Sorry to have been off the air for most of this week. As many of my regular readers know, family comes first for me and I needed some time to focus on priorities.

Thanks. I needed that. Everyone is fine, now.

I hope to be back next week, with a blog post or two, and my usual snappy observations on Twitter.

How do we ensure our private information is being properly safeguarded?

Every week, there seems to be news of another breech where a government agency or company loses control of personal information being held about their clients. We have seen lost health records, stolen financial data, hacked personal mail, travel plans, stolen photos, eavesdropping on conversations.

In some cases, data was lost due to negligence and sloppy handling. In other cases, criminal organizations exploited system vulnerabilities.

What is the appropriate standard of care that an organization should exercise when handling personal data? How should organizations respond when any kind of data loss is detected?

Those questions were the subject of a recent breakfast discussion I had with a colleague who tolerates me eating fried kippers for breakfast. I will note as an aside that Kiva’s Bagel Bakery Restaurant & Appetizer is one of the few remaining places I know of that has kippers available for breakfast every day. And they make a respectable bagel (for a Toronto bagel). Every so often, my colleague – let’s call him Brian (since that is his name) – and I get together at Kiva’s to try to resolve many of the world’s problems. For a few weeks, we have been looking at the issue of data breeches and wondering how we can get organizations in government and the private sector to take them more seriously.

Brian suggested massive fines and penalties for data losses in order to make sure the companies and government agencies take these losses seriously. I cautioned that an unintended consequence of Brian’s suggestion is that organizations might have a greater incentive to hide a loss, so there needs to be an element of balance in the compensation and penalties to be paid.

How do we assess blame? If you leave your keys inside an unlocked and running car, I don’t think you can claim you exercised a reasonable standard of care when it is stolen. Most of us could appreciate that we failed to reasonably secure the car and anything inside it.

Similarly, shouldn’t we expect reasonable safeguards for our information? How does a Chief Security Officer and Chief Privacy Officer attest to the Board of Directors, to Shareholders and to clients that their organization is securing customer records?

What is the “standard of care” that we should demand from organizations that hold our personal information?

Perhaps part of the annual audit process should certify that organizations are a step ahead, not a step behind, in safeguarding personal information.

The 2019 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 3-5 in Toronto, will have a session examining “Cyber Security: Protection, Pre-emption & privacy in the Age of Bad Actors” moderated by Christine Dobby of the Globe and Mail and including noted privacy expert Ann Cavoukian. Early bird prices are available for the next 4 weeks. Save by registering before Feb 28.

I’ve said before that I tend to be a ‘glass half-full’ kind of guy. I like to think that I view situations with optimism as we move forward. There are other industry observers who tend to be more in the ‘half-empty’ camp, viewing the same data with a more negative outlook. And every so often, we run into people who look at that same glass and seem to be unable to see any water at all.

It isn’t just a Canadian telecom phenomenon. Last week, industry critics in the United States seemed to willingly misread financial reports from major carriers and ran headlines like: “It’s Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real,” [Motherboard] and “Sorry, Ajit: Comcast lowered cable investment despite net neutrality repeal” [Arstechnica]. Both articles were in reaction to Comcast’s financial report last week that showed overall capital expenditures for Comcast’s cable operations declined 3% compared to 2017. Both articles claimed this was “proof” that Ajit Pai’s vision of increased network investment had not emerged from the repeal of heavy-handed Title II regulations for internet service.

However, the commentators made a number of errors in their analyses, the most glaring of which was confusing total capital expenditures with network investment. The Arstechnica article went so far as to quote the Comcast press release, where it was clear: “Cable Communications’ capital expenditures decreased 3.0 percent to $7.7 billion, reflecting decreased spending on customer premise equipment and support capital, partially offset by higher investment in scalable infrastructure and line extensions.”

Unfortunately, the author must not have understood what was meant by those “higher investments in scalable infrastructure and line extensions.” In its 2017 annual report, Comcast said scalable infrafrastructure was increasing network capacity and line extensions are well, extending the lines. In other words, Comcast’s network capital spending has been continuing to rise; its overall capital spending declines because of reduced customer premises spending. The authors of the Arstechnica and Motherboard articles selectively quoted and misrepresented results. Retractions are in order.

On this side of the border, we frequently see similar selective reading of reports. A European consultancy published an international comparison of mobile pricing and usage. Last summer, I challenged the consultancy when it claimed Canada’s mobile data growth between 2016 and 2017 was just 6%, among the slowest growth of all surveyed countries. In the absence of official CRTC published data, it mixed 2016 CRTC results with data it had received from the OECD.

