On Tuesday, I tweeted about the World Economic Forum’s latest reports, which placed Canada in 8th place (out of 138) for “Networked Readiness“. Sweden, Singapore and Finland took home the medals this year.

The full Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011 (GITR) can be downloaded [pdf, 10.1MB], which includes one page summaries for each country.

While the interactive version of the report helps find Canada’s status quickly, it is important that Canadians look at how the index is composed. Part 4 of the report begins on page 300. It provides details about the 9 broad components of the Networked Readiness Index.

• Environment
  • Market environment
  • Political and regulatory environment
  • Infrastructure environment
• Readiness
  • Individual readiness
  • Business readiness
  • Government readiness
• Usage
  • Individual usage
  • Business usage
  • Government usage

Each of these 9 “pillars” are examined with 3 to 11 sub-categories, for a total of 71 measures being evaluated. These categories are all important indicators of the readiness of a nation to compete in a global digital economy.

Because of the election, there are a number of groups that are taking a superficial view of what should be contained in Canada’s national digital strategy. The 71 indices in the GITR provide a guide to the breadth of issues that need to be understood and addressed in a comprehensive digital economic strategy. These are the kinds of performance metrics by which Canada’s digital economy can be and will be measured.

When the dust settles from the election, will the Industry Minister release a digital strategy that leads Canada from an acceptable 8th place ranking to improve to a place on the podium?

Michael Geist writes that the Liberals are supporting British style functional separation for Canadian telecom carriers, based on a rapid-fire on-line exchange between Open Media’s Steve Anderson and Marc Garneau this past Monday {see 2:11 on chat}:

Anderson: In Canada, we have a few companies that dominate both the business of providing access to the customer via the last mile of the Internet (wholesale), as well as the business of providing access to the wires that connect the customers to the backbone of the Internet (retail). It is this domination of both wholesale and retail markets that experts say is at least partially responsible for the high costs of Internet access in Canada, as well as the lack of choice and competition in the market. The UK and other countries have dealt with this situation by separating the two businesses in what is called “functional separation.” This appears to have lowed prices and created more choice and competition. What is the Liberals position on functional separation? Would a Liberal government adopt this approach?

Garneau: Steve, we are supportive of that concept. The UK is doing interesting stuff and we need to look at that carefully.

Anderson: Is that a yes?

Garneau: Yes.

Of course, functional separation has never been imposed in a country that has platform competition and it is unclear how it would be implemented or whether it makes any sense in Canada. The telephone companies are not the incumbent service providers for broadband. Cable based services were first. In virtually every geographic market, the phone companies aren’t even the market leader. So, which company would it apply to?

So, how would functional separation work? More fundamentally, how would functional separation stimulate further investment?

An article on ARS Technica yesterday highlighted “The four enemies of indie Internet TV”:

• Data caps
• Lack of a clear home theatre standard
• Mergers and acquisitions
• Priority access

The 2011 Canadian Telecom Summit, coming up in just 7 weeks (May 31-June 2), will have a session, “Tablets, TVs and smartphones, oh my! The explosion of the multi-screen universe,” looking at these issues and more.

The conference brochure can be downloaded here. Have you registered yet? Prices go up May 1. You should register today.

I wrote last week about Open Media’s misleading “pro-internet” pledge, requiring signatories to agree to control retail prices if candidates want to win the organization’s seal of approval. On Friday, Open Media released its list of people who signed up. The original list had a number of people who appeared multiple times, as well undefined candidates, such as “Moe” and “KG”. On Friday, I let Open Media know about the problems with their list. After I tweeted about the problems, Open Media apparently reviewed their database. The current version may have eliminated duplicates, but it still creates questions in my mind.

I wasn’t surprised to see a large NDP presence on the list, especially after reading the plank in the NDP’s digital platform: “We will prohibit all forms of usage-based billing (UBB) by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)”.

However, under the heading of Conservatives, Open Media lists the following candidates:

• David Pais
• gerard mckenzie
• Howard Garstad
• James Stevens
• Mark Pescador
• Patrick Hunt
• Ron Manke
• Tyler Pelletier

I thought this was an interesting level of support for Open Media, until I went to the Conservative party’s website to learn more about these candidates (only one of the candidates had a link from the Open Media website).

It turns out that most of them aren’t actually candidates for the Conservative party. As far as I can tell, seven out of the eight aren’t even running for office.

For example, according to Open Media, Ron Manke is the conservative candidate for Edmonton Centre, which likely comes as news to incumbent Laurie Hawn, who thought he was the nominee. In fact, seven out of the 8 names under Open Media’s Conservative heading don’t align with Conservative Party records of their candidates. The candidate sign-up page doesn’t appear to have mechanisms to validate entries, or guard against duplicates, similar to its form letter to the CRTC and its original petition.

It’s great to have mobilized a constituency; will Open Media be able to rise to the challenge of responsible leadership to become a credible consumer voice?

CRTC processes are not easy to follow. Navigating the CRTC website can be complex, even for those of us who have spent the past 2 decades following Canada’s regulator. The terminology can be complex. We consultants can be grateful for that. It can be helpful for our job security!

But, it can lead to frustration for many people who are trying to get a crash course in Canadian communications regulatory processes, thanks to the debate over usage sensitive internet pricing.

On Saturday evening, a Twitter discussion persisted to erupt over my use of the CRTC Monitoring Report’s estimate that there are 500 entities providing internet access in Canada (see page 137 of the CMR – [pdf, 7.1MB]). I cited the number in my March OpEd: Don’t Regulate My Internet. My correspondent could not accept that there are more than 500 ISPs operating in Canada. Apparently, as far as he knows, where he is living there are just 2. Another of my tweeps claims that her sister just outside of Ottawa can only access her cable company for internet – she is beyond the reach of the telco. I was challenged to produce a list of the 500. As regular readers know, no such list exists. I identified that challenge last December when the CRTC decided to bring all ISPs under the purview of the CCTS.

Not easy to explain in 140 character snippets.

I don’t think we should expect detailed telecommunications regulatory issues to be easy for beginners to understand; we certainly don’t expect everyone to understand navigating the income tax regulations. However, despite recent rework, our government websites are just not as accessible as they could be, in part because of silly Common Look and Feel regulations from the Treasury Board. [These regulations even cover domain names, making it forbidden for Environment Canada to promote the easily remembered “Weatheroffice.com” domain that it owns, in favour of “weatheroffice.gc.ca“.]

The CRTC has been trying to be more accessible for some of its higher profile public consultations. Look at the beta for the FCC’s new website south of the border. Does it improve access for citizen engagement?