Post Tagged with: "crtc"

Competition Bureau Raises Concerns Over Canadian Wireless Market

The longstanding debate over the state of wireless services in Canada has veered across many issues – pricing, roaming fees, locked devices, new entrants, and foreign investment to name a few. At the heart of all of these questions is a single issue: is the current Canadian wireless market competitive?

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the competitiveness of the Canadian market is a foundational question since the answer has huge implications for legislative and regulatory policy. If the market is competitive, regulators (namely the CRTC) can reasonably adopt a “hands-off” approach, confident that competitive forces will result in fair prices and consumer choice. If it is not competitive, standing on the sidelines is not option, thereby pressuring government and the CRTC to promote more competition and to implement measures to prevent the established players from abusing their advantageous position.

February 10, 2014 — Comments are Disabled — Columns

Competition Bureau Raises Concerns Over Canadian Wireless Market

Appeared in the Toronto Star on February 1, 2014 as Competition Bureau Raises Concerns over Canadian Wireless Market The longstanding debate over the state of wireless services in Canada has veered across many issues – pricing, roaming fees, locked devices, new entrants, and foreign investment to name a few. At […]

February 10, 2014 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

Competition Bureau Raises Wireless Competition Concerns, Concludes Big Three Have “Market Power”

The Competition Bureau of Canada has just released its submission to the CRTC’s consultation on domestic roaming rates and with it left no doubt about its concerns with the state of wireless competition in Canada. Despite repeated efforts of the big three incumbent providers to argue that the Canadian market is competitive, the Competition Bureau has concluded that the big three enjoy “market power.” As the Bureau notes, market power is “the ability of a firm or firms to profitably maintain prices above competitive levels (or similarly restrict non-price dimensions of competition) for a significant period of time.”

Given its market power, the Bureau finds the wireless incumbents can use roaming to shield themselves from competition. It states:

“Incumbents can use the terms and conditions of roaming agreements to raise their rivals’ costs such that incumbents are shielded from the full effect of their the rivals’ (i.e., entrants) entry. Making it more costly for entrants to access incumbent networks through roaming agreements is one way for an incumbent service provider to relax competitive pressure.“

January 29, 2014 — 8 comments — News

The CRTC’s Simultaneous Substitution Problem

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications has spent the past year-and-a-half trying to reinvent itself a pro-consumer regulator. On the broadcast front, the most obvious manifestation of that approach is the gradual move toward pick-and-pay channels, which seems likely to emerge as a policy option later this year. Establishing mandated pick-and-pay would be a political and consumer winner, but there are still reasons for Canadians to vent against the regulator. The retention of simultaneous substitution policies is one of them.

I made the case for gradually eliminating the simultaneous substitution policy late last year, arguing that the policy hurts Canadian broadcasters (by ceding control over their schedules to U.S. networks) and Canadian content (which suffers from promotion). Moreover, simultaneous substitution will become less important over time as consumers shift toward on-demand availability of programs. There are still supporters of simultaneous substitution, but few come from the consumer community. Indeed, even the CRTC is hard-pressed to identify consumer benefits in its FAQ on the policy. In fact, its Super Bowl commercial FAQ claims viewers benefit from signal substitution during the broadcast, but the Commission can’t seem to identify any benefits.

January 28, 2014 — 4 comments — News

ISPs Push For Two-Tier Internet Based on Data Caps

Net neutrality has been one of the defining Internet policy issues of the past decade. Starting with early concerns that large telecom and Internet providers would seek to generate increased profits by creating a two-tier Internet with a fast lane (for companies that paid additional fees to deliver their online content quicker) and a slow lane (for everyone else), the issue captured the attention of governments and telecom regulators.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while the net neutrality challenges evolved over time, the core question invariably boiled down to whether Internet providers would attempt to leverage their gatekeeper position to create an unfair advantage by treating similar content, applications or other services in different ways.

January 15, 2014 — 4 comments — Columns