1
Is Broadband Basic Service?
By:MichaelDeSantisPublicInterestAdvocacyCentre1204‐ONENicholasSt.Ottawa,ONK1N7B7July2010
WithFundingfromIndustryCanada
2
Copyright2010PIAC
Contentsmaynotbecommerciallyreproduced.
Anyotherreproductionwithacknowledgmentisencouraged.
ThePublicInterestAdvocacyCentre(PIAC)
Suite1204ONENicholasStreet
Ottawa,ONK1N7B7
CanadianCataloguingandPublicationData
Is Broadband Basic Service?
ISBN
1-895060-92-3
3
4
Acknowledgement
ThePublicInterestAdvocacyCentre(PIAC)receivedfundingfromIndustryCanada’sContributionsProgramforNon‐profitConsumerandVoluntaryOrganizations.TheviewsexpressedinthisreportarenotnecessarilythoseofIndustryCanadaoroftheGovernmentofCanada.
TheAssistancewithresearchandeditingofthisreportprovidedbyMichaelJaniganisalsogratefullyacknowledged.
5
TableofContents
Acknowledgment3
ExecutiveSummary5
IsBroadbandBasicService?5
Introduction7
TheImportanceofBroadband9
BasicServiceintheEUandMemberStates14
2005ReviewontheScopeofUniversalService17
SecondPeriodicReviewoftheScopeofUniversalService(2008)18
AnnualReviewoftheEuropeanElectronicCommunicationsMarketfor200819
France20
Spain22
Finland22
Australia23
Japan26
UnitedStates29
Canada38
Conclusion44
AppendixA47
AppendixB50
6
ExecutiveSummary
IsBroadbandBasicService?
TheinternethasrevolutionizedthewayCanadianswork,learnandplay.Businessesrelyuponitincreasinglytomarketandsellproductsanddeliverservices.Schoolsrelyuponittodelivercurriculaandforthevastamountofinformationitcontains.Healthcareprofessionalsneedittodelivercriticalhealthcareservices,particularlytoruralandremoteareas.ItwouldlikelybeverydifficultforchildrenofCanada’snewestgenerationtoimagineaworldwithouttheinternet,givenhowpervasiveitseffectsare.
Agreatdealoftheinternet’srapidrisetoprominenceisthankstohighbandwidthorbroadbandconnections.Theseconnectionsallowdataandcontenttotravelswiftlyinternetusersandproviders.Indeed,manyoftheinternetapplicationswetakeforgrantedtodaysuchonlinevideoservices,streamingmusicandradioprogrammingandmultiplayeronlinegamingwouldnotbepossiblewithoutabroadbandconnection.Broadbandisanessentialcomponenttorealizingthefullpotentialoftheinternet.Unfortunately,PIACisgravelyconcernedthataccesstobroadbandinternetservicesisnotuniforminCanada.Manyconsumers,particularlythoseinruralorremoteareas,arenotableharnessthefullpotentialoftheinternet.Othersmaybeunabletoaccessexistingconnectionsbecauseoflackofresources.This21stcenturyversionofthe“DigitalDivide”,betweenbroadband‐connectedCanadiansandCanadianswithoutsuchbroadbandconnectionscouldhaveaveryseriouseffectonCanadianconsumersandthecountryasawhole.
BroadbandissoimportantthatsomecountriessuchasFinlandandSpainhavedeclareditalegalright.OthercountriessuchasJapan,AustraliaandtheUnitedStateshavecomprehensivepoliciestoensurethatcustomershaveaccesstobroadbandservices.Furthermore,theEuropeanUnionhasadetailedpolicyontheprovisionofbroadbandserviceforconsumersthroughoutEurope.NosuchregimeexistsinCanadaandPIACbelievesthatCanadianconsumers,particularlythoseinruralorremoteareas,areworseoffbecauseofit.
Theimportanceofbroadbandhaslongbeenrecognizedbythefederalgovernment.In1995,thefederalgovernmentcreatedtheInformationHighwayAdvisoryCounciltostudytheeconomic,socialandculturaladvantagesbroadbandcouldprovidetoCanadians.Later,in2001,theNationalBroadbandTaskForce,aninitiativeoftheGovernmentofCanada,wasestablishedbytheMinisterofIndustry.Theinitiativesought"tomapoutastrategyforachievingtheGovernmentofCanada'sgoalofensuringthatbroadbandservicesareavailabletobusinessesandresidentsineveryCanadiancommunityby2004."Sadly,thisgoalwasneverachieved.
7
OtherfederalprojectssuchastheBroadbandforRuralandNorthernDevelopmentPilotProgram,theNationalSatelliteinitiativeandCanada'sEconomicActionPlanhaveundertakentoprovidebroadbandserviceforCanadianswhereitdoesnotcurrentlyexist.Todate,thereremainsnorightorguaranteeforCanadianconsumerstoreceivebroadbandservice,regardlessofwheretheylive.
TheideathattelecommunicationservicemustbemadeavailabletoallconsumersisanestablishedprincipleinCanadiantelecommunicationpolicy.TheCRTCreleaseditsTelecommunicationDecision99‐16.Inthisdecision,theCRTCestablishedtheBasicServiceObjectivefortelephoneservice.Thiscreatedaminimumlevelofservicethatmustbemadeavailabletoconsumers,regardlessoftheirplaceofresidence.Servicessuchastouch‐tonedialing,accesstoemergencyserviceandlongdistance,directoryassistanceandacopyofthetelephonedirectory.TheBasicServiceRequirementunfortunatelydoesnotapplytobroadbandinternetservices.
CanadawasconsideredaworldleaderinbroadbandavailabilitybytheOECDasearlyas2003.Today,ourrankingamongstOECDmembershasdroppedsharplytothebottomquartileofthelist.PIACisconcernedthatCanadianconsumersarenotguaranteedaccesstobroadbandservicesthewayconsumersinmanyothercountriesaretoday.Accesstobroadbandhasimportanteconomic,socialandculturalramificationsforCanadiansandwithoutit,Canadianconsumersriskfallingbehindintoday’sincreasinglyonlineinterconnectedworld.PIACbelievesthatbroadbandshouldbeconsideredanessentialserviceandbemadeavailabletoallCanadianconsumers,regardlessoftheirplaceofresidence.ThiswouldbeaccomplishedbyabasicserviceregimesimilartothatforbasictelephonyoutlinedbyTelecommunicationDecision99‐16.Thechiefcharacteristicsofanysuchplanwouldbethatitwouldbecomprehensive,competitivelyneutral,flexibleenoughtoaccommodatetechnologicaldevelopments,andsubjecttoeffectivemarketorregulatorydisciplinewithrespecttocosts.Currentproceedings,nowunderwayintheCRTCatthetimeoftheissuanceofthisreport,mayhelptoenablesuchanoutcome.
8
Introduction
TheinternethasrevolutionizedthewayCanadianswork,learnandplay.Businessesrelyuponitincreasinglytomarketandsellproductsanddeliverservices.Schoolsrelyuponittodelivercurriculaandforthevastamountofinformationitcontains.Theinternethasalsoenabledcontentproviderstoentertainmillions,withYoutubeandiTunesbeingparticularlystrikingexamples.ItwouldlikelybeverydifficultforchildrenofCanada’snewestgenerationtoimagineaworldwithouttheinternet,givenhowpervasiveitseffectsare.
Agreatdealoftheinternet’srapidrisetoprominenceisthankstohighbandwidthorbroadbandconnections.Theseconnectionsallowdataandcontenttotravelswiftlyinternetusersandproviders.Indeed,manyoftheinternetapplicationswetakeforgrantedtodaysuchonlinevideoservices,streamingmusicandradioprogrammingandmultiplayeronlinegamingwouldnotbepossiblewithoutabroadbandconnection.Broadbandisanessentialcomponenttorealizingthefullpotentialoftheinternet.Unfortunately,accesstobroadbandinternetservicesisnotuniforminCanada.Manyconsumers,particularlythoseinruralorremoteareas,arenotableharnessthefullpotentialoftheinternet.The“DigitalDivide”,asthisphenomenonisknown,couldhaveaveryseriouseffectonCanadianconsumersandthecountryasawhole.
MinimumstandardsforbroadbandserviceforallCanadiansmustbeestablishedbymakingcreatingabasicoruniversalbroadbandservicerequirementforCanada.ThisfacthasbeenpromotedbytheCanadianRadio‐televisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(CRTC).TheCRTCpublishedareportonFebruary2010entitled“NavigatingConvergence:ChartingCanadianCommuincationsChangeandRegulatoryImplications”.Containedwithinthisreportwasanappendixpertainingtouniversalbroadbandaccess.ThissectionoutlinedanumberofreasonswhybroadbandshouldbeauniversalserviceavailabletoallCanadians.HerearethereasonsofferedbytheCRTC:
• improvededucationandnewopportunitiesforpost‐secondaryeducation;studentsandteachershaveaccesstomoreeducationmaterials;studentslivinginruralandremoteareashaveincreaseddistance‐learningchoices;
• improvedhealthcareviae‐healthapplications,enablingbettercollaborationandsharingofpatientfiles;thisisofparticularbenefittopatientsinruralandremoteareas,enablingmedicalprofessionalsintheseareastohaveaccesstodiagnosticservicesandconsultationwithcolleaguesinurbanareas;
• newbusinessandimprovedbusinessopportunitiesincludingtelecommuting,e‐commerceandonlinemarketing;broadbandaccessisalsoleadingtoimprovedproductivityandcompetitivenessofresource‐based,agriculturalandmanufacturingindustries,ultimatelyboostingGDP;
9
• betteraccesstogovernmentservices(suchase‐taxfiling),improvedaccesstoinformationaboutpublicpolicyissuesandincreasedopportunitiestoparticipateincivicactivities;
• accesstonewsandinformation.TheInternetisbecomingakeywaytoobtainnewsandinformation,takingmarketshareawayfromtraditionalmediaandprovidingaccesstoawidersourceofinternationalinformation;
• greaterdiversityofvoicesandanotherplatformforCanadiancontent;thebroadrangeofentertainmentservicesandapplicationsenabledbybroadbandaccessprovidesnewmethodsofculturalexpression;and
• thepotentialtoremovelocationasarestrictionforparticipationinsociety,whichenablesbettersocialinclusionforindividualslivinginremotecommunities.1
TheReportalsomentionshowuniversalbroadbandaccessbringsbenefitsnotjustinthedomesticsphere,buttheinternationalsphereaswell.UniversalbroadbandallowsCanadianstobetterparticipateintheglobalinformationsociety.2
Theconceptofauniversaltelecommunicationserviceisnotanewone.Therewasatimewhenbasicwirelinetelephoneservicewassomewhatofararity.However,consumersandpolicymakerswereawareofthenumerousbenefitsofferedbyaccesstotelecommunicationservices,evenattheturnofthe20thcentury.Infact,basicserviceoruniversalservice,wasaterminventedbyAT&TChairmanTheodoreVailin1907,whendescribinghiscompany’swirelinetelephoneservice:
Universal Service is concerned with the making available of the provision of a certain defined set oftelecommunications services as widely as possible, both geographically and socially. Historically suchprovisionwasseenaslyingwiththeincumbent,howeversuccessfultheywereperceivedtobeintermsofmeeting their obligations! In a liberalized market, such service provision needs to continue to beguaranteedthroughamechanismthatwillnotdistortthecompetitiveconditionsunderwhichprovidersoperate.Thescopeofuniversalservicewillalso inevitablyevolveovertime,aspoliticianstrytoensurethatthebenefitsofthenewtechnologiesaremadeavailabletothesocietyasawhole.3
Thequestionnowremainswhetherthescopeofuniversalserviceshouldnowincludebroadbandinternetserviceforconsumers.ThisreportwilldemonstratehowothercountrieshavealreadyadoptedsimilarpoliciesfortheircitizensandhowCanadashouldadoptasimilarpolicytoserveitsowncitizensaswell.
1“NavigatingConvergence:ChartingCanadianCommunicationsChangeandRegulatoryImplications”ConvergencePolicy,PolicyDevelopmentandResearch,CRTC,February2010.
2Ibid3Walden,IanandAngel,John,TelecommunicationsLawandRegulation,OxfordUniversityPresssecondedition2005
10
TheImportanceofBroadband
Inordertounderstandbroadbandwell,itisimportanttoconsiderthetypeofinternetservicethatprecededit.Wheninternetservicebegantoachievebroadconsumeracceptanceinthe1990’s,themostcommonwayforconsumerstoconnectwasusingamodem,phonelineand“dial‐up”service.Thisdial‐upservicerequiredaconsumertoconsciouslyanddeliberatelyconnecttheircomputereachtimetheywishedtoaccesstheinternet.Thisconnectionofferedverylowuploadanddownloadspeedsbymodernstandardsandalsooccupiedaconsumer’sphonelineforthedurationoftimetheywishedtobeconnected.
Broadbandofferedamuchmorecompellinginternetexperiencefortheconsumerinanumberofways.Mostobviouswastheexponentialincreaseinspeedpossibleoverabroadbandconnection.Downloadinglargefilesorconsumingbandwidthhungrycontentsuchasmusicorvideowasnowapleasantexperience,unlikeoverdial‐upwheretheprocesscouldtakehoursorevenlonger.Evensimplebrowsingontheinternetcouldbeaslow,tediousexperienceoveradial‐upconnection.Furthermore,broadbandallowedconsumerstohavean“always‐on”internetconnection,asopposedtodial‐upwhenusershadtomanuallyconnectanddisconnecteachtimetheywishedtogoonline.Thealways‐onqualityofbroadbandalsoallowedconsumerstounwiretheirinternetandexperienceitindifferentways.Theproliferationandnearubiquityofwirelessroutersallowsmanydevicessuchaslaptops,personaldigitalassistants,streamingaudioandvideoplayersandsometelevisionstoconnecttotheinterneteasilyandrapidly.Thisrevolutioninthewayconsumersconnecttotheinternettowork,learnandplaywouldhavebeenimpossiblewithouttheadventofbroadbandservicesdeliveredtothehome.
Inmanyways,theimplementationofbroadbandarchitecturemimicsthewaythatwirelinetelephoneservicewasinstalledinCanadaaroundtheturnofthe20thcentury.In1885,Bell’spatentswerevoidedbythefederalpatentcommissioner.Thismoveforcedthecompanytoopenuptocompetition.Bellresistedandemployedpredatorypricingschemesandexclusionaryservicecontractstodriveawayitscompetition.4In1906,boththefederalandprovincialgovernmentsofCanadabegantoregulatetelephoneserviceandmanyofthesepracticesended.Inspiteoftheendofthesepractices,mostofthelargetelephoneserviceproviderssuchasBellhadamonopoly‐likecontrolovertheirrespectivemarketsandfavouredlarger,urbanmarketsoversmallerruralones.Infact,awitnessbeforethefederalSelectCommitteeonTelephoneSystemsin1905statedthat
4Achequeredprogress:FarmersandtheTelephoneinCanada,1905‐1951(p.2).
11
…thisbranchoftelephony[ruraltelephony]hasinthepastbeenabsolutelyneglectedanddiscouragedinCanada by existing companies, for the reason that it does not prove such a lucrative business as theexchangesinthetownsandcities.5
TheSelectCommitteehadbeenformedlargelyasaresultofanenergeticlobbygroupthatarguedruraltelephoneservicewasanecessityasitreducedisolationandallowedfarmerstoparticipatemoreactivelyinlocalmarkets.Astimeprogressed,telephoneservicewasgraduallydeployedaroundtheCanadiancountryside.AccordingtoRobertM.Pike,somemethodsusedtoencourageinvestmentintelephoneinfrastructureweremoresuccessfulthanothers.HenotesthatSaskatchewan’spolicyofcontrollingmajorexchangesandtrunklines,withassistanceprovidedtoanetworkofruralcooperativeswasthemosteffectivewayofencouragingtelephonedeployment.6LesseffectivewerethecentralizedpubliccontrolpoliciesofManitobaandAlbertaandthelightlyregulatedprivatesystemsofQuebecandtheMaritimes.
Thiscomparisonisinstructiveandwillbeexaminedlaterinthisreportwithrespecttobroadbanddeployment.Thehistoryofwirelinetelephoneservicecouldprovideusefulcontextandpertinentexamplesforthebroadbandbasicservicedebate.
