Should service providers be allowed to offer access to certain applications for a flat rate – or free?

That is a question receiving considerable attention, thanks in part to a piece written by Harvard visiting professor Susan Crawford, who said “On the surface, it sounds great for carriers to exempt popular apps from data charges. But it’s anti-competitive, patronizing, and counter-productive.”

Uh, oh.

“Anti-competitive, patronizing, and counter-productive” sounds pretty bad. But there’s more. Professor Crawford goes on to say “Zero-rating is pernicious; it’s dangerous; it’s malignant.”

Wow. Who would even consider offering such services?

Actually, there are a lot of consumer benefits that could accrue from such services. For example, 7 years ago I suggested that Netflix might want to enter into an arrangement that is effectively the same as toll-free (1-800) calling, to reverse the charges for data usage.

Boston College law professor Dan Lyons says “Professor Crawford’s argument is premised on the notion that consumers need access to all Internet content at all times on all devices at the same price.”

He writes that offerings such as social media packages or a streaming media service help consumers. Some customers may be willing to pay $12/month for mobile Facebook access but would not pay $60/month for a broader wireless broadband plan. “Eliminating [such options] forces those customers to choose between two suboptimal choices: either pay a higher price to get services the customer is uninterested in purchasing, or go without the service the customer wants to buy.”

What about data consumption for Video Relay Services? As I wrote last January, “Could such a “toll-free” data model enable more equitable treatment of data use by Video Relay Service consumers?”

Seniors are among the least likely demographic to have a smartphone (and therefore, a data plan), but these are the people that could be among the most attractive targets for health monitoring apps. Do we really want regulations that preclude targeted pricing strategies? Should carriers be able to offer restricted flat-rate, zero-rated or sponsored data plans to encourage more widespread adoption of health monitoring applications and devices?

More than 7 years ago, I asked a similar question in relation to a toll-free model for home internet:

Are there some applications that might lend themselves to a toll-free model in order to reach the rest of the market?

For example, would home health care warrant installing a broadband connection as part of a monitoring service? The broadband access would be enabling underlying service, but the costs would be incurred by the health care agency, not the infirmed. Like toll-free calling, the application provider would pay the charges.

Your aging grandmother may have no idea that she would have a broadband connection coming into her apartment – perhaps complete with a wireless router. All she would know is that she can stay at home for routine monitoring check-ups.

Besides health care and elder-care, what other applications might “reverse-the-charges” for broadband access? Security services? Gaming? Entertainment? Energy management?

As Professor Lyons wrote,

Ultimately, it is consumers who should command policymakers’ attention – not the hypothetical “next Facebook”

Consumers can benefit greatly from creative, competitive, targeted pricing plans. Regulators need to be careful imposing restrictions on the evolution of business models.

Over the holidays, a cover story in Toronto’s Metro newspaper caught my eye: “Cleric spreading ‘hate’ on local TV”. The story says “Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada filed a complaint with the CRTC this week over comments aired on the Pakistani network Geo TV, which is carried by both Bell and Rogers.”

According to the news story, the complaint was filed in respect of content aired during a program broadcast on December 22.

The paper sought comment from the CRTC:

The CRTC told Metro it has received six complaints about the program and that it would respond to each individually. But a spokeswoman also said foreign broadcasters operate “under the laws and regulations in place in their respective countries of origin,” adding that Canadian service providers are “not generally involved in any programming decisions.”

A little over 10 years ago, the CRTC imposed special conditions of license when it approved Al Jazeera’s Arabic language network to be added to Canadian TV distribution systems [Al Jazeera applied in October 2013 to have those conditions removed; the CRTC has not yet issued a decision on that application].

However, just because the CRTC only imposed special conditions on Al Jazeera does not mean that Canadians must rely on foreign regulators to safeguard our airwaves.

