Today marks the beginning of another school year. Across Canada, millions of kids are preparing to meet new teachers, telling stories about what this did this past summer.

Many are wearing new outfits and are carrying new backpacks filled with the supplies they bought at “back-to-school” sales over the past couple of weeks. Some basic school supplies haven’t changed for generations. Do kids still buy protractors and compasses along with their pencils, pens and loose-leaf paper?

Cutting and pasting weren’t always done digitally. Are we past the days of collecting old magazines to carefully cut out pictures and paste them into school projects? I wonder if kids in today’s elementary school generation know where the computer terms “cut” and “paste” come from.

Incidentally, Duo-Tang, the original manufacturer of the report cover of choice for generations, was bought out nearly 15 years ago. Sure, those Duo-Tangs were theoretically reusable, but who among us didn’t want to submit our projects with a brand new cover? Each of us had our own style for folding the tangs. Who folded the tangs together? Who split them? Anyone alternate the direction of the three sets of tangs? Kids: if you don’t know what I am talking about, ask your parents.

Most Canadian school-aged kids have a computer at home to connect with their friends and their teachers, using online tools to get their assignments and submit them for assessment and evaluation. What about students who still don’t have a computer at home, let alone a broadband connection? How are they able to keep up with their schoolmates? It isn’t enough for them to have access to computers in public libraries and in a room at school; kids do homework at home. How can we expect them to succeed in today’s digitally enhanced education system?

TELUS [Internet for Good] and Rogers [Connected for Success] have bold corporate initiatives to target certain households in their wireline operating territories with affordable broadband programs. But despite these great programs, there are hundreds of thousands of homes outside their areas. To date, no cable company or phone company has stepped up with a targeted affordable broadband product for residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, or PEI. Government programs have typically subsidized the supply of broadband based on geography, without looking at stimulating demand with subsidies looking at financial means.

Another school year is underway. Another opportunity for a fresh look.

Watch out for kids as you drive to work. When you get to the office, whether it is government or private sector, see how you can help get connected computers into every household with school-aged kids.

Reductio ad absurdum [NOUN]: a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.

Consider this tweet for a moment:

The “toothless #CRTC Net Neutrality decision” to which this refers is Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-104: Framework for assessing the differential pricing practices of Internet service providers, issued this past April.

One might challenge so many different parts of this tweet. For example, is the Know Roaming service even captured by the decision? While Know Roaming sells its service to Canadians, the service is for use when travelling outside the country.

More importantly, the tweet demonstrates the absurdity of a prohibition on zero rating. How is the public interest possibly served? What benefit can there be in denying consumers access to free WhatsApp when they travel? Where is the market power of a small niche provider like Know Roaming? Why would so-called “consumer advocates” continue to argue that a regulator should take away benefits from consumers who choose to shop around for alternative services?

Roslyn Layton recently released a paper summarizing her doctoral research project at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, “Does Net Neutrality Spur Internet Innovation?”

Spoiler alert: no, it doesn’t.

As new leadership comes to the CRTC, will the Commission add the net neutrality framework to the growing list of decisions it needs to review?

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head at the inefficiencies that plague our health care system.

My wife’s doctor called, asking her to get one of her blood tests redone. They asked her to stop by the office to pick up a lab order to take to the lab. I suggested that she call them back to ask if they could fax the form to us to save a trip. The receptionist said “the form is here for you to pick-up.” After a few rounds of “yes, but could you fax it to me”, my wife made the 45 minute round trip, only to be told (by a different receptionist) that yes, it could have been faxed. That would have been better for the environment, less stress for my wife driving in rush hour traffic and more time with visiting grandchildren.

Faxing the lab order would have given my wife the benefit of 35-40 year old technology.

Of course, one might ask why we need paper at all. Why isn’t there a digital requisition sent from the doctor to the lab of our choice?

Gigabit internet access to every home isn’t going to improve the efficiency of health care delivery if we can’t get basic processes moved online.

I continue to wonder if the people in charge use the same abusive processes that we regular folks endure.

Maybe our grand e-Health strategy is trying to do too much at once. Like I have said before about smart cities, “Building a smart city means creating a culture that works to make the community a little bit smarter every day.”

There are huge opportunities for cost savings and improved accuracy if we can commit to fixing one silly paper process at a time.

Could the “Consultation on a Technical, Policy and Licensing Framework for Spectrum in the 600 MHz Band” lead to a new mobile service provider entering the market? As stated in the Minister’s news release, “the Government is proposing measures to support competition and encourage investment in wireless services.”