InCanada,broadband’simportancewasrecognizedasfarbackas1995.ThatyearsawthecreationoftheInformationHighwayAdvisoryCouncil.Canadahasseenanumberofimportantbroadbandprojectssincethattime,bothatthefederalandprovinciallevels.Herearesomeexamples:
• TheNationalBroadbandTaskForce,aninitiativeoftheGovernmentofCanada,whichwasestablishedin2001bytheMinisterofIndustry.Theinitiativesought"tomapoutastrategyforachievingtheGovernmentofCanada'sgoalofensuringthatbroadbandservicesareavailabletobusinessesandresidentsineveryCanadiancommunityby2004.";
• TheBroadbandforRuralandNorthernDevelopmentPilotProgramisanotherexample.ThiswasannouncedbyIndustryCanadain2002toassistcommunitieswithouthigh‐speeddataservicesaccess,focusingspecificallyonFirstNations,rural,remoteandnortherncommunities.ThisprogramwaspromotedasthefirststeptowardtheGovernmentofCanada'scommitmenttohigh‐speedconnectivityforallCanadiancommunitiesby2005;
5ClaudeFischer,“Technology’sRear:TheDeclineofRuralTelephonyintheUnitedStates1920to1940”SocialScienceHistory11(1987):295‐327.6Supranote2p.6.
12
• TheNationalSatelliteinitiative,wasajointprogrambetweenInfrastructureCanada,IndustryCanadaandtheCanadianSpaceAgency.Itwaslaunchedin2003toprovidehigh‐speedbroadbandInternetaccessservicesviasatellitetocommunitieslocatedinthefar‐andmid‐north,andinisolatedorremoteareasofCanada.TheGovernmentofCanadacontributed$155milliontowardthecostsofimplementingthisinitiativetopurchaseandaccesssatellitecapacity;
• Therehavealsobeenvariousprovincialinitiativestoensureaccesstohigh‐speedInternet,suchas,AlbertaSuperNet(focusedoneducationandhealthcare),ConnectOntario,Quebec'sVillagesBranchesprogram,Manitoba'sBroadbandProjectOffice,ConnectYukon,BroadbandBC,NunavutBroadbandTaskforce,NewfoundlandGovernmentBroadbandInitiativeandBroadbandforRuralNovaScotia.Saskatchewan,NovaScotiaandNewfoundlandallannouncedprogramsinlate2008toencouragebroadbandfacilityconstruction;and
• Canada'sEconomicActionPlan,whichprovided$225milliontoIndustryCanadaoverthreeyearstodevelopandimplementastrategytoextendbroadbandcoveragetoasmanyunservedandunderservedhouseholdsaspossible,beginningin2009‐2010.7
IntheCRTCTelecomPublicNotice97‐42,ProfessorHeatherHudsongavewrittenevidenceregardingtheimportanceofbroadbandtoremotecommunitiesinCanada,particularlycommunitiesinCanada’snorthernregions.Residentsoftheseareashavelongrecognizedtheimportanceoftelecommunications.Intheearly1970’s,indigenouspeoplelivinginnorthernandfarnorthernareasheldreliabletwo‐waycommunicationsastheirnumberonepriority,followedbyradioandtelevisionbroadcasts.8Thesetelecommunicationsserviceswereimportanttomaintaincontactwithrelativesinothercommunities,tofacilitatecommunicationforthepurposesofemploymentandeducation,tocontactgovernmentagenciesandbuyersoftheirproductssuchasfurs,fishandhandicrafts.TheChiefsofnorthwesternOntarionamedreliabletelecommunicationsservicesastheirtoppriority.YoungInuitbelievedthatitwouldbeacriticaltoolintheirongoingstrugglesrelatingtolandclaimsandpoliticalautonomy.AnInuit
7Supranote1.8WrittenevidencebyHeatherHudson,CRTCTelecomPublicNotice97‐42,1997.
13
leaderfromArcticQuebecstatedthat:“Weneedinformation‐‐massesofit.Withoutit,ourculture
won’tsurvive.”9
Professor’sHudson’sresearchthatinstantaneoustelecommunicationsservices,suchasbroadband,canimprovetheratioofoutputtocostforservicesinremoteareas,increasethequalityofproductsandservicesanddistributethebenefitsoftheseservicesmoreequitablythroughoutthearea.Overall,theinvestmentintelecommunicationsserviceshasproducedsomeverytangibleresultsforconsumers,particularlyaboriginalconsumerslivingintheseremoteareas.ProfessorHudsonsumsitupwell:
The investment in telecommunications in Canada’s remote areas in the past twodecades has resulted in many benefits for northern social, cultural, political andeconomicdevelopment.NativepeopleacrosstheNorthhaveusedtelecommunicationsintheformoftelephone,faxandvideoconferencingtopressforlandclaimsandgreaterpolitical autonomy. Northern entrepreneurs use telecommunications to participate infur auctions, order supplies for co‐operatives, and run guiding businesses and touristlodges. People on reserves in northwestern Ontario can complete high school viacorrespondence with audio conferencing tutorials; while students in Rankin Inletdownload a virtual frog dissection kit and post pictures on their website of eldersteaching them to sew seal and caribou clothing. Northerners also recognize theInternet’s potential for economic development. Sakku Investments, the businessdevelopmentarmofRankinInlet’sInuitassociation,seestheInternetastheelectronicroad system for their business development. “As far as I’m concerned,” says Sakku’sCEO,“it’sadriver’sedschool.”10
Animportanteffectattributedtoincreasedconsumerbroadbandconsumptionisalowerunemploymentrate.TheSacramentoRegionalResearchInstitute(SSRI)conductedastudybetween2001and2006todeterminewhethertherewasacorrelationbetweenbroadbandgrowthandthenumberofnewjobsavailable.TheSSRIdiscoveredacorrelationbetweenanincreaseinbroadbandgrowthandanincreaseinavailablejobs.Theinstitutediscoveredthatforeverypercentagepointincreaseintheadultpopulationusingbroadband,thereisacorrespondingincreaseinemploymentgrowthby0.075%aswellasanincreaseinthepayrollgrowthrateby0.088%.11Thereportnotedthat“(b)asedonanestimateof"strong"9QuotedinHudson,HeatherE.WhenTelephonesReachtheVillage.Norwood,NJ:Ablex,1984.(TheauthordidextensivefieldworkinplanningandevaluatingcommunicationsprojectsintheCanadianNorthinthe1970's.).10Supranote8.
11Cheng,Jacqui:"Studylinkingbroadband,jobcreationshowsneedforcoherentUSpolicy"<http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/study‐linking‐broadband‐job‐creation‐shows‐need‐for‐coherent‐us‐policy.ars>.
14
broadbandgrowthoverthenextseveralyears(about3.8percent),SRRIsaysthatCaliforniacouldseeacumulative10‐yeargainof1.8millionjobsand$132billioninpayroll.”12Thesearesomeimpressivefiguresandthisstudyshedssomeimportantlightononeoftheveryimportanteffectsbroadbandinternetcanhaveonacommunity.
Broadbandinternetalsoprovidesgreatbenefitstoindividualswithdisabilities.InDecemberof2009,theUnitedStatesChamberofCommerceconcludedacomprehensivestudythatexaminedthedifferentbenefitsdisabledpeoplecouldderivefrombroadband.13Thereportuncoveredanumberofdifferentadvantagesbroadbandhadtooffer.Oneofthemwashowbroadbandfacilitatedavarietyofcommunicationmethodsthatareaccessibleandconvenientforpeoplewithdifferentdisabilitiessuchasemail,instantmessaging,textmessagingandvideoconferencing.Broadbandalsoincreasesandimproveseducationalopportunitiesandoptionsforpeoplewithdisabilities.Increasingnumbersofdifferentschoolcurriculaandlearningapplicationsaremadeavailableonlineandthispresentsatremendousopportunityfordisabledpeoplewhoarelessmobileorotherwiseunabletoleavehometoattendclasses.Accesstobroadbandalsoincreasesthenumberofemploymentopportunitiesavailabletopeoplewithdisabilitiesbyenablingtelecommuting.Broadbandalsoaffordsthemmanyentrepreneurialopportunitiesbyprovidingaconduittocreateandmanageasmallbusinessandearnanincomefromhome.Finally,broadbandallowsmanydisabledpeopletoaccessthelatestmedicalinformationandservices.Remotetelemedicineisanincreasinglyusefulandpracticalwaytodelivermedicalservicesandbroadbandmakesthisdeliverypossible.
Therearealsosomegroupsthatadvocateforbroadbandusingmoralandreligiousarguments.The“BringBettyBroadband”campaignwasstartedbyacoalitionofChristianchurchesintheU.S.andtheIslamicSocietyofNorthAmerica.Accordingtothem,thebroadbandissueisaboutthe“righttodisseminateandreceiveinformation”anditis“arightthathelpsustodefineourselvesashumanbeingsandpoliticalactors”14Thecoalitionsubmitsthatjustdistributionofaccesstocommunicationandinformationisessentialtopromoteeconomicjustice.
12Ibid.13U.S.ChamberofCommerce:“TheImpactofBroadbandonPeoplewithDisabilities”<https://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/0912broadband_dis.pdf>.
14Anderson,Nate:"Churches,mosquessaybroadbandisabouteconomicjustice"<http://arstechnica.com/tech‐policy/news/2009/07/churches‐mosques‐say‐broadband‐is‐about‐economic‐justice.ars>.
15
For too long, the process of reaching out and educating traditionally disenfranchised communities hasbeenlefttovolunteereffortsandthephilanthropiccommunityalone.Increasingaccessdoesn'tjustassistthepeoplewhoarehelped,weallbenefit.Justasthevalueofatelephoneincreaseswhenwecanreachmorepeoplebyusingit,thevalueoftheInternetforallofusincreaseswhenweareallconnected.15
Thecoalitionbelievesthataccesstobroadbandisaquestionofsocialjusticethatbringseconomicanddemocraticbenefitstoallwhoareabletoconnect.
Anadditional,interesting,takeontheroleofbroadbandinternetservicewasrecentlyprovidedbyNewBrunswickMemberofProvincialParliamentJackCarr.MrCarrfiledacomplaintwiththeNewBrunswickHumanRightsCommissionallegingthattheslowspeedofinternetservicesandthehighpriceforservicewasaformofdiscriminationagainsttheruralresidentsofhisconstituency.Mr.Carrbasedthiscomplaintonthe“placeoforigin”ruleintheprovince’sHumanRightsAct,oneofthe14differentcriteriaunderwhichahumanrightscomplaintmaybeadvanced.Thiswasaboldmove,astheprovinceofNewBrunswickhadalreadycommittedtomakingbroadbandavailabletotheprovinceby2010.16Regardless,thisexamplehighlightstheimportanceofbroadbandserviceinacommunity,particularlyamoreremotecommunitysuchastheonethatMr.Carrrepresents.
BasicServiceintheEUandMemberStates
TheEuropeanUnion(EU)regulatestelecommunicationsservicesonaninternationallevel,evenasmanyofitsmemberstatesregulatetheseservicesonanationallevelaswell.In2002,theEuropeanUniondevelopedacomprehensiveframeworkonelectroniccommunicationspolicy.TheDirectivewasknownasthe“FrameworkDirective”andwasadoptedbytheEUparliamentandCouncilonMarch72002.TheDirectivedefinesuniversalserviceas“theminimumsetofservices,asdefinedintheUniversalServiceDirectiveofspecifiedqualitywhichisavailabletoallusersregardlessoftheirgeographicallocationandinlightofspecificnationalconditions,atanaffordableprice”17TheFrameworkDirectivealsograntsthegovernmentsofthememberstatesthedutytopromotetheinterestsofthecitizens
15Ibid.
16Anderson,Nate:"Canadianpol:broadbandnotaluxury,butbasichumanright"<http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/10/canadian‐pol‐broadband‐not‐a‐luxury‐but‐basic‐human‐right.ars>.
17Directive2002/21/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilofMarch72002onacommonregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunicationsnetworksandservices.OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities.24April2002.L108/33‐50.
16
oftheEUby“ensuringallcitizenshaveaccesstoauniversalservicespecifiedintheUniversalServiceDirective.18
TheUniversalServiceDirective(March72002)19servesasthecornerstoneoftheEUregulatorylandscape.Thedirectivelaysoutboththesubstantivecomponentsofuniversalservice,andastatementofvalueswhichunderliethispolicyframework.Thedirectivebearsapreambleestablishingkeyobjectivesofuniversalservicesuchas“afundamentalrequirementofuniversalserviceistoprovideusersonrequestwithaconnectiontothepublictelephonenetworkatafixedlocation,atanaffordableprice.20Thefollowingaresomekeycomponentsofthepreamble:
• Clause1:theconceptofuniversalserviceshouldevolvetoreflectadvancesintechnology,marketdevelopmentsandchangesinuserdemand.
• Clause8:Connectionstothepublictelephonenetworkatafixedlocationshouldbecapableofsupportingspeechanddatacommunicationsatratessufficientforaccesstoonlineservices.
• Clause10:affordablepricemeansapricedefinedbymemberstatesatthenationallevelinlightofspecificnationalconditionsandmayinvolvesettingcommontariffsirrespectiveoflocationorspecialtariffoptionstodealwiththeneedsoflow‐incomeusers.
• Clause16:consumersshouldbeprotectedfromimmediatedisconnection.• Clause12:itisimportantfortheretobeadequateprovisionofpaytelephones.• Clause13:itisimportanttoguaranteeaccessfordisabledusers.
Thedirectivestatesinarticle1section1thatitsaimistoensureavailabilitythroughthecommunityofgoodqualityandpubliclyavailableservicesthrougheffectivecompetitionandchoice,andtodealwithcircumstancesinwhichtheneedsofendusersarenotsatisfactorilymetbythemarket.Thus,theinitialarticlesofthedirectivesetoutthattheaimoftheEUshouldbetomaintainacompetitivemarketwhilestillensuringtheprovisionofuniversalservice.Thedirectiveimposesonmemberstatestheobligationtoensurealluserswithintheirterritoryhaveaccesstouniversalserviceregardlessoftheirlocationwithinthememberstate.Thisprovisionofuniversalserviceistobeundertakenwithaneyetoefficiency,quality,andwithoutdistortionofmarkets(Article3s.2).Thesubstantiveobjectiveofuniversalservice
18IbidatArticle8section4.19Directive2002/22/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilofMarch72002onuniversalserviceandusers’rightsrelatingtoelectroniccommunicationsnetworksandservices(UniversalServiceDirective).OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities.24April2002.L108/51‐77.20Ibidat52.
17
accordingtothedirectiveisthat“Allreasonablerequestsforconnectionatafixedlocationtothepublictelephonenetwork,andforaccesstopubliclyavailableservicesatafixedlocationismetbyaleastoneundertaking(art.4(1).Keepinginlinewiththeaimsofensuringflexibilityandaccommodationtochangingtechnologies,article4(2)ofthedirectivestipulatesthattheconnectionprovidedshallbecapable,notjustofvoicecommunicationsbutalsotelephone,faxanddatacommunicationsanddataratessufficienttopermitfunctionalinternetaccess.Inthedirectivestatesaregiventheauthorityto“designateoneormoreundertakingstoguaranteetheprovisionofuniversalservicesothatthewholeoftheterritorycanbecovered.”(Article8).Therearelimitationstotheappointmentofuniversalserviceproviders;thisappointmentmustbeundertakenwithaviewtoefficiency,objectivity,transparencyandnon‐discrimination.Thedirectivealsoimposesonmemberstatesotherobligationssuchas:
• Monitoringtheaffordabilityoftariffs(article9)• Controllingexpenditureandensuringconsumersdonothavetopayforunrequested
services(article10)• Monitoringthequalityofservicethroughperformanceassessments,andmonitoring
compliance(article11)
Shouldthedesignationofanundertakingastheproviderofuniversalservicebedeemedunfair,anationalregulatoryauthoritycanundertaketocostoutandintroduceamechanismtocompensatethatundertakingfrompublicfundsand/orsharethenetcostsofprovidinguniversalservicebetweenprovidersofelectroniccommunicationsnetworksandservices(article13).
Akeyelementofthedirectiveisarticle15whichestablishesamandatedreviewofthescopeofuniversalserviceinordertoperiodicallyconsiderwhetherthescopeofuniversalserviceshouldbechangedorrevised.Thisreviewistobeundertakeneverythreeyears,andthereviewprocessisestablishedunderannexVofthedirective.Followingareview,areportshouldbesubmittedtotheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilbytheEuropeanCommission.
