MP Marc Garneau released a policy statement on telecommunications this morning.

Unfortunately, it is hard to see changes coming, based on the information released so far.

It was somewhat disappointing to see flawed analysis of Canadian wireless prices in the OpEd:

According to the CRTC’s latest report, Canadian wireless revenues, measured as the monthly average revenue per user (ARPU), are the highest in the G7. At $55 per month per mobile subscriber, Canadians pay 20 per cent more than users in the US, 70 per cent times more than users in France, and 100 per cent more than users in the UK and Germany.

ARPU is not a measure of prices. I spend more each month at Costco than I do at Canadian Tire; does that information indicate which has the lowest prices?

Mr. Garneau wants to further liberalize foreign ownership restrictions on telecom carriers, but continue to retain restrictions on broadcasters:

I would maintain restrictions on foreign ownership in broadcasting because of cultural and content implications to ensure continued production and broadcast of Canadian shows and content for television, film and new media.

Why would production funding and Canadian content requirements apply differently to a TV or radio station that happens to have shareholders outside the country?

More importantly, exactly which telecom carriers would benefit from further liberalizing foreign ownership, if we still restrict ownership under the Broadcast Act, given that virtually all telecom companies are licensed under the Broadcast Act as well? At a minimum, it might help to shift the broadcast distribution licensing regime under the Telecom Act. This would allow the cable and IPTV operations of carriers to be foreign owned without “risking” foreign control of our airwaves.

The good news is that telecommunications policy and the digital economy have made it onto the radar screens of Liberal party leadership candidates, as I wrote last week. We will watch for more details as the campaign continues.

The CRTC issued its decision denying the Globalive (WIND Mobile) request for a review of foreign ownership levels in TELUS. Given recent statements by TELUS, there is no longer a question of whether foreign shareholders have too high a level of ownership in the company.

The decision contains an interesting paragraph that raises questions in my mind. At paragraph 16, the CRTC states:

WIND Mobile failed to demonstrate that TELUS’s board of directors had any reason to question the information it received pursuant to the procedures set out in the Regulations. Further, the Commission is satisfied that TELUS’s mechanisms for ensuring its compliance are consistent with the provisions and requirements established in the Regulations.

The second sentence might have been sufficient to dismiss the application. In effect, it says that the CRTC had a look at how TELUS monitors its ownership levels and it is OK with those processes.

But the first sentence is troubling me. What evidentiary burden was WIND Mobile under in requesting the CRTC to launch an investigation? How would any party be in a position to demonstrate that a board of directors was questioning information it received?

In the previous paragraph, the CRTC stated:

The Commission notes that the Regulations establish the type of documentation required to demonstrate a shareholder’s Canadian status. They also establish that, before taking any additional action, the carrier’s board of directors must have information that causes it to believe the declarations it has received are incorrect.

So carriers have to provide a declaration that they are compliant, and the CRTC cites the Ownership and Control Regulations paragraph 16(4) where it sets out the filing requirements. Under Section 16(1), it appears that the CRTC has the ability to investigate on its own where there is a question of compliance.

Why didn’t the decision simply state that the CRTC did not find there was any doubt in its own mind about TELUS eligibility? Why would the burden fall on a third party to provide evidence of a debate around the Boardroom table?

CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais spoke last Friday at the annual dinner for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). In his address he made a number of important points that merit highlighting.

the public interest is much bigger and more complex than just looking after the interests of individual Canadian consumers. We must also consider the needs of Canadians as citizens and creators.

The Chair went on to explain that cost considerations are broader than just the rates paid by individual Canadians, but also include businesses. And he raised the issue of healthy competition and the Commission’s understanding that profit isn’t a dirty word:

This demands healthy competition among multiple service providers—all across the country, not just in major populated areas. In turn, this requires that businesses be able to profit from their efforts and investments. Having a fair chance to make a return on investment is crucial to encourage, and underwrite, innovation. That’s what leads to job creation and builds the foundation for our country’s economic future.

Of course, I was especially interested in his comments about the evolution of the basic service obligation:

In light of the growing importance of broadband to all aspects of Canadians’ lives, I can foresee the day when universal access to broadband will form part of the definition.

Thanks to investment by alternate service providers, virtually all Canadians have access to broadband services. Affordability is another matter. As I have written many times, affordable broadband service is a problem for urban and rural Canadians. Indeed, there are more Canadians in urban households who can’t afford broadband than those in remote and rural settings.

Will 2013 bring an increased examination of solutions to deliver broadband connections to all Canadians?

Over the next two weeks, the ITU is meeting in Dubai for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12).

This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.

Application service providers have mustered all of their lobbying power to preserve the status quo, and overworked slogans are trying to rally public opinion. Don Tapscott writes “The governance of the Internet ain’t broken, so don’t fix it.” Google has been very active and has opened an advocacy website saying “A free and open world depends on a free and open web.”

Despite deliberate misinformation with such language as “Some governments want to use a closed-door meeting in December to increase censorship and regulate the Internet”, the WCIT-12 website shows the process to be pretty open, including media accreditation and webcasting of sessions.

Among the ideas being floated is applying a “sender-paid” pricing model to internet connectivity. Would such a model enable increased connectivity from developing economies? Would such a pricing model facilitate development of lower priced internet access for more budget conscious citizens?

The Liberal Party’s 2013 leadership race may provide an opportunity for digital economy issues to be advanced by politicians of all stripes.

So far, the declared candidates have provided little in the way of detailed platform, but hints of priorities are emerging on their websites:

Marc Garneau has an explicit statement: “As leader, I will place a relentless focus on the development of a balanced, creative, knowledge-based economy.” We will be looking for more details as the campaign moves forward.

Although Deborah Coyne has a header on her policy page for “Building a Solid Economic Foundation: Prosperity through Creativity and Innovation”, the closest reference to the subject appears to be the establishment of yet another blue-ribbon commission. As I have written before, we already have a government that is great at launching studies; we don’t seem to be as good acting on the recommendations.

George Takach announced his candidacy at the MaRS discovery District this morning, a choice of venue that makes a statement itself. The Canadian Press is already calling him the e-candidate, with a plan to engage with gamers to crowd-source a digital bill-of-rights, the first elements of which are on his website. His economic policies speak of plans to introduce a new Digital Economy strategy – among other points of relevance to a digital issues: Embracing technological innovation; Investing in high-tech infrastructure; Introducing a new Digital Economy strategy; Overhauling Canada’s R&D approach.

George Takach believes there are other important “digital” issues that also must be addressed, including ensuring that all Canadians have high-speed access to the Internet – regardless of where they live – so they can take better advantage of the full potential of both the Internet and the Information Age and ensuring a balanced approach to digital intellectual property.

While it is encouraging to see digital issues take centre stage from a leadership candidate, the Takach campaign continues to talk in terms of a rural digital divide without addressing the issue of affordability. 

I would still like to see Canada create a program to ensure that all households with children have affordable access to a connected home computer.

I was unable to find any policy statements on the Justin Trudeau leadership website.

Whether you are a Liberal or not, the policy statements set out in this leadership campaign can influence the future platform and policy agendas for all parties.

To what extent will digital issues capture the hearts of Canadians?