Tyler Hamilton has a piece in the Toronto Star and a post on his blog this week on celphone number portability – the Public Interest Advocacy Centre has issued a report stating that Canada is one of the last nations in the developed world to not offer mobile number portability, or MNP, to consumers. No news there, but as Tyler reports, portability is seen as an important strategy to avoid oligopolistic behaviour by Canadian telecoms.
There is just no question that this is a vital public policy issue, particularly since the recent acquisition of Fido, which was the only truly disruptive player in the market (hence its disappearance, no doubt). Virgin Mobile is set to launch, but being a JV with an established player, Bell Mobility, we can’t really expect it to be an agent of disruptive change.
Money quotes:
Ian Angus, president of Angus TeleManagement Group, a telecom consultancy in Ajax, said the industry is in no rush to make it happen.
"It’s the one thing that the carriers have to lock you in, to keep people from switching to a less expensive service," said Angus. "Number portability allows consumers to say, `Make me a better offer or I’ll leave’."
The lack of portability is having an even greater impact on business customers, he said, pointing out firms that have dozens or hundreds of wireless phones often won’t change providers because of the cost and hassle of replacing business cards, letterhead and advertising.
…
Peter Barnes, chief executive officer and president of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, a wireless industry lobby group, said the carriers have to balance the cost of offering such a service against the benefits it would bring to the consumer.
"So far, the carriers have decided that the balancing act comes out against offering number portability," he said, adding that the wireless industry feels there is enough competition without the service.
First of all, clue #1 that an industry is going to be unresponsive to its customers – it has decided that its role is to "balance the cost of offering such a service against the benefits it would bring to the consumer." No it isn’t – that’s my job as the customer. And if I want it, and you’re not willing to do it, you should either be forced to, or I should have an alternative service provider to go to (notably, Fido provided number portability from local telcos, though not wireless).
Second, clue #2 – its lobbyists say things like "the wireless industry feels there is enough competition without the service". No they don’t. They don’t feel anything of the sort. They abhor competition, and they have gotten cozy without it. This is an industry ripe for disruptive change.
Finally, it will be interesting to see how VoIP paired with wide range Wi-Fi bites into this market. We are already seeing early adopters pushing this through 802.11b and g networks. WiMax is still in the distance, but some metropolitan areas in the US are already experimenting with city-funded wide coverage Wi-Fi. Count on developments in wireless IP networking to eventually force telecoms’ hands – though it may yet take a while.
And what is the CRTC’s response to all of this? A sleepy yawn, it seems. From the Star:
Pressure last year from consumers and media convinced the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has typically left the wireless industry alone, to put number portability on its 2005 work agenda.
"We plan to look at it," said Philippe Tousignant, a spokesperson for the regulator. "But there is no specific time set for issuing a public notice at the moment."