Inordertomonitorcomplianceandreviewthescopeofuniversalservice,thememberstatesareobligedtoundertakeamarketanalysisinordertomaintain,amend,orwithdrawtheobligationsrelatingtoretailmarkets.Inlinewiththedirective’sprioritizationofuniversalservicethrougheffectivecompetition,article17obligatesmemberstatestoimposeregulatoryobligationsonundertakingsifamarketanalysisrevealsthattheretailmarketinquestionisnotcompetitive.Suchmeasuresthatmaybeundertakentoestablishamorecompetitivemarketinclude:retailpricecapmeasures,measurestocontrolindividualtariffs,ormeasurestoorienttariffstowardscostsorpricesoncomparablemarkets(Article17(2)).Thisarticlealsostressestheimportanceofnotapplyingretailcontrolmechanismswhereeffectivecompetitionispresent(article17(5)).Articles20‐31ofthedirectivedealwithuserrightssuchas:setting
18
minimumstandardsintermsofkeyelementsofservicecontracts,transparency,quality,integrityofnetworks,operator/directoryassistance,emergencycallnumbers,numberportability,and“mustcarry”obligations.Also,article34providesanobligationformemberstatestoensurethattransparent,simpleandinexpensivedisputeresolutionproceduresareavailabletodealwithunresolveddisputesrelatingtoissuesinthedirective.
2005ReviewontheScopeofUniversalService
Intermsofimplementingthedirective,transpositionofthedirectivewastohavetakenplacebyJuly242003.SincetheadoptionoftheuniversalservicedirectivebytheEU,theEuropeanCommissionhasundertakentworeviewsofthescopeofuniversalservice,onein2005,andanotherin2008.Thepurposeofthesereviewswastodeterminewhetherthescopeofuniversalserviceshouldbemaintainedorchangedinparticulartoincludemobileorbroadbandcommunications.21AnnexVoftheuniversalservicedirectiveprovidesparameterstoguidethereview.Inreviewingthescopeofuniversalservice,thecommissionistoconsider:
a) Arespecificservicesavailabletoandusedbyamajorityofconsumers,anddoesthelackofavailabilityornon‐usebyaminorityofconsumersresultinsocialexclusion?
b) Doestheavailabilityanduseofspecificservicesconveyageneralnetbenefittoallconsumerssuchthatpublicinterventioniswarrantedincircumstanceswherethespecificservicesarenotprovidedtothepublicundernormalcommercialcircumstances?(AnnexVUniversalServiceDirective)
The2005reviewofthescopeofuniversalserviceconcludedthatmobilecommunicationsandbroadbandinternetaccesswerenottobeincludedwithinthescopeofuniversalservice.TheCommissionfoundthatasignificantmajorityofconsumersinthememberstatesalreadyhadaccesstomobilecommunications.The2005reviewalsoprovidedclarificationonthepurposeofthedirective:“universalserviceisanotamechanismwherebytheroll‐outofnewtechnologiesandservicesisfinancedbyincreasingthecostsforallexistingtelephoneusers.Rather,itisthesafetynetthatallowsaminorityofconsumerstocatchupwiththemajorityofuserswhoalreadyenjoybasicservices.”22Intermsofbroadband,theECconcludedinthe2005reviewonthescopeofuniversalservicethatby2004,approximately85%ofthepopulationintheEU‐15hadaccesstoabroadbandnetwork.TheECalsofoundthatasmall,thoughgrowing,minorityofEUconsumerscurrentlymadeuseofbroadbandservices.Sincethemajoritywas
21ReportregardingtheoutcomeoftheReviewofUniversalServiceinAccordancewithArticle15(2)ofDirective2002/22/EC,COM(2006)163,SEC(2006)445,p.2.22Ibid.
19
notusingthisservice,theECconcludedthatithadnotbecomenecessaryfornormalparticipationinsociety,suchthatconsumerslackingbroadbandaccessfacedsocialexclusion.Despitethisconclusion,theECnotedthattheEUhasastrategyforbroadbandthroughtheeEuropeActionPlan.23
SecondPeriodicReviewoftheScopeofUniversalService(2008)
OnSeptember252008,theECreleasedacommunicationonthereviewofthescopeofuniversalserviceinelectroniccommunicationsnetworksinaccordancewiththeuniversalservicedirective.Thisreviewbeginswithare‐capitulationofthemeaningandpurposeofuniversalservice,being“aminimumsetofe‐communicationsservicesavailabletoallendusersuponreasonablerequestatanaffordablepriceandspecifiedquality,independentlyofgeographicallocationwithinamemberstate.”24Thereviewalsosuccinctlyrestatesthecurrentscopeofuniversalservice:
• Accessatafixedlocationformakingandreceivinglocal,nationalandinternationaltelephonecallandfaxcommunications,anddatacommunicationsatdataratessufficienttopermitfunctionalinternetaccess.
• Availabilityofatleastonecomprehensivedirectoryanddirectoryenquiryservicecompromisingallfixedandmobilesubscriberswhowishtobeincluded.
• Availabilityofpublicpayphones• Specificmeasuresensuringaccessandaffordabilityofpubliclyavailabletelephone
servicestouserswithdisabilitiesorspecialneedsandthoseonlowincomes25
Asof2008,16memberstateshaddesignatedprovidersofuniversalserviceonthebasisofthedirective,andtheother9countriesintheEUhaveensureduniversalserviceonthebasisoftransitionalagreements.26
Inregardstothefundingmodelsforuniversalservice,thereviewalsoreiteratesthepossibilityforauniversalservicefundtobeestablishedifthenationalregulatoryauthorityconcludesthatadesignateduniversalserviceproviderissubjecttoanunfairburden.Therelatednetcostscanbefinancedthroughpublicfunds,orthroughasector‐specificfundthatis
23Ibidat9.24CommunicationontheSecondPeriodicReviewoftheScopeofUniversalServiceinElectronicCommunicationsNetworksandServicesinAccordancewithArticle15oftheDirective2002/.22/EC.COM(2008)572.25September2008.p.2.25Ibid.26Ibidat3.
20
contributedtobyallundertakingsactiveinthemarket.27Atthetimeofthereview,fivestateshadactivatedauniversalservicefund.Thereviewalsonotesthatmemberstatescanmandateadditionalservicesbeyondtheminimumsetofservices,solongasfinancingoftheseadditionalservicesisundertakenbythestatesthemselvesandnotbyspecificmarketplayers.28
Intermsofaccesstobroadband,theECfoundthatonaverage93%ofthepopulationoftheintheEUhadaccesstobroadbandintermsofaccesstoDSLnetworks.Intermsofusage,theECfoundthat“averagefixedbroadbandusagepenetrationper100inhabitantsintheEUwas20%inJanuaryof2008,whiletheratevariessignificantlyacrossmemberstatesfrom7.6%inBulgaria,to35.6%inDenmark.29Intermsofhouseholdusage,theECfoundthat36%ofhouseholdshadfixedbroadbandaccess,whileatotalof49%ofhouseholdsusetheinternet,eitheratnarrowbandorbroadbandspeeds.30BasedonthesefindingstheECconcludedthat“althoughbroadbandadoptionhasnotyetreachedlevelsofcoverageandtake‐upthatwouldqualifyitforconsiderationundertheuniversalserviceframework,itisapproachingthesethresholdsratherquickly,whilstthenumberofnarrowbandconnectionsisprogressivelydecreasing.31TheECconcludedthat:
…although broadband is not yet used by the majority of consumers (as required by the first twoconsiderations in annex V of the Universal Service Directive) and is therefore not encompassed by theuniversalserviceobligationsas laiddownanddescribedbythepresentwording, take‐up isapproachingthethreshold ofusebyamajorityof consumers. Furthermore, it is reasonable toanticipate that in a relativelyshort horizon of time, narrowband will no longer answer the requirement of being sufficient to permitfunctional internetaccess(aslaiddowninArticle2(4)ofthedirective).Thus,thesituationdoesneedtobekeptunderreview.32
TheECconcludedthe2008reviewbyposingaseriesofquestionstobeconsideredwithinawiderpublicdebateinordertodeterminewhetheruniversalserviceattheEUlevelisanappropriatetoolto“advancebroadbanddevelopment,andifso,whenandhowitshouldbeinvoked,orwhetherEUpolicyinstruments,andinsuchcase,whichoneswouldbemoreefficient.”33Inposingthisseriesofquestionstoinformapublicdebateabouttheroleofuniversalserviceindevelopingaccessiblebroadband,theECintendstoacceptsubmissionsduringlate2008andearly2009,inanticipationofissuingasummaryofthispublicconsultationinthelatterhalfof2009,tobefollowedbyconcreteproposalsin2010.34
27Ibid.28Ibid.29Ibidat6.30Ibidat7.31Ibidat4.32Ibidat7‐8.33Ibidat10.34Ibidat11‐12.
21
AnnualReviewoftheEuropeanElectronicCommunicationsMarketfor2008
EachyeartheECissuesareportidentifyingkeydevelopmentsinthee‐communicationsmarket,andinhowwellmemberstateshaveimplementedthe2002ecommunicationspolicyframework.InMarchof2009,theECissuedits14thannualcommunicationpertainingtothedevelopmentofthecommunicationssectorin2008.Partofthisannualreportdetailshowandtowhatextentmemberstateshaveimplementedtheecommuncationsdirectives,suchastheUniversalServicesDirective.Accordingtothisreport,severalmemberstateshavedecidednottodesignateaspecificundertakingasaproviderofuniversalserviceduetotheirpositionthatserviceswereadequatelyaccessiblethroughthemarketundernormalcommercialconditions.35
Somestateshavealsoalteredtheirscopeofuniversalservicetoincludeothermandatoryservices,forexample:
• DenmarkhasincludedtheprovisionofISDNservices,leasedlines,andmaritimeemergencyserviceswithinthescopeofuniversalservicetotheirdesignations
• Spainhaspassedalawtoallowbroadbandservicestobeinducedwithinthescopeofuniversalservice.
• Finlandhasdecidedtoadoptnewbroadbandstrategieswhereinternetconnectionsofanaveragespeedof1mbpswouldbedefinedasuniversalservice
Francehasannouncedagoalofensuringbroadbandcoverageforalloftheterritoryby2010(withadesignatedcallfortenderin2009)36
France
In1999,Franceunbundleditslocalloopsbyintroducingnewregulationstopromotecompetition.Overtenyearslater,multiplecompetitorshaveemergedontheFrenchmarket37andconsumershavebenefitedwithverycompetitivepricescomparedtoCanada.Additionally,moreregulationswereintroducedconcerningtheconstructionofnewhomesandbuildings.AsofDecember2007,allnewbuildingsarerequiredtobecompatiblewithopticalfiber.38This
35CommissionStaffWorkingDocumentaccompanyingtheCOM(2009)140report,SEC(2009)376/2,volume1part2,30July2009,p.44.36Ibidat44‐45.
37Anderson,Nate:"Broadband:othercountriesdoitbetter,buthow?"<http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/05/broadband‐other‐countries‐do‐it‐better‐but‐how.ars>.
22
cableismucheasierandcheapertoinstallatthetimeofconstructionandmakesbroadbandmorereadilyavailabletoFrenchcitizens.
Francedidnotalwaysenjoythecompetitivemarketplacethatitnowdoestoday.Historically,France’stelecommunicationmarkethasbeendominatedbyFranceTelecom(FT).FThadalargestakecontrolledbytheFrenchgovernmentandthisplayedanimportantroleinblockingcompetitorsfromenteringtheFrenchmarket.39In1996,Francecreateditsfirsttelecommunicationsregulator,theART.TheARTprovedtobearelativelyweakregulator40anditsregulatorydecisionsrequiredtheapprovalfromtheMinisterforEconomy,FinanceandIndustryinordertobebinding.ThedecisionswerealsopossibletoappealonsubstantiveandproceduralgroundstoFrenchcourts,furtherweakeningthepoweroftheART.MostcomplaintsconcerningARTdonotconcertpriceabuses,butratherissuessuchasconnectiondelaysandtheuseofvaguelanguageregardingservicestandardsratherthanclear,fixedstandardsthatwouldhavemadeamarketentrymorepredictablefornewentrants.41ThepassageofEuropeanCommissionFrameworkDirective2002/12/ECrequiredmemberstatestoadoptwholesalelocalloopunbundling,bitstreamaccessandleasedlinesintolawbyJuly2003.42BetweenFebruary2003andJanuary2004,France’sunbundledloopswentfromnearlynonetoover250,000.43Today,FTnolongerenjoysthenear‐monopolyitoncedidwithonly47%oftheFrenchbroadbandmarket,astwoothermajorcompetitorshaveemergedIliad(Free)with24%ofthemarketandSFR(withNeufCegetel)with22%ofthemarket.44
Francehasrecentlyannounceditsintentiontobring100megabytepersecond(Mbps)broadbandinternettomostofitscitizenswithinthenextdecade.NicholasSarkozy,thePresidentofFrance,announcedinDecemberof2009thatheintendedtospend4.5billionEurotodeployultrafastbroadbandwithinhiscountry.45Themoneytofinancetheprojectisbeingraisedbya“grandemprunt”orbondissueworth35billionEurotofinanceinnovativeinfrastructureprogramsandhelppullFranceoutofaworldwiderecession.46Someofthefunds
38Ibid.39BerkmanCenterforInternetandSociety,HarvardUniversity:“NextGenerationConnectivity:AreviewofbroadbandInternettransitionsandpolicyfromaroundtheworld”atp.96.<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report_15Feb2010.pdf>.40Ibid.41Ibid.422002/12/EC.43OECDRegulatoryReforminFranceFigure2.44Supranote39atp.97.45“SarkozyunveilsEUR4.5bngovernmentinvestmentinultra‐highspeedbroadband”http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=31353.46Anderson,Nate:"France:70%toget100MbpsInternetwithin10years"http://arstechnica.com/tech‐policy/news/2009/12/france‐70‐to‐get‐100mbps‐internet‐within‐10‐years.ars.
23
notraisedbythebondissueforinfrastructureprojectswillbeprovidedbybanksthattheFrenchgovernmentbailedoutduringtherecenteconomiccrisis.47ThedetailsconcerninghowexactlythefundswillbespentarenotclearbuttheFrenchgovernmenthasannouncedthatitwillfinance2billionEuroofthesumrequiredtobring100Mbpsbroadbandserviceto70%oftheFrenchpopulation,withtheremainderbeingfinancedbyothersources.48Frenchconsumersnowenjoyaveryhighlevelofserviceforreasonableprices.FreeoffersFrenchconsumersapackagefor30Euroswhichincludes100Mbpsuploadand50Mbpsdownloadspeeds,HDTVserviceandunlimitedvoicecallingnationallyandto70internationalcountries.ApackageofferingtheseservicesforthisveryreasonablepriceseemsunimaginableinCanadaandyet,itispresentlyavailableinFrance,asaresultofbasicserviceguaranteesandstrongcompetition.
Spain
Asof2011,thecitizensofSpainwillenjoythelegalrighttobroadbandserviceofatleast1Mbps,wherevertheylive.49Thisservicewillbeprovidedatregulatedratestocitizensallaroundthecountry.Theformerstatemonopoly,Telefonica,hasalwaysheldthecontractwhichprovidedthebasicservicerequirementtotheremoteandunderservedareasofthecountry.However,othertelecommunicationsprovidersinSpainhavealsocomeforwardandaskedtobeconsideredtoprovidebasicservices.50
Spain’stelecommunicationsregulator,theCMT,hasproposedthatTelefonica,VodafoneandOrangepaythecostsofdeliveringbasicservice.Thecostofprovidingbasicservicein2006,beforethedefinitionincludedbroadbandinternetwasover75millionEuros.However,itisdifficulttoquantifyhowmuchitwillcosttoimplementbasicserviceforbroadband.
Finland
Finlandhasrecentlymadeaccesstobroadbandinternetserviceahumanrightforallofitscitizens.ThisrightwilltakeeffectinJuly2010,atwhichpointallFinnishresidentsareentitledtoaminimumof1Mbpsbroadbandlineintotheirhome.51Thisminimumlevelofservicewillriseto100Mbpsin2015.WhatisevenmoreremarkableaboutthisdevelopmentisthatFinlandalreadyhas96%broadbandpenetrationamongitspopulation.Thismeasurewas47Ibid.48Supranote31.49“Spaincodifiestherighttobroadband”<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2356014,00.asp>.50ICTStatisticsNewslog:“Spaintoadd1Mbpsminimumspeedtouniversalserviceobligationfrom2011”<http://www.itu.int/ITU‐D/ict/newslog/Spain+To+Add+1Mbps+Minimum+Speed+To+Universal+Service+Obligation+From+2011.aspx>.51“Finlandmakesbroadbandaccessalegalright”<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/14/finland‐broadband>.
