A reader pointed out a column in the Toronto Star by Joe Fiorito, writing about the recent closure of an employment resource room in a local community centre.

the computer room developed to the point where it was serving somewhere near 35 people a day, roughly 13,000 a year; people who live in the neighbourhood and who either cannot afford their own computers, or who do not have an Internet connection in their home.

This closure appears to be a demonstration of the lack of digital vision at our various levels of government.

As I wrote last week, the United States has launched a program to leverage its 2800 jobs centres to help with digital literacy training. Canada’s governments, operating without a national digital strategy, are unable to set objectives and then operate with a view to hit those targets. Instead, we have seen a stream of announcements throwing a little money here and there, all with a suffix saying that the spending is part of our digital strategy.

I wrote last fall about tactics in the absence of a strategy.

Neighbourhood resource centres need to be associated with an interdepartmental, perhaps multi-level government strategy.

Simply shutting down a location in the absence of an overall strategy is heading the wrong way.

The 2012 Olympic Games open this week in London.

As a technology junkie, I appreciate the Olympics having offset the timing of winter games. Until 1992, the summer and winter games were both held every four years in leap years; 1994 marked the first winter games to be held in the alternate even number year.

By holding such a major global event every two years, we can count on the Canadian broadcaster to bring us a demonstration of the latest technologies, integrating  TV, internet and mobile platforms. I don’t think I could stand to wait 4 years between each cycle and I prefer the thrill of being dazzled with new technologies all associated with one event. I suppose the alternative is that more of these capabilities would be trickled out to us with the Super Bowl, elections or some reality talent show; I like the shock and awe approach with special events such as the Olympics.

I only have access to one TV station at my summer residence. Fortunately, it is the official broadcaster of the Olympics. But I expect to be following along on-line as well, accessing the feeds to obscure teams playing in equally obscure events.

I noticed that some of my twitter buddies are already in London to shepherd their teams of people covering the event; for the bulk of us, we will be relying on the latest innovations in converged platform program delivery to follow along.

Let the games begin.

The headlines on Twitter focus on the savings for Canadian cable bills. Starting in September, you will likely see your TV subscription price drop by half a percent, allowing you to get a coffee and a donut once a year thanks to the CRTC getting rid of the 3-year old Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF).

That may be as far as most people read.

However, at 22 paragraphs, the majority decision by the CRTC is actually pretty brief. It gets to be more interesting because there are 3 dissenting opinions and a concurring opinion appended to the end.

Commissioner Elizabeth Duncan dissented on the belief that the LPIF, as originally designed, was not yet properly implemented. She would have liked to see its mandate extended and given an opportunity to function properly.

Commissioner Suzanne Lamarre wrote a 66 paragraph dissent, plus extensive quotes, citing the legislative mandate of the CRTC. She concludes:

I believe that the majority decision has not taken into account the evidence presented therein, as is its inescapable duty in accordance with the obligations and powers of the Commission, and that the decision was made without regard for the Commission’s obligations under the Official Languages Act or the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada. I therefore cannot bring myself to support it.

Commissioner Louise Poirier wrote a dissent as long as the decision itself, concluding “I remain concerned because the evidence submitted in this proceeding has no direct link with the majority decision to discontinue the LPIF.”

Surprisingly, Commissioner Michel Morin wrote a concurring opinion. When the LPIF was originally created in October 2008, Commissioner Morin wrote a 45 page dissent; at the time, he said it was the longest ever written. His concurring opinion today is much more than an “I told you so”. It should be required reading for all observers of the Canadian communications sector. His harshest words are for the beneficiaries of the $300M that was generated over the life of the LPIF, who refused to track the local content of their news programming.

Innovating does not necessarily mean spending more, and what matters in the final analysis, to my mind, is the news and, above all, the local content of the news. This does not mean micromanaging as some interveners claimed, but rather ensuring that the $300 million paid by consumers is used to reach an end (local coverage) and an objective (minimum quantity of Category 1 local news). As for calculating “local segments” in each newscast, with this practice put into place, any production assistant could have done it in less than a minute at the end of the local news report. It isn’t rocket science, it’s not complicated to ensure that there is something for every consumer at the end of each broadcast week.

This is the subject I would have liked to discuss, and one that few participants raised in their final arguments. To them, I simply say, a word to the wise is enough. You do not want any condition in terms of minimum quantities of Category 1 local news, so do not count on me to impose regulatory fees of 1.5% on the bills of 11.3 million Canadian cable and satellite subscribers or their distributors! As a member of a regulatory body, my focus is accountability and transparency. There is no way I am going to give you $300 million on a silver platter for another three years, with no condition requiring you to produce truly local news for the benefit of consumers in each of these markets. Because in most cases it is the consumers who paid this $300 million over three years, I simply wanted to ensure that the content they receive actually does include local news, in the strict sense of the term. Better luck next time, if the opportunity ever arises again.