That didn’t keep Canadian academics from citing the flawed study and proclaiming “while Canada’s telecom companies talk about increased usage, the data shows Canada growing slower on wireless usage per SIM than anyone else”. I looked at the flawed data and said the growth rate didn’t pass my smell test.

As it turns out, I was correct. The CRTC’s actual 2017 data ended up showing that data use grew a respectable 37.5%, nowhere near the bottom of the pack.

Last week, that same consultancy released its latest update to the report, continuing its pattern of using old data to represent Canada, and confusing total billing with network service billing. That didn’t stop Canadian academics from again citing the report as evidence of failed communications policy. As I said last summer, “bad data should not be used for policy making.”

As it turns out, investment in Canadian communications networks is producing measurable results. According to the December 2018 Speedtest results, Canada has the world’s 3rd fastest mobile networks (up from 4th in November) and the 7th fastest fixed broadband (up 9 positions from 16th place in November). An Ookla analysis credits repackaging by Shaw for the recent change, demonstrating quite a sensitivity in its results. [If you want to double-check your internet speed, you can also visit Internet Advisor for a listing of speed tests.]

Too often, writers inject their own bias into articles, and have a tendency to present information in a way that confirms their beliefs. It is called confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Sound familiar? As the past week has demonstrated, it is important to read reports with a much more critical eye and seek information from a wide variety of sources.

Better data leads to better policy making.

The Canadian Telecom Summit has developed a reputation of presenting an unequalled program that has featured the leading Canadian and international communications executives and personalities. This year will continue that tradition.

The Canadian Telecom Summit is pleased to announce that Ian Scott and Janet Yale will be among the industry leaders delivering keynote addresses. Ian Scott is Chair and CEO of Canada’s communications industry regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Janet Yale is Chair of the Broadcast and Telecommunications Legislative Review, a special external Panel tasked with studying the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act and to make recommendations to the Minister of Heritage and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

The most influential leaders of the Canadian & International ICT industry will gather in Toronto from June 3-5 at The Canadian Telecom Summit. Speakers will include more than 50 other thought leaders, discussing where we are headed as an industry.

No other event presents as complete a picture of current and expected trends & developments.

No other event matches The Canadian Telecom Summit for the depth and breadth of topics covered and issues debated.

Come see why The Canadian Telecom Summit has become the only “must-attend” ICT conference.

With more opportunities than ever to learn, network and do business, if you are involved with or impacted by Canadian telecommunications, broadcasting or information technology, you need to be at The Canadian Telecom Summit.

Early Bird prices are in effect until the end of February. Register now for The 2019 Canadian Telecom Summit and save up to $700.

Among Monday’s changes to Cabinet, Prime Minister Trudeau named Bernadette Jordan as Minister of Rural Economic Development.

As Minister of Rural Economic Development, Minister Jordan will oversee the creation of a rural development strategy to spur economic growth and create good, middle class jobs in rural Canada. She will also take action to bring high-speed internet to more rural households and businesses …

So now, we have yet another Minister and department that will “take action to bring high-speed internet to more rural households and businesses”, presumably supplementing the actions being taken by the CRTC and other agencies at federal, provincial and regional levels of government.

Among the most significant findings of the Auditor General’s report last fall was the lack of a comprehensive strategy. The Auditor General’s report indicates that Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) agreed with its recommendation:

1.37 Recommendation. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada should develop a strategy that

• defines the minimum level of reliable and high-quality Internet service to be made available to Canadians;
• sets clear timelines for achieving this level of service;
• estimates proper resourcing, including financial and technical resources, as well as analysis of technologies and preferred options for improving broadband deployment cost-effectively; and
• monitors whether the improved access leads to the adoption of those Internet services.

The Department’s response. Agreed. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada will develop a strategy, particularly in light of the following:

• the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decision in December 2016 declaring broadband as a basic service; and
• the June 2018 announcement in which the government committed to reviewing Canada’s communications legislation, including the legislative tools needed to promote universal access.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada already has comprehensive work under way.

The Auditor General also found that ISED did not implement its broadband improvement program in a way that ensured the maximum broadband expansion for the public money spent. The “Connectivity Funding” section of the Auditor General’s report has important information that is relevant to the implementation of broadband subsidy programs, including the CRTC.

As a new department of rural economic development arrives on the scene, expected to “take action to bring high-speed internet to more rural households and businesses”, will we first see the kind of comprehensive strategy sought by the Auditor General? Will that strategy be primed by ISED or the new department?

How will we ensure “the maximum broadband expansion for the public money spent”?