A tweet from an OECD analyst seemed to sum it up:

Just heard that Canada will have 100 mbit/s available to 80% of households by 2014 using DOCSIS 3.0. Impressive.

It is about time the news made it over the ocean. More than a year ago, we released our report on Canada’s broadband infrastructure that spoke about the “near universal adoption of DOCSIS 3.0 technology by cable companies.”

It seems to take a while for the OECD to report on Canadian advances in connectivity. 

A couple weeks ago, I asked:

Anyone look at #OECD #broadband data (behind the charts) and wonder who is providing old inputs for Canada? Why? http://bit.ly/fPIqNm

The OECD’s household broadband data used Canada’s 2007 figures to compare our broadband penetration rates to 2009 figures from other countries. So, it isn’t really the case that Canada was slipping in the rankings (as some critics charged), it was that other countries caught up to our out-of-date standings.

At risk of being called a “lobbyist“, I have to ask, why aren’t journalists taking the time to ask why the OECD isn’t using current information?

Better data is available. Who is holding back?

For the OECD data released yesterday, why are there still so many distortions in the Canadian information?

Glaring errors and ommissions abound.

For example, despite Bell Aliant reporting of its continuing FibreOP fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) investments, the OECD still thinks that Canada has no FTTH to report.

Interestingly, the OECD gets its data from the governments of its member countries, except in the case of Canada and the United States, for which the OECD creates its own estimates “based on data reported by publicly listed companies.” What does that mean for data from SaskTel, Eastlink and subscribers to hundreds of private internet service providers?

Canada’s wireless broadband [xls, 44 KB] reporting is marked as incomplete by the OECD.  So, despite Canada having access to among the world’s best mobile broadband networks, we get a zero for mobile broadband.

When we have federal cabinet ministers citing these statistics in policy announcements, it seems that we should have a much better effort to feed the OECD with better quality data.

The CRTC will be ruling this week on an interesting file that started a year ago when Abovenet tried to register as a reseller. Telecom Notice of Consultation 2010-165 asked for public comments:

The Commission calls for comments on whether by lighting dark fibre leased from a third party and providing the lit fibre to third parties for compensation, a service provider is “operating” a “transmission facility” and is a “telecommunications common carrier” as defined in the Act.

Abovenet is a US company – a successor to Metromedia Fiber Network. Its Canadian subsidiary was planning to lease dark fibre from TELUS and attach its electronics. TELUS claimed that this would make Abovenet a carrier.

Under Canadian ownership rules for carriers, this would be a problem. The issue of operating as a carrier versus a reseller also determines the application of a variety of regulatory obligations.

It is an interesting file.

To what extent would this have largely been rendered moot if Canada had acted more quickly to liberalize its rules on foreign direct investment in telecommunications?

The first announcement for The 2011 Canadian Telecom Summit went out earlier this week – if you didn’t receive an email, you can get on the list here. Or check to make sure that emails from “gstconferences.com” are able to get through your spam filters.

The conference will be taking place May 31 – June 2 in Toronto. Registrations have already started to come in.

Mark the dates in your calendar and plan to attend. Early bird rates are in effect until the end of February.

In an unusual move, the CRTC issued an interim decision at the end of its oral hearing that was reviewing the CCTS.

The office of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services was established 3 years ago and one of the key issues in the current review process was whether membership would continue to be mandatory and if so, for what period of time.

Until yesterday, telecommunications service providers (TSPs), including carriers, resellers, ISPs, mobile service providers, etc. with annual Canadian TSP revenues greater than $10M were required to be members. There was a planned expiration of that order: December 20, 2010.

The CRTC will not be issuing its formal decision until January which left a possible gap in the ability for the CCTS to operate with any level of certainty. So, at the conclusion of the oral proceeding yesterday, the CRTC asked for a 15 minute adjournment and it returned with a statement:

we are of the view that all residential and small business consumers that obtain forborne telecom services in Canada, including those that receive services from TSPs that do not have more than $10 million in revenues, should benefit from the services provided by the CCTS.

In the precedent setting ruling from the bench, the Commission decided that all TSPs (offering services within the scope of the CCTS’s mandate) are to be members of the agency for a period of 5 years.

The 5 year period was determined to be appropriate “to ensure sufficient certainty for the effective planning and operation of the Agency.”

The ruling is effective as of December 20th for current members of the CCTS and will apply to current non-member TSPs at a date that will be specified in the Commission’s decision, expected to be issued in January 2011.

In its Monitoring Report, the CRTC has estimated that there are about 500 entities delivering internet access services; most ISPs are not members of the CCTS.

Will they all join? I doubt it.

Will all of the smaller service providers really need to join in order to provide consumers with a uniform level of protection? The regulatory requirement to join may be sufficient to push service providers to consider consumer complaints with appropriate levels of seriousness.

Industry Canada has released its consultation paper seeking comments on the “Policy and Technical Framework for the 700 MHz Band and Aspects Related to Commercial Mobile Spectrum” [pdf, 309 KB].

Long title.

Maybe that is one of the reasons we have 3 months to prepare our comments in response to a number of issues under consideration by the Department.

The consultation paper is seeking input on a number of areas related to promoting competition, including a discussion on possible “Open Access” requirements, set asides, rural broadband initiatives among other ideas.

Comments are due February 28, 2011 with replies to those comments due by March 30.