home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- The following was received from BCTel Feb. 20 1991. It's original
- WordPerfect formatting has been removed. The original layout
- formatting may have been altered in this conversion process, but
- the text has not been altered either in content or it's original
- order.
-
- -JC- Feb 20 1991
- ******************************************************************
- November 29, 1990
-
-
- POLICY STATEMENT ON COMPETITION
-
-
-
- B.C. Tel is in favour of competition where it makes sense.
- However, we do not believe it makes sense in Canada's long
- distance market.
-
-
- Most importantly, the type of competition being advocated in
- Canada today is not genuine competition. Toronto based Unitel is
- asking for a 15 percent price differential. Unitel is able to
- afford this differential because it doesn't want to pay its fair
- share toward subsidizing the cost of local service. B.C.
- Rail/Lightel (BCRL) is even less willing to subsidize local rates
- adequately. In addition, BCRL wants to establish its network on
- only the most lucrative long distance ro utes, thereby skimming
- off revenues B.C. Tel uses to maintain affordable local prices.
- Far from establishing a competitive environment, such artificial
- advantages would instead create merely the illusion of
- competition.
-
-
- Furthermore, the Sherman Report concluded that only a small
- percentage of Canadians would benefit from competition. According
- to this study, nine out of ten customers would have higher monthly
- telephone charges if there were alternative long distance
- services.
-
-
- The Sherman Report also examined the impact of long distance
- competition in countries where it already exists. From the
- American experience, researchers found that:
-
- most customers pay higher phone bills;
-
- lower long distance prices are mostly due to regulatory
- action, not competitive entry;
-
- while competition provides extra choice to customers, most
- are more confused about service and offerings; and
-
- there is no evidence that competition improves
- productivity.
-
-
- Commissioned by the Federal⌐Provincial⌐Territorial Task Force on
- Telecommunications; published December 1988.
-
-
- 2
-
-
-
- As for claims by proponents of competition that it brings greater
- technical innovations, the Sherman Report concluded: "Canadian
- telephone companies appear to have kept pace with international
- technological developments, and they have built one of the most
- modern and functionally efficient telecommunications networks in
- the world."
-
-
- These conclusions are backed up by U.S. data contained in a
- February 1989 report issued by the Federal Communications
- Commission. According to the FCC, the average decrease in
- interstate long distance rates over the past five years (1984 -
- 1989) has been 29 percent; intra⌐state rates have gone down by
- just 8 percent. Local charges in the U.S., however, have
- increased by 31 percent during the same period. In B.C. during
- this time, local rates have gone up only 9 percent, whereas prices
- for long distance service have decreased by almost 30 percent.
-
- It is the responsibility of the Canadian Radio-television and
- Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to determine whether long
- distance competition is in the best interests of the public. The
- CRTC will hold public hearings commencing April 15, 1991 to allow
- Canadians to air their views on this subject.
-
-
-
-