24
enactedinordertoguaranteeserviceforcitizensresidinginruralandremoteareas,accordingtotheCommunicationsMinisterSuviLinden.52
MinisterLindenexplainedthatprovidingthisbasicservicewouldimproveFinland’sbusinessenvironmentasitwillfacilitatemoreelectronictransactions.53Furthermore,theavailabilityofbroadbandconnectionsinruralandremoteareaswillimproveruralvitality.Thisbasicserviceregimeforbroadbandcouldserveasamodelforothercountriesconsideringimplementingsimilarpolicies.FinlandcouldserveasaparticularlyusefulexampletoCanadaduetoitslowpopulationdensityandthefactthatitcontainslarge,sparselyinhabitedregionsinarcticandnear‐arcticconditions,similartoCanada.
Australia
Australiadoesnotcurrentlyhaveabasicservicerequirementfortheprovisionofbroadbandinternetservicesforitsconsumers.However,areportentitled“AccessibleBroadbandforAllAustralians”writtenbyMediaAccessAustralia,theAustralianCommunicationExchangeandtheConsumer’sTelecommunicationNetworkadvocatesforabasicserviceprovisioninAustralia.54
ThereportsuggeststhatAustraliadevelopanationalbroadbandplanwithagoalofdeveloping100%coverageofbroadbandavailabilityforAustralianconsumers.BroadbandisnolongeraluxuryforAustralians,butratheranecessity(muchlikeitisforCanadians).Thereportlistsanumberofreasonsbroadbandshouldbeuniversallyimplemented,aswellasimportantservicesandopportunitiessuchas:
‐ Telecommuting‐ Educationalopportunities‐ Accesstogovernmentinformationandservices‐ E‐healthinitiatives‐ Socialnetworking‐ CommunicationsapplicationssuchasVoiceoverIP(VOIP)
Thereportsumsuptheimportanceofbroadbandasfollows:
Broadbandisn’tsimplyausefulsocialutility;itisnowanessentialservice.Usingasimple‘takeaway’test,manyAustralianswouldfindtheirabilitytoaccessbasicinformationandgovernmentservicesandworkopportunities,andtointeractwiththeirsocialnetworks,wouldbesignificantlyreducedwithoutaccessto
52Ibid.53Erhet,Christian:“Finaldgovernmentdeclareslegalrighttobroadbandinternetaccess”<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/10/finland‐government‐declares‐legal‐right.php>.54MediaAccessAustralia:“AccessibleBroadbandforAllAustralians”<www.mediaaccess.org.au/docs/CTN_Accessible_Broadband.doc>.
25
broadband.Giventheinadequacyofregulatoryarrangementsapplyingtobroadband,thereisaneedtoensure that broadband is ‘upgraded’ so that consumer protections reflect our dependence on theservice.55
OfparticularnotetotheauthorsofthereportishowavailablebroadbandservicesareinAustralia.Thereportstatesthatgovernmentinitiativesthatattemptedtocreateincentivesforcommercialprovidersdidnotfunctionasplanned.ThefirstsuchprogramwastheHigherBandwidthInitiativeSchemewhichpaidincentivestocommercialISPstoofferhighbandwidthconnectionstoregional,ruralandremoteareas.56Alargerprojectcalledthe“ConnectAustralia”programwasdesignedtomakebroadbandandwirelesscommunicationmoreavailabletoAustraliansinruralandremoteareas.$1.1billionAustraliandollarshasbeenspentunderthisprogramtomakebroadbandservicesmoreavailabletoAustralianconsumers.
TheAccessibleBroadbandreportidentifiesADSLasthemostprolificbroadbandserviceavailabletoAustralians,withservicereaching91.6%ofthepopulation.57MoremodernandfasterbroadbandtechnologiesarenotaswidelyavailabletoAustralianconsumers.ADSL2+isonlyavailableto46%ofthepopulationandcableisonlyavailableto33%ofAustralians.58ThereportidentifiedanAustraliangovernmentstudywhichindicatedanumberofreasonswhybroadbandhasnotbeenwidelyadopted.Someofthosereasonsare:lackofawarenessofbenefitsofbroadband;familyincomesandperceptionsabouthighbroadbandcosts;confusionoverbroadbandtechnologyandpackages;misinformationfromprovidersaboutwhatisavailable;ageingofthepopulation;familymake‐up(e.g.whethertherearechildrenoryoungpeopleinthefamily);literacyandeducation;limiteduseofconnection;andnegativeexperienceswithdial‐upandskepticismaboutbroadbandasthepossiblesolution.59
ThereportalsoindicatesthatformanyAustralians,affordabilityistheultimatebarrier
andthatmarket‐basedapproachestobroadbanddeploymentwillnotbeabletoaddressthisissue.ThisisparticularlytrueforAustralianswithdisabilitiesanduniversalaccesscanonlybeachievedifbasicserviceisregulatedbythegovernment.OneinfiveAustralianssuffersfromadisabilityandAustralianswithdisabilitiesarelesslikelytosubscribetobroadbandservice.
ThereportfailstomentiontheAustralianBroadbandGuarantee,whichisafederalinitiativeto“helpresidentialandsmallbusinesspremisesaccessametro‐comparable
55Ibidp.6.56Ibid.57Supranote4258Ibid,p.7.59Ibid
26
broadbandserviceregardlesswheretheyarelocated”.60TheprogramattemptstoprovideinternetserviceonalevelcomparabletowhatisavailableinwellservedurbanareasinAustralia.TheGuaranteeprovidesforaminimumof512kbpsdownloadand128kbpsupload,3Gbpermonthofdatausageandatotalcostof$2500AUDincludinginstallationandtaxesforthreeyearsofservice.61TheprogramfundsISPswhohavevoluntarilyagreedtobeapartoftheprogramwithasubsidythatencouragestheseISPstomakebroadbandservicesavailableinunderservedareas.
WhiletheAustralianBroadbandGuaranteerepresentsafirststepintherightdirectiontoservingAustralianconsumers,itsuffersfromanumberofdeficiencies.Oneimportantproblemisthestandardofserviceguaranteediswoefullyinadequatefortoday’sinternetuser.512kbpsisindeedfasterthandialupservice,butcanhardlybeconsideredbroadbandbyanymoderndefinition.Furthermore,a3Gbcappermonthwouldbeextremelylimitingforconsumersandwouldeffectivelyprecludemanyoffertheexcellentservicesbroadbandsupports,suchasVOIPtelephony,streamingaudioandvideoservicesandsomebandwidth‐intensivetelehealthapplications.Additionally,theuploadanddownloadspeedsindicatedarepeakspeedsandparticipatingISPsareallowedtohaveaverageuploadanddownloadspeedsofupto40percentlower.62Thismeansthatthealreadymeagerspeedstoutedbytheprogrammaynotevenbeavailablenearlyhalfofthetimetheconsumerwishestousetheirservice.
AnotherissuewiththeAustralianBroadbandGuaranteeisthatthesubsidythatitoffersisnotavailabletoconsumerswhoareservedbyanISPthatoffersanequivalentservicetotheirresidence.Thesubsidyisonlypayableonceandconsumersareobligatedtoremainwiththesame(andoftenfirst)providertoservetheirmarket.Thismeansthatifacompetingprovideroffersanew,superiorserviceforthesamepriceinagivenmarket,theconsumermustdiscontinuetheirsubsidizedservice(andlikelypayahigherrate)orbeforcedtocontinueusingalowerqualityservicetomaintainthesamesubsidizedrate.Thiscreatesadifficultsituationforconsumersandcouldprecludethemfromobtainingthebestserviceforthelowestpricefortheirneeds.Italsoservesasanimpedimenttoproviderscontinuallytryingtoofferbetterservicesbyreducingcompetitioninthemarketandforcingcustomersintolongtermcontractsforservice.
LuckilyforAustralianconsumers,theirfederalgovernmentisabouttoaddressthefailingsofthemarket‐basedapproachwithanewgovernment‐builtopticalfibernetwork.A
60DepartmentofBroadband,CommunicationsandtheDigitalEconomy,AustralianGovernment:“AustralianBroadbandGuarantee”<http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/australian_broadband_guarantee>.61ibid62AustralianBroadbandGuaranteeProgramGuidelines2009–10<http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/118098/Australian_Broadband_Guarantee_Guidelines.pdf>atp.15.
27
governmentpressreleasedatedMay6th,2010bytheMinisterforFinanceandDeregulationandtheMinisterforBroadband,CommunicationsandtheDigitalEconomyannouncedtheconstructionofanew,government‐backedbroadbandnetwork.Thisnetworkisslatedtoserve90‐93%ofhomeinAustraliawiththeremainderofhomesbeingservedbynextgenerationwirelessandsatellitetechnologies.63Thisplanisprojectedtocostapproximately$43billion(AUD)andtakebetween7‐8yearstocompletemostofthemajorwork.64Somespeculatethatthisambitious,government‐ledplanmaybetheresultofpoorserviceavailabilitybyTelestra,theAustraliannationalincumbentcarrier.NateAnderson,atechnologyjournalistfromArsTechnicawrites:“Themessageisclear:Australiarefusestobeheldbackbythebusinessdecisionsofasinglecompany.AsanewreportontheAustralianplanmakesclear,there'snotmuchattempttomakethiseasieronTelstra."Existingparticipantswillneedtoadapttosucceed,"saysthegovernmentreport”.65
ThiskindofboldplanningbyanationalgovernmentcouldserveasausefulexampletoasimilarlylargeandsparselypopulatedcountrysuchasCanada.UndertheAustralianplan,thenetworkwouldbebuiltupusinggovernmentfunds,butthegovernmentitselfwouldnotbecomeanISP.Instead,itwouldsellwholesaleaccesstoitsnetworktoanyandallcommercialISPswhowishtoparticipate,withoutdiscrimination.66Thiswouldcreateafarmorelevelplayingfieldforcompetition,especiallysincethenewnetworkwillinstallfiberrightuptotheresidencesoftheretailcustomers.
Japan
RegulationoftelecommunicationservicesinJapandatesbackto1885,whentheMinistryofCommunicationswasfirstestablished.ThisministrywasdividedintwoaftertheSecondWorldWarintotheMinistryofTelecommunicationsandtheMinistryofPosts.In1952,theMinistryofTelecommunicationsunderwentadramaticchangeandwasincorporatedintoapubliccorporationcalledtheNipponTelephoneandTelegraphcompany(NTT).NTTbecameJapan’smonopolydomestictelephoneserviceprovider.Theyear1952alsosawtheevolutionoftheMinistryofPostsintotheMinistryofPostsandTelecommunications(MPT)whowasresponsibleforregulatingthetelecommunicationsmarket.Japanunderwentmajorreformin63SenatortheHon.StephenConroy,MinisterforBroadband,CommunicationsandtheDigitalEconomy,mediarelease,May6th,2010:"LandmarkStudyconfirmsNBNvisionisachievableandaffordable"<http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/040>.64Ibid
65Anderson,Nate:“Uh‐oh,telcos:93%ofAustraliagettinggov't‐runfiber“<http://arstechnica.com/tech‐policy/news/2010/05/uh‐oh‐telcos‐93‐of‐australia‐getting‐govt‐run‐fiber.ars>.
66Ibid
28
itstelecommunicationssectorinthe1980s,bringingcompetitiontotheJapanesemarket.ThisprocessmirroredthebreakupofAT&TthatwasoccurringintheUnitedStatesatapproximatelythesametime.67In1996,theMPTbeganderegulatetheJapanesetelecommunicationmarketandloosenedtherulesonforeignownershipinthemarketandintroducedanewsetofregulationsforend‐to‐endconnectionswithNTT.
Japanbegantoimplementpoliciestoencouragebroadbanddevelopmentin2001.Theso‐called“e‐JapanStrategy”soughttotransformJapanintothemostadvancedITstateintheworldby2006.68Japanalsorevealedits“e‐JapanPriorityPolicyProgramme”thatsetoutJapan’s5keypolicydirections.Theseinclude1)infrastructure,2)humanresources,3)e‐commerce,4)e‐government,5)networksecurity.Japanmetthebenchmarksithadsetforitselfwithits“e‐Japan”programandin2003,Japanembarkedonthe“e‐JapanStrategyII”.Insteadoffocusingonbuildingbroadbandinfrastructure,thissecondstrategysoughttopromotebroadbandusageandsubscriptionsbyJapaneseconsumers.69E‐Japanaccomplishedthistaskbypromotingtheuseofbroadbandinthemedicalcare,employment,governmentservice,foodandsmallbusinessfinancingsectors.Japanlauncheditsu‐Japanstrategyin2004.ThisnewstrategysoughttomakehighspeedinternetserviceinJapanubiquitous.70Theseinitiativesallsetambitioustargetsandwerebuttressedbyaneffectiveandcapablebureaucracy.71ThesefactorshelpedtomakeJapanoneofthetopcountriesintheworldforprovidingbroadbandservicetoconsumerswiththehighestmaximumandaveragebroadbandspeedsavailabletoconsumersinOECDcountries,aswellasthelowestpricesforhighandveryhighspeedbroadbandservice.72ThesetoprankingsarearguablytheresultofJapan’scarefulandeffectiveregulationofitsbroadbandmarket.
AnotherfactorwhichhascontributedtoJapan’stopstandinginbroadbandservicesisthewayinwhichithasinvestedininfrastructure.MajoreffortsinfinancingJapan’sbroadbandnetworkbeganin2000,whentheBasicITlawbeganandconcertedeffortsstartedtoupgradenetworkinfrastructure.TheBasicITlawmarkedthebeginningofaseriesoftaxincentives,someofwhichpermittedahighlyaccelerateddepreciationofcapitalinvestmentsintelecommunicationsinfrastructureandequipment.73TheJapanesegovernmentalsoagreedtooffersecurityforloansusedbyprivatecorporationstofundbroadbandinfrastructure
67InternationalTelecommunicationUnion:“WorkshoponPromotingBroadband”<http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/promotebroadband/casestudies/japan.pdf>.68Ibid69ITStrategicHeadquarters:“E‐JapanStrategyII”<http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/it/0702senryaku_e.pdf>.70PleaseseethisJapaneseMinistryofInternalAffairsandCommunicationswebsitefordetails:http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_seisaku/ict/u‐japan_en/index.html71Supranote39atp.240.72OECDBroadbandPortal,Table1e,fromECCommunitySurvey,asof2007.73Supranote55.
29
improvements.74Thisallowedthemtoborrowatcheaperinterestratesandhelpedcreateanincentivetodeploymorebroadbandcapacity.ConsumersinruralorunderservedareaswerealsoaddressedbyJapanesepoliciesprovidingasystemofgrantsin2006forfundingtelecommunicationinfrastructure.Thisprogramhasprovidedcashtofundbuild‐outindifferentlocalesacrossthecountry.In2008,theeffortwidenedandJapaninitiatedits“StrategyontheDigitalDivide”andsetouttoeliminateareasthathadnobroadbandserviceavailable.Japanhascommitted185billionYentotheproject.75
AsaresultofJapan’srobustschemestoimplementbroadbandinfrastructure,itnowhasaverymodernnetworkavailabletoconsumersaroundthecountry.IntheearlydaysofJapanesebroadbanddeployment,cablewasthepredominanttechnologyforconnectingconsumers.WhenJapanunbundleditslocalloopsandestablishednewrulesconcerninginterconnectionandallocatingunused“darkfiber”,DSLbroadbandquicklybecamemorepopularstartingintheyear2000.76WiththeriseofDSLbasedbroadband,morecompetitorsbegantoappearonthemarket.AnewproviderinJapan,calledSoftbankmadeampleuseoftheserelaxedrulestoprovidefasterandcheaperservicethantheincumbent,NTT.Eventually,thepriceandspeedofDSLdroppedtothepointwhereitbecametheleadingtechnologyforbroadband.Thisperiodwasmarkedbyaggressivepricingandrapiddeploymentofservicesandmanyplayersenteredthemarketatthispoint,includingNTT,whohadpreviouslyfavouredISDN.77However,byJuneof2008,fibertothehomehadoutpacedDSLintermsofthenumberofconsumersubscriptions.78NTTwasanearlyleaderfortheprovisionoffibertothehomebutasitbegantofacefacilities‐basedcompetitionfromutilitycompanysubsidiarieslikeK‐OpticomandTEPCO.79Also,NTT’sfibertothehomeinfrastructureissubjecttounbundlingrulesandthismakesitsubjecttocompetitionfromotherserviceproviders.NTTremainsthelargestbroadbandproviderwithapproximately50%ofthemarketforwirelineaccess.Softbankisthenextlargestproviderwithapproximately14%ofthemarketanditmakesuseoftheunbundlingandinterconnectionofNTT’snetwork,asdoothercompetitorsinJapanaswell.80
74ThomasBleha,“DowntotheWire,”ForeignAffairs,May/June2005<www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faessay84311/thomas‐bleha/down‐to‐the‐wire.html>.75OECD,TheImpactoftheCrisisonICTsandTheirRoleintheRecovery,July2009.<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/20/43404360.pdf>.76Supranote5577Ibid78Ibid79Ibid80TeleGeography,GlobalCommsDatabase,Countryprofile,Japan,updatedMarch2009.
