Shortly after the CRTC’s Wireless Code of Conduct [Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271] was released, I observed a problem:

I was referring to the timings given by the CRTC in Paragraphs 368 and 369 of the Code that say:

368. In light of the above, the Commission determines that all aspects of the Wireless Code will take effect on 2 December 2013.

369. The Commission finds that where an obligation relates to a specific contractual relationship between a WSP and a customer, the Wireless Code should apply if the contract is entered into, amended, renewed, or extended on or after 2 December 2013. In addition, in order to ensure that all consumers are covered by the Wireless Code within a reasonable time frame, the Wireless Code should apply to all contracts, no matter when they were entered into, by no later than 3 June 2015.

Note the use of the word “will” in paragraph 368 versus the word “should” in paragraph 369. The CWTA asked the Commission to clarify these dates and these terms in a letter dated June 12. The CRTC replied on June 18, saying that by its calculation approximately 80% of wireless customers “would be covered by the Code by 3 June 2015.”

It is clear that the Commission intended the final 3 June 2015 implementation date to be a mandatory date. Consequently, after 3 June 2015, early cancellation fees for all wireless service contracts will be determined in accordance with the formula set out in the Code.

Frankly, the clarity of June 3, 2015 date might have been more evident had the CRTC more precisely used the word “will” or “shall” in paragraph 369, instead of the more discretionary term “should”.

But that isn’t the key point. The CWTA asked the CRTC to provide detailed interpretations of possible operational scenarios. The CRTC obliged in its response.

During the CRTC proceeding that led to the release of the Code, SaskTel filed a legal opinion prepared by Hank Intven of McCarthy’s, in respect of whether the CRTC had the jurisdiction to apply the Wireless Code to existing contracts. It is worth noting that Mr. Intven is a noted regulatory and policy expert, as a past Executive Director of Telecom at the CRTC, a member of the federal Telecom Policy Review Panel and author of The Canadian Telecommunications Regulatory Handbook. The CRTC’s interpretation of at least one of the operational scenarios is in apparent conflict with his Opinion.

As the CWTA letter states:

if the 3 June 2015 application of the Wireless Code is intended to reduce the length of all contracts to 24 months, than [sic] the three-year contracts signed between the release of this decision and 2 December 2013 are de facto two-year contracts, which would necessitate significant changes to carriers’ systems and contracts.

The CWTA letter asked for a speedy reply in order that parties’ rights to seek leave to appeal the Decision. Has the CRTC overstepped its authority?

The CRTC letter appears to be in conflict with the McCarthy’s Opinion; will we see an appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeal?

My neighbour is putting in a pool. As I sit at my desk looking at the construction crew, I think back twenty-five years to a day that I went out for lunch with my office-mate from Bell Labs. We were envious of the road workers on the Garden State Parkway. They were outside on a beautiful spring day. At the end of a shift, construction workers get to see what they accomplished: a hole was dug; a half mile of road was paved; a pile of dirt got moved from one place to the next.

Compared to our office jobs, it looked kind of satisfying. We were planning network development – with features and capabilities that would need 5 years to implement. Some of the capabilities would never see the light of day. We wondered if we would ever get to celebrate the completion of our work. Still, we have objectives; we knew what we were trying to achieve.

The construction workers probably looked at Sam and I driving by, thinking that they envied our jobs: after all, we got to take off in our car for lunch; we had an air-conditioned office; we didn’t have to worry about rain interfering with our work schedule.

The grass is always greener?

Parliament has recessed and we are expecting another cabinet shuffle this summer, likely bringing another new face to head up Industry Canada. When Christian Paradis was appointed two years ago, we had been expecting the imminent release of a national digital strategy. That was understandably delayed until the new minister was able to get a grasp of the file. Two years later, Canada continues to drift aimlessly without any clarity on the objectives. As I wrote a few weeks ago, the absence of a clear strategy has led to us having inconsistent messages and somewhat predictable turmoil.

