CRTC screws Canadians. It’s normally Bell Canada that’s screwing us.

This email just landed in my inbox. It’s an appeal to speak up about new cable fees being proposed by the CRTC – ironically, this came from Bell Canada. Of course you see the irony in this email – it’s like the “Pot calling the kettle black” isn’t it ? Bell Canada asking us to speak up about new fees.

My question to Bell – how about all of those hidden fees, charges, surcharges, excuses, and years of bad service. Wait, you’re still screwing us – hidden charges, mistakes on bills, and this whole Net Neutrality thing has really got me frustrated.

Either way, it sure looks like another tax.

Dear Customer,

Help stop your TV fees from increasing. CTV, Global and the CBC have recently asked the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to significantly increase TV taxes.

The CRTC has been asked to do this by having Bell and the other operators pay more, which would result in higher fees for you.

We don’t think that’s right, you shouldn’t either. So please speak and have your say.

This is what’s happening.

The CRTC has told satellite and cable companies to hand over $100 million a year as of September 1, 2009. These fees are being passed on to you.

This money is passing through something called the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF) ˆ straight to media giants like CTVglobemedia and Canwest Global, straight to the CBC.

No new local programming, no improvement to anything other than the bottom line of broadcasters.

You are now likely paying for this on your TV bill.

You should also know that hot on the heels of that campaign, CTV, Global and the CBC are now lobbying for even more.

Each year, satellite and cable companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcasters. We contribute to the CRTC’s operating budget. Although to date these fees have not been broken out on monthly bills, you need to know they exist ˆ especially because the TV networks still want more.

If the CRTC gives in to the broadcasters’ latest demand and lets local TV stations charge for their currently free over-the-air local signals, it would more than double the portion of your Bell TV bill going to government fees ˆ and into the bank accounts of the broadcasters, like CTV, Global and the CBC.

In fact, if the CRTC lets broadcasters have their way, then government-imposed fees will be just shy of one billion dollars.

It’s time to say enough. Help make it stop. Let the CRTC know what you think about new TV taxes – have your say.

Written by: Jeff Wiener. www.digitcom.ca. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com by: RSS, Twitter, Identi.ca, or Friendfeed

Canadians should be in a National Uproar over the Globalive / CRTC hearings. Is Globalive Canadian owned ? Does it matter ?

It apparently does, and the incumbents (Bell, Telus, Rogers) are pissed – why ? Well, here’s the new kid on the block that’s going to rain on their parade. If you were one of three firms operating in an oligopoly ripping consumers off for so many years, and a new competitive threat was knocking on the door, wouldn’t you do anything you could to stop the new companies from entering the market ?

And on the flip side, the Canadian consumer should be pissed. We have opened up wireless spectrum to allow for more competition in the marketplace. We need this competition to drive down prices and improve service. We should be in a national uproar that these CRTC hearings are even happening – if Globalive is stopped from entering the Canadian marketplace it’s the consumer that will suffer. It’s particularly disturbing considering Industry Canada has already approved the Globalive structure.

I did a post a few weeks ago about Globalive, one of Canada’s three new cell companies getting ready to launch in the next few months.

Well – with the help of the CRTC, Globalive is back in the news.

The CRTC, apparently the pet dog of Rogers , Telus, and Bell, was let loose to freely attack Globalive. Telus, Bell and Rogers, under the guise of the CRTC, seem to have a bit of a problem with the funding that Anthony Lacavera received to make the bid on the Canadian spectrum, and they are trying to do whatever they can to spoil Globalive’s chances of success.

The incumbents all have a good reason to attack Globalive. As reported by the Globe and Mail, upstarts like Globalive, Public Mobile, and DAVE mobile will potentially eat up 24% of the Canadian wireless market by 2014. That’s some serious market share, and the incumbents aren’t going to lie down and let the new guys steal their lunch.

