Thursday, September 23, 2004
Jeff is giving the CRTC a ticking-off
Jeff Pulver gave yesterday his testimony to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) regarding the Regulatory Framework for Vioce Communications Services Using Internet Protocol.
And it was great as usual - congratulations. And Jeff are not only supporting the pioneers and innovators, you are also supporting the incumbents ;-)
I like especially this part (of course among others):
"Having said that, I think it is important that we not prejudice a company based on its DNA. The CRTC should allow incumbent telecom carriers the same latitude to offer IP-based broadband services largely free of onerous regulations. Frankly, these are the companies with the deep pockets to invest in new infrastructure and to seed innovation. The default presumption should be that regulation need not apply. If a potential monopolist demonstrates that it cannot play fair, then it should be slapped silly."
This is completely along the lines what Telekom Austria is trying to tell the European Commission how providers with Significant Market Power (SMP) should be treated in this new market.
What you are really doing is to give the regulators a ticking-off to do their job as basically intended by law:
"In Europe e.g. the aims of the “New” Regulatory Framework and the derived national Telecommunication Laws are:
-fostering of competition in the telecommunication arena,
-to ensure the adequate supply of the population and the economy,
-with reasonably priced, high quality and innovative communication services;
reached by different measures of regulation,
-but these measures should be to a large extent technology neutral,
-and innovative technologies and services as well as new emerging markets should only be regulated (ex-post) to avoid distortion of competition and to reach the above aims."
(and NOT by protecting service providers or technologies
especially NOT specific service providers or specific technologies.)
Some if them already got the message and are acting or trying to act accordingly (see US, UK, Austria, Singapore, ...), others may need some more tutorials. BTW, my experience is that regulators dealing for some time also with ENUM-issues seem to be more advanced regading VoIP and Internet-issues in general ;-)
Of course Jeff is tackling the complete scenario, so for the complete
story see The Jeff Pulver Blog: My Testimony at the CRTC
Jeff Pulver gave yesterday his testimony to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) regarding the Regulatory Framework for Vioce Communications Services Using Internet Protocol.
And it was great as usual - congratulations. And Jeff are not only supporting the pioneers and innovators, you are also supporting the incumbents ;-)
I like especially this part (of course among others):
"Having said that, I think it is important that we not prejudice a company based on its DNA. The CRTC should allow incumbent telecom carriers the same latitude to offer IP-based broadband services largely free of onerous regulations. Frankly, these are the companies with the deep pockets to invest in new infrastructure and to seed innovation. The default presumption should be that regulation need not apply. If a potential monopolist demonstrates that it cannot play fair, then it should be slapped silly."
This is completely along the lines what Telekom Austria is trying to tell the European Commission how providers with Significant Market Power (SMP) should be treated in this new market.
What you are really doing is to give the regulators a ticking-off to do their job as basically intended by law:
"In Europe e.g. the aims of the “New” Regulatory Framework and the derived national Telecommunication Laws are:
-fostering of competition in the telecommunication arena,
-to ensure the adequate supply of the population and the economy,
-with reasonably priced, high quality and innovative communication services;
reached by different measures of regulation,
-but these measures should be to a large extent technology neutral,
-and innovative technologies and services as well as new emerging markets should only be regulated (ex-post) to avoid distortion of competition and to reach the above aims."
(and NOT by protecting service providers or technologies
especially NOT specific service providers or specific technologies.)
Some if them already got the message and are acting or trying to act accordingly (see US, UK, Austria, Singapore, ...), others may need some more tutorials. BTW, my experience is that regulators dealing for some time also with ENUM-issues seem to be more advanced regading VoIP and Internet-issues in general ;-)
Of course Jeff is tackling the complete scenario, so for the complete
story see The Jeff Pulver Blog: My Testimony at the CRTC
Comments:
Post a Comment
