I saw that Finland has issued new rules that are intended to simplify comparison shopping for broadband consumers:

The speed included in the contract must depict the true speed range of the connection with sufficient precision. It is not sufficient to only express the maximum speed or theoretical maximum speed of the broadband connection. In the future, the speed range must be expressed either by using the average data transmission speed or the range of data transmission speed with unambiguous minimum and maximum caps. The speed must be defined so that the promised quality can also be delivered during rush hour or during any sequence of maximum of four hours.

I understand what the Finnish regulator is trying to do, but it seems to me that it has missed the mark. For example, what consumer benefit is derived from having an “unambiguous maximum cap” on the speed? We have service providers in Canada that allow consumers access to extra fast speeds during off peak periods – this consumer benefit appears to be forbidden in Finland, in the interest of comparitive clarity.

It is an unintended consequence of nanny like regulations, protecting consumers from themselves. By removing flexibility in service delivery options, Finland is unintentionally reducing the flexibility of service providers to innovate and differentiate their services.

Consumers might be better served by improved education – getting better armed with questions to ask when shopping for service.

The CRTC had a fundamental principle at the core of its review of wholesale billing practices: will independent internet service providers continue to be in a position to offer competitive and innovative alternatives compared to those offered by the larger facilities based ISPs?

Services provided by the independent service providers bring pricing discipline, innovation, and consumer choice to the retail Internet service market.

Based on the outcome [press release, residential Decision, business services Decision], the CRTC has achieved, at least for now, a Solomonic balance.

Its task was not easy. Some of the major carriers advocated a usage-based approach while others were comfortable preserving the status quo. Adding confusion, virtually all carriers sought to keep business services on a flat rate model, and the CRTC concurred.

So the real interest is on the residential pricing model. The Commission decided to approve two different wholesale structures. Bell Aliant (Atlantic Region), SaskTel, Shaw and TELUS will be able to preserve their flat rate structures for whatever traffic happens to be generated; the remaining companies are expected to go with plan B: a model that has a network capacity element – the retail ISP pre-arranges network throughput capacity in lumps of 100Mbps.

Carriers build networks with such capacity considerations. The capacity model is a form of usage based pricing, but it leaves management of the capacity in the hands of the retail ISP. The question of user impact is dependent on the rates set for the capacity. Those rates, in turn depend on a variety of assumptions which explains to an extent the variability in wholesale rates between the carrier ISPs.

Last week, I noted an observation in Sandvine‘s most recent Internet Phenomena report:

Within North American fixed networks, Real-Time Entertainment applications are the primary drivers of network capacity requirements, accounting for 60% of peak downstream traffic, up from 50% in 2010. Furthermore, subscriber usage is becoming increasingly concentrated in a smaller band of the evening, driving up network costs despite relatively constant per-subscriber monthly data consumption.

To what extent will the increased concentration of traffic into a consistent busy period drive up the costs of independent ISPs? Will these ISPs seek to develop innovative pricing models that discourage coincident peak usage within their client base?

That in turn raises the question of whether the CRTC’s internet traffic management rules are flexible enough to permit users to choose a price plan that helps smooth out the ISP’s traffic profile.

Based on the experience of wholesale access for long distance services, the pricing models set out today could be with us for some time. Did the CRTC make the right adjustments to encourage independent ISPs to stay in the market? Are the right incentives in place for all ISPs to continue to invest in facilities to promote a healthy competitive market for the benefit of all consumers?

After a weekend of college and professional games, you’ll have to excuse me for revisiting the theme of football as a metaphor for life, as I wrote earlier this year.

I ended last week looking to re-energize the campaign to get connected computers into every Canadian household with school aged kids, followed up by a post expressing dismay with the initial response from Industry Canada.

We have seen a lot of announcements from various agencies that refer to the funding being relevant to a digital economy strategy, even though that strategy has never been enunciated.

Does it actually exist?

Look at the anti-spam announcements and academic research funding. Industry Minister Paradis is making an announcement later this morning for “a new initiative aimed at furthering the adoption and use of digital technologies by small and medium-sized businesses.” How can we keep making announcements without an overall strategy? How do we measure the effectiveness of all of these spending announcements if we can’t even tell whether the measures are consistent with the overall strategy?

We’re running plays without a sense of the direction we’re heading. The ball is moving, but are we staying in bounds? Are just going sideways?

As I mentioned on Friday, we were told that it would take 6-18 months to develop the digital strategy; last Thursday marked 18 months since that statement. A year ago, then Minister Clement said the strategy would be released in the Spring (i.e. 6 months ago).

This coming spring, we will formally launch our digital economy strategy. It will be a living document, one that will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of changing times. But it will be an important milestone in Canada’s path to greater competitiveness and innovation.

To be fair, we had a Spring Election and subsequent cabinet shuffle. With a new Industry Minister quarterbacking the file, it was fair to wait a little longer.

