On Tuesday, January 19, the Federal Court of Appeal heard oral arguments from several parties about Bell’s Mobile TV service and whether it had violated Canadian law. In attendance were 13 lawyers, not counting the panel on the bench, which made it 16 lawyers, just shy of the spectator count in the gallery.
The spectators included several staunch advocates for the open Internet (Ben, Reza, JF, Laura, Cynthia, me), not to mention our tireless legal counsel, Philip Palmer, who agreed to represent a ragtag bunch he barely knew. Continue reading →
Fresh evidence from Akamai about Canada’s lousy broadband speeds
Time now for some empirical evidence, featuring Akamai’s recently published State of the Internet report for Q2 of 2014.
Akamai’s Intelligent Platform is a cloud computing technology that operates in some 90 countries around the world. Because of the scale and sophistication of its operations, it collects and analyzes huge amounts of real-time (not advertised) data about broadband speeds and related variables (based on roughly two trillion requests for Web content every day). Akamai includes in its analysis every country from which it receives requests for content from more than 25,000 unique IP addresses. Currently that’s 139 countries.Continue reading →
Canada is a world leader for high mobile prices, low handset penetration and astronomical revenue per user. These are the results that typify a market in which incumbents aren’t disciplined by either competition or regulation.
Price-gouging and prejudicial contract terms are an established feature of both retail and wholesale markets – one important reason among many for all the failures among Canada’s new entrants. Some of us believe strongly we will never enjoy a fair and competitive retail market unless and until major reforms are made to the way the wholesale market has been allowed to develop.
The CRTC announced in February it was launching a proceeding to look into a number of contentious issues, in particular “to determine whether the wholesale mobile wireless services market is sufficiently competitive, both now and in the future” (Notice of hearing, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-76, para 11). The public hearing phase begins on September 29. Ben Klass and I are intervenors in this proceeding, and the staff liked our filings so much they’ve invited us to appear at the hearing. Continue reading →
Subject: Part 1 application by Benjamin Klass requesting the fair treatment of Internet services by Bell Mobility (Klass application) and Part 1 Applications by CAC-COSCO-PIAC regarding Rogers’ Anyplace TV service and Vidéotron’s Illico.tv Service (CRTC files 8622-B92 201316646, 8622-P8-201400142 and 8622-P8-201400134).
Yesterday was the deadline for final reply comments on the Part 1 Application filed last November by Ben Klass. I wrote several posts on Ben’s initiative, starting with this one on November 24, 2013. My second and final submission is pasted in below (with a few copy edits; paragraph numbers remain).
The case brought by Ben is a good opportunity for the Commission to see how its ex-post regime for handling ISP and WSP misdeeds is working. Thus, while I hope the Commission gives Ben his due, I also hope it takes a long hard look at the bigger picture, i.e. the status of the mobile TV services operated by both Rogers (RAP-TV) and Vidéotron (illico mobile), in addition to Bell’s Mobile TV. Continue reading →
Point Topic releases 2014-Q1 global survey of broadband prices
Research consultancy Point Topic has another set of broadband data to add to the dismal news about Canada. Using USD adjusted by the purchasing power parity formula (PPP), they find that of the 90 countries surveyed, Canada ranks in 58th place on the price for a monthly standalone broadband subscription. We’re just under the global mean of $76.61, one step ahead of Mexico. Continue reading →
Bell’s CRTC whisperer, Mirko Bibic, got bent out of shape when he saw the CRTC’s annoying interrogatories Friday morning
Today saw another encouraging step in the CRTC’s management of the Ben Klass Part 1 application on Bell’s Mobile TV service. You can get the backstory in my prior posts (first one was in November) and from Ben’s blog, among other places.
That step was the interrogatories sent to Bell officials, asking for detailed information on Bell’s network architecture, subscriber invoicing, content exclusivity and competition, among other things. I’ve pasted in all 10 of the Commission’s questions below. A couple of comments in the meantime…
First off, the language of the questions demonstrates that the Commission is taking Ben’s application to heart, and that it sees a prima facie case against Bell for violating telecom rules. On one crucial point, whether Mobile TV is simply a broadcasting service as Bell claims, the Commission staff want to hear an explanation of the “inconsistency” in Bell’s statements on this matter – as well as of “how a data service that uses the Internet is not a telecommunications service” (yes, Bell argues that its quacking duck ain’t no water fowl no how). Continue reading →
It appears Bell, Rogers and Telus are still not making a decent buck from Canada’s textbook wireless oligopoly. So they’ve raised their prices – again, all at once, all by the same amount.
To shed some light on the meaning of this further greed-is-good foray into price-gouging, I’ve asked Ben Klass to let me re-post the comments he made about the recent price hikes on his blog on March 17, under the title Wireless Carriers’ High Flying Prices. Ben documents the obvious and awful truth: out West where there’s competition, prices are… wait for it… lower! Continue reading →
Last Wednesday was the deadline for followup comments on Ben’s Part 1 application, more accurately described as a complaint. In the text below you’ll find the main body of my intervention, minus the top and tail. I wrote about Ben’s original filing back in November: Ben Klass asks CRTC to stop Bell’s deliquency on Mobile TV. As of today, Ben’s current filing hasn’t yet shown up on the Commission’s site: I’ve uploaded it here. Of the other interventions filed this past week, two were especially critical of what Bell is being allowed to get away with. Teresa Murphy starts her comments by suggesting that Bell’s whole argument is founded on a phony distinction (para 2: her pdf is uploaded here):
It makes no sense whatsoever to treat competing services differently when the underlying technology and distribution method is the same. This is allowing vertically integrated companies to behave by one set of rules, and allowing them to treat their competitors differently, and frankly unfairly.