Perhaps more than ever before, the availability of universal on-line connectivity has been a prominent part of the public conversation. With people stuck at home, awareness of the digital divide has never been more profound.

It is worthwhile taking a look at intermediate successes that should be celebrated. We should take the time to understand the significance of factors that lead to success, to see if we can replicate them in other areas.

Canadian carriers’ investment in mobile wireless has resulted in Opensignal declaring last month that Canada has the world’s fastest mobile networks. A follow-up Opensignal report tells us that “rural users in Canada on the networks of Telus, Bell Mobility and Rogers have download speeds that surpass those experienced by users in most countries.” Indeed, the report continues, saying “rural Canadian users have far better download speeds than users in five of the seven G7 countries in the world.”

While there is more work to be done in 4G availability in rural markets, Opensignal indicated that rural 4G access climbed to nearly 90%, up to 10% higher than last year.

Canada’s policy framework favouring facilities-based competition in mobile services has delivered world leading network quality, in urban and rural markets.

How do we make sure that all Canadians have access to reliable, high-speed fixed communications, including voice and high speed internet?

How should the various levels of government create the right policy environment, policies, stimulus and incentives to accelerate investment programs in un-served and under-served markets?

Still, at the end of the day, it takes more than technology to get everyone online. Universal adoption needs universal access and universal demand. Most government programs have targeted the denominator side of the equation, without sufficient focus on the numerator.

It just takes money to stimulate supply. And that over-sized ceremonial cheque makes for a great photo op.

Stimulating demand is a lot harder.

We need to start working harder at doing that hard stuff.

Statistics Canada data shows that household computer ownership has stagnated at 84-85% since around 2013. Indeed there are apparently more households that have internet service than those with computers.

Do we understand why?

What steps will we take to address the needs of Canadians who have access to affordable services, but still have chosen not to adopt digital connectivity.

As I have written before, “A national broadband strategy needs leadership to understand and deal with concerns and fears that may inhibit adoption. It will take more than technology to get everyone online.”

River TV, Canada’s first live and on-demand streaming TV service, officially launched today, giving home-bound Canadians another option for video content. The service has spent the past 6 months in trials.

The service runs on an app on a variety of platforms: Roku streaming players, Amazon Fire, Android TV (including NVIDIA SHIELD and Google Play-enabled TVs), and Apple TV. For mobile, there is currently an iOS version with Android promised soon.

The content library is growing with a combination of live-TV and thousands of hours of on-demand content. The channel line-up currently includes: Global, Showcase, W Network, CHCH, History, H2, Adult Swim, Slice, Teletoon, Treehouse, YTV, MovieTime, Lifetime, Crime & Investigation, National Geographic, Smithsonian Channel, Silver Screen, plus US streaming channels that RiverTV says are only available in Canada on its service, such as Cheddar, Newsy, Law & Crime, Newsmax, Real Vision, REVOLT and DrinkTV.

You may be asking where are the channels from Bell Media and Rogers Media, like CTV or City-TV?

As a virtual broadcast distribution service, RiverTV’s service falls under the new media exemption, relieving it of most regulatory obligations. But as a corollary, there is also no obligation for content providers to make their channels available. As a result, RiverTV needs to negotiate access and reach a mutually agreeable business arrangement with content providers. Today, RiverTV aggregates specialty channels from Canadian programming groups including Corus, Blue Ant Media, Channel Zero and Wildbrain (formerly DHX), as well as a variety of US channels.

On the other hand, RiverTV is just $16.99 per month (after a 7-day free trial), with no contracts and the ability to cancel or restart your subscription at any time.

RiverTV is the latest entry by VMedia, a company with a nine-year history of disrupting Canada’s TV marketplace. Recall a 2016 post mentioning VMedia’s attempt to make QVC available to Canadians. The process to reconsider the CRTC’s original determination has been sitting at the Commission for more than 2 years since the file closed. The Federal Court of Appeal had found the CRTC’s April 2016 denial to be unreasonable.

The rules that govern access to content by over-the-top services were clarified by a court ruling in 2016 by another VMedia case.

It will be interesting to see if RiverTV can continue to increase the selection of on-demand content and additional live channels.

With so many people spending so much time at home, will RiverTV find a receptive segment in the market? Will this prove to be an especially opportune time to launch?

Do you have any spare computers collecting dust?

Does your company regularly upgrade computers for your economics, engineering or graphics departments?

There is no better way to dispose of those machines than by donating them to Canada’s Computers for Schools Plus program to be refurbished, re-used, or recycled responsibly. Since 1993, the program has distributed more than 1.7 million refurbished computers to schools, non-profits and low-income households.

Concerned about the data on those machines? As noted in a recent article in the National Post, the program uses industry best-practices and can issue Certificates of Destruction. “The measures in place meet the requirements of the federal government, including the program’s largest single donor, the Department of National Defense.”

There is a different Computers for Schools agency in each province and territory. Each has put in place health and safety procedures to protect donors and staff during these times.

Contact your local agency to learn how you can help. Learn more about Computers for Success here.

If you believe a recent survey, 1 in 6 Canadians sent a fax last year to a government department because that agency would not accept scanned documents by email. Perhaps no other data point in the CIRA survey demonstrates that something smells wrong with the methodology or results.

Frankly, I don’t believe that 1 in 6 Canadians sent a fax to anyone last year, let alone sent one with such a specific purpose.