The Broadcast Act is pretty clear on this point. As the CRTC highlighted in paragraph 79 of the Al Jazeera decision:

… the Commission’s statutory responsibility to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in section 3(1) of the Act. The policies that are most relevant to such a requirement are found in sections 3(1)(d)(i) and (iii) and section 3(1)(h) and are paraphrased as follows:

1. The Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political and social fabric of Canada;
2. The Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadians, including equal rights and the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society; and
3. All persons who are licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast.

Under the Broadcast Act, “broadcasting undertakings” include TV distributors, including those companies that are carrying Geo TV.

Under the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC and the TV distributors have a responsibility for the programs being broadcast into Canadian homes. Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada’s complaints need to be investigated and given full consideration by the CRTC and Canadian law enforcement authorities.

If foreign content violates Canadian law, Canadians do not need to rely on “the laws and regulations in place in their respective countries of origin.”

I thought it might be interesting to see what caught my readers’ eyes this year.

Looking at the analytics, these 5 days stood out in driving traffic spikes:

1. September 23, the day after I wrote “Nobody wins in challenge of CRTC authority” about the Netflix – CRTC showdown
2. April 24, when I asked “Did Privacy Commissioner lose private information?“
3. January 14, when I posted a summary of Deloitte’s “Predictions for 2014“
4. March 18, when I posted “In case of emergency” about text with 9-1-1
5. February 19, when I posted a “Differential analysis” on the 700MHz auction

Interestingly, these were not necessarily the most viewed blog posts over the course of the year. These 5 had the most individual page views:

1. “Nobody wins in challenge of CRTC authority” [September 22]
2. “In case of emergency” [March 18]
3. “CRTC takes to Twitter to #TalkTV” [February 21]
4. “Did Privacy Commissioner lose private information?” [April 24]
5. “Driving down domestic roaming” [March 31]

The “CRTC takes to Twitter to #TalkTV” post starts with an observation about one of the February 19 Twitter interactions between CRTC Chair JP Blais and a citizen who asked if the Commission has the jurisdiction to regulate Netflix. The Chair responded “I don’t want to debate jurisdiction online. See section 4(2) of the Broadcasting Act.”

As I wrote at the time “It would seem reasonable for a “conversation with Canadians” to be able to get a straight answer to a pretty basic question: In the view of the Chairman of the CRTC, does the Commission have the jurisdiction to regulate Netflix?”

In hindsight, that interaction foreshadowed one of the most memorable CRTC appearances – an appearance that has been struck from the record.

Thank you for following and engaging. As I wrote last week, let me wish all of you the best in the year ahead.

As we get to the end of the year, I like to reflect on the past as part of my planning for the year ahead.

I noticed that I have clearly not been as prolific on this blog. Last year, I observed that I wrote 132 posts, down from 139 in 2012. I wrote just 109 posts in 2014, but the reduction was likely due to three factors in play: I am spending considerably more time on Twitter [follow me: @mark_goldberg]; there is a difference in the political climate; and, I did my best to spend much of the summer and parts of the past month focused on family.

Still, my creative juices were stimulated by continuing intervention in the marketplace by legislators and the extremely active CRTC agenda, especially in the last third of the year.

As frequent readers know, I continue to believe that Canada is overdue for a comprehensive review of our overall communications policy framework. The last Telecom Policy Review delivered its report in 2006 and at the time, recommended that its work should be refreshed every 5 years. The next panel should look at overall communications policy, including broadcasting.

Would a government strike such a panel in an election year? Consider that the last Telecom Policy Review Panel was created by a Liberal government and it delivered its report to the new Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, about 3 months after he took office.

I am carrying forward a number of resolutions from year to year.

My wish list for 2015 continues to seek support for a national program to increase the adoption of computers and broadband in low income households with school-aged children. Computers for Schools is a great program, but kids do their homework at home. And kids can’t compete with their classmates if they don’t have access to a connected computer at home. In any case, our schools are going to need significant upgrades as well if we want to keep up with our neighbours to the south. As I have written in the past, “almost half of all households in Canada’s lowest income quintile lack a home computer. Affordability is keeping a million households from digital connectivity.”

