Why do so many hate their communications service providers?

The feeling comes to the fore whenever a comparative report shows that we have the world’s priciest this or the world’s lowest that. Playing to a popular view, academics and analysts alike fail to look at the data to see if it passes reasonableness tests (what I like to call the smell test).

The latest entry to attract attention is a study [pdf, 130KB] from New America Foundation. Using a sample size of one (a single calling plan from Rogers), the study says that Canadians suffer from paying the highest mobile phone rates in the world. Had anyone looked at the footnotes, they would readily see that the Canadian pricing appears to have been overstated – doubled, in fact: the sampled 250 minute plan includes a ‘double minutes option’, among other call volume options (such as My5 Canada-wide, Unlimited Rogers calling, etc. That means that at worst case, a customer would get 500 minutes for the CAD$40 price, not the base 250 that apparently was used by the study.

I won’t comment on where the corrected amount would place Canada in the rankings, because I am left with no confidence that the other countries were correctly sampled either.

Why didn’t any of the smart people who tweeted the links to New America Foundation pick up on this pretty obvious error?

We see a new campaign from Mobilicity that is looking to capitalize on the negative feelings that so many Canadians have for their service provider. Mobilicity has invited Canadians to share their “mobile bill horror story” with a contest called FMyBill.

So why do so many Canadians hate their wireless service providers? And our internet companies. And our phone and cable companies.

The service providers have worked hard to develop bundles to entice customers to get everything from one company. Many Canadians have chosen to get multiple products from their service providers – that would usually be seen as a vote of confidence in the relationship.

So, why do we love to hate them so much?

The past few days have seen some activity to advance Canada’s national innovation agenda.

Action is overdue.

On Wednesday, a concise report was issued by the Coalition for Action on Innovation in Canada, co-chaired by former Industry Minister John Manley and GlaxoSmithKline CEO Paul Lucas, setting out 10 recommendations “to remove the barriers holding Canada back from taking its rightful place as a leader on the world innovation stage.”

The “Ten Steps Toward a More Innovative Canada” are:

1. Reform tax support for research and development;
2. Expand the pool of risk capital;
3. Adopt the world’s strongest intellectual property regime;
4. Strengthen business-academic links;
5. Tap private-sector expertise when spending public money;
6. Speed adoption of innovative products and services;
7. Launch a National Learning and Innovation Initiative;
8. Seek out the best and brightest;
9. Nurture and strengthen innovation clusters; and,
10. Ensure ongoing advocacy for innovation.

Yesterday, the government announced the creation of a Research and Development Expert Panel chaired by Tom Jenkins of Open Text.

The panel will conduct a comprehensive review of all existing federal support for businessR&D to see how this support could be enhanced to make sure federal investments are effective and delivering maximum results for Canadians.

With strong representation on the panel from academia, the panel may be suited to address a number of points emerging from the Manley / Lucas report. It is to report back to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) in one year with its recommendations “to enhance Canadian business innovation.”

In the meantime, our trading partners aren’t standing still. The EU has an initiative called Innovation Union,

It aims to improve conditions and access to finance for research and innovation in Europe, to ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create growth and jobs.

European Voice observed that the EU is experiencing the same innovation gap that concerns us in Canada. The Innovation Union initiative includes over 30 action points.

We’ll want to watch the process undertaken by the R&D Expert Panel to gather advice from individual Canadians, entrepreneurs and business leaders. The report from the Coalition for Action on Innovation in Canada is a good start to the discussion.

The name of the coalition says it: Canada needs to move quickly from talk to action on innovation.

Could any of us not be captivated by the images streaming to us from coverage of the rescue of 33 miners from the Chilean mine collapse?

From Tuesday night, I was flipping almost continuously between the two major Canadian news networks, the BBC and CNN coverage. My remote control usually gets that kind of exercise for New Years’ Day Bowl games.

Prime Minister Harper issued a statement yesterday that had an important connection for me.

Canadians can be proud that Canadian companies participated in the rescue efforts by drilling two backup rescue shafts as well as providing airlift, drilling expertise, generators, temporary housing modules and initial on-site satellite communications.

