The 15% Solution

Every time the CRTC's decision on usage-based billing (UBB) comes up you see the usual talking points from the usual parties. This week's revision to the decision was no exception. What you get is a lot of faux outrage from the ISP community, consumers ranting about evil, money-grubbing corporations, and the incumbents trying to convince everyone how badly the CRTC is hurting them, and the jobs of hard-working Canadians. The media makes sure to give all of them a few lines in the inevitable follow-on articles, giving a bit of free distribution to their public relations departments.

The thing is that this 15% fee reduction by the CRTC changes not much at all. The decision still holds, as does the March 1 implementation date. There was no possibility for a reconsideration of the decision at all, and implying that there was is nothing more than a talking point by those who wish to shift blame onto the CRTC by claiming they've blown another so-called opportunity to do the right thing, where the right thing is whatever it is that most benefits whichever side is speaking.

From all the media coverage I've seen, that appears to have been successful since the CRTC is pretty much without any supporters on this matter. However, I don't see that they've failed at their task at all; they are doggedly, if somewhat clumsily, going about implementing policy, which is pushing the industry toward facilities-based competition. They are trying to make it sound attractive to those paying the price today, although that attempt seems futile.

As to the specifics of that 15% wholesale price reduction, the media generally gets it wrong, as in this Globe and Mail article:

The regulator, as it usually does, has attempted to find middle ground.

No, that's not it. Let's read what the CRTC itself has to say about that 15%:

7.      The competitors and MTS Allstream submitted that wholesale UBB rates should be discounted relative to comparable retail UBB rates. The competitors generally submitted that discounted wholesale rates would provide a margin from which competitors can recover additional costs associated with wholesale UBB, including activities related to customer inquiries and potential discrepancies between carrier usage bills and competitor records. The competitors also generally noted that, because retail UBB charges are not prepaid, there is a risk that customers will not pay them. In general, the competitors submitted that the financial risk is more significant for competitors than for carriers because unlike carriers, whose retail UBB rates are not cost-based, competitors must pay wholesale UBB rates to carriers as a direct cost.

This is interesting since you might almost expect that the GAS-dependent ISPs would pass the price straight through onto their customers' bills without any value added, much as they might with government taxes such as the hated HST. I find it funny that they'd argue that suddenly these fees would add such a burden to their cost of operations. While I'm sure there could be some tense moments when a few high-usage customers open their April bills and have an attack of sticker shock, the real impact almost certainly will be less than 15%.

8.      The competitors also generally submitted that discounted wholesale UBB rates would permit continued retail service differentiation. They argued further that allowing a discount would reduce what they characterized as an anti-competitive cross-subsidy from competitors to carriers that results from wholesale UBB rates not being cost-based. The competitors generally submitted that GAS and TPIA services are one input among others they use to provide retail Internet services, that these wholesale services are not resale versions of the carriers’ retail Internet services, and therefore that symmetrical wholesale UBB charges are not appropriate. The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) proposed that wholesale UBB rates be discounted by a minimum of 50 percent relative to retail rates, to redress various disadvantages faced by competitors relative to carriers.

I'm not surprised that a request for this 50% reduction was rejected by the CRTC since they made it quite clear in their decision and stated policy that the CRTC is not particularly interested in forcing differentiated pricing for the ISPs use of incumbent facilities since they want to promote facilities-based competition. At the bottom of my last article on UBB I noted that the ISPs were finally accepting this point.

Now we come back again to that 15% figure and how the CRTC arrived at it. As referenced above, to some it is a compromise between the ISPs' request for 50% reduction and the incumbents' desire for 0% or, better, a price increase. Let's now look at how the CRTC arrived at 15%.

10.  However, the Commission considers that, for competitors, carriers’ wholesale UBB rates are an additional, direct, and unavoidable cost that competitors will need to recover from rates paid by their retail customers. The Commission also considers that wholesale UBB charges will result in additional customer care costs for competitors, including a review of the relevant carrier’s wholesale usage records and associated UBB charges.
...
13.  Regarding the amount of the wholesale UBB discount, the Commission considers that if it is too large, the effectiveness of UBB as an economic ITMP will be reduced, while if it is too small, competitors’ capacity to recover costs will be undermined.

14.  The Commission concludes that a discount of 15 percent for carriers’ wholesale UBB rates relative to their retail UBB rates recognizes these considerations appropriately.

Somehow I strongly suspect that no one at the CRTC sweated for weeks over detailed spreadsheet financial models in an attempt to calculate or forecast the true costs to the ISPs of passing through UBB fees or the true network costs of the incumbents. Unlike what I said up above, it may actually be that 15% really is a compromise of sorts, since it certainly isn't based on any real analysis of costs. I can just imagine them talking among themselves, concluding with something like:

[Hmm, 25% is half way between 0% and 50%, but for policy reasons we want to dissuade use of incumbents' network. So lets swing the value a little bit in the incumbents' favour.]

Although I've completely made up this conversational snippet it sure seems to be closer to the truth than anything else I've heard in the past day or two.

So get ready to pay these fees starting 5 weeks from now. According to my calculations in that last article, I calculated the overage fees for going beyond 25 GB starts at $2/GB (it declines at higher volumes). I am assuming that the retail pricing stays as is since that 15% discount will not be passed on to consumers. If the ISPs were to do so they would be seen as having been dishonest in their CRTC submissions where they claimed to need an even greater discount to break even on UBB.

Now compare this to the woes south of the border where the dispute between Level 3 and Comcast continues to rage, leading Netflix to say in a financial disclosure document:

...at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced.

Keep in mind that Comcast customers pay UBB after 250 GB, not 25 GB, so that half-price deal looks particularly appealing in comparison to the situation here.

In the US the carriers and service providers also have, and frequently make use of, the ability to take the FCC to court. This is now beginning with Verizon and at least one other company on the closely-related topic of the new network neutrality rules. In Canada the options are more limited.

Tuesday’s ruling is being considered the regulator’s final say on the matter. So any service providers who remain unsatisfied with the new pricing model will likely now have to take their concerns directly to Parliament.

Well, Parliament might care, but the government most certainly will not. They, too, have taken actions in the past to promote facilities-based competition, and despite having little love for the CRTC no one should expect that Stephen Harper is about to jump into this shark tank. This is too minor an issue for them to take the risk in what may be an election year. Besides, I suspect they would far rather be silent to ensure that all of the criticism falls on the Commissioners' heads.