Connect
Related Content
Green Planet
Green Planet
What impact does ICT have on greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and the environment?
And what role can ICT play in helping alleviate the problems in other business areas?
TelecomTV One - News
 
Bookmark and Share

Can't share. Won't share. Bell Canada has hissy fit

Posted By TelecomTV One , 17 March 2009 | 6 Comments | (0)
Tags: Broadband Next Generation Networks Regulators

In chess there perhaps ought to be a move called The Incumbent's Gambit. It's certainly a very popular play in the telecoms game. The latest carrier to try it on is North American incumbent Bell Canada where, essentially, the operator is doing the corporate equivalent of poking a stick in a watchdog's ear whilst hiding safely behind mommy's skirts, writes Martyn Warwick.

Bell Canada's parent company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) is using its clout to appeal the decision of the national regulator, the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), requiring the incumbent telco to provide rivals with competitive access to  its next generation network. Sound familiar? It should do, it's a ploy that's been tried before in other parts of the world - with varying degrees of success.

So, BCE is warning of looming telephonic Armageddon either because, at one extreme, it says the opening up a new network to competitors would deepen Canada's digital divide, cost jobs and stop investment whilst at the other end of the continuum it seems the company believes that any sharing of resources will immediately exacerbate the global recession in general and tip Canada in particular into an unending spiral of economic decline and social despair.

And Bell Canada's ultimate weapon? To threaten not to upgrade to next-generation technology. A "cut off your nose to spite your face" rationale if ever there was one.

The CRTC published Telecom Decision 2008 -117 on December 11, 2008. It mandates that  Bell Canada should share its new network with rival carriers to foster genuine competition in the telecoms sector. Decision 2008 - 17 was supplemented on March 3 this year by 2009 - 111 that confirms the requirement and that competitive access will be orderly and moderated by the regulator.

However, BCE doesn't want Bell Canada to share anything with anyone and is therefore attempting to circumvent the CTRC by appealing directly to the federal government and asking it to confirm that investment in and construction of next generation networks is a central plank in the Canadian administration's development policy.

In a thinly-veiled threat to delay or even completely curtail any further investment in next generation networks, George Cope, the president and CEO of BCE says, "As in any other competitive industry in Canada, we should be able to choose who distributes our services and how, be it wholesale, retail, direct or any other creative form of distribution channel. The alternative of regulated access will have significant implications for our network and other investments going forward. Despite current economic conditions, BCE has committed to investing more than $2.5 billion in the Canadian economy in 2009 alone."

Adding an extra twist to the scare-mongering Mr.


» This story continues on page 2. Please click here to read
Advertisement
please sign in to rate this article
44661
 

6 comments (Add Yours) - click here to sign in

(1) 17 March 2009 17:55:24 by Graham Fletcher

Telus has also filed a "Stay of Telecom Decision...." to give them TElus (and presumably Bell) to file an application to the Governor in Council to derail Network Sharing.

What people should know is that if Telus wins this order in council, it will freeze competitive activity in Canada at the current level.

In the early days, The ILECS were granted a monopoly position that came with a lot of perks, and some handcuffs. One of those handcuffs is that a competitive environment is essential for a vibrant economy in Canada, and in the Telcom world in Canada, enabling the ILEC's smaller competitors comes with the territory. Let's face it - it was the small guys who created the awareness, access and demand for the Internet - not the johnny-come-lately ILECs. The small guys are incubators for the large enabling technologies, not the big companies. The ILECs, btw (Shaw, Rogers, Bell Telus et al) own 96% of the Internet customers in Canada. I guess from the sounds of it, enabling the other 4% that are the smaller guys will turn them into an AIG-sized disaster, is the way I read these ILEC arguments. Looks like they are on the edge, and letting the small guys into their network will tip them over the edge. Very fragile these ILECs.

Or is it hubris, greed (we're talking 4% where they still get paid - just not at retail prices) and anger that they don't have full reign over every aspect of their network.

Tough.

The Government of Canada will have to decide if this is THE important overall issue with the Telus filing.


http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2009/8680/t66_200904807.htm


(2) 17 March 2009 18:52:32 by Dean collins

Really interesting situation happening in Australia that is parallel to this.

The outcome in short is the government threw a ton of money at the consortium who is building a competitive network.....Telstra is now complaining about that as well :)

Without competition there is no progress.

BCE should be put in it's place and all of the monopoly powers taken away from it if it doesn't want to share for the good of the country.

it has a choice...but it may not like the choices being offered.

Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net


(3) 17 March 2009 19:04:26 by R Brough Turner

Recently, Benoît Felten of Yankee Group made a fascinating argument that (at least in the EU) operators who wholesaled access to the FTTH networks made significantly more return on investment. There's a summary here: http://blogs.dialogic.com/2009/03/shareholders-should-demand-phone-companies-open-their-fiber-networks.html with pointers to videos of Benoît's complete presentation.


(4) 17 March 2009 19:28:48 by Roy Mira

... then you build it, you pay for it, you own it, and the market sets its price and usage... NOT regulators ! Oh, yes, innovation often comes from small guys, but only because they want to become (and do become) the johnny-come-lately / greedy / filled with hubris /angry monopolies wanting to have full reign over every aspect of what they've built and paid for. Of course a competitive environment is essential for a vibrant economy. But Regulation has been doing a great job in stagnating it. Some of your points are well taken, but if you imply that the incubent should invest, build, pay and share for "a fair price", who's to set that fair price? Regulators? If you say YES, then the incubent will not build... If you say the MARKET, then the little guys will be excluded by default... Are you sure you guys thought this well through. Oh I see, you don't mean a free market, you mean a central planning for the means of production, gotch ya!...


(5) 17 March 2009 22:56:25 by Graham Fletcher

Roy - I didn't write the rules, I only follow 'em. The rules in Canada are that Telecom is a regulated industry. That is the framework within which Telus and Bell find themselves. They have managed to make a very good living from working within that framework.

I would say that if they don't like it, sell off the part that is regulated - last mile copper for instance - and go it alone without any regulatory protection. Then we can see how well they handle competition.

I don't think they would take that bet.


(6) 18 March 2009 17:06:31 by Robert M Frieden

Hello All:
I marvel at how quickly incumbent carriers play the property confiscation argument even as they got billions of dollars in free rights of way. Do these former public utilities have any public interest obligations--no matter how market countervailing--in light of their free access to public and often private property?