30
TheUnitedStates
TheUnitedStates(U.S.)wasthecountrythatinventedtheinternet.WhatbeganasagovernmentfundedexperimentevolvedintoasmallcommunicationnetworkbetweenresearchersindifferentU.S.militaryinstallationsanduniversities.Eventually,theinternetwouldbecomemorepublicandcommercialinternetserviceproviderswouldofferservicetoconsumers.TheUnitedStateswashometosomeoftheveryfirstISPsonearth.
TheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)istheregulatorybodyresponsibleforregulatingallradiospectrum,aswellasallinterstateandinternationalcommunicationsoriginatingorterminatingintheU.S.81TheFCCcameintoexistencewiththepassageoftheCommunicationsActof1934.ThislawwasamendedbytheTelecommunicationsActof199682whichdeclaredthemissionoftheFCCto
…makeavailablesofaraspossible,toallthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,withoutdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,color,religion,nationalorigin,orsex,rapid,efficient,Nation‐wide,andworld‐widewireandradiocommunicationserviceswithadequatefacilitiesatreasonablecharges.83
In1997,theFCCcreatedtheUniversalServiceFund(USF).Thisfundcollectsmoneyfromtelecommunicationprovidersforthepurposeofprovidingtelecommunicationservicesatreasonableratestounderservedareas.TheUSFfundsfourprogramstoservefourdifferentgroups.84Theyareahighcostgroupforconsumersthatareforcedtopayhigherpricesforservice,alowincomegroup,whichprovidesbasictelephoneservicefor7millionlowincomeconsumers,aruralhealthcaregrouptoprovidetelephoneandinternettohealthcarefacilitiesinremoteareasandagrouptoprovideinternetaccessforpublicschoolsandlibraries.NotallofthegroupsservedbytheUSFareentitledtointernetserviceandthereisnoexplicitrequirementtoprovidebroadbandtothesegroups.Thisisunfortunate,asdial‐upinternetisanincreasinglydifficultwaytoaccesstheinternetwiththeproliferationofmultimediaandbandwidthintensivewebsites.
DespiteaclearintentiononthepartoftheFCCtomaketelecommunicationservicesaswidelyavailabletoAmericanconsumersaspossible,theFCCavoidedtakingafirmstanceontheissueofbroadbandavailabilityuntilveryrecently.
81See47U.S.C.§151and47U.S.C.§154fordetailsonexactlyhowtheFCCwasempoweredbyCongresstoregulate.82amendmentto47U.S.C.§15183Ibid84PleaseseetheUniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany’swebsitefordetails:http://www.universalservice.org/about/universal‐service/fund‐programs/default.aspx
31
TheFCCpublishesregularreportsonthestateoftelecommunicationsandbroadcastingintheUS,aswellasthepolicygoalsoftheCommission.OnesuchreportistheannualPerformanceandAccountabilityreport.Themostrecent2008reportsetsoutsomeoftheFCC’spolicyobjectives.TheseobjectivesareconsistentwiththeTelecommunicationsActof1996andtheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsActof1993.TheFCCidentified6majorareasofinterestforpolicyreformforits2006‐2011StrategicPlan.Amongthepriorityareaswerebroadbandandcompetition:
All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services.Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment and innovation toensurethatbroadbandserviceprovidershavesufficientincentivetodevelopandoffersuchproductsandservices.
Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports theNation’seconomy.Thecompetitiveframeworkforcommunicationsservicesshouldfosterinnovationandofferconsumersreliable,meaningfulchoiceinaffordableservices.85
Startingin2009,theUSbegantoembarkonaclearerpathwithrespecttobroadbandpolicy.OnFebruary17,2009,PresidentBarackObamasignedtheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009intolaw.ThislawwasdesignedtohelpstimulatetheUSeconomyandaddresstherisingunemploymentintheUS.Thelawallotted$7.2billionUSDforbroadbanddevelopment.4.7billiondollarswasallottedtobringbroadbandtoun‐servedandunderservedareasandtofacilitatebroadbanduseandadoption.Theother2.5billionwasallottedtotheFCCtodevelopanationalbroadbandplanwithinayear.86Inordertopromotepublicparticipationinthecreationofthebroadbandplan,theFCCsolicitedcommentsfromthepublic,startinginApril2009throughtoFebruary2010.
AgroundbreakingreportwasreleasedbyHarvardUniversity’sBerkmanCenterforInternetandSocietyonFebruary16th,2010.ThereportwasentitledNextGenerationConnectivity:AreviewofbroadbandInternettransitionsandpolicyfromaroundtheworld,anditanalyzedthestateofbroadbandinanumberofdifferentcountriesinEurope,AsiaaswellasCanada.Itexaminedtheregulatorypracticesandpoliciesforbroadbandindifferentcountries,suchascompetition,access,publicinvestmentandpricingversusspeed.ThereportmadeanumberofimportantconclusionsaboutthestateofbroadbandintheU.S.aswellasintheworldmoregenerally.Thereportstatesthat:
Ourmost surprisingand significant finding is that 'openaccess'policies—unbundling,bitstreamaccess,collocationrequirements,wholesaling,and/or functionalseparation—arealmostuniversallyunderstoodashavingplayedacoreroleinthefirstgenerationtransitiontobroadband[dial‐uptobroadband]inmost
85FederalCommunicationsCommission:“FiscalYear2008PerformanceandAccountabilityReport”p.12<http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/ar2008.pdf>.86AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009,Pub.L.No.111‐5,123Stat.118.
32
of the high performing countries; that they now play a core role in planning for the next generationtransition [faster and always available connectivity]; and that the positive impact of such policies isstronglysupportedbytheevidenceofthefirstgenerationbroadbandtransition.87
Additionally:
Wefindthatincountrieswhereanengagedregulatorenforcedopenaccessobligations,competitorsthatenteredusingtheseopenaccessfacilitiesprovidedanimportantcatalystforthedevelopmentofrobustcompetition which, in most cases, contributed to strong broadband performance across a range ofmetrics…[T]he highest prices for the lowest speeds are overwhelmingly offered by firms in the UnitedStates and Canada, all ofwhich inhabitmarkets structured around “inter‐modal” competition—that is,competition between one incumbent owning a telephone system, and one incumbent owning a cablesystem.Thelowestpricesandhighestspeedsarealmostallofferedbyfirmsinmarketswhere,inadditiontoanincumbenttelephonecompanyandacablecompany,therearealsocompetitorswhoenteredthemarket,andbuilttheirpresence,throughuseofopenaccessfacilities.88
Thereportoffersanumberofexamplesandcomparisonsbetweenbroadbandproviders
indifferentcountriestoillustratethispoint.FranceTelecom,theincumbentprovider,wasforcedtoopenupitslinestosmallercompetitors,whereasGermany’sproviderswerenot.Asthereportstates:
Germanybegantheyear2002withdoublethe levelofbroadbandpenetrationper100 inhabitantsthatFrancehad.By2006FrancehadslightlyovertakenGermanybythatmeasure(althoughnotinpenetrationperhouseholds).AverageadvertisedpricesinGermanyaresubstantiallyhigheracrosseverycategoryofservice,fromverylowspeedstoveryhighspeeds.Franceisamongthecountriesinthefirsttierofspeedavailability,withsubstantialavailabilityof100Mbpsservice.Germanyisinthesecondtier,withofferingsof 50Mbps characterizing the top range available to residential subscribers. A review of the companyhistoriesofthosecompaniesthatgeneratedthecompetitiveenvironment inthetwocountriesstronglysuggeststhatunbundlingandopenaccessplayeda significant role inentry.A reviewof the regulatoryhistoriesandpoliticaleconomyofthetwocountriessuggeststhatthatdifference,inturn,wasdrivenbypolitical will, regulatory engagement, and determination around the implementation of the networkaccessframeworkthattheECpassedin2002.89
The reportalsoexaminedhow Japan’s regulatory environmenthelpedmake it oneof
theleadingcountriesforbroadbandserviceintheworldtoday:
What is clearly true is that unbundling enabled Yahoo!BB to enter the market with lower prices,aggressivemarketing,freeDSLmodemsandinstallation,andinnovativenewservices,mostdisruptiveofwhichwasbundlingfreeVoIPwithbroadbandaccessasearlyas2001.TodayYahoo!BBhasslightlyoverathird of the DSL market, NTT has another third, and the remainder is shared among other providers,mostlyKDDIandeAccess.Moreover,Softbankisnowmovingtoinvestinfiber,andhasbecomeamajor
87Supranote39atp.11.88Supranote39atp.12.89Supranote39atp.101.
33
player in fixed mobile convergence by buying Vodafone's Japanese operations in 2006. In this case,unbundlingoropenaccessoperatedexactlyasanticipated—itcreated lowentrybarriers foranentrantwho was able to introduce extensive service innovations, create a brand, and become an aggressivecompetitorwhichhelpeddriveinvestmentawayfrommonopolyrent‐extractiondevices,likeNTT'sISDNpolicy.Thatentrantcontinuestobeamajorforceinthemarketalmostadecadelater.90
Canadadidnotfarewellincomparisontoothercountriesexaminedinthereport.The
reportwasparticularlycriticalofhowCanada’sattemptstoimposeunbundlingwerenotwellexecuted.
Canadainparticularoffersanexampleofhalf‐heartedeffortstoimposeunbundling,andincreasinglyheavyrelianceoncompetitionbetweenlocaltelephoneandcableincumbents.Itsresults,asourbenchmarkingstudyshows,havebeenweakerthanthoseofothercountrieswereviewhere.91TheBerkmanreportofferedanoutsider’sperspectiveonwhatkindofregulationslead
toacountry’ssuccessorfailureinprovidingbroadbandservicestoitscitizens.Thefactthatitwasnotproducedbyeitherregulatorybodiesororganizationsemployedbythetelecommunicationsindustrymakesitunique.ThereportservedasapreludetotheFCCNationalBroadbandPlan(thePlan)thatwasreleasedonMarch17th,2010.
TheFCCNationalBroadbandPlanisaverysubstantialdocumentatover300pages.The
PlansetsouttheUS’sbroadbandcompetitionandinvestmentpolicyaswellas“nationalpurposes”forbroadbandservice.Thesenationalpurposesincludehealthcare,education,theenvironment,theeconomy,civicengagementandpublicsafety.Thereportalsotakesasomewhatphilosophicaltackaswellbyadvocatingforbroadbandasanessentialtoolforbusinessopportunitiesandcitizenship.92ThePlanrevealssomesurprisingfactsaswell.Nearly100millionAmericanshavenoaccesstobroadbandinternettoday.14millionAmericansarenotabletoaccessbroadbandwheretheyliveand10millionAmericanschoolchildrenneeditasaprimaryresearchtoolforhomework.93
ThePlanbeginsbysettingsomeambitiousandbroadreachinggoalsforbroadbandin
theU.S.Thosegoalsare:1. Providingatleast100millionhomesaffordablebroadbandaccesswith100mb/s
downloadand50mb/suploadspeedsby2020.100millionhomesshouldhave50mb/sdownloadand20mb/suploadby2015.
90Supranote39atp.84.91Supranote39atp.79.92Supranote39atp.3.93Ibid.
34
2. TheU.S.shouldleadtheworldinmobileinnovation,withthefastestandmostextensivewirelessnetworksofanynation
3. EveryAmericanshouldhaveaffordableaccesstobroadbandserviceandthemeansandskillstosubscribeiftheysochoose.
4. EveryAmericancommunityshouldhaveaffordableaccesstoatleast1gigabitpersecondbroadbandservicetoanchorinstitutionssuchasschools,hospitalsandgovernmentbuildings.
5. Everyfirstrespondershouldhaveaccesstoanationwide,wireless,interoperablebroadbandpublicsafetynetwork
6. EveryAmericanshouldbeabletousebroadbandtotrackandmanagetheirreal‐timeenergyconsumption.94
Implementingtheserecommendationsrequiressomesignificantpolicychanges
regardingbroadbandinnovationandcompetition.ThePlangoesintodetailabouthowitwillregulatetheprovisionofbroadbandservicestoconsumers. OnerecommendationinthePlanproposedwasthattheFCCandtheU.S.BureauofLaborStatisticscollectmoredetailedandaccuratedataonactualavailability,penetration,prices,churnandbundlesofferedbybroadbandserviceproviderstoconsumersandbusinessesandshouldpublishanalysesofthesedata.95ThisdatawillhelptheFCCmakemoreinformedpolicydecisionsregardingbroadbanddeployment,adoptionandcompetitionissues.AnotherrecommendationwasthattheFCCcoordinateitseffortswiththeNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnologytoestablishatechnicalbroadbandmeasurementstandardandcreateamethodologyandaprocesstoupdatethisstandard.96Thisisapositivestep,asthemethodologyemployedbytheFCChasbeencriticizedbysomemembersoftheindustryforreportingISPspeedsastoolow.97Thisrecommendationislinkedwithanotherthatstatesthat“[t]heFCCshouldcontinueitseffortstomeasureandpublishdataonactualperformanceoffixedbroadbandservices.98TheFCCshouldpublishaformalreportandmakethedataavailableonline”.ThistypeofapproachhasbeenusedwithconsiderablesuccessintheUnitedKingdom,NewZealandandSingapore.ThePlanalsorecommendsthedevelopmentofbroadbandperformancestandardsformobileservices,multi‐unitbuildingsandsmallbusinessusers.
94Supranote76,p.9‐11.95Supranote76,p.43.96Supranote39atp.45.97Lasar,Matthew:“CableISPs:newbroadbandtestmakesourservicelookslow”<http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/cable‐isps‐new‐broadband‐test‐makes‐our‐service‐look‐slow.ars>.98Supranote39atp.45.
35
AmajorissuethattheReportseekstoaddressistheavailabilityofbroadbandservices.TheReportstatesthattheFCCshouldconductacomprehensivereformofuniversalserviceandintercarriercompensationinthreestagestoclosethebroadbandavailabilitygap.Thisproposedreformwouldoccurinaseriesofstages99:
• StageOne(2010‐2011):Laythefoundationforreform.
o ThisincludesimprovingtheUniversalServiceFund(USF)performanceandreliability,aswellascreatingtheConnectAmericaFund(CAF)andtheMobilityFund.
• StageTwo(2012‐2016):Acceleratereform.o TheFCCshouldbeginmakingpaymentstotheCAF,broadenthe
disbursementstotheUSFandbeginreducingtheper‐minuteratesforintercarriercompensation.
• StageThree(2017‐2020):Completethetransitiono TheFCCshouldmanagetheUSFtokeepitssizeat2010levels,minimizing
theimpactonconsumers,shouldprovideallfundingforbroadbandavailabilitythroughtheCAFandshouldphaseouttheperminuteratesfororiginationandterminationoftelecommunicationstraffic.
TheReportalsoproposesthatCongressshouldconsideradditionalfundingfor
broadbanddeployment,thatitalsoconsiderexpandinggrant/loanprogramsandthattheFCCworkmorecloselywithstate,municipalandTribalgovernmentstopromotebroadbandconnectivity. TheReportalsoaddressestheprincipleofuniversalorbasicserviceinthecontextofbroadbandserviceintheU.S.ThecurrentfederalleveluniversalserviceprogramsintheU.S.werecreatedaftertheTelecommunicationsActof1996waspassed.In1996,only23%ofAmericanconsumershaddial‐upinternetserviceathomeandbroadbandwasvirtuallyunheardofforconsumers.100TheUSFwasnotcreatedwithimplementingbroadbandservicesinmind,asidefromhelpingtoinstallitintoschools,librariesandruralhealthfacilities.Thisiswhythecurrentregulatoryschemewillnothelpincreasetheavailabilityofbroadbandinasignificantway.TheUSFmustbereconstitutedfromafundthatprimarilysupportsvoicecommunicationtoonewhichsupportsabroadbandplatformcapableofhandlingmanyapplications,including
99Supranote39atp.135‐136.100Supranote39atp.140.
