Sparked by OpenMedia.ca, Vancouver city council yesterday called on the CRTC to reverse itself on usage sensitive billing for internet service. This is the same city that wanted to tax telecom companies on a revenue sensitive basis in order to access city streets.

And at this same meeting, the council voted on parking meter rates. I guess the city of Vancouver has different views on usage sensitive billing based on whether it is charging or being charged.

You can watch the video of the meeting here. You will see some fascinating misinformation: that the city is confused about some companies having bid and been granted a monopoly [really?] and the city was told that small ISPs have no other way to reach customers other than through one of these ordained monopolies.

One of the council members argued that Canada provides flat-rate mail service across country; why should internet be different? Maybe Vancouver is different. I don’t have access to flat rate mail service where I live. I pay per packet. In fact, I pay a different rate based on whether the postal packet is going to Canada or the US or overseas. Does Vancouver really have flat monthly rate unlimited postage? That would drive economic development. It would be a shipper’s dream!

Coverage in the Vancouver Sun here. As one city observer tweeted:

Homelessness, property taxes, Olympic Village condos. Nope, Vision Vancouver wants to debate federal CRTC internet billing policy instead

Yesterday’s blog post has attracted attention; I hope it helps stimulate Canada’s digital quotient. I firmly believe that Canada’s social safety net should include access to a connected computer for every household with school-aged children.

Although one of the comments speaks about alternate form factors, let’s start with an agreement on the objective.

As we wind down in anticipation of the upcoming holidays, my updates will be somewhat intermittent until after the start of the new year. Best wishes to all for meaningful time with your families and friends. May the new year be filled with health, happiness, peace and prosperity.

I’d like to update Hoover’s 1928 promise of prosperity: We need a connected computer for every home.

Will activists join me in calling for universal access to computers? I have been sitting on a blog posting for about a month now. As we approach the end of the year, I think this makes for a suitable set of messages.

The Globe and Mail’s feature last month on “Disconnected: Canada’s digital divide” helped to keep Canadians interested in the development of a national digital strategy. The on-line version was re-titled as “Rural Canada loses as politics and business fail to get broadband down the last mile.” That title is inaccurate and the article itself was confusing.

An example:

By some estimates, about 700,000 homes in Canada lack broadband Internet access, and many Canadians who do connect to the Internet do so at speeds slower than 1.5 megabits per second – barely faster than dial-up, which can take an hour to download an average music album.

How is 1.5 Mbps “barely faster than dial-up”?

Dial-up in rural communities is rarely able to exceed 14.4 Kbps, less than 1% the speed of the 1.5 Mbps. How is more than 100 times faster – 2 orders of magnitude – reduced to an descriptive like ‘barely faster”? A call-out box in the print version of the article compares the time to download a 700 MB video for 1.5 Mbps service versus 70 Mbps. About 20% of Canadians choose to connect to the internet using 1.5Mbps or less. How many  of us choose 70 Mbps service? It is inaccurate when the article says that 1.5 Mbps is too slow to stream videos on-line.

The article also bounces back and forth mixing present capabilities with future requirements. For example:

It’s too slow to stream videos online, and certainly far too slow for future applications such as telemedicine, where diagnoses and checkups can be done through high-definition, real-time video connections.

Actually, 1.5Mbps is sufficient to stream videos – granted not HDTV. But the article is completely off when talking about telemedicine. Virtually all consumer telemedicine applications are low bit rate telemetry. Canadians will have residential diagnostic imaging devices around the same time that my car gets powered with a Mr. Fusion machine. Comparing the current state of affordable residential broadband with future business-grade connectivity requirements is sloppy – mixing the future with the present; confusing residential and business services.

Mixing the future ambitions of other countries with Canada’s present is a frequent problem. For example, when describing the inadequacies of 1.5 Mbps, the article says:

By comparison, the U.S. government’s “National Broadband Plan” sets a target speed of “affordable” 100 megabits-per-second Internet service connecting at least 100 million homes by 2020.

Let’s take a look at this objective [pdf],  in closer detail. The US has about 120 million households, increasing by about 1 million each year. So, in 10 years, the FCC would like to see around 75% of households connected to a service that most urban Canadians and Americans have access to today.

