At a recent community meeting, I made a statement that many considered outrageous.

If you want to reduce exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) energy from mobile devices, then we should be putting base stations in every lightpost in the city.

Here is the basis of my line of thought. RF energy exposure decays exponentially with distance from the source. As a result, the greatest exposure you have to mobile EMF radiation is from devices themselves, because the devices are close to you. Indeed, even if a person doesn’t own a mobile device, you can bet that there are phones and data sticks being used by people sitting next you on the bus or subway or walking near you on the street or sitting next to you in the restaurant or coffee shop.

A recent study by Public Health Ontario examined EMF exposure levels near a new mobile tower located adjacent to a community centre in Vaughan, Ontario. The study examined radiation exposure levels at six locations in and around the community centre and found that, at the “worst” location, just 80 meters from the tower, the exposure was nearly 600 times below the safety standard, known as Safety Code 6 (“SC6”). The report also indicates that the hottest location found in Toronto is in the area of Metro Hall, still running at close to 50 times below SC6. The report suggests that Metro Hall’s proximity to downtown Toronto broadcast facilities has driven the higher than average RF readings – not mobile phones or devices. Keep in mind that we have been exposed to radio and TV broadcasting for generations. RF energy exposure is not new.

But let’s return to RF energy exposure from mobile services.

Health Canada states:

Health Canada reminds cell phone users that they can take practical measures to reduce their RF exposure by:

• limiting the length of cell phone calls
• using “hands-free” devices
• replacing cell phone calls with text messages

Health Canada also encourages parents to take these measures to reduce their children’s RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents.

Precautions to limit exposure to RF energy from cell phone towers are unnecessary because exposure levels are typically well below those specified in health-based exposure standards.

That is worth repeating. Health Canada has made suggestions to reduce RF exposure to devices, but it explicitly states “Precautions to limit exposure to RF energy from cell phone towers are unnecessary because exposure levels are typically well below those specified in health-based exposure standards.”

Despite the emotions whipped up by neighbours and purveyors of junk science, the towers are not the issue. If you are concerned about being exposed to RF energy from mobile services, then it seems to me that you would want to limit to output required by the devices. These are the transmitters that are closest to you, whether you own a device or not. The radios in these devices adjust power based on the strength of the signal from the tower. So, my logic goes that if you want the phone to dial down the power, make sure that it has access to 5 bars of network signal. The logical progression is that we need more towers in order to reduce exposure to RF energy.

I can appreciate the concerns of neighbours based on the visual appeal of towers – or more precisely, the lack of visual appeal of most towers. So I have great hopes that Douglas Coupland’s V-pole, or similar solutions get deployed in our communities. I’d like to have one replace the municipal light pole in my front yard.

At the end of the day, cell phones and mobile services save lives.

Tell your local municipal councillor that you want more towers – attractive ones, or camouflaged towers – to reduce your exposure to RF energy and improve your mobile service.

A story in today’s Washington Post should serve as an embarrassment to Canadian telecommunications policy makers and industry leaders.

As the article describes, Comcast announced an expansion of its $10 per month Internet Essentials service that targets low income households with school aged children. Internet Essentials is Comcast’s “Connect 2 Compete” product  that provides low-priced broadband to homes with students eligible for school lunch programs, as well as a voucher providing discounted access to refurbished computers.

Broadcasting & Cable wrote:

Since the program’s launch, says Comcast, there have been a number of enhancements, including expanding eligibility, doubling broadband speeds, boosted digital literacy training, and streamlining the approval process.

Comcast will continue the offer through the end of the 2013-2014 school year and the discount will continue to be available to participating families so long as they continue to have an eligible student in the household.

We have written extensively [such as here, here, and here] about such a program for more than a year. Half of all households in the lowest income quintile have no computer.

How do kids from low income households stand a chance when so many jobs require basic computer skills?

Will Canada’s elusive National Digital Strategy include a component to target getting low-income households online? Will the private sector demonstrate the leadership to address this affordability gap?

It has been a slow week for news from the CRTC, so I happened to take a little extra time reading the notice at the top of “Today’s Releases” on the Commission website:

The Government of Canada is replacing Access Key with two new cyber authentication programs: Sign-In Partners and GCKey. After September 22nd, 2012, Access Key will no longer available and users will have to register with one of the two new cyber authentication programs. Visit Cyber Authentication Renewal Initiative Frequently Asked Questions for additional information.

On that page, I thought I would read about a new federal initiative for cyber authentication. Of course, one might think that such an initiative would be part of an overall national digital strategy, but we have written extensively about the embarrassingly long delays in getting that consultation completed.

