To nobody's surprise, Bell Canada and Telus are appealing the CRTC's controversial VOIP decision that regulates ILECs while letting rivals such as cablecos and piggybackers such as Vonage and Primus the freedom to set their own prices. At a press conference this afternoon, I'm sure Telus and Bell will complain about the unfairness of it all, and how their inability to compete fairly in a brand new market will stifle competition. Not that there's anything wrong with this approach but what I want to know is what Bell and Telus plan to do with VOIP while Canada's cabinet considers their appeal - a process that could take a year to complete. Bell is only offering its Digital Voice service in a few Quebec cities while Telus has yet to get into the game. Bell, in particular, can't avoid to remain passive because Videotron is starting to make major inroads in Montreal with 42,000 subscribers since February. Meanwhile, Vonage has stepped up its marketing efforts in a huge way with an extensive television campaign, while Rogers has moved into the market - albeit cautiously to control demand.
Update: Not surprisingly, executives from Aliant, SaskTel, Bell and Telus have demanded the federal cabinet change the VOIP rules - citing a list that include: restrained abilty to compete, hindrance to innovation, the active VOIP marketplace and the need for a regulatory playing field that provides fairness. They also warn about artificially high prices for consumers, while giving Shaw, Vonage and Rogers, et al a "powerful advantage" in the marketplace.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Mark Evans
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 10:20 AM EDT | Permanent Link
Comments
Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
bda
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 04:18 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The best question on the conference call was from the journalist who asked, well, on one hand you say you don't want to price anticompetitively, and on the other hand you're circling the wagons around a decision that prevents you from pricing anticompetitively -- what gives?
Not that there's anything wrong with this appraoch but what I want to know is what Bell and Telus plan to do with VOIP while Canada's cabinet considers their appeal - a process that could take a year to complete. Um, compete? They can go as low as about $8. I'd say they're doing just fine. Incidentally, it's interesting that Bell's Digital Voice service, which claims to be an Internet Voice service that will work over any high-speed Internet access, is only available in three Quebec cities. Huh? If I subscribe to it from Toronto, why wouldn't it work just as well? In other words, what isn't Bell telling us about its proposed service -- and why hasn't any journalist pointed this apparent incongruity out? Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Mark Evans
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 04:24 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
good points. as for bell digital voice in toronto, i suspect you could buy the service but it would feature quebec area codes.
Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Anonymous
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 08:51 PM EDT | Permanent Link
I could hear violins playing and deep sobbing during the press conference. Seriously, this is a bit overblown. I agree, the only time BCE or Telus would have their hands tied if is they're acting anti-competitive. So really, these rules shouldn't effect them very much if they're playing by the rules. Temporary rules, I might add, that won't have any impact on long-term innovation regarding VoIP.
Re: Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Anonymous
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 03:13 PM EDT | Permanent Link
here's the other confusing part - if the phone guys are complaining about rules that "prevent" them from competiting in VoIP (where they claim everybody is new) - why do they rely so heavily on references to the cable companies who are competing in the basic market (where the phone companies are the monopoly)? Which is it? It seems to me, the CRTC got it right by calling it all the same market and applying the same rules until deregulation of the whole is justified
Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Anonymous
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 08:49 AM EDT | Permanent Link
CRTCs stnace on comptetion was to give room for entities to enter the canadian market on a facilities basis. This meant tremendous capital investment from companies that had little revenue/cash flow. Rulke were meant to level the palying field - give the competition some advantage given their capital constaints, brand issues etc..., today's market is different. A comparison between Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and Unitel, fONOROLA, Sprint Canada, and London Telecom makes no sense. In essence this is what the CRTC is doing. Same ground rules for a marketplace that does not resemble the market from the 90s.
Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Anonymous
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 10:16 AM EDT | Permanent Link
Same ground rules for a marketplace that does not resemble the market from the 90s.
It's hard to tell what you mean. Are you saying that, given the existence of two wires into the home, the facilities-based competition approach is no longer appropriate? If so, that would certainly jibe with the incumbents' message from the call -- which is that local telephony should go the way of Internet access and the mobile industry, neither of which have any non-incumbents left. On the other hand, it would also mean regulating to promote non-facilities-based competition -- lower naked DSL prices and so on. If trying to advocate for the incumbent position, I doubt that's the tack you want to take... Re: Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
Anonymous
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 11:05 AM EDT | Permanent Link
Facilities are in place via HFC. Cable companies have access to and relationships with the consumer. Similarly, Vonage, BabyTel have access to the consumer as well. Treating the market in the same manner does not make sense.
What do current naked DSL tarrifs look like? Re: Re: Re: Re: Bell, Telus Appeal Canada's VOIP Ruling
by
bda
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 04:55 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Facilities are in place via HFC. Cable companies have access to and relationships with the consumer. Similarly, Vonage, BabyTel have access to the consumer as well. That's true of the TDM voice market as well -- facilities in place via HFC, access to the consumer available via unbundled loops or resale. What is the substantive difference that you think creates a separate market here?
What do current naked DSL tarrifs look like? Try the CRTC Web site; why? Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: Weblogs that reference this article:
|
My blog has moved.
Check out the new Mark Evans. It's on Wordpress and part of my mini-blog empire that also includes All About Nortel You can subscribe to Mark Evans Tech by clicking on the RSS symbol above.
Check Out These Blogs
Search
Login
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||