Month: April 2007

Canada continues to lead G7 in broadband

In October, we last looked at the OECD broadband statistics. The latest stats are out and I would have thought that Canadians should break out the champagne. It is interesting that I read the results so differently from the way Michael Geist at University of Ottawa interprets the same numbers.

The OECD itself states that “Canada continues to lead the G7 group of industrialized countries in broadband penetration.” While he acknowledges this triumph, somehow, Professor Geist sees a disturbing trend:

Needless to say, this is a pretty abysmal showing. Far from being an Internet leader, Canada is rapidly becoming a second tier country in terms of broadband penetration with limited broadband competition, hundreds of thousands of people with no hope of any broadband access

Abysmal? As in hopelessly bad?

How do we go from leading the G7 to ‘becoming a second tier country’? Do you think that we have a little bit of over-reaction? Maybe I’m just a ‘glass is half full’ kind of guy. Of course, in this case, I think the glass is more than half full.

Professor Geist expresses concern that Canada is near the bottom (second last, in fact) in terms of growth rates for broadband penetration. In reality, a declining rate of growth is a normal behaviour in a market approaching saturation. Look at who is dead last in growth rate: Iceland – a country ranked 3rd in overall broadband. South Korea is next to Canada at the bottom of growth and near the top on penetration per 100 inhabitants. You can find the tables on Michael Geist‘s blog. Don’t run out to get sack-cloth and ashes too quickly.

There is a fundamental problem with the OECD stats in any case. Unfortunately, the OECD measures broadband in terms of penetration per 100 inhabitants. A better indicator would likely be measurements per 100 households, which would normalize against differences in household size. After all, broadband connectivity is a family purchase, not that of individual members. A quick look using household numbers I found would see some significant shifts in OECD rankings. Differences in average household size will yield measurable changes in ranking countries that have populations with household access to broadband.

I’d like to hear if someone has looked at those stats.

Let’s address the comment [and often heard lament] that there are ‘hundreds of thousands of people in Canada with no hope of any broadband access.’ Where are they?

Thanks to companies like Barrett Xplore, there are no households in Canada beyond the reach of broadband service. Let’s explode that myth once and for all. Canadians have universal access to broadband internet.

John Maduri of Barrett Xplore will be speaking on June 11 on a panel looking at wireless options for broadband at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit.


Update: [April 26, 10:25 am]
I found some additional household size data – although it is from mixed years. When I plug that table into the OECD stats for broadband per 100 inhabitants, it yields some interesting information. South Korea’s numbers appear to make no sense – with 4.4 persons per household, South Korea appears to have 128% penetration of broadband – more than one broadband connection per home. Canada moves from number 9 to number 8, Australia jumps into 4th place, Denmark falls to 5th (from first) and Sweden drops out of the top 10 and falls behind the US.

De-myth-tifying Canadian wireless

A common element running through a number of presentations at Monday’s CWTA forum was tackling the myths of competition in Canadian mobile wireless, further challenging the call from some elements for government subsidies to stimulate a fourth national carrier. Later this week, I’ll write more about reaction from regional cable companies to spectrum set-asides.

Dvai Ghose of Genuity led off the ‘myth-busting’ with an attack on 8 myths in Canadian wireless:

  1. Wireless penetration is lower than the US due to prices
  2. Canadian ARPUs are high due to high usage
  3. ARPU is the only indicator of wireless affordability
  4. Canadian carriers are underspending on networks
  5. Canadian wireless consumers are unhappy
  6. Wireless is more of an oligopoly in Canada
  7. Consumers have very little choice
  8. Wireless has always been profitable

His conclusion was that the industry was not broken and government should not intervene.

Rob Bruce, president of Rogers Wireless, spoke of Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics during his luncheon keynote address. His talk took aim at the myth of a cozy relationship between the 3 major carriers.

He asked how cozy the industry can be when Canada has seen such a significant shift in market share over the past 5 years. According to his charts, Bell has seen its share of the postpaid market fall from 42% in 2001 to 23%. In the same period, TELUS share climbed from 21% to 32% and Rogers has grown from 20% to 45%.

The fireworks are just getting started.


Update: [April 25, 8:05 am]
Iain Grant – who was unavailable for Monday’s event in Ottawa – did an interview in today’s National Post. The theme of the article is the role of small players in pricing. Iain continues to call for subsidies for smaller players – like city of Toronto-owned Toronto Hydro Telecom, while conceding that Quebecor would not need the financial help. The interview suggests that there are really only 2 carriers in any given region; a myth that conveniently ignores the dozen or so brands and competitors that are acting in precisely the role of offering creative and often aggressive pricing alternatives.