36
voice.TheReportrecommendsthattheFCCmovefirsttomaximizethenumberofhomesunservedbybroadbandstartingwiththosehomesthatwillrequirethesmallestinvestmenttofulfillthisgoal.ThiswillallowagreaternumberofhouseholdstobeservedquicklyforthesamelimitedinvestmentandwillalsoallowtheFCCtodevelopmoreexperienceandknowledgeaboutdeliveringbroadbandtoareasthatarehardesttoserve.TheUSFHighCostprogramwillhavetobeextensivelyreformedtoclosethebroadbandavailabilitygapandtheU.S.governmentwillgraduallyhavetowithdrawitssupportfortelephone‐onlynetworksandprovidefundingfornetworksthatsupportmanyapplications,includingvoice.101
ThereportalsostatesthattheIntercarrierCompensationprogram(ICC)wasimplementedbeforetheexistenceofbroadbandnetworks.Becauseofthisfact,theICCsystemhasnotchangedtoreflectthechangesinthemarketaswellasconsumerbehavior.Carrierscontinuetochargeratesabovecost,despitethefactthatVOIPtelephonyobviatesanyneedforcarrierswitching.AstheU.S.andtherestoftheworldevolvestowardsanIPbasedcommunicationnetworkthelevyingofchargesbasedonperminuteusagewillnotbesustainableinabroadbandworldwherepergigabitorunlimitedpricingschemesreign.102Asaresult,broadbandprovidershavebeenmovingslowlytowardsIPinterconnectionarrangementsforIPtraffic,becausethecurrentsystemofproviders’ratesabovecostscreatesdisincentivestoconvertallnetworkstoIPtechnology.TheFCCshouldstartastagedtransitiontowardsreducingtheper‐minuteratesforintercarriercompensationuntilthereiseventuallyauniformratepercarrier.
AnotherissuetheReportidentifieswithrespecttobroadbandisnotatechnical
problem,butrather,ahumanproblem.Broadbandadoptionisanimportantfactorinthecreationandimplementationofbroadbandnetworks.BroadbandadoptionisparticularlylowinsomevulnerablegroupsthatwereidentifiedintheReport.Theaveragerateofhouseholdbroadbanduseis65%.Thisfiguredropsto50%forruralhouseholds,42%forpeoplewithdisabilities,40%forlowincomehouseholds,35%forolderAmericansover65yearsandaslowas24%forthosewhonevercompletedhighschool.103ThethreemainreasonsthattheReportascribestotheproblemofadoptionofbroadbandarecost,digitalliteracyandrelevance.
Theissueofcostismostoftencitedasthereasonwhynon‐adoptersdonothave
broadbandserviceintheirhome.Some36%ofFCCsurveyrespondentsstatedthatthiswasthereasontheydidnothavebroadbandserviceintheirhome.104Becauseofthis,theReport
101Supranote39atp.143.102Supranote39atp.142.103Supranote39atp.167.104Supranote39atp.168.
37
recommendstheFCCexpanditstelephoneaccessprograms(LifelineandLink‐Up)tomakebroadbandmoreaffordableforlowincomehouseholds.ThiscouldbedonebyrequiringtelecommunicationscarrierstopermitLifelinecustomerstoapplytheirdiscountstoanyserviceorpackagethatincludesbasicvoiceservice.TheFCCshouldalsointegratetheexpandedLifelineandLink‐Upprogramswithotherstateandlocale‐governmentefforts.Additionally,theFCCshouldfacilitatepilotprogramsthatwillproduceactionableinformationtoimplementthemostefficientandeffectivelongtermbroadbandsupportmechanism.TheReportalsorecommendsthattheFCCconsiderfreeorverylowcostwirelessbroadbandservice,followingasimilarprincipletofree,overtheairtelevisionbroadcasts.Thewirelessbroadbandsignalscouldbeaccessedbyadevicetheconsumerwouldhavetopurchaseinexpensively,muchlikeatelevisionantenna.Advertising‐basedmodelscouldfinancethesefreenetworks,muchasitsupportsfreeovertheairtelevisionbroadcasts.
Digitalliteracyisanotherobstacletobroadbandadoptionandisthereasonthat22%of
non‐adopterssayispreventingthemfromsubscribingtobroadbandservicesintheirhome.Digitalliteracyisacontinuallychangingidea,withnosetdefinition.TheReportidentifiesitinageneralsenseasaskillsetthatallowsanindividualtouseinformationandcommunicationstechnology“tofind,evaluate,createandcommunicateinformation.Itisthesumofthetechnicalskillsandcognitiveskillspeopleemploytousecomputerstoretrieveinformation,interpretwhattheyfindandjudgethequalityofthatinformation.”105ThePlanalsorecommendsthatthefederalgovernmentlaunchadigitalliteracyprogramthatcreatesaDigitalLiteracyCorps,increasesthecapacityofdigitalliteracypartnersandcreatesanOnlineDigitalLiteracyPortal.ThisproposedDigitalLiteracyCorpswouldprovidetrainingandoutreachservicesforcommunitiesthathavenotadoptedbroadband.TheReportalsosuggeststhatCongress,theInstituteofMuseumandLibraryServices(IMLS)andtheOfficeofManagementandBudget(OMB)shouldworkinconcerttosupportinstitutionsthatactaspartnersinbuildingthedigitalliteracyskillsofpeoplewithinlocalcommunities.CongressshouldconsiderincreasingitsfundingtotheIMLStoimproveconnectivity,upgradehardwareandtrainpersonneloflibrariesandothercommunity‐basedorganizations.TheOMBconsultingwithIMLSshoulddevelopguidelinestoensurethatlibrariansandCBOshavethetrainingtheyneedtohelppatronsusenext‐generatione‐governmentapplications.
Therelevancetosomeconsumersofreceivingbroadbandserviceinone’shomeis
anotherissuethatisimpedingitswidespreadadoption.TheReportidentifies19%ofnon‐adopterssaytheydonotbelievethatdigitalcontentdeliveredofbroadbandnetworksisacompellingenoughreasontojustifypurchasingtheservice.106AstheReportstates:
105Supranote39atp.174.106Supranote39atp.178.
38
ManyAmericansmaynotfeelbroadbandcanhelpthemachievespecificpurposesanddonotviewonlineresourcesashelpfultotheirlives.Othersseemsatisfiedwithofflinealternatives.Theserespondentssay,forexample,thattheInternetisa“wasteoftime”.Thecountryhasauniqueopportunitytospuradoptionbymakingbroadbandcontentrelevanttothesenon‐adopters.107
Inordertocounteractthistendency,theReportrecommendedthattheNational
TelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration(NTIA)shouldexaminehowpublic‐privatepartnershipscouldimprovebroadbandadoption.Privateentitiesthatcouldbeusefulpartnersincludehardwaremanufacturers,softwarecompaniesandbroadbandserviceproviders.Thesepartiescouldworkwithfederalagenciesinnon‐adoptingcommunitiestoeducateconsumersontheuseofbroadband.ThesesamepartnershipscouldalsobeusefultoincreasetherelevanceofbroadbandforolderAmericans. DespitetheFCC’sclearintentiontoreformthebroadbandmarketintheU.S.,actingupontheseobjectivesmayprovemoredifficultthanpreviouslyanticipated.OnApril6th,2010,aU.S.federalappealscourtruledonalawsuitcommencedbyComcast,oneofthelargestbroadbandprovidersintheUnitedStates.AtissueinthecasewaswhethertheFCChadtherighttopreventComcastfromdiscriminatingagainstcertainkindsoftrafficoveritsnetwork.Comcasthadearlierassertedtherightto“throttle”orartificiallyslowdownBittorrenttraffic,whichistrafficgeneratedbyapopularpeer‐to‐peerapplicationusedforfilesharing.TheFCCorderedComcasttodiscontinuethepracticeandComcastappealed.Inaunanimous3‐0decisionoftheCourt,JudgeDavidTatelruledthattheFCCdidnotinfacthavethelegalauthoritytoregulateComcast’snetworkmanagementpractices.108 ThisunfortunatedecisionraisessomedifficultquestionsregardinghowtheFCCwillbeabletoimplementsomeofitsrecommendationsforbroadbandreform.OneissuefacingtheFCCnowistheywillbeabletoimplementsomeoftheirfundingrecommendations,suchasdivertingfundsfromtheUSFawayfromtelephoneservicetobroadbandservice.ThisdecisionsuggeststhattheFCCmaynothavetheauthoritytodoso.ThefinalanswerisnotyetclearasitwasnotclearatthetimeofthiswritingwhethertheFCCwouldchoosetoappealthedecisionorfindawaytoworkaroundit.Also,thedecisionraisesthepossibilitythatCongressmaypassalawthatcircumventsthisdecisionandallowstheFCCmoreauthoritytodecidehowtoregulateinternetservices.
107Ibid.108ComcastCorporationv.FederalCommunicationsCommissionandUnitedStatesofAmerica,2010FEDApp.08‐1291(D.C.Cir).
39
Canada
InCanada,oneoftheprincipalcornerstonesofthebasicserviceobligation,asthepackageofinterrelatedpoliciesisgenerallytermed–theobligationtoserve‐wasformalizedinCRTCTelecomDecision86‐7inparagraph4.2ofthatDecision.OtherCommissionDecisionshaveclarifiedwhatisthebasictelecommunicationservicethatmustbeprovidedundertheobligationtoserve,andhowmustitbeprovided.InPN95‐49(citedinTelecomDecision96‐10),theCommissionaffirmedthatoneofitsobjectiveswastodeterminehowbesttoensurethatlocalserviceremainsaccessibleandaffordableincompliancewiththeobjectivessetoutinsec7oftheTelecommunicationsAct.
InDecision99‐16,theCommissionsetouttheBasicServiceObjective(BSO).ThisisalevelofservicethatalltelecommunicationsprovidersmustmakeavailabletoconsumersinCanada.TheBSOconsistsofavarietyofservicesthattelecommunicationsserviceprovidersmustmakeavailabletoallcustomers.AnexcerptofDecision99‐16explainstheminimumservicesbelow:
The Commission considers that the level of service now available to the vast majority ofCanadians shouldbeextended toasmanyCanadiansas feasible in all regionsof the country.Accordingly,theCommissionisherebyestablishingthefollowingbasicserviceobjectiveforlocalexchangecarriers:
• Individual line local service with touch‐tone dialing, provided by a digitalswitch with capability to connect via low speed data transmission to theInternetatlocalrates;
• Enhanced calling features, including access to emergency services, VoiceMessageRelayservice,andprivacyprotectionfeatures;
• Accesstooperatoranddirectoryassistanceservices;
• Accesstothelongdistancenetwork;and
• Acopyofacurrentlocaltelephonedirectory
The basic service objective is independent of the technologyused to provide service,andmaychangeovertimeasserviceexpectationsevolve.109
109CRTCTelecomDecision99‐16.
40
Eachofthesefeaturesisessentialtoconsumers.Touch‐tonedialingisanecessitytoaccessdifferentservicesoverthetelephone,suchastelephonebankingorgovernmentservices.Theabilitytoconnecttolowspeedinternetisgrowinglessandlessusefulbytheday.Consumersneedguaranteedaccesstohighspeedbroadbandconnectionsforamultitudeofeconomic,socialandhealthrelatedreasons.Accesstoemergencyservices,suchas911service,areessentialtothehealthandsecurityofconsumers.Operatoranddirectoryassistancemakethetelephonenetworkmoreaccessibletoconsumers,particularlythoselessfamiliarwiththephonenetwork.AccesstothelongdistancenetworkmakestelephoneserviceatooltoconnecttotherestofCanadaandtheworld,aparticularlyimportantfeatureforbusinesses.Finally,acopyofthecurrentphonedirectoryallowsconsumerstomakethebestuseoftheirtelephoneservicebyallowingthemtofindandcontactothers.
Finally,inDecisionCRTC2000‐745,thecontributionregimewasestablishedforthepurposeofenablingthedeliveryofthebasicserviceobjectiveofDecision99‐16attheaffordableaccessrateobjectiveaffirmedinDecision96‐10.
AsCRTCTelecomDecision99‐16notes:
19. In assessing the options available to achieve these goals, the Commission mustconsiderthesometimescompetingpolicyobjectivesthataresetoutinsection7oftheTelecommunicationsAct(theAct),suchas:
(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of atelecommunicationssystemthatservestosafeguard,enrichandstrengthenthesocialandeconomicfabricofCanadaanditsregions;
(b)torenderreliableandaffordabletelecommunicationsservicesofhighqualityaccessibletoCanadiansinbothurbanandruralareasinallregionsofCanada;
(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national andinternationallevels,ofCanadiantelecommunications;
(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision oftelecommunications services and to ensure that regulation,where required, isefficientandeffective;and
41
(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users oftelecommunicationsservices.110
WethushavetheframeworkofourcurrentuniversalserviceobligationinCanadathatconsistsofdeliveringbasicservicetoeveryoneinaservingarea.BasicserviceiscurrentlydefinedasaformoflocallandlineservicewithtouchtonedialingassetoutinDecision99‐16.Wherenecessary,contributionismadeavailableinaccordancewithCRTC2000‐745toenablethedeliveryofbasicservice.
TherehasbeenclearlysomeerosionofthecentralityofthelocallandlineserviceidentifiedasbasicserviceinDecision99‐16.TheremaywellbeothermeansthanthecurrentbasicserviceformulatomeettheconnectivityneedsdescribedbytheFCCatparagraph9herein.Atthesametime,broadbandservicehasbecomeanimportantnetworkforthedeliveryofawiderangeofservicesincludingtelephony.
Thefactthatadifferentnetworkortechnology,suchasbroadband,mayberequiredtonowmeetthesocietalneedsassociatedwiththeoriginalbasicserviceobjective,doesnotmeanthattheconceptofuniversalservicehasbecomeirrelevant.TheexperienceintheUnitedStatesandEuropeseemstopointtoaconclusionthatthebasicservicerequirementcanrequireadditionswithoutbeingsubversiveoftheoverarchingobjective.
Somecommentatorshavetakentheposition,notwithstandingtheregulatoryandcommonlawposition,thattheprincipleofobligationtoserveconsistentonlywiththepreservationofanaturalmonopoly,andthatithasnorelevanceinthecontextofanenvironmentinwhichcompetitionhasbeensupplantingregulation.111Thisviewhasbeenstronglychallengedbythosethatviewtheobligationnotassimplyafinancialobligationonthepartofserviceprovidertosubsidizeservicebutalsotoextendservicetomeetreasonabledemand.InCRTCproceeding2010‐43,expertevidencefiledbytheConsumerGroupsfromDr.BarbaraCherryoftheUniversityofIndianatracesthedevelopmentoftheobligationtoserveincommonlawandconcludesthatitremainsrelevantinaregulatoryenvironmentwhereforbearancefromregulationhasbeenpursuedasagoal:
Fortelecommunicationsservices,thecarrieroflastresortobligationhasbeenanimportantcomponentof
universal service policy to ensure that less desirable or unprofitable customers would continue to be
served. The application of a carrier of last resort obligation in a competitive environment requires
coordinationwithmodificationofuniversalservicepolicy.112Itisforthisreason,asstatedinSection3.2,
that application of a carrier of last resort obligation under a policy of forbearance requires careful
110Ibid111SeeRyan,M.H.,CanadianTelecommunicationsLawandRegulation,(2009),release2,pp.6‐67‐6‐73112See Cherry and Wildman (1999).
42
evaluation — beyond a simple assertion of symmetric application among ILECs and CLECs — for
appropriateimplementation.113
Excerpts from Dr. Cherry’s testimony are set out as Appendix A to this report.
Itisalsoclearthatthetraditionalmechanismsformaintainingandfinancingthebasicserviceobligation,primarilythroughanobligationtoprovidebasicserviceintheformofsingleland‐linetelephony,cannotbetheprincipalmeansofmaintainingandfinancingbasicserviceinthefuture.Thesameregulatorybargainthatdrovetheestablishmentofbasicserviceprovidedbytheincumbentmonopolyproviderisnolongerinplace.TheGovernorinCouncil’sPolicyDirection,whichhastriggeredthenecessityforareviewofthecomponentsoftheCommission’sbasicserviceobligation,alsocontemplatesthatanyobligationshouldnowbesymmetricalandcompetitivelyneutral114.Wehaveappendedtothisreport,excerptsfromtheevidenceofregulatoryexpertJohnTodd,filedinCRTCproceeding2010‐43,thatoutlinesaregimethatiscompetitivelyneutralandprovidestherequiredcostdisciplinetoenableitsimplementation.
