Regulation and Policy: “If you don’t like our policy, you have other options”, Bell tells independent ISPs

In not so many words, Bell Canada has told its wholesale ISP customers that if they don't like its "traffic management" policies, they can find other ways to provide Internet service to their retail customers. "They are free to lease unbundled local loops, to invest in co-location and Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs), to subscribe to wholesale Internet high speed access service from cable carriers through third party Internet access (TPIA) or to build their own networks," reads Bell's reply to an application from the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP). "All of these options would avoid any traffic management activity by Bell." The company also says that if wholesale ISP customers want to avoid having their traffic managed for them, they can opt to buy Bell's High Speed Access (HSA) service which is not subject to traffic management. Of course, the HSA service is more expensive than the Gateway Access service, which is the service that ISPs buy from Bell and then resell to residential subscribers. This "too bad, so sad" or "pay us more money" approach is likely to leave a lot of people holding their noses. But as reprehensible as it may seem, Bell is only trying to protect its investment. At the same time, this issue, refer to it as Net Neutrality if you will, is about facilities-based competition. If there were more suppliers of wholesale facilities in the market - meaning more facilities-based competition - market forces might discipline Bell's use of traffic shaping technology. Is it Bell's fault that there isn't greater facilities-based competition? Surely, we can't blame Bell for policies adopted by the CRTC that have put us in the situation where we are now. Bell appealing essentialfacilities decision Unhappy that the CRTC told incumbent telephone companies that they still have to offer competitive providers access to their networks, Bell Canada is appealing the commission's March 3 essential services decision. The country's largest telephone company is appealing the decision to the Federal Court on the grounds that competition is already alive and well in Canada and there is no longer a need to continue to regulate wholesale network access. In an interview with Telemanagement following the release of the controversial decision, Bell's chief of regulatory affairs Mirko Bibic said the company was considering an appeal of the ruling. "It's too early to tell," he said in March. "On some aspects we may consider review and vary applications or potentially leave to appeal applications to the Federal Court, but we're still working through that." According to Bibic, the decision doesn't do enough to encourage network deployment by competitors and the commission missed a golden opportunity to further facilities-based competition. "In my view, there was a missed opportunity to further incent competitors to build more elements of their network, and I think the prospect of more aggressive alternative network construction has taken a step back here," he said. MTS not convincing in fight to reverse CRTC's Centrex deregulation decision The fight to keep Centrex services regulated, launched by MTS Allstream Inc. earlier this year, is heating up as comments on its appeal were filed last month. Opponents to the company's application to overturn a recent CRTC decision deregulating Centrex as well as one issued last year have told the commission the Manitoba ILEC has raised nothing new in its arguments. They, therefore, conclude that its Part VII should be denied. "Most of the claims brought forward by MTS Allstream in its application for review and variance and rescission were already brought forward and determined based on the record of the proceedings that preceded Decision 2007-80 and Decision 2008-10," reads Telus Corp.'s reply to the Part VII. "Thus, the commission has already determined most of the issues that MTS Allstream singles out in its Application, and, furthermore, MTS Allstream does not provide any new evidence to support its assertions that have now been repeated." MTS isn't backing down though. The company maintains that it has proved the CRTC's decisions in questions were incorrect and that Centrex should remain regulated and not be considered the same as business local service for forbearance purposes. The Centrex deregulation decision "shuts the door almost completely to the possibility of any viable competitive alternative for Centrex customers and opens the door to undue preference on the part of the ILECs," reads MTS' April 7 reply comments. The CRTC expects to rule on this matter within four months.

Regulation and Policy: “If you don’t like our policy, you have other options”, Bell tells independent ISPs

News | 04/24/2008 8:30 pm 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