The objectives keep changing. If Canada had truly wanted a viable “fourth” player in wireless, then the AWS auction was structured in a way that worked against that objective. If a stong national new entrant was the objective, then the 40 MHz new entrant set aside should have been auctioned as a single tier one license. Foreign ownership should have been liberalized in advance. If the new entrant spectrum wasn’t supposed to fall into the hands of the incumbents, then the five year restriction should have been 10-years or longer. If the auction winners were supposed to forfeit their spectrum if they didn’t deploy, then this should have been a condition of license.

No clear strategy. No clear objectives. No scorecard for measuring progress.

The absence of a strategy isn’t just an issue for telecom services and the digital economy. Yesterday, in a new paper looking at “The Resurgence of Industrial Policy and What It Means for Canada“, the Institute for Research in Public Policy observed:

Like other countries, Canada is once again engaging actively and more openly in industrial policy. In fact, it has a profusion of industrial policies, what it lacks is a strategy.

What are we trying to accomplish? How do we measure success? As I said last week [here and here]:

Set clear objectives. Align activities with the achievement of those objectives. Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.

The guys working in my neighbour’s yard know they are building a pool. They have an objective, with a timeline. The site supervisor can see how they are progressing toward their objective and make management decisions to keep the project on schedule.

How do we celebrate success in digital policy, if we aren’t clear about what we are trying to do?

I wrote a piece a couple weeks ago called “Inconsistent messages; predictable turmoil“.

In the piece, I said:

The lessons for Ottawa: Set clear objectives. Align activities with the achievement of those objectives. Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.

Maybe the Industry Minister was thinking of Peter Drucker teachings (“you can’t manage what you can’t measure”) in coming up with his simple formula:

We will continually review the regulations and policies that apply to the wireless telecommunications sector to promote at least four wireless providers in every region of the country so that Canadian consumers benefit from competition.

Is that it? Four wireless providers in every region? On the surface, that seems pretty clear as a measurable objective.

But let’s parse the statement to have a little more clarity on what is meant.

What qualifies as a “wireless provider”? Is it brands, companies or networks? Do affiliates count? For example, are Fido and Rogers counted as one or two? Koodo and TELUS? Does President’s Choice count separately, or is it included with its underlying network provider. If so, why? If not, why not?

What is defined by “a region”? Is it a license area? Is there a reason to expect the service area to expand?

Keep in mind that in the 700 MHz licensing framework, the rural build-out requirement is a subset of the existing network HSPA footprint. There isn’t even an obligation imposed on winners of two blocks of 700 MHz spectrum is to cover their entire existing operating area – only 97% of the population within 7 years. There is no rural build obligation imposed on winners of a single block of 700 MHz spectrum.

Surely the Minister isn’t looking for 4 operators across the entire Canadian geography, when the 700 MHz spectrum auction doesn’t seek to expand wireless coverage at all. Consistency suggests that the objective may be for at least 4 wireless providers to be available for 97% of the current level of HSPA customers. Or for 97% of the total population currently covered by an HSPA network.

That should be a measurable number. What are the “pops” covered by various numbers of service providers?

For bonus points, let’s look at a little more detail. How do you determine success? For example, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the so-called Big 3 share about a third of the market, while the so-called new entrants, Sasktel and MTS have about two thirds of the customers. Does it make sense to reassess our definition of new-entrant? Is the presence of 6 network-based providers good or bad for sustainable competition? Such questions may be more a part of some associated subjective analysis.

Objectively, shouldn’t there be a dashboard to monitor success against the objective? As a nation, where are we green, yellow and red? How are we performing on a national and regional basis? What percentage of the population has access to 4 or more wireless providers? What percentage of population has no coverage?

This could be an interesting summer project for a group of student interns.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. With the right tools, policies and decisions can be expected to include a measurable impact analysis. With each market intervention, shouldn’t we expect more people to be getting coverage by more providers? How will this decision help in the achievement of the policy objective?

Set clear objectives. Align activities with the achievement of those objectives. Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.

Let’s start with the clarity in the objectives. Then we need to proceed – and proceed quickly – to start measuring how we are doing.

Earlier this morning, at The 2013 Canadian Telecom Summit, these were my opening remarks.

Twenty one years of competitive telecommunications and look at where we are today.