Slam. He turns his attention to the CBC and its budgets as well.

In his concluding remarks, Commissioner Morin cites the 15 dissenting opinions he has written in the course of his 5 year term.

On the eve of the end of my five-year mandate as a CRTC commissioner, I am leaving on a high note, so to say, by concurring with the majority opinion. This opinion adds to the 15 dissenting opinions I have already issued, the list of which can be found following this concurring opinion. But in this case as in the others, I have always been guided by the same principles.

In my opinion, demonstrating respect for the consumer’s opinion through a transparent public record is at the very core of my obligation.

His concurring opinion is an important piece to read. In many ways, it represents a farewell address. Commissioner Morin’s term comes to an end on August 5 and he says he is leaving on a high note, concurring with the majority opinion. His five years at the CRTC have demonstrated a passionate pursuit of respect for consumers’ interests. When his appointment was announced, I observed that he was starting as Commisioner Stuart Langford (the former regular writer of dissents) was leaving.

When there is a questionable call in baseball, the team manager comes out from the dugout and yells at the umpire. The call doesn’t change, but the umpire is put on notice to watch more carefully. After August 5, who will be the the one to kick up dirt at the plate at the CRTC?

An earlier version of this post erroneously attributed the dissent by Suzanne Lamarre to Elizabeth Duncan. This has been corrected.

Once again, Canada has missed an opportunity to lead in an area of digital skills development.

I shouldn’t be surprised.

At this stage, Canada’s National Digital Strategy is so long overdue that we should be asking some hard questions about what has gone so terribly wrong with a multi-departmental program that started so right, under the leadership of Industry Canada with participation by Human Resources and Heritage Canada. More than two years have passed since we were promised:

This consultation is the next step in developing the right environment for the greater adoption of digital technology. After it is complete, we take the results into account as we develop an action plan to address the digital issues facing Canada now and in the future.

Once again, the US is demonstrating leadership in creating “the right environment for the greater adoption of digital technology. The Connect2Compete initiative has launched a new digital literacy campaign, adding a job-training partner to increase its focus on broadband as an aid for training and to search for jobs. The US Department of Labor will provide digital literacy training at nearly 2,800 employment and training centers operated by the agency.

Canada’s counterpart, Human Resources and Skills Development was part of the initial launch of the consultation. Two years later, there is still no “Digital Literacy” heading on its website listing “Jobs and Training“.

I continue to be optimistic that we can develop a program to take on the challenge I set out 19 months ago in a blog post called “Digital Divide“: We need a connected computer for every home. We need to work on skills development and access to devices among low income households.

Connect2Compete demonstrates a framework that does not require massive cash injections from government. If government won’t lead, then what about the private sector showing the way?

I remember going to Telecom ’91 in Geneva when I was working at Unitel. The fall of 1991 was the golden era of telecom exhibitions and my team was being courted by various suppliers for our network technology business.

At the time, there were strong personal relationships that linked Unitel’s CEO with the head of Digital Equipment. We were being given a special tour of the multistorey DEC booth at the show when Digital’s Canadian CEO commented to me that 100% of DEC’s Canadian data network was running on Unitel’s facilities. Without skipping a beat, I said that if he had mission critical applications running, he should fire his CIO and immediately get some carrier diversity – at least 10%. Besides, it helps keep both service providers on their toes. It makes everyone more responsive.

My CEO nearly dropped the mini-cigar from his mouth.

I explained that it doesn’t matter how good we are, networks can fail. When that happens, do you really want all your eggs in one basket?

That was a little more than 20 years ago.

Think of the types of network failures that have happened through the years for all sorts of reasons: a fire that knocked out service to downtown Toronto with repercussions across the country; a satellite failure that isolated Nunavut last fall; and this week’s fire in Calgary are just a few examples.

It isn’t just physical damage that can knock out a network – many naive architects think that they can design around single points of failure, such as fires, satellite failures or fibre cuts. Sometimes it is a matter of software, such as Amazon’s network failure last year. Given the complexity of network systems, it is difficult to laboratory test every possible condition. A software upgrade can sometimes bring down an entire network, such as that experienced by AT&T in 1990.

These are some of the issues faced by everyone who tries to operate carrier-grade networks. Service outages are a fact of life; minimizing the impact and quickly recovering from the problem is the primary objective of everyone involved.

As an end user, carrier diversity provides improved reliability.

As public safety agencies move forward with making use of their spectrum, it seems to me that reliability and overall capacity can be enhanced through interoperability with commercial networks.