Thereexistsconsiderablepublicpolicysupportforabasicserviceobligationthatincludesbroadband.TheCanadiangovernment’sBroadbandTaskForcein2001recommendedanactionplanthatwouldhaveseenaccesstobroadbandinallCanadiancommunitiesby2004.TheTelecommunicationsReviewPanelReportof2006urgedthecreationofanationalstrategyforadoptionofICTs,notingtheeffectofimprovedbroadbandconnectivityas“aprimemeansofspreadingthesocialandeconomicobjectivesofinformationtechnology”.115Ittoorecommendedthatgovernment"immediatelycommenceaprogramtoensurethataffordableandreliablebroadbandservicesareavailableinallregionsofCanada,includingurban,ruralandremoteareas,by2010atthelatest.116
ThetimeforCanadatoactisnow.Canadahadanearlyleadinbroadbandadoptioncomparedtoothercountries.Infact,in2000,31%ofCanadianbroadbandsubscriptionswerebroadbandsubscriptions.117Inthe2003OECDsurveyofbroadbandpenetration,Canadarankedsecondper100inhabitants,behindSouthKorea.118Despitethisstrongstart,Canadaquickly
113TestimonyofBarbaraCherry,CRTCTelecomNotice2010‐43,p.25
114 Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives SOR/2006-355, sec. 1 (b)(iii)
115TelecommunicationsReviewPanelFinalReport2006p.7‐43116Ibid,Recommendation8‐1117CRTCCommunicationsMonitoringReportAugust2009,p.213‐226.118OECDCommunicationsOutlook2003
43
lostitsstatusasabroadbandleader.DespitetheCRTC’spolicyofunbundledaccess,theCanadianmarketisnottypifiedbyunbundledcompetitionbutrather,byfacilities‐basedcompetition.
Generallyspeaking,consumershaveachoicebetweentwocompetitors,onetelephone‐basedandonecable‐based.Thesecompaniesmaintainaparticularoperatingareaanddonottendtocompetedirectlywithoneanother.Infact,themarketshareofrevenuecapturedbyincumbenttelecommunicationsprovidersdeclinedquitesharplyfrom23%ofmarketsharein2003to12%ofmarketsharein2007.119Additionally,therevenueearnedbyoutofterritoryproviders,bothincumbentandnon‐incumbentprovidersdroppedfrom16%in2004to8%in2008.120Thisdatastronglysuggeststhatsomecompetitionmayhavebeenoccurringpreviously,however,thistrendisreversingandprovidersarepartitioningofftheirrespectivemarkets.Bycontrollingdistinctmarkets,themajorincumbentsarereducingcompetitionbetweenthemselvestothedetrimentofconsumers.
DespiteCanada’slocalloopunbundling,therehasnotbeenamajorcompetitiveentryintotheCanadianbroadbandmarketoutsideofthemajorincumbentproviders.Thiscouldbetheresultofaveryearlypresenceofstrongcompetitorsinthemarket,astheincumbentprovidersmanagedtointroducebroadbandservicesveryrapidlyintotheCanadianmarket.AnotherfactorcouldbethewaytheCRTChasregulatedproviders.TheCRTChasadopteda“costsplusmarkup”approachwhichhasnotbeenadoptedbyothercountries.Thishelpstoinsulatetheincumbentplayersfromcompetitionasallmannerofcostsarecoveredaswellasahealthymarginforprofit.
WhateverthereasonforthelackofcompetitionwithintheCanadianmarket,thereisnoquestionthatitishavingaverynegativeeffectonthepricesofservicesavailabletoconsumers.AccordingtotheBerkmanreport,asofSeptember2008,themonthlypriceofanunbundledlocalloopinCanada(excludingremoteanddenseurbanareas)was70%higherthaninSouthKoreaandDenmark,almost50%higherthaninItaly,30%higherthaninJapan,France,orNorway,and25%higherthaninFinlandortheUK.CanadahasthehighestmonthlychargeforaccesstoanunbundledloopinanyOECDcountry.121Furthermore,thereportidentifiesCanada’smajorweaknessintermsofpriceversuslevelofservice:
119Supranote39atp.110.120Ibid.121Ibid.
44
Intermsofprices,Canadaranks21stforthelowestspeedsand23dformiddlingspeeds.Itranksnexttolastinpricesofhighspeeds(onlytheSlovakRepublichashigherpricesinthattierofservice),anditdoesnotappearintherankingsforpricesofveryhighspeeds,becausetherewerenoofferingsofservicespeedsof35MbpsorhigherinCanadainSeptemberof2008.Ourcompanylevelpricingstudyforthehighest‐speedoffersinthecountriesweobserveherelocatesalmostalloftheCanadiancompaniesintheclusterwiththeslowestspeedsandhighestprices.122
ThissituationisunacceptableforCanadianconsumers.Broadbandisbecomingamore
essentialtoolforcommunication,business,healthandeducationwitheachpassingday.Canadiansneedtohaveaccesstoaffordablebroadbandservices,nomatterwheretheylive.OnewaytoensurethiswouldbethecreationofabasicservicerequirementforbroadbandinCanada
122TheOctober15,2009HarvardBerkmanCentreReport“NextGenerationConnectivity”notedonpage11.
45
Conclusion Theinternethasquicklyevolvedfromanacademiccuriositytoanunstoppableforceontheearth’seconomic,politicalandsociallandscape.Acriticalcomponenttotheinternet’ssuccesshasbeentheriseofbroadbandandtheeverincreasingspeedsitoffers.Highbandwidthwebapplicationssuchasstreamingaudioandvideo,teleconferencingandtelepresenceandvoiceoverIPtelephoneservicewouldbeimpossiblebutforbroadbandinternet.Canadianconsumersareincreasinglyreliantuponsuchservices.However,withoutabasicservicerequirement,manyCanadianconsumerswillnotbeabletoaccessbroadbandandwillbeleftbehind. Theimportanceofbroadbandaccesshasbeenrecognizedbydifferentcountriesaroundtheworld.Manydevelopedstateshaveimplementedbroadbandbasicserviceregimestoensureconsumershaveaccesstobroadbandservice,nomatterwheretheyarelocatedwithinastate’sborders.OnJuly1st,2010,Finlandwillmakeaccesstobroadbandahumanrightforitscitizens.ThisisallthemoreremarkablewhenFinland’sgeography,whichincludesvasttractsofsparelypopulated,arcticland.Finland’sunremarkable1Mbpsstandardwillbeelevatedto100Mbpsby2015.ThisisatrulyimpressivestandardgivenFinland’sgeographicanddemographiccharacteristics.SpainhasalsofollowedsuittoFinlandandhasdeclaredthatbroadbandwillbecomealegalrighttoitscitizensasof2011.Francealreadyhasexcellentbroadbandandrelatedservicesavailabletoitsconsumersandforveryreasonableprices.Franceisseekingtowidentheavailabilityofitsservicesandprovidehighquality100Mbpsservicetoasmanyconsumersaspossible.Australiadoesnotpresentlyhaveabasicservicerequirementforallofitscitizensbuthasinsteadoptedtobuilditsownpublicallyfinancedbroadbandnetwork.Thisnetworkwillserve90‐93%ofthehomesinAustraliawiththeremainingnumbertobeservedwirelessandsatellitetechnology.123TheUnitedStateshasjustpublishedanambitiousbroadbandplanthatoutlinedacomprehensivestrategytoreformitsmarketforbroadbandinternetservice.Theyplantoprovideatleast100millionhomeswith100Mbpsbroadbandservice,wireallschools,hospitalsandgovernmentofficeswith1Gbpsandacompleterebuildingofthepublicsafetynetwork.124Itisclearthatothercountriesaretakingtheissueofbroadbandavailabilityveryseriouslyanddevotingconsiderableresourcestoaddressingit.
123Supranote57.124Supranote76atp.9‐11.
46
Uponcomparisontoothercountries,Canadaisfallingbehind.Canadahasnocomprehensivebroadbandpolicyandnobroadbandbasicservicerequirement.Canada’seffortstocreategreatercompetitioninthebroadbandmarketplacehavebeencriticizedas“half‐hearted”.125ItistimeforCanadatostepupandcreateabroadbandbasicservicerequirementtobetterserveitsconsumersanditseconomy.Canadawasanearlyleaderinbroadbandadoption,cominginsecondtoSouthKoreainOECDbroadbandsurveysin2003.126Onlysevenyearslater,wearefarbehind,butthereisstilltimetocatchup. ThefederalgovernmenthaslongrecognizedtheimportanceofbroadbandaccesstoCanadianconsumers.TheBroadbandTaskForcehasrecommendedasearlyas2001thatCanadamakebroadbandservicesavailabletoallCanadiancommunities.TheTelecommunicationsReviewPanelReportcametoasimilarconclusionandrecommendedthatbroadbandservicesbemadeavailabletoallcommunitiesinCanada.ThemosteffectivewaytoensurethatCanadiansinallcommunitiesreceivebroadbandservices,whethertheyareurban,ruralorremote,istoestablishabasicservicerequirementforbroadbandandallowtheCRTCtoregulateastandardthatmustbeprovidedtoallCanadianconsumers. TheframeworkforabasicserviceprovisionthankfullyalreadyexistswithCRTCTelecomDecision99‐16.Canadiantelecommunicationsprovidershavebeensubjecttoitsrequirementsforoveradecade.TelecomDecision99‐16setsoutanumberofcriteriatoensurethattheservicedeliveredunderthebasicservicedirectiveisaccessibleandofsufficientqualitytoconsumers.ItisclearthattheideaofabasicservicerequirementinCanadaisnotanewone.Thebasicservicerequirementhasmadetelephoneserviceavailabletoconsumerslivinginmanyruralandremoteareasallacrossthecountry.Thisservicehasbroughtthemcountlessbenefitsrangingfromtheeconomic,politicalandsocial.Ifthisdefinitionorasimilaroneprovidingabroadbandbasicservicerequirementweretocomeintoeffect,consumerswouldgreatlybenefit.Abroadbandbasicservicerequirementwouldneedasimilarsetofcriteriainordertosucceed.Mostimportantoftheserequirementswouldbeaminimumstandardforuploadanddownloadspeeds.Otherimportantstandardstoconsiderwouldbeaveragewaittimesfortechnicalserviceandpricecontrolstokeeptheserviceaccessibletoallconsumers.
TheUnitedStatesservesasausefulmodelforservicestandards,astheirbroadbandmarketissimilartoours.TheNorthAmericanbroadbandmarketistypifiedbylargetelephone
125Supranote65atp.79.126Supranote106
47
andcableincumbents,bothofwhichareabletodeliverhighspeedinternetservices.TheU.S.NationalBroadbandPlansetsincrementaltargetstoachievecertainlevelsofservicethatcouldserveasausefulexample.GiventhenatureoftheCanadianmarket,anybasicservicerequirementthatisimplementedmustbeequallyapplicabletobothtelephoneandcablebroadbandproviders.Therequirementshouldalsonotcreateanysortofgreaterburdenorhardshipononetypeofprovideroveranother.ThefederalgovernmentandtheCRTCshouldbemindfuloftheseconsiderationsiftheychoosetoimplementabroadbandbasicservicerequirement.
ThewidespreadadoptionofthetelephonerevolutionizedCanadiansocietyinmany
differentways.AsimilarrevolutionisalreadyunderwaywiththeinternetandasignificantsegmentofCanadianconsumersriskbeingleftbehindwithoutabroadbandbasicservicerequirement.Thetimeforactionisnow.Canadianconsumersdeservenothingless.
48
Appendix A
Excerpts from Testimony and legal opinion of Barbara Cherry J.D., Ph.D.
filed in
In CRTC Telecom Notice 2010-43 – Obligation to Serve
Introduction…
“Classifying a firm or industry under the heading public service impose[s] an explicit set of
obligations on that firm or industry. In this respect the public service concept differs from other types of
regulation and has important policy consequences” (Stone, 1991, p. 28). These obligations include the
duty to serve. In CRTC Telecom Notice 2009-575 (par. 3), the Commission described the obligation to
serve as including the obligation to provide service to: existing customers; new customers requesting
service where the carrier has facilities (including the requirement to act as carrier of last resort); and new
customers requesting service beyond the limits of the carrier's facilities.
There is an important common law history underlying designation of a firm or industry that bears
the obligation to serve. It is critical that this legal history be properly understood and interpreted in order
to guide the Commission’s consideration of the obligation to serve in the present proceeding.
The common law history of the obligation to serve has often been misunderstood. Some modern
commentators focus on a modern concept of economic criteria and overlook the importance of the
historical social criteria for imposing this special obligation on an industry or firm. In particular, some
erroneously interpret legal history by claiming that common law imposition of a duty to serve requires the
existence of monopoly. As will be discussed, under the common law the imposition of the duty to serve
was originally, and often continues to be, independent of the existence of monopoly.127
Furthermore, the legal history shows that the scope of the duty to serve has evolved over time.
Public service companies must serve not only within existing capacity, but also have an affirmative
obligation to extend their facilities within their service area and usually have a barrier to exit. History
also shows that industries to which the common law duty to serve may be imposed changes over time,
such as due to changes in transportation and communication technologies. During the nineteenth century,
the common law duty to serve was imposed on new technologies such as railroads, telegraphy, telephony, 127 This is true however monopoly is defined — actual, natural, virtual or practical.
49
as well as gas and electric utilities. The extension of the duty to serve to new technologies and services is
relevant to inquiry as to whether the duty should be extended to broadband service.
4.2. Duty to Provide Broadband Service
Turning to the issue in the present proceeding as to whether a carrier may be required to provide
broadband service, Ryan concludes: “It follows that the law does not require a carrier, or authorize the
Commission to require a carrier: (a) to provide broadband service to locations within an existing service
territory if the required facilities are not in place” (first full paragraph on p. 3, emphasis in original). This
unequivocal statement is inconsistent with both the common law and Metcalfe Telephones Limited v.
McKenna. The issue, rather, requires evaluation of circumstances under the now prevailing public policy
choices, which may also vary among carriers particularly given the statutory requirements of the Bell
Canada Act. Canada’s current policy is reflected in the policy goals embodied in section 7 of the
Telecommunications Act and the Governor in Council’s Policy Direction “to rely on market forces to the
maximum extent feasible as the means of achieving the telecommunications policy objectives” (at para.
1(a)(i)).
Such evaluation will be a challenging endeavor for the Commission, as the policy choices have
changed from those based on exclusive franchises in Metcalfe Telephones Limited v. McKenna. In this
regard, it bears emphasizing that under the common law both common carriers and public utilities have
the duty to serve which includes the duty to extend facilities “within its service territory” in order to meet
reasonable demand. Since telecommunications carriers in Canada are both common carriers and public
utilities, inquiry as to the “existing service territory” of a carrier needs to take into account
telecommunications carriers’ dual classification. Moreover, it is my understanding that broadband service
is considered a telecommunications service in Canada. If so, then a telecommunications carrier that
already provides broadband service to some customers within its service territory, can be required to
provide broadband service to others within the service territory in order to meet reasonable demand.
A further factual inquiry, of course, will then be what is “reasonable demand”. As to this inquiry,
the prevailing universal service policy may be determinative. Without any explicit funding support,
reasonable demand requires that customers be willing to pay compensatory rates.
The core of the duty to serve itself should be properly understood. It is not a requirement that the utility serve for inadequate compensation; it is an obligation to serve everyone who makes a reasonable request for service and who tenders reasonable compensation under rules of general applicability, including, of course, any rate differentials authorized by the regulatory agency. In other words, the duty to serve, properly conceived, is a
50
prohibition against arbitrary, ad hoc, and selective refusals to deal” (Payton, 1981, p. 146, emphasis added).
Thus, to prevent arbitrary, ad hoc, and selective refusals to deal, the Commission can order a
telecommunications carrier to extend facilities to provide broadband in its service territory to customers
willing to pay compensatory rates.
Furthermore, the scope of customers to be served within a service territory could be expanded
through explicit universal service funding support. With regard to the potential for funding support for
broadband service, Ryan concludes:
The Commission has the power under section 46.5 of the Act to create a fund to support “continuing access” to “basic telecommunications services” and to require all service providers to contribute to that fund; but, in my opinion, this provision does not authorize the Commission to create a fund to support the building of broadband service into territories unserved by broadband. This section is intended to ensure that existing services remain affordable, not to support the introduction of new services. (fourth full paragraph on p. 3, emphasis in original)
His categorical conclusion that section 46.5 does not authorize the Commission “to create a fund
to support the building into territories unserved by broadband” is both misleading and a misstatement of
the law. It is insufficiently articulated to reflect the nuances of the scope of telecommunications carriers’
duty to serve, and does not recognize the contextual analysis necessary to determine what are service
territories. Ryan’s conclusion is also internally inconsistent. For example, in par. 3 (in his Introduction),
Ryan states that broadband service is an “existing service” as he has defined the term for purposes of his
opinion. Thus, if broadband is an existing service and thereby not a new service, then his objection to
applying 46.5 to broadband does not apply. Finally, “basic telecommunication services” is not defined in
the Telecommunications Act, but is to be determined by the Commission. Therefore, the Commission
could revise the definition of basic telecommunications services to include broadband service.