The promise of new competition in mobile services, made possible by the AWS spectrum set-aside 5 years ago, is at risk of collapse as new entrants scramble for capital.

Still, each year, Michael and I have observed that all of us continue to use our various forms of communications more than ever; and each year we continue to increase our raw consumption of bits, of radio spectrum, of fiber capacity.

This continues to be the trend and it continues to raise substantive policy issues as service providers – new entrant and incumbent alike – try to stay ahead of the demand.

How do we create the right policy framework to attract and incent continued investment in Canadian telecommunications? How do we provide a stable, predictable regulatory and policy environment?

How do we ensure that spectrum is made available in a manner that creates an appropriate balance between the various stakeholders’ interests?

How do we balance the need to build more towers with local residents who secretly crave 5-bars of signal, just as long as the tower can’t be seen within eyesight of their homes.

These issues are as relevant to this year’s event as they have ever been.

The sector continues to generate blockbuster business deals that grace the headlines. Whether it is a convergence deal like Bell – Astral, an acquisition like TELUS – Mobilicity, or a business transaction like Rogers – Shaw, companies are continuing to push the limits to gain their own competitive business advantages.

We have been waiting for years for the release of a national digital strategy. As speakers may discuss over the next few days, whether or not Canada ever releases a National Strategy for the Digital Economy, we will need to find options to look beyond the urban/rural divide – especially as we recognize that broadband access has become virtually universal, thanks to wireless and satellite.

We cannot wait for leadership from Ottawa. It is up to us, those of us who have gathered at The Canadian Telecom Summit. We represent the leading stakeholders in Canada’s innovation agenda.

How do we create the right conditions for Canada to lead in a global digital economy?

• We need to drive a greater degree of digital inclusiveness for all Canadians, young and old, urban and rural, regardless of their economic station.
• As such, we need programs to increase digital literacy and access for disadvantaged Canadians.
• We need to drive increased adoption of Information and Communications Technology in business
• We need to improve ICT adoption in all dealings with government, especially in improving the quality and efficiency of health care delivery.

On my blog last week, I referred to a quote generally attributed to Antoine de Saint Exupéry:

“Quand tu veux construire un bateau, ne commence pas par rassembler du bois, couper des planches et distribuer du travail, mais reveille au sein des hommes le desir de la mer grande et large.”

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather awaken within them a passion for the endless immensity of the sea.”

We need to inspire Canadians, awakening within them a passion and a vision for a better digital-enabled future. That is what I wanted to see in a national digital strategy. Vision. Inspiring Passion.

If government won’t lead, then – let me repeat – it is up to us, those of us in this room, to develop and impart the vision and awaken that passion.

We need to awaken Canadians to long for the endless immensity of the sea – the endless immensity of opportunity in a digital economy.

I know we will hear more on these themes over the coming days.

In my opening remarks at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit, I said:

there are many households in urban areas that can’t afford to equip their homes with a computer and connectivity. Shouldn’t our connectivity strategy be as concerned about that kind of digital divide? We might find that a direct, needs-based subsidy, costs less and benefits a broader group of Canadians caught on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The digital divide is not just a chasm between rural and urban. At the root is affordability, which is a problem facing lower income urban dwellers as much as rural markets.

According to reports, in his opening address at The 2013 Canadian Telecom Summit, Rogers Communications President Rob Bruce is expected to be announcing a program called “Connected for Success”, providing affordable broadband, computers and software to Toronto Community Housing.

It’s unfathomable that Canadians are living without internet access today because they simply cannot afford it. With Connected for Success we’ve taken the first step to connect youth and we urge our competitors, our partners and communities to work with us to bridge Canada’s digital divide.

Today’s announcement is a huge step forward, demonstrating leadership from the private sector in providing affordable internet access to families. About half of all households in the lowest income quintile have no computer, let alone a broadband connection.

As I have been writing for a number of years, “How do kids from low income households stand a chance when so many jobs require basic computer skills?”

This kind of initiative can be expected to bring enormous benefits to our communities, urban and rural, helping to strengthen Canada’s performance in a global digital economy.