| |
[DSL] UBB not the CRTC's faultSo we're all pissed off about UBB, and since it was the CRTC decision that allowed this to go forward, we're all tending to blame the CRTC. I've seen numerous messages here over the past few days accusing the CRTC of corruption, of being bought by Bell, of being incompetent, of not understanding the issues, etc. I know this is bound to get people a bit riled up, but let me state it: the truth is that the CRTC did as much as they could regarding UBB. You see, the CRTC was given a policy direction by the Conservative government shortly after coming to power in 2006 (read it here: » laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S ··· e-1.html). The relevant bit of that is 1 (c) (ii): quote:
with a view to increasing incentives for innovation and investment in and construction of competing telecommunications network facilities, to complete a review of its regulatory framework regarding mandated access to wholesale services, to determine the extent to which mandated access to wholesale services that are not essential services should be phased out and to determine the appropriate pricing of mandated services, which review should take into account the principles of technological and competitive neutrality, the potential for incumbents to exercise market power in the wholesale and retail markets for the service in the absence of mandated access to wholesale services, and the impediments faced by new and existing carriers seeking to develop competing network facilities,
That part in bold is important: it basically requires the CRTC to not impede the incumbent's (i.e. Bell's) market power. Because UBB was sought by Bell as a means of exercising their market power, the CRTC's hands here were essentially tied. If you think about it, the Conservative's policy direction was, in effect, instructing a regulator to not regulate. As much as I disagree with the CRTC, and as much as I wish Konrad von Finckenstein et al. had had the balls to stand up to the government on this issue through more creative interpretation of the policy direction (as, for instance, Peter Nowak suggests: » wordsbynowak.com/2011/01 ··· failure/), I can't bring myself to blame the CRTC for this failure, but instead the current Conservative government, which in effect severely crippled the CRTC's power on this issue. My point is just this: make sure your anger is directed at the right parties here, and don't shoot the messenger. Yes, the CRTC decision was awful and bad for Canadian consumers, but the CRTC wasn't remotely free to decide the issue. Before we start calling to disband the CRTC, let's first try calling for removing its shackles. |
|
| |
Interesting... good thing I didn't vote Conservative. Good find though, thanks for posting that. |
|
| |
Dissolve the Government then? |
|
 andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario |
to jagerman
In plain English it says the CRTC needs to take into account the incumbents ability to bully competitors out of the market when they are trying to get started if GAS wasnt mandated. Thats what I read
|
|
 dbusguy
join:2003-03-03
Mississauga, ON |
to jagerman
Well, my MP happens to be Liberal and I sent a letter and fax to complaint about UBB to his office. Good thing there's rumblings of an election. In a way, UBB happened at a really good time to become an election issue.  |
|
 PXATech Ninja
Premium Member
join:2008-04-02
Almonte, ON |
to jagerman
I can understand what you're saying here but is the CRTC not an independent agency? What right does the government have imposing an agenda on them if that's the case? I thought the CRTC was given a mandate upon their formation and beyond that, they are supposed to manage themselves. |
|
| |
The CRTC has never been entirely independent, but the Conservative's policy direction was, I believe, the first ever such order issued by the Government to the CRTC. Prior to that the CRTC pretty much operated at arm's reach from government. |
|
|
 Gimli
Premium Member
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4 |
to jagerman
Um, the function of the CRTC is first and foremost to protect the interests of Canadians. They are the "1 voice" for Canadians when items are called to question to deal with issues within the purview of the CRTC.
They were petitioned, with false information, they asked for comment... they got lots opposing it, and they chose to allow BELL whatever they wanted, FULLY KNOWING the ramifications of the decision.
Now their integrity will be called to question, and rightly so. At the end of the day, the most non-techy person can be given the cold hard facts, and the response is always the same:
"wtf???"
"how can bell do that?"
"how can bell ask for something, then try make the CRTC make the cables companies follow so they dont have a better market position than them?"
"so basically they have killed all Canadian business except for bell and rogers"
F the CRTC and F Bell for their disgusting methods.
I am all for making money and business, but this misuse and abuse of power is enough. |
|
| |
to jagerman
There are glaring issues with Bell's submission. If CRTC had any intention to fight, that would be enough to kill it. |
|
| |
anonmous to jagerman
Anon
2011-Jan-30 11:08 am
to jagerman
I thought the Conservative policy direction was common knowledge?!?
I oppose UBB but never understood the call to dissolve the CRTC. It would not help things. It is only because of the CRTC's prior decisions that is forcing Bell to wholesale in the first place!
No, I blame the Conservatives and Harper. I hope a spring election is called, though I fear it will only result in the same turnout (a conservative minority)... Until we get electoral reform (FPTP is horribly broken with more than 2 parties, Canada has 5 that garnered significant votes, with one party being regional), or a united Left-center vote, they'll keep squeaking in.
