Commission moves to reduce burden on telecom firms with several new initiatives

The CRTC outlined several ways it hopes to reduce the administrative burden on telecom players at a stakeholder meeting April 25, including a publicly-released plan to streamline the approval of retail tariff applications, the quiet modification of several requirements for monthly and quarterly filings, and a plan to clear its deck of several major important issues within the next few weeks. Industry players have reacted quickly and favourably to the regulator’s new responsiveness with unanimous approval of the streamlining plan, and by expressing general optimism that new telecom executive director Len Katz and telecom vice-chair Richard French are moving quickly to reverse years of ponderous decision making. Besides a new retail tariff approval scheme that promises dramatically reduced wait times for the green light on ILEC pricing and service changes, Katz tells Network Letter that he used the Monday meeting to tell stakeholders that within the next "two to three weeks" a Bell Canada Part VII application on promotions will be dealt with, a process struck to deal with local forbearance, a work plan unveiled to deal with the expiring price cap regime, and a public notice released on price floors and bundling. This is in addition to the VoIP decision widely expected on or before May 12. The Bell promotions application and pricing safeguards announcements could be out by the end of this week. Though NL doesn’t yet have details, one source at the meeting says Katz also outlined a three-year vision for the commission. The most outwardly visible of the changes was yesterday’s circular announcing a steep cut in the number of days it takes to approve a retail tariff filing. The new process was in response to a controversial Part VII application filed by Bell Canada last November that sought automatic or "deemed" approvals for ILEC applications (NL, Nov. 11/04). That request was turned down, but industry players are cheering a new timeline for approvals set out by the regulator that would see most applications approved within 10 days. The commission has reserved the option of approving some within 45, and to send back applications with further questions or notices of incomplete or missing information, but says it expects that it will meet the 10-day deadline in most cases. Though Bell didn’t get its automatic approvals, it says it’s pleased nonetheless. Mirko Bibic, chief of regulatory affairs at the telco, tells NL that if the commission’s targets are met, then Bell will be satisfied that it’s accomplished what it set out to do with its November Part VII. "We’re pleased because our point is view is being heard…The whole point of the application was to make the tariff review process more streamlined and, hopefully this will do this," he says. "Frankly, it isn’t that far off the mark from what we had suggested, and the end result may end up in the same place." Katz says the commission gave due consideration to Bell’s proposal, but ultimately decided that it couldn’t meet the request under current legislation. Lawyers for the CRTC told it, he says, that it has a responsibility under the Telecommunications Act to examine and approve every application. That suits Michael Hennessy, head of the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association just fine. "We’re very happy that Bell doesn’t get their negative option regulation. And, we think the message is that (the commission is) going to be very careful. If they perceive there’s an issue, they’re not going to succumb to pressure to be fast just for the sake of being fast. I think it’s another sign that Mr. French and Mr. Katz and Chairman (Charles) Dalfen are very serious about meeting complaints about slow process. But they’re doing it in a way that balances expediency with their job to ensure that the public interest is met and that competition is sustainable." While the commission’s response on the legality of Bell’s proposal has satisfied Bibic for the moment, he says the company will likely use the recently-announced telecom review as a forum to support building greater flexibility into the Telecom Act to support the automatic approvals it has been beaten on for the time being. "I think the commission went as far as it believes the legislation allows it go. And, that brings into question the whole issue of whether the legislation is flexible enough to deal with issues like this and to allow the commission to be even more streamlined. I think the issue of the flexibility in the legislation is something that’s going to have to be tabled and brought up in the context of the telecom policy review…When you read the words, the commission doesn’t appear to have rejected the automatic approval system because it wasn’t a good idea, it rejected it because it doesn’t feel it has the legal authority to adopt that system." Asked whether he considers automatic approvals a wise course, Katz says Bell is free to bring it up before the review panel, but expresses reservations about its adviseability. "If that’s something that they think is necessary, they can make that recommendation. Personally, I feel more comfortable doing things properly and then getting out of the way of competition than just closing my eyes and saying, well, nothing happens, nobody tells me about, then I guess it’s fine. I prefer to sort of do it and do it well, but do it quickly. Obviously, we were doing neither in the past. That’s our view on these things at this point. But, again, if the panel comes along, and Industry Canada comes along, and wants to table amendments to the act, that’s probably within their scope to do that. We’d take a look at it and comment on it at that time." The new regime could still come under review because it is in what is being called a trial period. Katz, however, explains that it’s unlikely the commission will reverse its deadline. "We said trial because it’s intended to allow us to change the regulations…We couldn’t say it’s a final decision because we had to make the changes first and get them approved through (the) justice department. That’s all part of the process. But…we’re not going to go back to where we were, that’s for sure." While the regulator currently has guidelines in place regarding turnaround times on decisions, it has frequently missed them. This was the primary reason for Bell’s application in the first place. However, sources contacted by NL universally agree that the new regime is workable. Janet Yale, executive VP of regulatory and government affairs at TELUS Corp., says she’s confident the new system will work."This is a huge step forward what they’ve done – to commit to approving tariffs if they can on an interim basis at least within 10 business days. We had been informally working with the commission and every time we filed a tariff with the commission, we would do so giving them a sense of how high a priority it was and how quickly we needed approval. We took it upon ourselves to do a better job of giving guidance to the commission as to how urgently we needed particular things done so that not everything went across (with us saying), oh, we need this yesterday. They’ve been incredibly responsive in prioritizing their response to our tariff applications based on our agreed understanding of which ones were more important than others. But, to go even beyond that, which they’ve done now, to say we’re going to make that kind of turnaround commitment with respect to all tariff filings, I think is terrific because it reflects a real responsiveness to the needs of the industry." Chris Peirce, executive VP of regulatory and government affairs at MTS Allstream, echoes Yale’s comments, applauding the new streamlined process while noting the need for further work. "We had said in the context of this proceeding that, frankly, tariffing was not the thing they were slowest on, and…there’s nothing that we particularly dispute about this circular today. It’s kind of an odd thing they’ve put out. It’s not really a decision, it’s just an indication that they’re changing their procedures. They’re clearly trying to clear a backlog and we think that’s an appropriate effort to engage in." Both Bibic and Hennessy agree with Yale that the system should prove effective, provided both the commission and industry players do their fair share of the work. Bibic notes, "If there’s a willingness on the part of the industry and on the part of the commission, I think it can be done. What I just don’t want to happen here as people get comfortable is for telcos to get lazy in the sense of filing deficient applications that always get sent back, or for the commission to latch on to the flexibility that the regime offers in terms of sending letters asking interrogatories to delay things." Hennessy says he sees change in the wind at the CRTC that bodes well for the sustainability of its new apparent responsiveness. Asked why the new regime will work when the regulator’s past history is one of blown deadlines, he replies:"The fact that they didn’t meet the (previous guidelines for decisions) is because institutionally it became very easy to say, ‘we’re not going to meet the 45 days, all we have to do is indicate that we won’t.’ There’s obviously significant industry and political pressure on the commission on this issue and I feel, talking to the principals, that there is a very strong and absolute commitment to do something about that, and if that’s the working model pushed down from the top, then I think it has much more success than the old model where it was kind of think up the newest excuse for why you can’t do things on time. Staff needs direction from the top, to understand that things have changed, and I think this is a very helpful signal." For that, says Peirce, the industry can give much of the credit to Katz and French. "I think you can certainly see Len and Richard bringing a new eye to this. Len’s pretty quick to say that a lot of the work around much of this getting over the hump, if you will, had been accomplished when he got there, giving credit to the team that was already there. But I think nevertheless he does bring a kind of business ethic to the place and that’s a good thing. And, thus far they have been open and willing to engage in some pretty frank dialog about where things are and what their priorities are."

Commission moves to reduce burden on telecom firms with several new initiatives

News | 04/26/2005 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us