dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
42

just Sayn
@videotron.ca

just Sayn to eyes

Anon

to eyes

Re: The end of ####?

Just wanted to add...

If we review the "new" CRTC's 3 year plan it seems they are really sticking to their guns. So far they did quite a bit.

See:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/backg ··· 2012.htm

If we scroll down to the table titled, "Connect" we see they took care of the first phase of costing today. Seems the 2nd phase, "Review of methods used to establish wholesale prices" will take place next year and into the following year.

So if prices do get indeed get affected, we won't be seeing it, it seems, till 2014. At least that what it shows.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

That's a good point.. I know I'm expecting something late this year or early next in the way of the proceedings that are under way. Usually they would set interim rates and then have the proper proceedings to set them over time...

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

Well there is something else going on this year which seems in relation to this, not really sure. I've lost track of all these orders, decisions and whatnot from the CRTC. But anyhow, on the same "Connect" table we see near the end it states:
"Applications
Wholesale high-speed access services billing implementation"
under the heading of 2012.

Seems to be in relation to this (best I can come up with):
Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -703.htm

So something is happening before the end of the year (unless I am just lost in all these filings now).

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

It's a rats nest to try to figure it all out.. You'd think there should be a better way..

I'm looking into it too.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

I don't really know to be honest. I'm starting to get lost on all this.

Someone make a flow chart of all these filings in review, in process, in privy council, in court, or to be re-reviewed. tgif

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Lol yeah, you're driving me to drink!

...it's not so bad if you keep on top of it as it goes. Catching up is a bit of a pain.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by TSI Marc:

Lol yeah, you're driving me to drink!

...it's not so bad if you keep on top of it as it goes. Catching up is a bit of a pain.

Liquor store has gotten a new brand of small batch bourbon in.

Yummmy

rocca
Start.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON

rocca to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

Seems to be in relation to this (best I can come up with): Billing practices for wholesale residential high-speed access services »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -703.htm
So something is happening before the end of the year (unless I am just lost in all these filings now).

Yes, 2012-703 is the big one left. While it has to adhere to the 'old' rules prior to the transparency victory today, given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

said by rocca:

While it has to adhere to the 'old' rules prior to the transparency victory today

I don't know. As some regulatory person I assume you are correct. But, I was looking it over and reading different things about it and saw this quote pulled over @ cartt.ca:

“The Commission notes that the rules with respect to the treatment and disclosure of confidential information are set out in sections 30 to 34 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure). The Commission considers that any disclosure requests will be guided by subsection 39(4) of the Act, based on evidence submitted by parties and using the disclosure guidelines set out in this decision as the basis for its determinations.”

Seems to me that either you at CNOC, or PIAC, CIPPIC, Consumers Union, Vaxination (JF), or open Media (or others, including public comments of participation) need to make some claims in your next filings/war:
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· tml#h-16

Section 32 & 33 & 34: Public interest versus Direct harm:
Bell et al always cite "direct harm", never public interest.
(except for Rogers who claims the public is not interested, doesn't want to know, and data on public records should be expunged).

Tens of thousands of people submitting comments over the years is certainly public interest. No? Also the wild cost variance that occurred during wholesale costing is another.

Blais and the "new" CRTC have the balance in their hands. Up to you guys to try and convince him which way that balance needs to tilt.

I mean, if the issue of rates come up, and it will in 2013, it's in your own best interest to think up creative ways as to why it needs to be on public record (doubt, double-dipping, or other), and you need to engage the public to support you.

Seems to me you just need to open old wounds to get the ball going on opening the old grandfathered costing data. At least, that's what I understand from this "new" CRTC. Maybe that's why they are giving this phase 2 an entire year to complete, till 2014.

to add
@videotron.ca

to add

Anon

Just to add to the above...

If we look at the title of what's coming up at the "new" CRTC for 2013-2014:
"Review of methods used to establish wholesale prices"

It just makes sense to me.

rocca
Start.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON

rocca to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

I don't know. As some regulatory person I assume you are correct. ...
I mean, if the issue of rates come up, and it will in 2013, it's in your own best interest to think up creative ways as to why it needs to be on public record (doubt, double-dipping, or other), and you need to engage the public to support you.

Yes, absolutely. The second part of my quote was "given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents". As the 703 file is closed and awaiting decision it would be out of process to ask for a change prior to the decision coming out. I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review. The Commission asked some really good questions during the interrogatories, they're doing their homework, and hopefully we'll see something more sustainable that everyone can work with without having to reopen this can of worms again.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by rocca:

Yes, absolutely. The second part of my quote was "given the recent direction of the CRTC, I'd be surprised to not see some significant scrutiny of the numbers provided by the incumbents".

As the 703 file is closed and awaiting decision it would be out of process to ask for a change prior to the decision coming out.

I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review. The Commission asked some really good questions during the interrogatories, they're doing their homework, and hopefully we'll see something more sustainable that everyone can work with without having to reopen this can of worms again.

 
But AFTER that decision has been pronounced, would not a further R&V be appropriate, particularly considering alleged concealment of cooked numbers by (at least) Bell ?

If Bell was not so corporately paranoid as to feel that they even NEEDED to file things in confidence in the first place, we also would never have needed such new rules as have now been seen coming down the pipe.

And as for cans of worms, my father used to say "Once you open a can of worms, the only way to get them all back into the can is to use a BIGGER can."

rocca
Start.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON

rocca

Premium Member

You missed highlighting one.

"I'm hopeful we'll see rates that make sense, if not then I'd expect that the new policy would have to be used to add more transparency to a review."

BananaBoat
@videotron.ca

BananaBoat

Anon

said by rocca:

You missed highlighting one.

We're all testing you to make sure you remain sharp and in shape.

rocca
Start.ca
Premium Member
join:2008-11-16
London, ON

rocca

Premium Member

Thanks!

CoachsCorner
@videotron.ca

CoachsCorner

Anon

said by rocca:

Thanks!

NP.
Just remember. No alcohol or sex a full week before the next CRTC fight

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc to to add

Premium Member

to to add
said by to add :

Just to add to the above...

If we look at the title of what's coming up at the "new" CRTC for 2013-2014:
"Review of methods used to establish wholesale prices"

It just makes sense to me.

I think the R and Vs will be resolved as soon as possible, but that the CRTC does plan to hold a proceeding to figure out a different, simpler and less controversial way of setting wholesale rates. That's likely what that will end up being...

hm
@videotron.ca

hm

Anon

From, » Jean-Pierre Blais's speech at the IIC

CRTC Chair sez:
The rates we set are based on costing data filed with the CRTC by the incumbents, much of it on a confidential basis.

We have questioned the need for so much to be confidential. Last Friday, we issued new guidelines that will lead to more costing data being made available for public review and scrutiny. Once it’s out in the open, it can be tested and challenged, which will make it much easier for us to set fair and reasonable rates, and will give all parties stronger grounds for trust in the result. This should cut down on the review-and-vary proceedings, which in the past have delayed access by Canadians to competitive services.