Initial on-site satellite communications were provided by Canadians.

All of the network coverage was via satellite communications. For low population density, no other technology provides the kind of capacity and coverage of satellite communications.

It is a technology that is part of the solution for ubiquitous communications. It is an area that needs further investment in research and development to ensure that all Canadians will continue to have access to enhanced broadband services.

We’re coming up on the CRTC’s universal broadband service proceeding.

They don’t call it that. Instead, the formal name is: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43-3, Obligation to Serve and Other Matters, which is a rephrasing of the original Proceeding to review access to basic telecommunications services and other matters.

Of course, no one understands those terms, which may be why the public consultation only attracted 14 comments and the response to the online consultation appears thin [English here, French here]. Did enough people understand what was being asked?

So last Friday, before we packed up for the long weekend, we received a letter from the CRTC clarifying the upcoming hearings and focussing the discussion. People have until November 12 to file a brief with the CRTC, up to 15 pages which includes an executive summary of up to 5 pages. The CRTC has asked that comments be structured to respond to the following questions.

Reassessing the obligation to serve (O2S) and the basic service objective (BSO):

1. In which markets (i.e. forborne, non-forborne) should the O2S and the BSO apply, if at all?
2. Should only the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) be subject to the O2S and the BSO where the measures are maintained?
3. Can wireless voice service satisfy the O2S and the BSO?

Determining the role of the Commission with respect to high-speed Internet access:

1. Should the Commission establish a target consisting of technical specifications for access to high-speed Internet service? If so, what should those technical specifications include (e.g. targets for upload/download speeds) and in what time frame should the target be achieved?
2. Should the Commission mandate the provision of access to such a service in areas where it is not provided?
3. Should the Commission establish a fund to enable Canadians to access high-speed Internet service in areas where it is not provided?

Reassessing the local service subsidy regime:

1. Should the Commission modify the local service subsidy regime? If so, how?
2. Should the Commission review costs and/or high-cost serving area definitions used in the calculation of subsidy amounts?

Re-examination of local competition in the territories of the small ILECs:

1. Should local competition continue to be introduced in small ILEC markets? If so, what should the terms and conditions be?
2. Given your position on O2S, BSO, and local subsidy, should the small ILECs be subject to any special considerations? If so, what should those considerations be?

What is the “O2S” and “BSO”?

Will enough people understand the economic implications in a non-monopoly, unregulated rate of return environment? Will the media help sort out the issues for the public?

Should the CRTC administer a fund to manage a subsidy program that has the majority of Canadians pay extra each month for some of our communications services so that others can get their services subsidized?

Canada’s 3 major carriers will introduce Windows Phone 7 (“WP7”) on November 8, the same date as AT&T south of the border.

We understand tht Microsoft plans to work even more closely with TELUS than with Bell or Rogers. TELUS powers its Optik TV service with Microsoft’s Mediaroom set-top box and the two companies have launched innovations together, such as the announcement in August about using XBox 360 as the Optik TV PVR.

TELUS plans to launch WP7 with 2 devices, the HTC 7 Surround and the LG Optimus 7. Bell will have the LG Optimus Quantum; Rogers is launching with the Samsung Focus.

Microsoft has imposed minimum hardware specs on each of its manufacturers, so differentiation will come from the add-ons: better cameras, sound, slide-out keyboards, etc. See Engadget for a preliminary review of the OS on a Samsung platform.

Windows Phone 7 will add a new choice for Christmas shoppers.

Will WP7 be able to restore lustre to Microsoft in the mobile space?

Is success in the mobile device space a significant factor in winning the hearts and minds of consumers for their home entertainment, their tablets and computing?

Check out the Globe and Mail’s coverage of the WP7 launch.

WP7 will include an update capability to keep the operating system fresh. One of the key capabilities that is missing from the current version is ‘cut and paste’ editting. Microsoft promises to have that available in early 2011 and all phones will be able to get that update among others.

I like the first two ads that have appeared, but I was always partial to Donovan and it is great to see new life being given to his song from 1966: Season of the Witch.