I am hearing rumours that next week’s earnings reports may show more shifts in share. Hardly signs of coziness.

Disruption and Joost beta 0.9.2

I have been playing around with the latest upgrades to my Joost™ beta trial lately. I like the user interface but I’m not sure I fit the target demographic.

The variety of content currently available on Joost is woefully inadequate, possibly due to the beta nature of the product at this time. It makes me wonder about the entire concept of their content distribution model.

How do you get live sports (a major challenge for compressed content), news, current affairs. Will any of these be coming?

What about access to new release programming, movies, etc.? Without these, I can’t see how anyone could consider cancelling their current TV distribution supplier.

Joost may prove that they can technically distribute video, but isn’t the real question whether people want to watch. With people moving their entertainment to HD large screens, I don’t think the Joost quality is good enough.

Is Joost an example of what I have called ‘The Iridium Syndrome’ – an engineering-led solution solving a non-existent problem resulting in massive flushing of cash?

One would think that IP TV, in whatever form, would be especially well suited for random access to archival programs, combined with a feature rich search engine capability. Something like entering “Lucille Ball chocolate factory” or “NASA moon Armstrong steps” or “Gomer Pyle”. What about a search for “Beatles Ed Sullivan 1963”. Am I showing my demographic prejudice?

Sorting programs into channels is something we have today. Our current broadcast distribution technologies are optimized to do a great job of delivering channels.

It is unclear to me that Joost is delivering enough on its potential to be a truly disruptive force. Random access and searching the universe of existing program libraries strikes me as more worthwhile for users and a more disruptive leap forward.

Wireless pricing state of play

I mentioned last week that I’ll be speaking about wireless pricing and competition issues later today at the CWTA AWS Forum in Ottawa.

I will provide updates from the Forum using a trial of a new Canadian mobile blogging tool for my antique Blackberry – I returned the demonstrator 8800. The AWS Forum has a variety of perspectives – the financial sector, equipment providers, current carriers and potential new entrants.

Speaking of wireless pricing, I noticed that Vikesh Anand posted about a new Rogers calling plan that offers 700 minutes per month of peak calling for $40.


Update: [April 23, 5:20 am]
Watch this space for updates from the AWS Forum.
[April 23, 9:40 am]
Flight to Ottawa was a who’s who of Canadian wireless – carriers, financial folks and entrepreneurs. A sell-out crowd at the Chateau Laurier – of course, CWTA used predatory conference pricing – free. Of note in the opening remarks by Michael Binder and Len St.-Aubin’s description of the consultation process was a repeated assurance that the Minister has no preconceived ideas. Despite last week’s call by Quebecor to expedite the auction, Industry Canada expects a lively internal discussion as it develops its auction policy.
[April 23, 11:00 am]
An unspoken message that I picked up from the technology session? With next generation wireless delivering viable alternate access for internet, are we going to see comments addressing wireless net neutrality as part of the AWS auction consultation.
[April 23, 11:40 am]
Dvai Ghose’s 8 Myths of Canadian wireless may win the award for most entertaining of the day. I’ll ask Dvai for his slides for your reading later this week.
[April 23, 3:10 pm]
Lies, damned lies and statistics was the title of Rob Bruce’s luncheon keynote and it was a common theme in the afternoon. Comparative penetration rates? Pricing? RoE? My conclusion: changing the rules of the game sends a dangerous message to the capital markets – let’s welcome additional competitive players, but without economic distortions in the marketplace.
[April 23, 3:35 pm]
Michael Hennessy of TELUS mentioned the private equity elephant in the room. With multiple Canadian private equity firms bidding 35B plus for Bell, is there really a need to have concern for new entrants to raise capital.

Regression analysis

There was a comment yesterday asking me why I have not written anything about the private equity interest in the Canadian telecom sector. Thanks for asking.

Surprising as it may seem, blog writing is not quite as lucrative as you may think. Many of my readers don’t seem to be very interested in the ads that frame this page. As a result, I’ll reserve commentary and advisory services [on certain issues, at least] for my consulting clients. But keep those cards and letters coming.

I noticed that, in the month of April, I have already mentioned Star Trek three times: two of the posts were associated with William Shatner coming to Toronto to help Rogers launch its Vision video calling and then there was Friday’s citation of Spock’s line from Wrath of Khan (among other episodes) in my post regarding carriers shaping packets for the good of the many.

Maybe I have spent too much time on campus at U of T, Queens and McGill this month. It is taking me back to my youth.

I wonder where I packed those Klingon action figures…

Scroll to Top