51
Appendix B In this excerpt from his evidence, Mr. Todd outlines possible structures to accomplish the
basic service goal for broadband.
2. TWO MARKET SEGMENTS, TWO DIFFERENT CHALLENGES
In“determiningitsrole,ifany,regardingaccesstohigh‐speedInternetservices”(NC2010‐43,para.16),theCommissionwillneedtoexamineinthecurrentproceedingwhetherhigh‐speedInternetaccessshouldbeincorporatedintotheobligationtoserve,thebasicserviceobjective,thelocalsubsidyregimeandtheassociatedcontributionmechanism.Indoingsoitwillbeimportanttotakeintoaccountthedifferentstagesofmarketevolutionthathavebeenachievedtodateinthesetwosegmentsofthetelecommunicationsmarket(i.e.,basicserviceascurrentlydefinedvs.high‐speedInternetservice).
TheexistingregulatoryregimeincludesadefinitionofthebasicserviceobjectivethatincludesindividuallinelocalTouch‐Toneserviceandaccesstolow‐speedInternetatlocalrates,combinedwiththeobligationtoserveandtheexistingcontribution/localsubsidyregime.Totheextentthatallincumbentlocalexchangecarriers(ILECs)andothertelecommunicationsserviceproviders(TSPs)areincompliancewiththeexistingregulatoryregime,itfollowsthatthepurposeofreviewingtheexistingcontribution/subsidymechanismsis(i)toassesstheneedtocontinuewithamechanismthatsubsidizelocalserviceinhigh‐costserviceareas(HCSAs),and(ii)toidentifyandcorrectanyinequitiesinthecontributionandlocalsubsidyregimessoastoensureappropriatecompetitiveneutrality.Thereisnoneedtoalterthecontribution/subsidyregimetostimulateinvestmenttoexpandaccesstobasicserviceascurrentlydefinedprovidedthatappropriateQualityofServiceStandardsaremaintainedandenforced.
Incontrast,thecentralissuesrelatedtoreviewingthecontribution/localsubsidyregimeinthecontextofincludingHSIservicerelatetotheneedfor,anddesignof,aregulatoryregimethatwouldcomplementtheinclusionofaccesstohigh‐speedInternetserviceinanupdateddefinitionofbasicservice.Sincehigh‐speedInternetserviceisnotcurrentlyubiquitous,onekeyconsiderationiswhetherandtowhatextendtheexistinglocalsubsidyregimeneedstobeexpandedtoaddresscostsrelatedtoHSIservice,giventheexistingofotherinitiativesandsourcesoffundingfortheexpansionofhigh‐speedInternetservice.128ConsistentwiththeobjectivesoftheTelecomAct,itwillbeappropriateto128Forexample,aspartofCanada'sEconomicActionPlan,$225millionwasprovidedtoIndustryCanadaoverthreeyearstodevelopand
implementastrategytoextendandimprovebroadbandcoverage.Thegoalofthisinvestment,underTheBroadbandCanada:ConnectingRuralCanadiansProgram,istoextendbroadbandservicetoasmanyremainingunservedandunderservedCanadianhouseholdsaspossible,beginningin2009‐2010.ParticularsofotherFederalandProvincialprogramscanbefoundat:http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/719.nsf/eng/h_00032.html
52
implementasubsidyregimethatallowsTSPstocomplywithanexpansionofthebasicserviceobjectivetoincludehigh‐speedInternetaccessataffordablerateswithoutrequiringinternalsubsidiesorotherwisecompromisingcompetitiveneutrality.
Aswell,anothersourceoffundingforbroadbandexpansionarisesfromTelecomDecisionCRTC2008‐1,regardinguseofexistingdeferralaccountstoimproveaccesstotelecommunicationsservicesforpersonswithdisabilitiesandtoexpandbroadbandservicestoruralandremotecommunities.InDecision2008‐1theCRTCauthorizedtheincumbentISPs(phonecompanies)tospendbroadbandexpansionmoneyoutofadeferralaccountcreatedwithtelephonechargesinexcessofthepricecap(inexcessof$600M).IntheDeferralAccountsbroadbandrolloutproceeding(Follow‐upproceedingtoUseofdeferralaccountstoimproveaccesstotelecommunicationsservicesforpersonswithdisabilitiesandtoexpandbroadbandservicestoruralandremotecommunities,TelecomDecisionCRTC2008‐1),theISPsprovidedinformationontheirproposedbroadbandbuild‐outplans,includingsomeindicationofwhattheythinkthecostsare,wheretheywishtogoinfirst,andwhattechnologytheyplantouse.
Hence,thecriticalissueforaHSIsubsidyregimewillbethatitmayhavetosupportsignificantinvestmentinprovidingHSIserviceinareaswhereHSIserviceisnotcurrentlyavailable.Incontrast,theexistingsubsidy/contributionregimeisfocusedprimarilyonbridgingthedifferencebetweenthecostandaffordableratesforlocalservicethatiscurrentlyavailableinHCSAs.
Recognizingthatthechallengesbeingaddressedinthecontextofexistingbasicserviceandhigh‐speedInternetservicearedifferent,itshouldberecognizedattheoutsetofthisinvestigationthataseparateanddistinctcontribution/subsidymechanismmaybeappropriateforfurtheringthegoalofuniversalaccesstohigh‐speedInternetserviceshouldthatgoalbeendorsedbytheCRTC.
AfurtherconsiderationindesigningasubsidyregimethatsupportstheinclusionofHSIserviceinthedefinitionofbasicservice,isthatitmaybenecessarytoaccommodateaperiodoftransition.TheCRTCwillhavetoestablishatimeframeforupgradingfacilitiesinareasthatarecurrentlyunservedorunderservedintermsofhigh‐speedInternetservice.Thistimeframewillhavetobalanceoffthedesiretoensurethathigh‐speedInternetserviceisavailableinallregionsofthecountryassoonaspossibleagainsttheconcernthattheupgradesberolledoutinacost‐effectivemanner.Giventheexpectationthatcostswillcontinuetodeclineovertime,possiblyfairlyquicklygiventhefocusthatthetelecommunicationsindustryiscurrentlygivingtoupgradingcompetitivedataservicesinthelowcostandhighlycompetitivemarketsinacrossCanadaandaroundtheworld,itmakessensetodesignacontribution/subsidyregimethatisconsistentwithtargetingareasinwhichcanHSIaccesscanbeprovidedmosteconomically(i.e.lowestcostperline)tobeupgradedfirst.Atthesametime,deploymentofHSIserviceinhighercostareasshouldnotbedelayedmorethanisrequiredforefficientlyupgradingallunservedandunderservedareas.
2.1 DESIGNING A HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE SUBSIDY
TheCommissionchosetoimplementacost‐based(accounting)subsidyregimeinits97‐42decisioninpartbecauseamarket‐basedregime(e.g.,biddingprocess)wasunwarrantedfortherelativelysmallmarketregionsthatweredesignatedasHCSAs.Theeffortinvolvedindeterminingthe
53
costofserviceforHCSAswasdeemedtobemoderate.Conceptually,thesamerationalemightbeusedtojustifyacost‐basedapproachforimplementingaHSIservicesubsidy.Inpractice,however,thetaskofdeterminingthesubsidyrequirementforHSIserviceusingacost‐basedapproachraisingseriousconcernsthatdidnotcomplicatemattersindesigningtheexistinglocalservicesubsidyregime.Thedesignchallengesincludethefollowing:
•Giventhenumberoffederal,provincialandlocalinitiativesinsupportofthedeploymentofhigh‐speedInternet,thegapbetweenthepotentialrevenueandthecosttoaTSPofdeployingthisservicewillnotprovideanaccurateindicationofthelevelofsubsidyrequiredforeconomicdeployment.Inaddition,availablefundingfromothersourcesmaychangeovertime,makingitnecessarytoupdateanycalculationofthefundinggaponafrequentbasis.
•ForILECs,thedeterminationofthelevelofsubsidyrequired,ifany,wouldalsohavetotakeintoaccounttheextenttowhichthecostshouldbefundedthroughtheDeferralAccountsFollow‐Upproceeding,presumablybyreducingthedeferralaccountfundingfromanysubsidiespayableinordertoavoiddoublerecovery.
•AlthoughaccesstoHSIservicewouldbeincludedintheupdateddefinitionofbasicservice,HSIservicewouldbeaseparateandunbundledserviceofferinginbothHCSAsandHCHSISAs.Thatis,customerswouldhavetherighttochoosetosubscribetobasictelephoneserviceascurrentlydefinedandseparatelytosubscribetoHSIservice.Theycouldchooseeitheroneofthoseserviceonitsown,orboth,correspondingtothechoiceavailabletocustomersiscompetitively‐servedmarketwithaccesstoHSIserviceatthistime.TheactualmarketpenetrationofHSIserviceinmarketsthatarecurrentlyunservedorunderservedwilldependonmanyfactorsincludingtheaffordabilityandavailabilityofcomputersinthatarea,theactualservicestandardsimplementedbytheTSPsofferingHSIserviceinthearea,etc.
Itwouldbeparticularlydifficulttoattempttoredesignthecurrentregimetoaddressboththeexistinglocalsubsidyissue(i.e.,thedifferencebetweencostsandaffordableratesforbasicserviceascurrentlydefined)andtheneedtosubsidizethedeploymentofHCIserviceinareasthatarecurrentlyunservedorunderservedinthisregard.ThereisnoevidentiaryoranalyticreasontobelievethatserviceareaswithbasicservicecoststhatjustifythecurrentHCSAlocalservicesubsidyalignwiththosethatrequireahighcostofhigh‐speedInternetservicesubsidy;hence,anyregimethatintegratesanewHSIservicesubsidywiththecurrentaHCSAlocalservicesubsidywouldbecomplex,ifnotimpractical.
GiventhedifficultiesinherentindesigningaregimethatwouldprovideappropriatesubsidiesforareasthattheCommissiondesignatesashighcostofhigh‐speedInternetserviceareas(whichcanbereferredtousingtheacronymHCHSISAs)usinganaccountingapproachsimilartotheonethatiscurrentlybeingusedfortheexistinglocalservicesubsidy,aseparateanddistinctmechanismthatismarket‐basedmaybemostappropriatefortheHSIsubsidy.
54
Itisrecommendedthatamarket‐basedapproachbeadoptedalongthefollowinglines:
7. DefineparametersfortheHSIservicethatwillbemandatedasacomponentofbasicservice.TheparameterswouldincludetheminimumuploadanddownloadbandwidthandtheminimummonthlyusageinGBsincludedintheregulatedpricefortheservice.
8. DefinethemaximumratethataTSPwouldbepermittedtochargeforthedefinedHSIserviceinaHCHSISA(the“affordableHSIrate”)
9. Determinethe“maximumsustainablepremium”overtheaffordableHSIpricethatisobservedintheCanadiantelecommarketplaceatthistime.Forexample,areasonableestimatetouseasabasisfordesigningtheHCHSIsubsidycouldbederivedbydeterminingtheaveragepricechargedforHSIserviceinareasservingcustomerswithHSIratesinthehighest5%ofmarketrates.Themaximumsustainablepremiumwouldbethedifferencebetweenthishigh‐endrateandtheaffordableHSIratedefinedin2,above.ThisdifferentialwouldrepresentthesubsidyrequiredtoreducethecurrentmarketrateforHSIservicetotheaffordableratesetbytheCommission.
10. Bydeduction,itcanbedeterminedthatareaswhereHSIserviceisnotavailableareunservedbecausehighcost,lowincomeorsmallscale.Tobemoreexplicit,thereasonsamarketisunservedmayinclude:
•Unitcostsarehigherthantheyareinthemostexpensiveservedareas(duetohigherfacilitiesinstallationcostsbecauseofremotenessorcustomerdensity,forexample,oralownumberofpotentialcustomers)makingHSIserviceuneconomicforTSPsandcustomersatunsubsidizedmarketprices;
•Theamountthatcustomerscanaffordtopayintheunservedareasislessthanthepricethemarketwillbearinthemostexpensiveservedareas(i.e.,someareasmaybeunservedduetothelow‐incomepositionofcustomers);and/or
•Thenumberofpotentialcustomersisinsufficienttogenerateareturnoninvestment)ataratethatthemarketwillbear,givenpriceelasticityconsiderations.
11. Basedonmarketbehaviour,itcanbededucedthatgivenallcurrentrevenueandcostfactors,includingexistinggovernmentinitiativesthatareavailableineacharea,theunservedareasrequireasubsidythatexceedsthedifferentialinordertobeeconomic.Thisamountistheminimumsubsidylevel.HCHSISAswillrequirearangeofsubsidylevelsabovethatamountforTSPStobeabletoofferHSIservice.
12. AnHSIservicesubsidycouldthereforehavethefollowingdesign.
h) Thesubsidywouldconsistoftwotiers:an“accesssubsidy”anda“connectionsubsidy”.
55
i) ForILECsthatarefundingtherolloutofHSIinpartthroughthefundsmadeavailablethroughtheDeferralAccountFollow‐upproceeding,thetotalaccesssubsidywouldhavetobereducedbyanamountequaltothatfundinginordertoavoiddoublerecoveryofthecostassociatedwithprovidingHSIinHCHSISAsthatareinexcessoftheamountsthatwouldberecoverablethroughtherateschargedcustomersfortheHSIservice.
j) TheaccesssubsidywouldbebasedonthenumberoflineswithintheHCHSISAthathaveaccesstoHSIservicewithoutregardtothenumberofcustomersthatchoosethebroadbandservice.
k) TheconnectionsubsidywouldbebasedonthenumberoflineswithintheHCHSISAthathavesubscribedtoHSIservice.
l) AnyTSPwouldhavetherighttoapplytotheCRTCfor“FirstMover”statusinanyHSHSISAandwouldbegrantedthatstatusprovideditisthefirstTSPtoapplytoprovideaccesstoHSIserviceintheHCHSISAandalsocommitstoacceptasetofobligationsestablishedbytheCommissionthatwouldinclude:
•TheobligationtoserveallcustomerswantingHSIserviceintheHCHSISAattheregulatedprice;and
•ProvisionoffacilitiesthatprovideaccesstoHSIservice(i.e.,servicecanbemadeavailabletoanycustomerwithintheHCHSISAwith10workingdays).
TheTSPwithFirstMoverstatuswouldbetheonlyTSPeligibletoreceivetheaccesssubsidy.SubsequentTSPsthatenterthemarketonacompetitivebasis(i.e.,secondandsubsequentmovers)wouldnotreceivetheaccesssubsidywhichwouldavoidsubsidizesmultiple,possiblyredundantfacilities,however,theywouldnothaveanobligationtoserve.
m) InthefirstyearoftheHSIservicesubsidyregime,theleveloftheaccesssubsidywouldbeadefinedpercentage(e.g.,50%)ofthemaximumsustainablepremiumdefinedin3,above.
•Subsequentyears,the“startinglevel”fortheaccesssubsidywouldincreaseby10%;hence,thefinancialrewardforenteringthemarketwouldincreaseovertime.
•OnceaTSPhasappliedforandbeenacceptedastheFirstMoverforaHCHSISA,theyear1accesssubsidyfortheHCHSISAwouldbefixedattheapprovedlevel.ForthatHCHSISA,woulddeclineby10%oftheoriginalamountineachsubsequentyear.ThesubsidypaymentreceivedbytheFirstMoverwouldequalthenumberoflinesthathaveaccesstoHSIserviceineachyearmultipliedbytheperlinepaymentapplicableforthatyear.
n) TheconnectionsubsidyperHSIsubscriberlinereferredtoabovewouldbeanamountthatisdeterminedperiodicallybytheCRTCbasedonmarketconditions.ItwouldbeaportablesubsidythatispaidtoallTSPsprovidingHSIserviceinHCHSISAsbasedonthenumberofcustomerstheyserveacrossallHCHSISAs.Thegoalwouldbetosettheleveloftheconnectionsubsidyatalevel
56
thatishighenoughtoattractsomedegreeofcompetitioninthemostattractiveHCHSISAsovertime.