Presently, a healthy yet misguided debate rages on about UBB versus unlimited Internet plans offered by third party resellers. Few have either recognized or even discussed a simple solution to the problem. Why not just meter the use, no matter who uses it, without tiers?
I have a feeling that these professors may not have been listening to folks who are not crazy about usage sensitive pricing. We have a number of political parties saying that they will regulate usage sensitive prices, we have a movement that wants all pricing to be unlimited and yet they conclude that few have “recognized or even discussed” such a simple solution!
I suspect that in this multi-gazillion dollar internet access business, that at least one ISP somewhere in the world has done market research into how consumers respond to flat rate versus usage sensitive prices. As many of us have come to learn, as expressed by Andrew Odlyzko (U Minn) in a paper [pdf, 158KB] about a decade ago: “Users value simplicity, and in particular flat rates.”
I recommend the Odlyzko piece to all “Internet pricing and the history of communications“. He provides pricing examples “based on two centuries’ worth of data on the evolution of mail, telegraph, telephone, and data services.”
Users value simplicity, and in particular flat rates. That is why ISPs won’t charge by the gigabyte.
Open Media has missed out on leading a discussion of digital strategy issues in the current election. Instead, its tactics and failure to develop serious discussion papers have relegated their participation to serve as scorekeepers on the sidelines.
It is somewhat disappointing that the organization has been unable to graduate from tactics better suited to school pep rallies. If Open Media really represents a constituency of nearly a half million Canadians, it seems that it is squandering its political capital, failing to move past slogans to a more serious level, setting out greater details for the specific changes it seeks for the competitive marketplace.
Open Media has prodded politicians to sign its so-called “pro-internet” pledge, getting most to gloss over the line in the pledge that calls for government regulation of retail pricing. It is fascinating that Open Media appears to be comfortable with the idea that the term “pro-internet” can be applied to political parties who advocate a greater level of government control of the internet than we would accept for autocratic dictatorships, let alone a democracy.
Take the NDP for example, who call for government regulating Canadian content and plan to ban usage based billing. It is a remarkable level of government intervention in the internet, unprecedented in western countries. And yet Open Media characterizes the NDP as being pro-Internet.
Are we forgetting that it was precisely the imposition of a specific business model by government fiat that started the furor in the first place. I have written in the past [such as here on my blog and in the National Post] that usage tiers enable flexible low price plans at higher speeds.
Open Media and their supporters have ignored the evidence that the vast majority of Canadians don’t run up against the volume thresholds for their pricing tiers. No economic evidence has been produced to demonstrate how these users’ interests will be protected when the government regulates their service delivery.
As far as regulating Canadian content, Open Media can’t seem to make up its mind. It has blogged about the potential destructive impact of Canadian content regulations on an open internet, yet it appears unwilling to challenge the NDP’s digital platform. Were such inconsistencies and lack of depth the reason that digital economy issues were left out of the leadership debates in both official languages? Not just internet pricing, but skills development, intellectual property, government and business adoption of ICTs. Serious issues with significant divides between the various political parties.
Open Media has to raise its game to be a credible voice for consumer advocacy in shaping the evolution of new media and digital policy in Canada. Open Media sent a survey of digital issues two weeks ago, promising to release the results “later in the election.” It was supposed to have been “releasing its own set of digital policy recommendations [last] week.” Time is short; voting has begun. Where are their recommendations, the questionaire and its results?
In many ways, Canada and Canadian communications stakeholders would be well served by increased diversity in the development and implementation of our national digital strategy. Will Open Media be able to step up to fill that role?
Last week, unless you are already registered at The Canadian Telecom Summit, you likely received an email from us to remind you that Canada’s premiere communications industry event is just 6 weeks away. Attracting the senior-most professionals from around the globe, The Canadian Telecom Summit is the forum for the broad cross-section of stakeholders to meet, exchange views, share ideas, challenge assumptions and plan for the future.
2011 CTS Sponsors
Our regulatory blockbuster panel features 6 of Canada’s top telecommunications regulatory policy experts debating issues of concern, moderated by Greg O’Brien (editor of Cartt.ca). We have expanded this session to 90 minutes, given the level of attention in the public eye on issues such as retail and wholesale internet pricing models, symmetric regulation of video programming, spectrum auction policy, vertical integration and convergence. Just before that panel on Wednesday June 1, we will again have an open conversation with CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein.
The Canadian Telecom Summit has 17 keynote addresses, from leaders of all of the major carriers and the companies that power their networks and services. Panel discussions will explore cloud computing, the future of wireless, universal broadband, unified communications, the multi-screen universe, competitive dynamics and more.
No other event brings together all of the industry leaders; no other industry event covers so many issues; no other industry event provides such an opportunity for those with vested interests in the Information and Communications Technology sector to explore so many issues associated with creating value for all stakeholders.
Earlier this week, some reports suggested the EU is launching an investigation into internet traffic throttling and blocking. I read the source material differently. To me, this looks more like talk than action
First off, let’s remember that for the past 18 months or so, Canada has led the world in having an actual net neutrality regulatory framework in place.
The Associated Press reports that the EU has asked its member countries to investigate whether ISPs block or slow traffic in a way that harms consumers.
If national telecommunications regulators find that providers are not transparent enough about how they manage their services or make it too difficult for users to switch, the European Commission, the EU’s executive, may propose new legislation to protect the principle of “net neutrality.”
But there is already an acknowledgment from the EU that some traffic is OK to be managed:
In its report Tuesday, the Commission says “it is widely accepted” that providers have to slow down some services to allow others to work.
“A consumer’s experience is not affected if an email reaches him a few seconds after it has been sent, whereas a similar delay to a voice communication would cause it to be significantly degraded, if not rendered entirely useless,” the Commission said.
Another report suggests that the exercise may be to develop a “name and shame” list.
Be sure to review the actual releases from the European Commission, including the press release on ISP transparency, the briefing remarks, and the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament [pdf, 157 KB].
There is a recognition of the need to permit operators to determine their own business models, while seeking to offer consumers choice and the ability to easily switch service providers if they are not satisfied with their access to lawful content.
Any additional regulation should avoid deterring investment, or innovative business models, lead to a more efficient use of the networks and to creating new business opportunities at different levels of the internet value chain while reserving for consumers the advantages of a choice of internet access products tailored to their needs.
The briefing remarks seem to indicate that Commissioner Neelie Kroes would ideally like to see market forces used to enable consumer choice.
If I am not satisfied that consumers can counteract such practices by switching providers, I will not hesitate to introduce more stringent measures. That could be in the form of more prescriptive guidance, or even legislation if it is needed.
We’ll see how this investigation translates into new legislation or operator codes of conduct.
As I mentioned on Friday, tonight is the start of Passover, the Feast of Freedom, and my kids have arrived back in Thornhill, closing the usual 10 time zone separation that usually divides us.
So, I am going to take some time off to focus on really important things in focus: family time.
I am sending them out to vote while they are home; I know that they share my pro-Internet passion, but they may express it in different ways. They also know to keep perspective on the breadth of issues that need to be assessed when marking a ballot.
