Yesterday, two papers critical of usage based billing were released.  Both papers were sponsored by Netflix and neither of them appear to have been filed with the CRTC by the March 28 deadline for the Wholesale Internet Pricing proceeding.

Michael Geist released a paper looking at Usage Based Billing Around the World. The paper includes an estimate of the costs incurred by ILECs on a per gigabyte basis and has views on “what should come next” including a proposal for new guidelines for retail usage based billing: IBUMPS – Internet Billing Usage Management Practices.

If UBB is to remain part of the retail Internet access landscape, the transparency and public disclosures must improve. The CRTC should adopt similar requirements as those found with ITMPs to ensure that consumers are better informed about the benefits and limits of their capped services.

There is also a paper released by Bill St. Arnaud, called Myths and Fallacies about Usage Based Billing.

Hopefully, these papers will be filed as part of the CRTC’s proceeding (2011-77) that is reviewing usage based billing. In this way, the assertions can become part of the evidence examined and tested by the Commission. There are a number of phases remaining in the CRTC proceeding, but one has to wonder about the coincidence of two papers sponsored by the same corporation just happened to be released less than 48 hours after the deadline for submissions.

Netflix is registered as an interested party to the proceeding. I doubt that many of the other parties will object if Netflix files the submissions a few days late in order to ensure that these materials don’t miss the opportunity to be tested in the interrogatory phase of the proceeding.

I noticed that Australia is continuing to press forward with its government-led NBN project, pumping about AU$36B of government funding into a project that hopes to have fibre to the home for 90% of the population.

The NBN plan is said “to promote sustainable retail-level competition, and fair pricing of wholesale services for all Australians.”

What is meant by fair pricing? $36B works out to about $5000 per household in upfront spending. That upfront government cash adds about $50 per month to every Australian households’ tax burden. Korea’s national broadband network is also the result of massive government involvement.

When looking at international broadband pricing, should comparisons include these hidden costs?

Yesterday, the initial filings were due for the CRTC’s review of wholesale internet pricing (PN 2011-77 as amended).

Even before Bell had filed its comments, Open Media was quoted by the Post as endorsing the filing [its press release can be found here]. The Globe and Mail quoted Industry Minister Tony Clement as unimpressed. Bell waited until nearly 9:00pm before releasing its new Gateway Access Tariff for Fibre to the Node [Filing, Tariff Page, Economic Study]. Bell has asked for interim approval (see page 4 of the filing), which will allow independent ISPs to begin to offer services at the new speeds as of May 29, with the rates retroactively adjusted once the CRTC completes its deliberations.

For those who would like to actually read the filed comments prior to expressing an opinion, here is what I have seen:

• PIAC / Consumers Association
• Rogers
  • University of Calgary economics professor Jeffrey Church
• MTS Allstream
• Cable Carriers joint submission (Cogeco, Videotron, Rogers)
• CNOC
• Distributel

There may be others that will be available on the CRTC website in the coming days. Reply comments are due April 29, and parties may ask questions of each other on that date as well. Answers to these interrogatories will be due on May 24.

All of which leads to good discussion material for The 2011 Canadian Telecom Summit: May 31 – June 2, in Toronto.

It’s election time in Canada. I have a wish for the political parties: tell us clearly your vision to lead Canada in the 21st century digital world.

It seems to me that we need to stop the dithering around developing Digital Economy Strategies and actually put a stake in the ground.

Last week, Network World asked me to comment on what we should be looking for in the upcoming election campaign. I pointed out that we have studied communications issues enough, with the 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel, the 2008 Competition Policy Review, together with last year’s consultation on foreign direct investment and the digital economy consultation, combined with the consultations and hearing for the recent Anti-Spam bill and the soon-to-die Copyright Bill, and finally the recent parliamentary Industry committee review of wholesale high speed Internet access.

Given all of that analysis over the past few years, it is hard to understand why we couldn’t have clear platform statements from each of the parties setting out their positions on foreign telecommunications investment, telecom and broadcast regulatory reform, copyright reform, incentives for investment in telecommunications facilities and development of digital media.

A comprehensive digital vision would include how we get connectivity to Canada’s lowest income earners, starting with ensuring all school aged children have access to computers with internet at home; how we will develop digital literacy in under-represented segments; and increased measurements, reporting and tracking to objectives.

I will be disappointed if all we hear about are current hot topics. That should be a signal that the candidates and parties lack vision and will be reactive, not proactive in their policy development.

Canadians have been waiting too long for digital policy leadership.

 

Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford and author of the recently released book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.

There is a 10 minute animated lecture available that describes his perspectives on “The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?“. This new RSA Animate video was adapted from a talk given in 2009, and so it pre-dates the current events in the Middle East. As such, his alternative take on ‘cyber-utopianism’ – the seductive idea that the internet plays a largely emancipatory role in global politics – may be rejected too quickly by many viewers.

I found it to be thought provoking. I hope it will help stimulate discussion around the dinner table this weekend for you.