I wanted to find out if psychologists have been doing research into on-line comments, discussions, media.

I have noticed virtual unanimity among the Twitter stream for the UBB hashtag. Dissent breads contempt and I have apparently become a lightning rod for the malicious attacks wrought by many who are on the other side of the issue with no interest in engaging in a discussion of the broader issues. But that isn’t what I am writing about today.

It is to try to stimulate the social scientists and political scientists among my more academically inclined colleagues to engage in some research on the behaviour of anonymous groups. There is an interesting piece by Geoff Livingston called The Ethics of Flash Mobs.

“I prefer to live in a society in which laws, however corruptly enforced, not mobs, decide who is guilty and how to punish them,” said Howard Rheinghold, author of Smart Mobs. “There is the public sphere in which demonstrations and boycotts are legitimate actions, and online flash mobs tipped presidential elections in Korea and Spain. But drowning out voices of dissent has no place in a democracy.”

It is an interesting research project. Political operatives will want to understand how to manipulate flash mobs for electoral support, and need to understand the level of credibility to grant to such movements.

An article in the St. Petersburg Times, Online anonymity creates a mob mentality, speaks of the rage that seems to be overtaking e-mails, chat rooms and Web postings, causing University of South Florida psychologist Jennifer Bosson to ask, “Are people that angry all the time?”

The NDP wants hearings into consumer usage based billing, according to Charlie Angus, saying “Caps for consumers must be looked at.”

I agree that consumers internet plans should be looked at. And, when they stop to think seriously about “caps,” the NDP should reconsider its policy on usage based billing. To date, it has thrown its support behind the misguided Stop the Meter campaign from Open Media. The NDP needs to carefully assess the impact of banishing tiered pricing for internet on its constituents.

Last month, Tim Wu wrote that pricing differentiation should be based solely on speeds. I challenged that view, saying that this limits choice to consumers. At the extreme, it means the lowest price plans are dial-up and any increase in speed has an associated price increase, with no differentiation allowed based on the amount of use. In Tim Wu’s view – and apparently the view of the Stop the Meter folks, all internet plans are unlimited plans.

The NDP social policy says that it believes in “protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that every citizen has access to high quality social programs.” People who want to ban tiered internet restrict the choices available to consumers. Whatever the price might be for unlimited use at a given bandwidth speed, the price would be lower for some level of use less than “unlimited.”

Not every internet user needs an unlimited plan. How is it in the interest of seniors to be restricted to a lower speed at a given price point, rather than let them make the choice to buy a higher speed, but lower volume service? Why would we restrict low income households to dial-up service, because some people think service providers should not be allowed the flexibility to offer higher speed services with usage restriction?

The NDP definitely needs to look at consumer internet services. When it reflects, I think it will realize that it has been caught on the wrong side of this issue.

Yesterday, Industry Minister Tony Clement announced that Senate passed legislation designed to protect Canadian consumers from inaccurate measurement at gas pumps and other such measurement devices.

Canadians can now rest assured that when they spend their hard-earned dollars, they are getting a fair deal. They deserve to get what they pay for—and no less. The Fairness at the Pumps Act is a strong deterrent to those who, either through malicious intent or carelessness, sell goods without accurate measurement.

It seems to me that consumers deserve similar protections when purchasing anything that can’t easily be counted. When I buy a handful of pencils, I can count them. But not everything is as easy to verify. There are rules in place that provide penalties for faulty weights on our food items, but are consumers sufficiently protected against faulty measurements?

A few years ago, I ordered what was supposed to be a 6 ounce glass of wine at The Boathouse in Muskoka. When a shot of wine was served to me, I thought that maybe I misunderstood – maybe the menu meant a 6 ounce glass with one ounce of wine. I haven’t gone back.

Bell Canada had a problem with its billing engine for internet usage which has apparently been fixed.

When we are paying for units of anything, water, electricity, gigabytes or glasses of wine, don’t we all deserve to be confident that we are getting what we pay for?

Canada will have a National Digital Strategy this spring. But will we have to wait a year for it to be funded?

In his appearance before the Parliamentary Industry Committee on Tuesday [see video on CPAC.ca], Industry Minister Tony Clement said that the comprehensive national digital strategy should be released in the Spring, about a year after the consultation was launched.

The challenge will be whether the government will be prepared to fund the implementation of that strategy. Yesterday, Finance Minister Flaherty announced that the federal budget will be announced in 3 weeks, on March 22. A quick scan of the Treasury Board’s Government Expenditure Plan [pdf, 2.1 MB] doesn’t reveal any hints that there will be new investments to fund any new programmes.

Although the Digital Strategy is being released sometime in the Spring, it won’t be before the Budget is released. As a result, will Canadians have to wait until 2012 before there is substantive funding to move forward with a meaningful implementation of plans?

In  testimony before the parliamentary industry committee yesterday, Minister Tony Clement said that access to the Internet is fast becoming a crucial part of social and economic fabric of the country.

I agree. It was 3 years ago last week that I first wrote about the need to be more inclusive, giving birth to the idea that has become a One Million Computers initiative.

Maybe Canada needs to look at targeting broadband subsidies based on income, regardless of where people live. There is a gap in the level of connectedness among lower income Canadians in urban markets as well. Maybe it is time to consider making PCs and broadband part of our social welfare system.

I asked then whether the government would be considering a broadband tax credit in its next budget.

It is budget time in Canada once again. Will the government introduce targeted programmes and incentives for low income Canadians to participate more fully (and more digitally) in this crucial part of the social and economic fabric of Canada?