As promised, here is my final word on last week’s 
OECD broadband report that was released as a background note in preparation for the organization’s Ministerial meeting on the Internet Economy, taking place in Seoul in a few weeks.
Summarized in the accompanying press release, there were a number of policy recommendations that are to be discussed at the meetings. I think it is worth highlighting a couple of them:
• Governments need to promote competition and give consumers more choices.
I am still waiting for the first municipality, county or region to declare itself to be a telecommunications free zone.
Come one, come all – we welcome telecom expansion. You want to build fibre? Here is our road building plan; there is conduit available for you. Here are our municipal towers and some places that we have found for your wireless base stations. We want people to see 5 bars throughout our community. We want to help service providers offer the fastest connections in Canada to our business parks.
Am I dreaming?
Here is another of the recommendations:
• Governments providing money to fund broadband rollouts should avoid creating new monopolies.
I am concerned that our current approach to broadband expansion – giving cash to one service provider – has the effect of picking winners and establishing subsidies to one supplier to the detriment of others. This does not seem to me to be sustainable or consistent with a greater reliance on market forces.
At last week’s WiMAX forum, I wondered aloud if the root of such programs is a patronizing viewpoint that “rural and remote” equates to impoverished. If it costs more to serve a region, why are we embarrassed about allowing service providers to charge more? If we believe that the resultant price is too high for some residents or certain businesses, then it seems to me that an answer is to provide direct subsidies, perhaps through the tax credit system.
Once we approach broadband expansion in that manner, we have the benefit of helping other Canadians who are not yet connected. For example, there are many households in urban areas that can’t afford to equip their homes with a computer and connectivity. Shouldn’t our connectivity strategy be as concerned about that kind of digital divide?
We might find that a direct subsidy, needs-based, costs less and benefits a broader group of Canadians caught on the wrong side of the digital divide. Which political party will include universal broadband access as a plank on their next election platform?