The release of our report [
pdf, 944KB] was greeted by the popular media with an interesting reception.
We have provided a Canadian interpretation of the body of studies regarding broadband services. Many folks, despite evidence to the contrary, seem averse to any consideration that studies issued by reputable foreign institutions could contain errors.
Some criticisms of our report seem to reflect naivete, ignorance of econometrics or a lack of real world experience. I was struck especially by comments that ridicule the role of satellite in completing the job of providing universal access to broadband in our country – together with most nations. If Australia’s NBN can’t reach more than 90% of its population with wireline facilities, despite plans to spend more than $40B over the next 8 years, exactly what policy will do better in Canada?
Is satellite a perfect substitute for terrestrial solutions? No. But, it is unrealistic to expect any other technology to be able to serve the minority of Canadians who live in areas with low household density. Would armchair critics prefer to have rural Canadians wait indefinitely for fibre to the farm, rather than improve their accessibility through next generation satellite?
The current federal broadband program recognizes this reality:
The Broadband Program will be technology neutral, accepting a variety of wireline and wireless technology solutions, such as fibre, digital subscriber line (DSL), cable and wireless networks (ground based and satellite).
Canadian ISPs aren’t done; there is an ongoing need for more investment, to continue to compete to attract more customers and increase the service levels to those already on-line. Facilities-based competition isn’t just the domain of cable companies and telcos; there are hundreds of entrepreneurs with regional and national networks, competing with all forms of infrastructure.
The report indicates that service providers are already investing about $8B-$10B per year on their networks and there is no indication that this is coming to an end. That is a lot of money – about $50 per month per Canadian household in capital expenditures.
Broadband adoption has two components: supply and demand. Among the recommendations in our report were two suggestions to support each of these factors.
On the supply side, we have recommended that the government should continue to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure:
- Continue policies focused on fostering facilities-based competition
- Build on the past success of private sector investment by removing current policy and regulatory uncertainty regarding investments in next-generation networks
And on the demand side, an area generally overlooked by policy makers, we suggested that research is needed:
- Shift more attention to adoption issues (including adoption of next-generation services) and encourage socio-economic research focused on better understanding the obstacles to, and inhibitors of, broadband adoption
- Consider programmes to improve digital literacy and the use of incentives (tax-based or otherwise) to target and overcome any barriers to broadband adoption
Supporting programmes to increase demand and overcome barriers to broadband adoption are a competitively neutral approach to get more Canadians on-line.
What do you think we need to do to improve Canada’s broadband adoption rates.
More reliable service. Less throttling, alleviate congestion, cheaper prices and better customer service.
yea, that should fix it.
I see your point about the issues with the OECD report, Mark. I noticed some of the same issues around the same time you blogged about them.
But I'm afraid your report, funded by the major ISPs, is going to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't work for one of these ISPs. It doesn't pass the laugh test for most people who don't agree with your conclusions, and so you're just not going to change many minds with it.
Satellite definitely plays an important mix in providing internet access to those to whom we cannot provide access using other methods. However, calling satellite 'broadband', therefore equating it with DSL/cable on some level, is disingenuous to say the least. The definition of broadband will always evolve, and for most people, satellite simply doesn't count.
That means we likely won't ever get to 100% 'broadband' coverage, and that's a good thing. When we get to 100%, we stop trying. Too much of your report sounded like excuses for why we can't do any better than we are right now, and frankly, that's just not good enough.
There's a lot we can do to improve our situation in Canada, and they all start with improving competition.