But what is the relevance to the 700,000 rural Canadians who are the subject of the article? The “by comparison” is meaningless without talking about what the FCC envisions for the 25% of Americans not captured by the “100 Squared” ambition.

The article mentions Finland having declared broadband as a legal right, without mentioning that it is for a 1 Mbps service. If 1.5 Mbps is “barely faster than dial-up” as the article writes, then what is really implied by a Finlandian declaration of rights, as opposed to what Canadians can truly access without political grandstanding.

In the article, I am quoted saying

I think we’ve got parts of Toronto that have more people who don’t have [Internet] access than all parts of rural Canada

I am pretty sure that I would not have said that there are any parts of Toronto that don’t have internet access. As frequent readers of my blog know, I have campaigned on these pages for more attention to be spent on broadband adoption – which is the correct term for the demand side of the equation.

The web-version of the article includes an audio recording of an interview with Industry Minister Tony Clement that has an important statement not captured in the written version:

Technologies have advanced that collapse some of these borders and allow a lot of those needs to be looked after. We have to keep nurturing that and creating incentives for that to be deployed.

All of us involved in the communications industry have similar objectives: to increase the availability and adoption of advanced communications services and technologies. We may disagree on how to achieve this, but as we approach the new year, we need to keep looking forward.

I have a specific target in mind. Before we can have universal adoption of broadband, we need to look at how to get computers into every home, starting with households that have school-aged children.

With a possible election in 2011, will the agenda of any political party include a modern promise for digital prosperity: a connected computer in every home?

What is happening to women in leadership in Canadian telecom?

I was chatting with a colleague over the weekend and she pointed out shrinking numbers in the executive ranks of our major carriers. I decided to check out her perception. Looking at the composition of the corporate leadership teams of Canada’s biggest communications providers, one has to wonder if we have made enough progress with diversity development. There are a couple exceptions but there are other companies that seem to be regressing from previous advances.

Check out the executive listings:

• Bell
• Bell Aliant
• Cogeco
• MTS Allstream
• Rogers
• Sasktel
• Shaw
• TELUS
• Videotron

I count just 13 women among the 83 listed executive leaders  at these companies. An overwhelming preponderance of white males. 

The Globe and Mail had an article in October that discussed Canada’s poor record of women breaking out of “middle-management purgatory.” The story was part of a series worth reading entitled: Women in Power.

Research reported by Engineers Canada suggests that there are signs of a decline in the percentage of women pursuing engineering compared to men. This should be a concern to all of us in the industry.

Are there factors that inhibit increased representation by women in our schools?

Are we doing enough to ensure that the industry benefits from the rich diversity that defines Canada’s cultural mosaic? Why would companies recruit from a restricted talent pool? Is there is sufficient diversity in the secondary school programs that lead to technology fields?

As we look to drive increase digital literacy in Canada, we need to be sure that all Canadians are actively engaged to contribute to our digital future.

The CRTC determined that lighting dark fibre does not make you a carrier.

It was the proceeding that I referred to in Monday’s post. The decision is consistent with determinations from the late 90’s [such as here and here]. In effect, the CRTC decided that the optical equipment at each end of the fibre isn’t a “transmission facility” under the Telecom Act and further, a service provider that attaches the optical equipment is not operating a transmission facility; they are operating “exempt transmission apparatus” (ETA).

In the Commission’s view, a service provider that attaches ETA equipment to leased dark fibre operates the ETA equipment, not a transmission facility. Indeed, the Commission notes that several parties submitted that the carrier that owns the leased dark fibre retains operational responsibility of the fibre to the extent that it remains responsible for access to, and the maintenance, repair, and replacement of, the fibre.

So this raises an interesting question: what if the owner of the dark fibre isn’t a carrier? At what point does fibre get transformed from being a construction material (or a deformed drinking glass) into a transmission facility? Is the issue really the operation of the medium or the devices doing the radiating and receiving?

Can a construction company plant fibre in the ground and provide maintenance services without ever becoming a carrier? Can there be a fibre facility without any associated telecommunications carrier? Would it still make a sound?

The net effect is that the CRTC has clarified that there are very few restrictions remaining for non-Canadian service providers: purchasing spectrum; and, acquiring phone numbers as a CLEC.

As I suggested on Monday, this decision may have been moot had the decision on foreign direct investment not been delayed.