What I found was somewhat surprising.

“[T]he Government of Canada is leveraging these investments made by financial institutions for secure online environments.” In other words, it appears that the government is going to outsource its online authentication to the banks, starting initially with TD, BMO and Scotia.

For users of SecureKey Concierge, the identity of the financial institution will not be shared with the Government of Canada. Similarly, no information about the government service being accessed by the user will be shared with the user’s bank.

Apparently, the banks will not be charging a fee to users – “this is part of the service your bank offers its customers.”

It has some genuine appeal. After all, there are all sorts of “Know Your Customer” rules in place for the banks which have required bank employees to verify that the person standing in front of them is really the person they claim to be. The banks have zillions of pre-screened online banking users. In effect, the government’s SecureKey Concierge program is catching a free ride on the back of bank investments in personal authentication. It isn’t a bad idea, but it is yet another tactical move made without a clear statement of a cohesive digital strategy.

I just hope your online banking password is really, really secure.

The National Post carried dueling Op Ed pieces debating the merits of the acquisition by Bell of Astral Media.

Supporting approval of the deal was Bell regulatory chief Mirko Bibic, who wrote that the deal provides an alternative to cable giants Videotron and Rogers in an article subtitled: “Astral will make Bell more competitive in a borderless world.”

Canada now has four large vertically integrated companies offering both media and communications services. Of the other three, two oppose the Astral deal, while Shaw supports it. Why the difference? We all compete as broadcasters, but Rogers and Quebecor compete directly with Bell for TV subscribers in Ontario and Quebec. With the launch of Bell’s new Fibe TV service, both are seeing their long-dominant position in the urban TV marketplace under threat.

On the other side of the issue, MTS Allstream’s Chief Corporate Officer Chris Peirce wrote that the CRTC should say ‘yes’ to competition in an article subtitled: “Don’t just say ‘no’ to Bell. Say ‘yes’ to a ­creative marketplace.”

How can this degree of control by a private economic interest possibly serve Canadians and Canadian businesses? At a minimum, the CRTC and Competition Bureau must recognize that the more Bell is allowed to integrate all of these elements, the more direct and enforced regulation will be needed to prevent Bell from putting its economic interests ahead of the public good and, especially, competition that will result in the innovation, growth and leadership Canada is capable of in this emerging digital era. The measures adopted by the regulator have not been strong enough in this regard.

The oral hearing concluded last week in Montreal. According to the CRTC’s revised schedule, participants in that hearing have until Friday to submit their final comments [up to 10 pages], and then Bell has another week [until September 28] to file its final reply.

Michael Godwin observed:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Regardless of the topic in an online discussion, given enough time some bozo inevitably jumps the shark by making a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. It is wrong on so many levels, but most fundamentally such comparisons serve to trivialize the unspeakable horrors of 70 years ago.

As the number of eyewitness survivors to the Holocaust diminishes, it is perhaps less shocking to some. Such hyperbole can never be considered acceptable.

GigaOm has an article reporting on comments delivered by Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos at yesterday’s Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2012 Media, Communications and Entertainment event at the Beverly Wilshire hotel in Beverly Hills, California. To set some context, Sarandos was responding defensively to a statement by the moderator about Netflix having “a fraction” of the level of content available to Canadian Netflix users. Sarandos  interrupted, repeatedly saying “not accurate” to something that is apparent to almost anyone else comparing the US and Canadian catalogs.

From the webcast [beginning around the 28:00 minute mark]:

Viewing hours are almost… are very similar [in Canada] to the US. The problem in Canada is not content, the problem in Canada, which is one of our strongest markets, is they have almost third world access to the internet. Not because it’s constrained for any reason except for money. They have very low datacaps with all the broadband providers in Canada and they charge an enormous amount if you go over your broadband cap. It made us be much more innovative about compression and delivery technology so we are less broadband consumptive in Canada.

It’s almost a human rights violation what they charge for internet access in Canada.

Whoa! There it is. The Sarandos corollary: When among the well heeled, it is fair to joke about the travails of those far, far away.

For someone sitting at the Beverly Wilshire hotel, speaking just before the bar opened in the hotel’s Royal Suite for “drinks galore”, maybe it was supposed to be poking fun. I might have started with complaining about the hotel charging $33 for a couple eggs, toast, bacon and coffee. From the comfort of the Beverly Wilshire, perhaps it is too easy to avert your eyes away from the suffering of real victims of actual human rights violations.

Almost as disturbing was the uncritical way GigaOm reported the item. But, that is a different matter for another day.