Our national digital agenda needs to move forward more aggressively. Although Canada hopes to incent service providers to offer 5 Mbps service by the year 2017, the US has doubled its target speed to require 10 Mbps service for service providers that seek funding from the Connect America Fund. Canada needs to do better.

While I am setting objectives for next year, I guess I still wouldn’t mind losing 20 pounds, but I don’t mind having a soft landing spot for my grandson to rest when we take naps “watching the games” together on Sunday afternoons.

Let me wish all of you the best in the year ahead. I look forward to engaging with you in 2015.

Have a safe, healthy and peaceful holiday season. Together, next year we can hopefully exceed all of our targets.

At the close of the financial markets, Industry Minister James Moore released a series of rulings on wireless telecommunications spectrum, making more airwaves available for Canada’s fixed and mobile wireless communications services providers.

Two months ago, in the wake of Minister Moore’s response to submissions filed in the 3500MHz process, I wrote “The consultative process works“. Today, Minister Moore followed through with his October 9 commitment: “Under no circumstances will our government take spectrum licences away from any local Internet service provider that is providing Internet service to rural Canadians.”

It is gratifying to see Industry Canada responsive to the appeals by rural municipalities and service providers focusing on low density communities.

In other decisions released today, the Minister dealt with the AWS-3 auction process, the AWS-4 consultation, the 24/28/38 GHz consultation and launched a consultation on the 600MHz band. There was also a decision released on backhaul spectrum.

More mobile spectrum, being made available for service providers to try to stay ahead of consumer demand for broadband wireless access.

Minister Moore has overseen spectrum management actions that have significantly increased the amount of spectrum accessible for deployment by competitive service providers.

On Twitter, he released a graphic just prior to the announcement, claiming that competitors share of spectrum has grown from 2% in 2006 to 25% in 2015.

The US wireless association, CTIA, released an infographic last week that shows why service providers need more spectrum. Consumers are upgrading their devices, watching more video and continuing to download more bits at faster speeds – driving a continual need for carriers to invest in network capacity.

Still, should we be concerned about how spectrum is managed in Canada?

The 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel observed:

Canada is one of the few OECD countries where a politically appointed minister remains responsible for spectrum licensing and management.
…
The key benefits of having an independent regulator include:

• providing more stability in processes
• providing a greater degree of continuity
• allowing for arbitration
• having more effective enforcement powers
• freedom from political pressure.

These benefits had been cited from an OECD report.

The Panel believes the increased convergence of wireless and wireline telecommunications and broadcasting technologies calls for a more consistent and unified regulatory approach. Such an approach could be facilitated by moving the current spectrum regulatory and licensing functions of the Minister of Industry to the CRTC. This move would be consistent with international practice. A recent OECD report recommends that Canada should adopt the same approach. This would increase the transparency of spectrum regulation and provide the CRTC with a better overview and insights into the wireless developments.

The Industry Minister has substantial discretion in spectrum policy, as recently affirmed by the Federal Court in its rejection of an application by TELUS to overturn the Minister’s repeated refusals to approve TELUS acquiring Mobility’s wireless licenses. However, such power can create concerns for the reasons set out by the OECD and echoed by the 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel.

Spectrum management is not getting any easier.

Canada’s arbitrary division of responsibility based on broadcast versus telecommunications use may complicate the availability of frequency blocks with propagation characteristics that are extremely attractive for mobile communications. Just as the Canadian industry itself has seen broadcast and telecommunications convergence, we have increasing pressure to migrate more broadcast spectrum for telecommunications use.

At a recent investor conference, executives from CBS and Fox said they would consider migrating off the airwaves to sell their broadcast spectrum.

It is another reason why we need a new review of our converged communications policy. As I have written so many times, we are long overdue for a fresh look.

Perhaps the Minister could consider creating a new expert panel – even before an election – to make recommendations that can be reviewed for implementation by the next government.