Industry committee  When I read the order I thought it was fine. After several interpretations, in some cases, the order is fine, but in other cases, it is not how I would have interpreted it. That is what I mean.

Industry committee  I agree. The incumbents may have interests that are not in line with the success of competing companies in the networks they have invested in. That is somewhat what I was saying before. So there is a major conflict between the interests of the one investing, the interests of the competition and the interests of the end user.

Industry committee  I tend to agree with you on that.

Industry committee  Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in orders and legislation. I can only tell you the effect I see. The rates charged at retail by Bell Canada and by Vidéotron in Quebec have to be the same as what I have to charge. In my opinion, I don't think a government policy should impose that on the market and a competitor should have to follow what the dominant company does.

Industry committee  Has the market changed? I really can't identify a reason, I'm not an expert in regulatory matters. But I can tell you that the effect is that we have to follow what the dominant company charges its individual customers.

Industry committee  It's an unfortunate outcome, in my opinion, but I don't know what caused it.

Industry committee  I can tell you at least that I do not agree with the government order being interpreted that way. If I had interpreted it, I would not have done it that way.

Industry committee  Bell asked, for example, to be able to impose usage-based rates on the market. It agreed to that, although I can see no rational reason for doing it. So it would seem that Bell's arguments are better than what I can understand.

Industry committee  I want to respond to what Mr. Bibic told me, a few months ago, at a CRTC hearing. He told me, directly, that his company had invested $9 billion, and so it got a say. That is what Mr. Bibic, from Bell, told me.

Industry committee  Yes, it's the same thing.

Industry committee  The first example I can give you is IP television which is emerging more or less everywhere. As a supplier, we are called on to invest in innovation projects in this area. But the usage-based billing that is in effect at present doesn't allow us to go ahead with these new technologies in an economically viable way.

Industry committee  If I may, I will answer in French. To some extent, heavy users may cause some congestion in a network, and ultimately it is the direct supplier that has to deal with that. If there is congestion, if the heavy users all decide to put excessive demand on the Internet at the same second, Oricom's pipeline to the Internet via Bell will be blocked.

Industry committee  The market is no longer what it was in 2006. This is 2011 now and network needs have grown enormously. In 2011, we have to look to the future and adapt to the public's current needs in terms of networks. The CRTC has to work toward that. We can't be looking to the past too much.

Industry committee  I can tell you about the network in the Quebec City region, given that that is where we are interconnected. Obviously the more traffic that is generated, the better it is for the industry and customers.

Industry committee  Everything is more expensive in Quebec City. However, the amounts charged by Bell, for example, for the connections—we call it the big pipe—aren't a problem. Where there is a problem is that in addition to paying for a full pipe, there is double billing at the end to compensate Bell in the competitive retail market.