I AM WRITING FIRST to thank you for your coverage of our press release and story.
However, I am also writing to express my disappointment at the editorial insertion after the seventh paragraph of your story.
The portion in parentheses purports to clarify where Bell and the Cable Carrier’s got their numbers. In doing so it seems intended to undercut the position we have taken and give the incumbents an excuse for the misrepresentation. In fact, Cartt.ca’s insertion is misleading in itself.
VMedia addressed that exact source that the incumbents were relying on in our submission, in paragraphs 55 and 56, which we recommend the writer of the Cartt story review.
This is important, because in your parenthetical, you write they “were actually quoting a market share figure for wholesale-based competitors from the” Delivering Choice Report.
That is simply not true. The figures are in a chart which is called “Share of Canadian Internet Subscribers Served by ISPs Other Than Large Telephone and Cable Companies”. In other words, a universe of which wholesale-based providers are only a part.
To underscore that point the Bureau wrote immediately below the chart (which we quoted in our submission at paragraph 56, and which the incumbents did not in theirs) that those “figures include subscribers of some smaller facilities based competitors, including a nation-wide ISP that offers satellite and fixed wireless services, and not just those of wholesale-based competitors.”
Interestingly, in a further sleight of hand, at paragraph 38 of the Bell Petition, Bell quotes the Bureau – in quotation marks – as finding that “wholesale-based competitors, who use the access regime to serve customers, currently provide services to more than 1,000,000 Canadian households”. That quote is footnoted. However, the immediately following sentence, not in quotes and not attributed, and there Bell’s own calculation, says that amounts to “at least 13% nationally”. In fact, the Bureau’s number, derived from the CRTC’s own Communications Monitoring Report 2019 data, is 1.1 million, which translates into about 8.9% of Canadian homes. Which is the reality. Intentional or not, Bell’s claim is misleading here as well.
Whatever the purpose of your insertion was, the insertion is wrong. If in fact there was anything questionable about our press release or our submission, I am sure Cartt.ca gave the incumbents an opportunity to clarify the record themselves. Failing that, any clarification ought to be accurate. Cartt.ca’s was not, and indeed only served to buttress the incumbent’s misleading statements. We are sure that given Cartt.ca’s journalistic standards, for which I have a very high regard, this was unintentional, but nonetheless it served to cast doubt on the accuracy of our assertions. There is no grey area here. The incumbents submitted misleading data to the Federal Government concerning matters with which they have expert familiarity.
The facts matter, especially since these figures represent the foundation for a key leg of the Petitions. Instead of clarifying the incumbents’ position for them, Cartt may be better served helping to expose their misrepresentations.
We ask that the Cartt insertion be removed, and a correction note be added to the piece explaining its removal.
Thank you.
George Burger
Co-founder, VMedia
Ed note: A correction has been added to the story in question.
