Despite the prominence of touchscreen smartphones, Nokia released the results of a poll that claims consumers prefer keyboards for input on their smartphones.

Nearly half of the respondents prefer a QWERTY keyboard while only a third prefer a touchscreen. Does this poll indicate a potential upside for RIM?

About two years ago, I asked:

Is RIM hedging its Blackberry bets to extinction?

By offering so many different models and user interfaces for the Blackberry, I wonder if RIM has created too fractured a marketplace for itself – is RIM playing it too safe for its own good?

A year ago, I wrote about data out of the UK that also seemed to be indicating a popularity for physical keyboards.

Personally, I prefer a real keyboard for data entry, but touchscreen for photos, media and web browsing. The Nokia blog acknowledged this: “The touchscreen is fantastic for looking at photos, browsing the web and watching video, but is it really that good for typing?”

There is a crowded marketplace for touchscreen devices. Will Nokia or RIM be able to recapture a sizable share of the market by effectively marrying a traditional physical keyboard with a high resolution touchscreen?

President’s Choice released a new survey this morning on issues for mobile phones and kids. Nearly half of Canadian parents with children aged 11 and older say their kids carry a personal cell phone.

About three quarters of parents are setting rules for their kids to follow:

• 33% said they set ground rules, such as no talking while driving or walking;
• 32% limit use to where it’s appropriate;
• 27% use password protection;
• 18% program emergency contacts into phones and discuss when and how to use them;
• 12% try to conceal their phones in public;
• 9% set parental controls on devices; and
• 8% use GPS to track the whereabouts of family members.

However, a quarter of Canadian parents apparently haven’t set guidelines.

In fact, the survey found there is a gap between the habits that annoy us and those in which we engage ourselves:

• While 86% of Canadians say they are irritated by others typing, texting or calling while driving, nearly a third (31%) admitted having done so themselves in the last year;
• While 77% complained about others not turning off their ringers in public spaces such as theatres or restaurants, approximately 14% acknowledged doing just that; and
• While 57% complained about others texting or talking and not paying attention to their surroundings while walking, 32% admitted to engaging in precisely this behaviour.

“These results show us that for a great number of Canadian parents, it’s a matter of do as I say and not as I do,” according to parenting expert Kathy Buckworth, Chief Family Advisor to PC Financial.

When did you get your kids their first phone?

What rules and tools have you provided to them?

Stingray Digital operates a pay music service under the brand Galaxie. Stingray didn’t like the idea of competing against CBC’s free online music service, CBC Music, and it asked the CRTC to shut it down, arguing that CBC was granting itself undue preferential treatment thanks to government funding and access to a preferential copyright license fee.

In a decision earlier today, the CRTC rejected Stingray’s application.

The CRTC received hundred of interventions, mainly supportive of the CBC’s service, but most failed to address the actual issues being adjudicated:

While very few addressed the substantive undue preference/disadvantage arguments advanced by the parties, a very large number of the interventions highlighted the uniqueness of the CBC’s service, including its distinct emphasis on the promotion of Canadian artists and emerging Canadian talent.

I am somewhat biased. My son is an avid user of CBC Music, using it as a link to Canada while he attends school away from his home and native land. But, the CRTC needed to assess the Stingray application on its regulatory merits.

In the end, the Commission determined that CBC did not confer a preference to itself in either case: the receipt by the CBC of government funding; and payment by the CBC of different copyright rates than those paid by Stingray.

With respect to government funding, the Commission noted that CBC’s funding is set by Parliament and it is quite clear that it is not under the CBC’s control. Since its inception, CBC has had government funding to operate, often in competition with commercial broadcasters. With respect to the copyright rates, the Commission noted that these rates were set by the Copyright Board, not the CBC.

As such, the CBC did not engage in any action to give itself a preference, so the Commission had no choice but to deny Stingray’s application. It is important to note that granting a preference to itself would not necessarily have been a violation of the rules. The rules say that the preference cannot be “undue”. In this instance, the CRTC did not have to test whether a preference was undue, since no preference was found to have been granted by CBC to itself.

I wrote last week that “People like free“. What if the CRTC had found against CBC?

I’m seeing an increase in the level of abuse of mobile networks by companies operating on the wrong side of the edge of business ethics.

First off is the text spam that is coming through, with messages such as:

Congratulations, your number has made you Apple’s Winner! Goto http://www.apple.com.ca.llhf.net and enter code iWin to claim you Apple product

The other item comes to me from my associate in California who tells me that he was billed $9.99 by T-Mobile associated with text spam from an outfit called Newfittipz. T-Mobile told him they couldn’t refund the money to him or stop the service. He had to reach the company.

To what extent is the mobile industry taking sufficient steps to guard against these annoyances? Are there industry members that are tolerant of these abusive practices and facilitating their text network interconnection because of the profit opportunity?

Free is a good price. Consumers like free offers.

However, some service providers find it is tough to compete with free offers from their competitors.

In March, GATPE Services, operating as Miniphone.ca filed an application with the CRTC, seeking an order to direct Fongo, Dell Voice, and Fibernetics  to stop offering VoIP services for free in Montreal, claiming that free services contravene two sections of the Telecom Act:

27. (1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.

…

27. (6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a Canadian carrier may provide telecommunications services at no charge or at a reduced rate

The file itself is somewhat interesting. It appears that the application had been filed without the use of regulatory professionals or lawyers and the filings read somewhat like a transcribed stream of consciousness conversation. To its credit, the CRTC set out a process to review the complaint, helping to ensure that Miniphone’s complaint was able to receive a proper review.

The Commission notes that it forbore from regulating the rates for retail telecommunications services provided by CLECs because it found that those services are subject to competition sufficient to protect the interests of users. The Commission also notes that this is consistent with the Policy Direction, which directed the Commission to rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible.

In the end, however, the CRTC was not going to order the end of free VoIP services. The CRTC denied Miniphone’s request. To start with, Dell Voice and Fongo aren’t Canadian Carriers, and so the relevant sections of the Telecom Act didn’t apply to them. Sections 27(1) and 27(6) don’t apply to CLECs – these sections have drawn interesting complaints in the past when incumbents offered free services, but that is a different matter.