CIRA also reported “In Canada, the appetite to share personal data in exchange for better products and services is low across the board” other than online banking “with 52% of Canadians at least somewhat willing to provide their data if it means better service”. Only 23% responded that way for social media websites. Yet, based on adoption rates in Canada, we know that virtually all of the respondents make use of social media services in exchange for sharing their personal information.

So it seems, as should have been expected, respondents answered with what they thought was the ‘right’ answer, whether or not it was a truthful answer. It is with this in mind that we have to take all of the survey results with a grain (or tablespoon) of salt.

Five questions, numbers 33-37 dealt with cyber security, culminating with one that Strategic Counsel’s report said indicated “Level of Concern about Huawei Technologies Supplying Equipment to 5G Networks”. But the question actually read “As you may know, Huawei Technologies is a large Chinese technology firm that is a global supplier of smartphones and telecommunications network equipment. Huawei supplies equipment to 5G networks, the fifth generation of wireless networks that will eventually replace current 4G networks. How concerned are you, if at all, about potential cyber security risks from foreign-owned network technologies such as Huawei and 5G?”

Try to parse that for a minute, especially in view of the respondent answering the way they thought they were supposed to.

We just finished with 4 other cyber security questions, and those followed more than a dozen questions about privacy and security of personal data. Then there is a complex question that does not mention a few important facts: that Huawei supplies equipment already for some of Canada’s 4G networks, that all of the major equipment suppliers for Canada’s telecom networks come from foreign owned network technologies. Read the question again and consider whether the survey result applies equally to Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia – all of which are foreign owned technology suppliers.

Is the question itself meaningful when the network technologies may come from foreign owned suppliers, but once acquired, the network technologies are Canadian owned? In a number of cases, the software development for these foreign suppliers takes place in Canada. Would that information impact the way someone responded?

CIRA tells us that “Most Canadians are not comfortable with the idea of living in a smart city, and another 18 per cent say they’re not comfortable at all.” Based on the way the question was asked, it’s no wonder. Here is how Smart Cities were described in the survey [Q. 28]: “The term ‘smart city’ refers to a high tech urban area that uses a wide network of internet-connected sensors and technology to collect data and then use insights gained from that data to manage infrastructure, assets, resources and services. This includes data collected from individual citizens, devices and systems. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be living in a smart city?”

What if the techno-jargon was put into terms like “The term ‘smart city’ refers to an urban area that uses a network of internet-connected sensors to collect data and then use insights gained to provide benefits to residents like reduced traffic congestion, improve energy efficiency and lower maintenance costs. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be living in a smart city?”

A couple of weeks ago, I described just some of the problems with CIRA’s flawed recent internet traffic data. It is perhaps another unfortunate result of policy-based evidence making, rather than contributing independent information to ongoing discussion of the evolution of Canadian digital policy.

For a non-profit organization, CIRA does pretty well. In the year ending March 31, 2019, it had an ‘excess of revenue over expenses’ of $1.8M on revenues of $26M. That was what was left after giving away another $1.8M to “Community investment programs”. Not a bad profit for a non-profit.

I went back through the financial statements and had trouble finding a ‘down year’. For 2017-18, CIRA made $500K after giving away $1.3M; the year before, it made $300K after giving away $1.3M. Salaries and consulting have climbed from $12M in 2016-17, to $13M in 2017-18, to $14M in 2018-19, while “community investment” keeps rising as well. Notice the trend?

Perhaps it is time to ask why CIRA’s expenditures are at least an order of magnitude higher than what it takes to administer Canada’s phone numbering system under the Canadian Number Administrator.

Maybe it’s time for CIRA’s board to reflect on its bloated budget, reduce the cost of .CA, and return to its original mandate, “to administer the .CA domain space on behalf of Canadian users”.

It may also want to revisit the letter establishing the organization requiring it “put in place an effective structure predicated upon… ensuring an appropriate balance of representation, accountability and diversity on the Board of Directors for all categories of stakeholders.”

It is somewhat telling that the Board of Directors of CIRA has no representation from facilities-based ISPs, the companies that provide roughly 9 out of 10 internet access lines in Canada.

Is it possible that CIRA’s failure to ensure an appropriate balance of representation and diversity on its Board for that category of stakeholder has contributed to its one-sided, off-mandate policy pronouncements?

Last week, I wrote about one of the most useful books in my personal library (Engineering Economy), a book I received when I was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs in the mid 1980s. I have some other printed books that I go to regularly, such as an autographed copy of the 2006 report of the Telecom Policy Review Panel [pdf, 1.6MB], telecom law books, such as McCarthy’s “Canadian Telecommunications Regulatory Handbook”, by Grant Buchanan and Hank Intven and even a copy of Michael Ryan’s looseleaf “Canadian Telecommunications Law and Regulation.”

Books have been figuring prominently in my thinking these days. As we spend so much time in our homes, many of us are cleaning rooms, clearing spaces, going through old papers. Much of what we read today, we read online. Obviously, it wasn’t always that way. Nearly 25 years ago, in the early days of my consulting practice, I would receive regulatory filings via almost daily deliveries from various courier services. We were recently reminiscing about the way our family dog had a particular affinity for the Fedex guy. He would hear the truck from a mile away, and stand guard at the door with his tail wagging, knowing his buddy was just a minute or two away.

A number of years ago, under tremendous pressure, I donated a batch of my telecom related books to a university engineering program. I know the day is coming soon that will pressure me to release a second wave of archival materials.

But I started to wonder: will anyone want to take my old printed books and papers? Have electronic texts and digital libraries made my archival materials obsolete and better suited for recycling?

Like some old Nortel stock certificates, did I hold on to these papers too long?