The right united and since then they still garner less than half the popular vote (running closer to one third) yet because of the fragmented left, it is enough for them to garner power... |
|
| |
to jagerman
Jagerman, I think you are mis-reading what the bolded text implies, I read it in the opposite way.
In any case, it is very inaccurate to quote part of a sentence, when you don't show us how it starts, or what words might be used to entirely change the meaning of the text. |
|
andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario |
to cah51o8
The problem the CRTC has is that they allowed shit to happen years ago that set precedents for today that they cant reverse.They cannot change their own decisions.What they can do is leave holes for cabinet in new decisions to go back and change things or leave enough room for a court challenge.I "think" they did that but will Clement see it? A bit of time will tell. |
|
 corster
Premium Member
join:2002-02-23
Oshawa, ON ·EBOX
1 edit |
to avp77
said by avp77:Jagerman, I think you are mis-reading what the bolded text implies, I read it in the opposite way.
In any case, it is very inaccurate to quote part of a sentence, when you don't show us how it starts, or what words might be used to entirely change the meaning of the text.
It's completely taken out of context. The entire paragraph basically says something like "The CRTC has to encourage investment, but take into account how the incumbents screw people if we don't mandate wholesale access, and how difficult it is to invest" |
|
 damenc
join:2010-09-30
London, ON |
to Gimli
I couldn't of said it better.. NICE GIMLI! Plain and simple, this is legal extortion. CRTC just gave more power to Bell and Rogers and that is what we don't need, now they have the right to put any price on anything. Honestly, you're going to trust their metering system to regulate our pricing, come on. We've all have or know someone who's experienced Bell/Rogers "shady" practices in the past. I will be writing an article to our local newspaper about this, and hopefully people who aren't "taksavvy" enough will realize this is unfair practice. Our existing internet price structure is already a laughing stock from our neighbours across the border, this new ruling is the cherry on top. Hell, even out west the internet structure and pricing is 10x better then here. What we don't see behind the curtain is how is going to impact the our industry, ie. everyone will now cut down on streaming because they can't afford it, how many companies do you think will stop subscribing services to Ontario, developers pulling out because they isn't any profitable business to be had in Ontario. There's nothing wrong with our existing infrastructure, you'll know when you see Bell/Rogers 2012 profit earnings, anyone willing to bet this will skyrocket? Personally, I'm going to cancel my phone service3 with Bell, right now, I don't want to have anything to do with them directly, I doubt they will care but it will make me feel better. I hope CRTC realizes that they just opened up a can of worms they are going to regret. What I really like to know is who at CRTC got the "manila envelope" filled with cash in the underground parking lot . p.s. jagerman, if we can't count on the CRTC then we're screwed and why do they even exists??? this is the kind of issue they are suppose to protect us from. My 2 cents. Damen |
|
| |
AnonRick to andyb
Anon
2011-Jan-30 11:24 am
to andyb
said by andyb:In plain English it says the CRTC needs to take into account the incumbents ability to bully competitors out of the market when they are trying to get started if GAS wasnt mandated. Thats what I read I agree. The OP has it backwards. |
|
andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario |
to damenc
If the CRTC wasnt there then bell would of had UBB long ago.They are needed but...They need a new policy directive among other things and KvF needs to be tared and feathered |
|
 AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. |
to jagerman
Sorry don't agree. The CRTC regulates internet access in this country (and other stuff) so the buck stops with them. This decision does not have the best interests of Canadians at heart. The decision is punitive and regressive in a poor economy. Sorry they don't get off that easy. |
|
 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
said by AkFubar:Sorry don't agree. The CRTC regulates internet access in this country (and other stuff) so the buck stops with them. This decision does not have the best interests of Canadians at heart. The decision is punitive and regressive in a poor economy. Sorry they don't get off that easy.
. +25GB - (Just trying on my new cap !)   |
|
 AngeloThe Network Guy
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18 |
Angelo
Premium Member
2011-Jan-30 11:40 am
i passed 25gb 1 hr ago since today... |
|
 JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON |
to jagerman
said by jagerman:So we're all pissed off about UBB, and since it was the CRTC decision that allowed this to go forward, we're all tending to blame the CRTC. I've seen numerous messages here over the past few days accusing the CRTC of corruption, of being bought by Bell, of being incompetent, of not understanding the issues, etc.