The most significant “pro-competitive measure” being proposed for this auction is a 30 MHz set-aside for bidders other than “companies with 10% or more of national wireless subscriber market share” – which is a more polite way of saying “almost anyone other than Bell, Rogers and TELUS.” The government is proposing a further set of restrictions for companies that want to bid on the set-aside spectrum: as of the date of registering to bid, the companies must be registered with the CRTC as facilities-based-providers, and must be actively providing commercial telecommunication services to the general public in the licence area of interest.

It is notable that the language in the proposed rules use the broader term “telecommunications service” not a “wireless” or “mobile” service. As a result, there is a significant number of potential bidders or bidding partners for this spectrum. A potential bidder may be registered as facilities-based in a limited area, but offering commercial telecommunications services (such as internet services) nationally.

Today’s market conditions appear to be much more favourable compared to the environment at the time of the 2008 AWS-1 auction which stimulated the creation of a number of regional competitors. Among other factors, consider: foreign ownership restrictions have been lifted; roaming rules and rates are in place; early termination conditions in contracts are no longer meaningful; and, there is 30 MHz of spectrum being auctioned in a band with much better propagation characteristics than the AWS bands, leading to lower costs of initial network deployment.

As a result, the set-aside spectrum might be seen as an attractive opportunity for the creation of a new wave of new-entrants. What role will foreign capital play in the auction?

Eighteen years ago, I wrote that the CRTC became “one of the world’s first regulators to clearly enunciate a “hands off” policy toward the Internet.”

At that time, the Commission issued a Public Notice enumerated by codes under each of its Broadcast and Telecom sides: Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-84 and Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-14, with a simple title: “New Media“. The decision makes for interesting reading.

It was a different time for internet content, 5 years before Facebook, 6 years before YouTube: “The Commission considers that the majority of services now available on the Internet consist predominantly of alphanumeric text, and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of the Broadcasting Act and are thus outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

At the time, the CRTC was confident about Canadian content development:

In the Commission’s view, there is no apparent shortage of Canadian content on the Internet today. Rather, market forces are providing a Canadian Internet presence that is also supported by a strong demand for Canadian product.

The Commission notes that a number of initiatives and funds have been developed in both the public and private sectors to help finance and support Canadian new media product.

For these reasons, the Commission concurs with the majority of participants that there is no reason for it to impose regulatory measures to stimulate the production and development of Canadian new media content.

As far as regulation of illegal and offensive content, at the time the CRTC wrote:

The Commission notes that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their industry associations, in conjunction with government agencies and other organizations, have made efforts to develop codes of conduct to help combat the distribution of offensive material. It considers that more could be done for example, by establishing complaint lines and industry ombudsmen and developing international cooperation with law enforcement agencies. The Commission also notes that effective content filtering computer software is being developed. Such software will assist those who wish to control access to material that they feel is inappropriate.

And the Commission was as concerned about competitive ISPs having wholesale access to high speed facilities from the phone companies and cable companies:

The Commission considers that access by competitive providers of Internet services to the facilities they require to offer services is an important concern. In a 1998 decision (Telecom Decision CRTC 98-9), the Commission decided it would approve the rates and terms under which incumbent cable and telephone companies provide higher speed access to their telecommunications facilities to ISPs. The Commission will set out its general regulatory approach to rates and terms for such cable carrier higher speed access services in the near future.

The past 5 years have seen Canada apply an increasingly heavy regulatory hand. A search for “Regulating internet” on my blog turns up a number of posts expressing concern about government intervention.

Three years ago, already faced withe a list of areas in which the CRTC had intervened, I wrote: “Are we restricting the evolution of creative business models and innovation through regulation?”

Earlier this year, I asked “Will Canadians see greener Internet pastures in the USA?”, observing Orwellian euphemisms of “openness” and “choice” to characterize greater government control. Canada’s current approach to internet regulation contrasts diametrically with our neighbours to the south. As FCC Chair Ajit Pai told The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit:

In short, America’s approach to broadband policy will be practical, not ideological. We’ll embrace what works, and dispense with what doesn’t. That means removing barriers to innovation and investment, instead of creating new ones. That means taking targeted action to address real problems in the marketplace, instead of imposing broad preemptive regulations. And that means respecting principles of economics, physics and law, and acting with humility as we regulate one of the most dynamic marketplaces history has ever known. This vision will unleash the massive investments that the digital world demands.

Eighteen years ago, Canada was among the first regulators to set out a light-touch approach to internet regulation. What happened?

Which path will the new Commission leadership follow?