THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE of wireless walled garden (as referenced in Tuesday morning’s story “Closed wireless networks face broadcasters’ wrath”) was to control the experience because a lack of common interfaces made the internet experience a mess.
While carriers looked at content as an opportunity, it generally is more of a headache to try to manage. We are moving rapidly to the same Internet experience on mobile as wireline. That means an open platform.
However we reserve the right to have our own portal, and like the wireline world you can choose your home pages.
Pelmorex suggested that its content could not be accessed on wireless devices and thus, that the CRTC should reassess its forbearance decision in 1996 given to mobile data services. If there is a problem, as Pelmorex suggests, then it is open to them to request that the CRTC revisit that decision.
However, Pelmorex has made out no case, nor has it established any facts that would support any intervention. In any event, mobile data service forbearance is one of the few examples where the CRTC has chosen not to reserve for itself to intervene based on allegations of unjust discrimination in terms of pricing or other terms and conditions. The growth of mobile wireless data services in that time period has been impressive indeed, and Canadians have enjoyed the benefits of it.
Then again, this whole proceeding has been a muddled affair.
Michael Hennessy
vice-president, wireless, content and broadband policy
Telus
(Ed note: This letter, a version of which was posted yesterday, has been edited by the author.)
