The National Post took aim at York Region parents who picketed their school board offices to protest over WiFi. There is no real science to back up their concerns, just “gossip they read on Twitter, or at the health-food store bulletin board.”
Rarely a day goes by that my inbox doesn’t include a “helpful” message forwarded by a friend or family member asking me if it is true – such as cashiers scamming $20 from a credit card or cockroach eggs in envelop glue – the junk science driving the parental WiFi concern fits into the same category – did you know the origin of the urban legend that you can cook an egg with two cell phones? Be sure to make the call during off-peak, or using an unlimited plan.
I use Snopes.com for checking the answer to frequent “real or hoax” emails. Do you have a favourite site? Or do you forward the messages along?
Today’s CRTC Broadband Report confirms that we are overdue in turning our attention to broadband adoption.
We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate the extension of networks to rural and remote markets, but that has reached a point of diminishing returns. The Report shows that we spent $225M to subsidize the reach of networks to 214,000 potential customers – roughly $1500 per broadband subscriber, assuming adoption at the national rates.
As I have written before, Montreal has 300,000 households that don’t have a computer. Toronto has 225,000 households with no computer. Vancouver has 100,000 households with no computer. Where there is no computer in the household, it is unlikely that there will be a broadband connection. It is little surprise that household computer ownership is correlated with income.
The Broadband report also shows a disparity in internet use by age and language. While 97% of Francophones aged 18-34 are on-line, apparently they aren’t showing their parents or grandparents why they should be; only 63% of Francophones over the age of 50 are using the internet, contrasted with 74% of anglophones in the same age group.
It is time for a digital strategy that promotes digital literacy and leads to computers getting into Canada’s low income households. We have the plumbing in place: we need to lead more Canadians to the well and teach them how to drink.
The CRTC approach, which would see symmetric liberalization for broadcasting and telecom, but only opening up the market for both sectors to 49% foreign ownership;
The approach described by the Telecom Policy Review Panel (TPRP) and endorsed by the Competition Policy Review, which would remove restrictions on telecommunications carriers that have lass than 10% market share;
Open the doors to foreign direct investment in all carriers.
A colleague reminded me that Option B is more nuanced than the simple 10% threshold might suggest. As the original foreign investment consultation paper acknowledged, the 10% solution was described by the Telecom Policy Review Panel [report no longer available on-line]:
In the first phase, the Telecommunications Act would be amended to give Cabinet the authority to waive the foreign investment restrictions applicable to a Canadian telecommunications common carrier based on a foreign investment or class of investments being deemed by the Cabinet to be in the public interest. The TPRP proposed that, during the first phase, a presumption should be made that investments in any new start-up telecommunications investment or in any existing telecommunications common carrier with less than 10 percent of the revenue in any telecommunications service market would be in the public interest. This presumption could be rebutted by evidence related to a particular investor or investment.
Prior to the second phase, the TPRP recommended completion of a review of broadcasting policy to resolve issues related to the separation of Canadian policy on broadcasting content from policies for the carriage of telecommunications. It recommended that there should then be a broader liberalization of foreign investment rules in a manner that “treats all telecommunications common carriers including the cable telecommunications industry in a fair and competitively neutral manner.” This liberalization would apply to the carriage business of broadcasting distribution undertakings, while new broadcasting policies would focus any necessary ownership restrictions on content businesses. The Cabinet would retain authority to screen significant investments to ensure they are in the public interest.
In other words, there would be reviews of the ownership by Cabinet, but there would be a presumption of approval in the case of smaller players. Presumably, a larger player could have increased foreign investment, if it can demonstrate the public interest benefit.
Note that the TPRP was clear that foreign investors would remain exempt if they succeed in growing their market share above 10%.
As we await an announcement, we should be aware that there are important subtleties to watch for.
In the wireless segment, this is the season that sees the greatest level of activation activity – meaning that the next 45 days may predict or even determine which service providers will survive on their own for another year. Which devices will win the hearts and minds of consumers? In a tweet, Kaan Yigit said that people may aspire to iPhone, but many settle for an Android.
There are a lot of price plans in the market and it isn’t always easy to compare offers between competing service providers.
I am often asked which service provider is better. Whether it is wireline, wireless, internet or TV, my answer is almost always the same: it depends.
It depends on what you want to do with the device and the service.
A good retailer will help you work through the answers, but it helps if you know what questions to ask. Here are a few that I think are most important.
Most important is confirming whether the service works optimally where you want to use it. Parents of college students need to remember that what works in downtown urban centres may not work in smaller college towns. Price is irrelevant if the thing just isn’t going to connect to the network. Conversely, just because the parents may want the service to roam across Canada or around the world doesn’t mean that the device for your grade school kid needs to.
If it is internet: what kind of speeds will I get at home? If it is mobile phone service: will you get 5 bars at home and along your regular commute? Do you travel? If so, will it work and what will it cost when I am away? Is the device unlocked for me to buy a foreign SIM card?
What kind of things do you want to use the service for? Are you interested in downloading music or watching videos? What kind of data plan is available? How much do I save by signing a contract? What are early termination charges if I change my mind?
I won’t even begin to look at the choice of operating systems on smartphones. That would be wading into a religious debate. But do be sure to consider intra-familial communications. How will the new device fit in with the rest of the household?
By the way, I had a chance to try out a great phone over the past few weeks. In an age that focuses on full featured smartphones, the Doro is a throwback to another era. Big, easy to read buttons, large text display. If you have parents or grandparents who still don’t have a phone, then consider getting them a Doro or something similar.
As I wrote earlier this week, consumer education beats government intervention. What other questions should consumers be asking when shopping for communications services this season?
Government of Canada departments are encouraged to use Web 2.0 tools and services as an efficient and effective additional channel to interact with the public.
A lot is bound up in that sentence. Use tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. as an efficient and effective channel, in addition to (not instead of) presumably the older means to interact with the public.
The new guideline notes that interactive web tools can facilitate more rapid communication and engagement between government departments, including:
Recruitment;
Risk and emergency communications;
Services to the public;
Stakeholder outreach and education;
As a collaborative tool; and
Consultation.
On the communications front, we have seen the CRTC establish a Twitter presence (@CRTCgcca) and there have been a number of proceedings that have seen use of tools such as YouTube and collaborative consultation. Of course, the use of these tools does not seem to have resulted in faster delivery of a National Digital Strategy – which is a risk highlighted by the new Guideline. Among other risks, the Guideline observes that negative perceptions can arise from Web 2.0 initiatives because of an inability to fulfill reasonable expectations of timely two-way communication.
The Guideline is pretty extensive and should be reviewed on the government’s website. The complete Table of Contents follows:
