantage of direct access to numbers or subsidy for operating in high cost service areas.
In paragraph 480, the CRTC equates cable modem service unbundled network elements (Third Party Internet Access or TPIA) to the same level as ILEC unbundled loops. This paragraph is very powerful and opens the door to requests that cable carriers unbundle Quality of Service functionality of their cable modem services (see www.packetcable.com).
In paragraph 482, the CRTC denied the request of competitors that ILECs be requried to unbundle the quality of service functionalities of their DSL services. The CRTC is sending a message to CLECs & ISPs that they are not going to be considered as facilities-based providers (and thus protected by the CRTC as such) unless their business model revolves around co-locating + lease of unbundled loops or use of cable modem service unbundled network elements from the cable carriers. Paragraph 482 only difficultly reconciles against Paragraph 480 which is sure to give rise to several competitive disputes.
To summerize this article without noting the language of the dissenting opinions of two of the CRTC Commissionners, would be like kidding ourselves on the true chances of the CRTC decision to withstand the political lobby of the ILECs screaming blood and murder on Parliament hill about the CRTC going too far in daring to order the status quo. An operational Federal Parliament would certainly be more useful to the ILECs than the one currently in place (90 days to appeal).
With the Federal election coming up, those MPs that listen BCE legal personnel complain about the decision being an "historic mistake for Canada" probably have their attention on another historic mistake that can cost them the unity of the country.
One thing is certain, the immediate future will keep telecom regulatory consultants quite busy. Despite going far into the right direction, the CRTC did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour from the part of cable carriers.
Interventions in the ILEC VoIP tariff filings and competitive disputes against the cable carriers which are sure to come, will demonstrate that having forborne from price-regulating ILEC VoIP local telephone services, the CRTC would have made a far greater historic mistake...
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383
- Beyond the historic mistake
- by May 13, 2005 6:03 PM PDT
- Yesterday's decision of the CRTC (Decision 2005-28) to price regulate the local telephone services offering of the incumbent telco's in Canada that make use of VoIP is principally about re-affirming the status-quo until complete de-regulation becomes in the public interest. BCE legal personnel have qualified this decision of the CRTC has a historic mistake.
- Reply to this comment
-
(4 Comments)Competitors on the other hand consider that the CRTC as it went into the right direction did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the cable carriers (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw & Videotron).
Acronym alert:
CRTC = Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
ILEC = Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
ISP = Internet Service Provider
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
LEC = Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC & CLEC together)
TPIA = Third Party Internet Access (cable modem service unbundled network element)
However, buried in 480 paragraphs of legal text are a few things that actually go beyond the status-quo and thus need to be pointed to out in the open.
In paragraph 242, the CRTC orders all LECs to allow their customers to select the long distance carrier of their choice.
In paragraph 260, the CRTC extends the winback restrictions to a full year to someone which switches from an ILEC VoIP service to a VoIP service from a competitor irrespective of the fact that this competitor may not be a CLEC.
In paragraph 291, the CRTC relaxes the obligation to provide Message Relay Services to that of the extent to which it is technologically feasible - right now it is complicated to transport anything but human voice over a compressed VoIP channel and the CRTC has recognized this.
In paragraph 325, the CRTC allows the ILECs to provide VoIP service using an out-of-territory number (anybody reads toll-free numbers here?), the service would not require a tariff.
In paragraph 344, the CRTC requires constrains non-dominant Canadian carriers and resellers to resell the services of the ILECs or the CLECs in order to obtain access to numbering ressources (paragraph 214).
In paragraph 369, the CRTC orders the industry to report by October 31st 2005 on a set of IP-to-IP interconnection interface guidelines along with a progress report outlining any outstanding issues. This is perhaps the most important portion of the decision as the output of this work will identify when competitors will stop having to invest into legacy circuit-switched technology to interface with the network of the ILECs.
In paragraph 429, the CRTC orders Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron to issue, by June 1st, revised tariffs for unbundled access to their cable modem services by competitors that remove the restriction on using such services for transporting VoIP.
In paragraph 445, the CRTC concluded that resellers who chose to co-locate in the central offices of the ILECs for the purpose of providing DATA+VoIP services would not have to become CLECs as they cannot take advantage of direct access to numbers or subsidy for operating in high cost service areas.
In paragraph 480, the CRTC equates cable modem service unbundled network elements (Third Party Internet Access or TPIA) to the same level as ILEC unbundled loops. This paragraph is very powerful and opens the door to requests that cable carriers unbundle Quality of Service functionality of their cable modem services (see www.packetcable.com).
In paragraph 482, the CRTC denied the request of competitors that ILECs be requried to unbundle the quality of service functionalities of their DSL services. The CRTC is sending a message to CLECs & ISPs that they are not going to be considered as facilities-based providers (and thus protected by the CRTC as such) unless their business model revolves around co-locating + lease of unbundled loops or use of cable modem service unbundled network elements from the cable carriers. Paragraph 482 only difficultly reconciles against Paragraph 480 which is sure to give rise to several competitive disputes.
To summerize this article without noting the language of the dissenting opinions of two of the CRTC Commissionners, would be like kidding ourselves on the true chances of the CRTC decision to withstand the political lobby of the ILECs screaming blood and murder on Parliament hill about the CRTC going too far in daring to order the status quo. An operational Federal Parliament would certainly be more useful to the ILECs than the one currently in place (90 days to appeal).
With the Federal election coming up, those MPs that listen BCE legal personnel complain about the decision being an "historic mistake for Canada" probably have their attention on another historic mistake that can cost them the unity of the country.
One thing is certain, the immediate future will keep telecom regulatory consultants quite busy. Despite going far into the right direction, the CRTC did not go far enough to foreclose anti-competitive behaviour from the part of cable carriers.
Interventions in the ILEC VoIP tariff filings and competitive disputes against the cable carriers which are sure to come, will demonstrate that having forborne from price-regulating ILEC VoIP local telephone services, the CRTC would have made a far greater historic mistake...
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383