The biggest problem seems to come down to math. Globalive states that Lacavera is in control, and he is a Canadian citizen. The incumbents are complaining about the amount of ownership and possible influence that the Egyptian financial backer, Orascom Telecom, has on the Globalive company. The way that Lacavera has explained it, the Globalive team is following all the rules while still allowing for some out of this country funding. Here is the breakdown:

• Anthony Lacavera owns 35 % of Globalive, and Orascom owns 65%.
• Orascom funded over $500 Million so Globalive could pay for the wireless spectrum that they bought, and the bridge financing required for the infratructure
• Both of these parties have agreed to replace the loans with third-party investments – as soon as it is commercially viable.

Telus and Bell suggest that Globalive and Orascom are pulling a fast one – trying to get around the legalities by setting up separate companies but still providing Orascom with a majority stake in the company, and also with the added benefit of controlling the operations.

It shouldn’t be a big shock that Globalive was financed through another country, and as long as Globalive and Orascom commit to what they say they are going to do, there shouldn’t be any problems.

Well – still one hefty problem – the CRTC is under the influence of the incumbents. The decisions coming from this regulatory body will provide fuel for many posts to come.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in the CRTC grilling Globalive about being influenced by outside sources? Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

More: You can read about the other two new cellular companies coming to Canada. TheTelecomBlog.com has profiled:
Coming to Canada this Fall – profiling Public Mobile
Coming to Canada this Fall – profiling Wind Mobile
Coming to Canada this winter – profiling Dave Wireless

Written by: Jason Finnerty & Jeff Wiener. www.digitcom.ca. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com by: RSS, Twitter, Identi.ca, or Friendfeed

Rogers, Bell internet throttling. We’re heading down a slippery slope

The National Post has a story this morning that suggests Rogers would like Federal Regulators to stay clear “crafting new rules for how carriers can manage the flow and speed of Web traffic on their networks”. They argue that any technology they use to employ traffic shaping are purely for the larger good – slow down a few to help the majority on the internet. Apparently Rogers is looking out for the general populace.

Well hopefully the federal regulator doesn’t believe them. That’s kind of like putting the cat in charge of looking after the mouse house. Enough is enough.

Rogers and Bell should be regulated like the utilities that they are. Maybe we should hold a hearing on breaking up Rogers and Bell. In actual fact, Rogers controls both the pipeline and the content on that pipeline. And, what content might they be trying to regulate … VoIP, Internet TV ?

Who’s to say the next step, once and if the federal regulators side with Rogers argument , that Rogers won’t throttle some of the very bandwidth they’re trying to sell to their customers. Notice that many of the internet TV stations available to US viewers aren’t available in Canada – HBO.com, ABC.com’s live streaming of TV shows. Those aren’t available in Canada. It’s these regulators that push for these bans.

The world is becoming internet / IP based, and more and more content is flowing down these networks. We’re heading down a slippery slope – I’m hoping the CRTC realizes that.

Net Neutrality Crucial Issue for VoIP

In Ottawa this week, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is holding hearings on the controversial issue of Net Neutrality.

The crucial issue is whether the Internet should be a level playing field for all service and content providers, or whether ISPs should have the ability to shape/manage traffic to make sure their networks can operate as efficiently as possible, and that their customers are getting the services they need.

Of course, the issue is not that cut and dry, which is why Net Neutrality is such a contentious issue. One of the key considerations is whether ISPs can give a higher priority to their own traffic and those of their partners over traffic from companies riding on the same “highway”.

Guest Contributor: Mark Evans, markevans.ca

For companies providing VoIP services competing against ISPs such as Shaw, Cogeco, Telus, Rogers and Bell, the Net Neutrality hearings should be watched closely. If ISPs decided to shape or throttle traffic, it could have a serious impact on a VoIP service provider’s business if consumers see a difference in quality of service.

In the past, for example, Vonage filed a complaint with the CRTC over a $10 fee that Shaw was charging to ensure that Vonage customers received high-quality service for it and other content and services.

John Lawford, counsel with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, told the CRTC that the logical solution is simply charging subscribers based on how much bandwidth they use, regardless of the application.

That makes a lot of sense, and reflects the pay-as-you-go approach popular in Europe with ISPs such as BT.

For more on the hearings, which continue until July 13, check out Mark Goldberg’s Telecom Trends blog, CBC.ca and the National Post, which look at the impact that throttling could have on the film industry.

Guest Contributor: Mark Evans, markevans.ca