But, as Peter Nowak wrote last Friday, we’re lagging our G-8 partners in developing a digital strategy. In football terms, we’re behind by 2 touchdowns and time is running down on the clock. Without a clear strategy, how can we measure the effectiveness of the plays we have been running.

Sure, there has been legislation introduced and government spending in the name of furthering the digital strategy, but how do we know we’re moving the ball in the right direction, or using the right combination of plays.

We need leadership – a digital quarterback. Right now, the team is looking at the sidelines and the clock is running.

Your comments are welcome – extra points for maintaining the football theme!

Greg O’Brien’s commentary on Cartt.ca  began with “This should be embarrassing. For all of us.”

He was talking about the US scooping Canada with a program aimed at getting connected computers into the homes of low income Americans with school aged children. And digital literacy training thrown in as well. The US leadership is demonstrating, um, leadership.

So Greg sent his commentary to Industry Canada and asked for comment, such as any plans for broadband for low-income families.

He shared with me what he got back:

The national Computers for Schools (CFS) program plays an important role in supporting access to technology in Canadian schools, public libraries and non-profit learning organizations. Launched in 1993, this federal government-led initiative operates in cooperation with all provinces and territories, the private and volunteer sectors to provide refurbished computers, helping Canadian students — including those from low income families — gain greater access to computer technology so that they can develop the skills needed to thrive in a knowledge-based economy. To date, CFS has refurbished and donated over 1,100,000 computers in collaboration with other federal, provincial and territorial departments and the private, non-profit organizations and volunteer sectors.

The Broadband Canada Program is providing access to telecommunications infrastructure, which is helping to create the conditions for growth and job creation. It also makes available broadband access (defined as 1.5 megabits per second) to previously unserved and underserved households at a reasonable cost to the consumer. The Program is helping to provide access to skills development and opportunities to contribute, to innovate and to succeed in the digital economy. Broadband Internet access brings important economic and social benefits: it opens the door to information, services and opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. For unserved and underserved Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, the program represents an important improvement in service.

With these investments, Industry Canada has a long history of helping Canadians access the internet and develop important digital skills.

I’m speechless.

If we are talking about a long history, it was nearly 4 years ago that I first wrote that we should be looking at making PCs and computers part of our social safety net in Canada, re-targeting subsidies based on financial need, not based on geography.

Let’s look at more recent times. Yesterday marked 18 months since the launch of the consultation for Canada’s strategy for the Digital Economy. We were asked to provide input within the 60 day consultation period and when that wrapped up, then Minister Tony Clement told us “Other countries have typically taken between 6 and 18 months to develop their strategies, so it’s reasonable to expect that Canada’s strategy will be developed in a similar time frame.”

Time’s up.

The strategy was due sometime between a year ago and yesterday. We had an election get in the way, then a cabinet shuffle. The dog ate my homework.

That was 6 months ago.

When the Digital Strategy consultation was first announced, Minister Clement concluded with:

Canada can and should be a leader in the global digital economy. Nothing prevents us from being the best place in which to invest, grow a digital business or create digital content for the world.

Now is the time for the private sector to step up. To contribute its ideas. And then, when the digital strategy is in place, implement the game plan.

Should the private sector wait for a digital strategy to be put in place before implementing “a game plan”? For that matter, should our citizens? We need leadership. And as Greg O’Brien wrote, we need it now.

Over the past year, I have written a number of times about the need to get more computers into lower income households with children.

To date, government programs focus on delivery of broadband subsidies based on geography, rather than affordability. We have looked at targeting the high price of rural and remote service, without regard to affordability for low income households regardless of geography.

I think these programs have failed to do enough.

Earlier today, the FCC announced a bold partnership with industry that will deliver low cost computers and broadband and basic digital literacy to low income American households with school aged children. As the FCC chair stated, and similar to what I wrote about earlier this week, “Whether we’re talking about jobs, education or healthcare, in this day and age, getting online is a necessity, not a convenience.”

The US program has been anchored by the National Cable TV Association membership that will be offering a $10 cable broadband service to households that qualify for the school lunch program.  It is a way to readily identify low income households with school aged children. These homes are seen as being least likely to subscribe to broadband service. In other words, the program isn’t cannibalizing existing revenues and the program won’t apply outside the existing service areas.

Five years ago, I wrote a piece called “Doing well by doing doing good.” At the time, I quoted opening remarks from an industry event that cited Margaret Mead’s inspirational statement “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

I don’t think we can wait any longer for leadership from the government in the form of its digital strategy. Even if we had received a nice glossy book or a slick website, entitled “National Digital Strategy”, let’s face it, we have a lousy track record implementing these kinds of things.

I’d like to hear from people who want to actually do something. Who’s in?

UPDATE: Greg O’Brien and Cartt.ca has a commentary calling for Canada’s ISPs to take responsibility for expanding affordability of broadband service to low income Canadians.