I know this is bound to get people a bit riled up, but let me state it: the truth is that the CRTC did as much as they could regarding UBB. You see, the CRTC was given a policy direction by the Conservative government shortly after coming to power in 2006 (read it here: »laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/S ··· e-1.html). The relevant bit of that is 1 (c) (ii): quote:
with a view to increasing incentives for innovation and investment in and construction of competing telecommunications network facilities, to complete a review of its regulatory framework regarding mandated access to wholesale services, to determine the extent to which mandated access to wholesale services that are not essential services should be phased out and to determine the appropriate pricing of mandated services, which review should take into account the principles of technological and competitive neutrality, the potential for incumbents to exercise market power in the wholesale and retail markets for the service in the absence of mandated access to wholesale services, and the impediments faced by new and existing carriers seeking to develop competing network facilities,
That part in bold is important: it basically requires the CRTC to not impede the incumbent's (i.e. Bell's) market power. Because UBB was sought by Bell as a means of exercising their market power, the CRTC's hands here were essentially tied. If you think about it, the Conservative's policy direction was, in effect, instructing a regulator to not regulate. As much as I disagree with the CRTC, and as much as I wish Konrad von Finckenstein et al. had had the balls to stand up to the government on this issue through more creative interpretation of the policy direction (as, for instance, Peter Nowak suggests: » wordsbynowak.com/2011/01 ··· failure/), I can't bring myself to blame the CRTC for this failure, but instead the current Conservative government, which in effect severely crippled the CRTC's power on this issue. My point is just this: make sure your anger is directed at the right parties here, and don't shoot the messenger. Yes, the CRTC decision was awful and bad for Canadian consumers, but the CRTC wasn't remotely free to decide the issue. Before we start calling to disband the CRTC, let's first try calling for removing its shackles. Actually.... You need to not take that small piece.... You'd need to read more of that document. You're interpreting this in the reverse manner to what it is intended and has been applied. The CRTC was instructed to be mindful of potential incumbent marker power and not to ignore it or endorse it. This is clear not only from the Policy Direction but from the concerns expressed by the CRTC in the Essential Services decision (Decision 2008-17) and the speed-matching decision (Decision 2010-632). You've actually got it very wrong. The CRTC has a clear mandate to try to prevent the exercise of market power by incumbents and has acknowledged that. The problem is that the actions taken by the CRTC to date have not been sufficient to neutralize the exercise of that market power. In the case of UBB, the result is the opposite from what should be happening. This could have been avoided by a different (non-end-user-based) regime for charging for usage. The Policy Direction does have some problems, but the design of usage-based billing in a more competitively neutral manner is not being hampered by the Policy Direction. I would argue the reverse. The Policy Direction required a better competitive outcome than what the CRTC has adopted in its UBB decisions. ....basically, this particular decision "is" their fault. Rocky |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario |
to JGROCKY
Re: [DSL] UBB not the CRTC's faultNot to mention its dictating your business model with the UBB decision and thats against the mandate |
|
AngeloThe Network Guy
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18 |
Angelo
Premium Member
2011-Jan-30 12:01 pm
they pay for gas which gives them the right to offer unlimited |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
| |
to Gimli
Re: [DSL] UBB not the CRTC's faultsaid by Gimli:Um, the function of the CRTC is first and foremost to protect the interests of Canadians. They are the "1 voice" for Canadians when items are called to question to deal with issues within the purview of the CRTC.
They were petitioned, with false information, they asked for comment... they got lots opposing it, and they chose to allow BELL whatever they wanted, FULLY KNOWING the ramifications of the decision.
Now their integrity will be called to question, and rightly so. At the end of the day, the most non-techy person can be given the cold hard facts, and the response is always the same:
"wtf???"
"how can bell do that?"
"how can bell ask for something, then try make the CRTC make the cables companies follow so they dont have a better market position than them?"
"so basically they have killed all Canadian business except for bell and rogers"
F the CRTC and F Bell for their disgusting methods.
I am all for making money and business, but this misuse and abuse of power is enough.
I explained this to my dad without any bias, and his response to insurance was "But thats just what they want you to do" and indeed he is right, they just want you to pay more directly into their pocket, and the government supports it. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
 Glen1These Are The Good Ol' Days.
MVM
join:2002-05-24
GTA Canada
2 edits |
to JGROCKY
Re: [DSL] UBB not the CRTC's faultRocky I had to read your post 3 or more times before I could understand what you are saying. What you are saying makes sense to me and I agree with you, how can we as "users" help? I can only imagine we start with our Federal MP and work our way upwards?
P.S. I just fired off an email to my Federal MP (Liberal) voicing my displeasure with the recent CRTC decision re: UBB |
|
| |
Glen, writing e-mails to MP's mute point, we need to go see them in person. I wrote my MP about C-32 at least 3 months ago, finally got a 2 line response back thanking me for my concern.. and that was it, no position on where she stands... so good luck with that.
Find out when they at the office and book appointment or call to go see them, e-mails just get ignored and letters you get answer back 6 month later.
++ |
|
andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario |
andyb
Premium Member
2011-Jan-30 4:26 pm
Its not a mute point.They dont answer keep sending till you piss them off enough to acknowledge you.Snail mail,email,fax,stripogram...It dont matter.Contact any and all,provincial or federal,municipal.Get them all aware that you aint happy |
|
| |
to jagerman
The CRTC has been screwing over Canadians for years now, with telephone, television and cellphones - and now internet.
I don't really care who's fault it is. It's always someone else's fault, those are the times. |
|
·
