The 10 days leading up to the start of Yom Kippur tonight are a time for reflection, a review of the past year.

I have taken the past week to recuperate from some surgery, which provided an opportunity to have narcotics influence the thought process. As a preamble, I wish to note that my surgeon recommended not conducting any major legal or financial transactions while under the influence. So, I hope this note of reflection doesn’t end up like the epiphanal manuscript from Jerry Maguire.

It has been 4 months since the launch of Canada’s consultation on the Digital Economy. In that time, we have seen some huge amounts of money allocated for rural broadband by the Broadband Canada program and the CRTC’s deferral account decision.

It seems to me that we have been spending a huge amount of money without first having a clear statement of our objectives. What are we trying to accomplish by spending this money, with what kind of paramenters to measure success? What is the liberalization of foreign investment rules trying to accomplish?

I’m not being facetious here. What is the one-line elevator pitch description of the objective of more than a half billion dollars (or more) that was committed to extend broadband access over the past few months?

Without a clear statement of our objective, how can we measure whether it was the most effective way to spend the money. Sure, there are regions that are now in line to get access to improved connectivity – but that doesn’t mean we got value for the money. Are we even heading in the right direction?

Clearly, it has not been to get as many Canadians on-line as possible. If that was the objective, we would be spending more money stimulating demand among the millions of Canadians that already have access to broadband, but have not yet connected.

Around one in 5 Canadian homes doesn’t subscribe to a wireline high speed broadband service that is at their front door. We know that broadband adoption rates are skewed toward higher income Canadians.

So, if our objectives for a digital Canada are geared toward improving economic advantages, shouldn’t we focus on greater digital participation among those Canadians who are already the most economically disadvantaged?

And if increasing broadband adoption is the primary objective, are our current government programmes consistent with the most effective way to achieve that goal?

There have been some commentators that have argued that Canada needs a Digital Minister – a single point of focus around the Cabinet table. I disagree: this is perhaps one implementation approach, but not the only one. I could argue as forcefully that a government that truly buys into a digital vision could (and should) have a more pervasive virtual digital leadership; digital strategies should be found within every government office.

The “how” is more of an implementation detail. I am far more concerned with the “what”. What are we trying to do? Let’s start by making that answer clear.

What is our national digital connectivity objective? Do we want the fastest speeds? Do we want the most people to have access? Do we want the most people to be connected? Do we want global leadership in certain types of content or applications development?

I would vote to focus on maximizing the number of Canadians who are connected on-line all the time. And if that is the case, then spending programs need to be measured based on how effectively they deliver on that goal, with technological neutrality.

I am less fussed with what gizmo or plumbing pipe people use, as long as it serves the purposes of enabling us to be able to leverage the capabilities, efficiencies and opportunities afforded by digital connectivity and literacy.

Nokia recently announced its focus on getting the next billion connected to the internet. It is a clear statement of a bold objective.

It is a new school year, a new season, as we prepare for the return of Parliament on Monday, let’s look forward to a clear statement of a bold digital vision.

I have never been a fan of the National Do Not Call registry or the anti-spam legislation that has been proposed.

Both sets of laws have generally struck me as legislation that increases the cost of doing legitimate business, but in practice, they have very little impact on the really bothersome calls and emails that should be the real target.

In May, I wrote about one adventure I had tracking down a rogue telemarketer.

Over the past couple weeks, I participated in another sting for a group that was promising a bundle of communications services – that just didn’t smell quite right. So I worked with the communications services provider to find out who was behind the “unknown name / number” calls in order to shut them down.

The bad actors just keep misbehaving; the easiest approach is to just ignore the call, or hang up on them – which can be quite cathartic, especially if you have older styled phones that actually make noise when you slam the receiver down.

So given these experiences, you may think that I want stronger legislation. No, I don’t.

I’m not crazy about door-to-door water heater salespeople, but there is no registry to keep pushy sales people away. I’ve learned how to say “no thanks” and close the door without pangs of guilt.

I get frustrated by idiot drivers in my subdivision who roll (or speed) through stop signs, distracted by their phones, or make-up, or coffee or kids. A honk on the horn works fine for them.

I would think that personal safety is more at risk from strange salespeople showing up on my doorstep than errant phone calls or email messages.

If a national “do not knock” registry wasn’t required, do we need legislation like the so-called Electronic Commerce Protection Act?

The 700 MHz spectrum is still filled with TV signals, but that isn’t keeping Canada’s wireless industry from starting to test the waters for what should be the auction policy.

At the BMO Capital Markets Media & Telecom Conference yesterday, Public Mobile CFO Jim Hardy said that he thinks the entire block should be set aside for new entrants. It is the first volley in what will be sure to be a hotly debated consultation over the spectrum auction policy.

A report in Cartt.ca says that Industry Minister Clement wants to “get the wheels rolling on the auction of the 700 MHz wireless spectrum.”

As the Minister told Cartt.ca editor Greg O’Brien: “You don’t have to finish all of the work to clear the bandwidth – and then start on working out the details of the auction.”

The 700 MHz band is considered to be particularly attractive for mobile use. The frequency is better at penetrating buildings and travelling farther than higher bands.

When the US auctioned off the 700 MHz band in 2008, the sale generated an average price per MHz pop of US$1.11, versus US$0.54 for the AWS band (auctioned in the US in 2006). The Canadian AWS auction in 2008 generated an eye-popping C$1.41, thanks in part to what has been considered to be a flawed auction design that enabled gaming by new entrants to drive up incumbent costs.

On August 31, the CRTC tried to get the final word on the deferral account.

As expected, Bell has filed an appeal – a review and vary application to ask the CRTC to reconsider its decision.

There are some interesting procedural points.

Bell has filed two separate appeals, each narrowly focussed. One of them looks at the majority ruling from the CRTC that insisted on selecting a specific technology (DSL); the other deals with the interest calculations on the massive balance of funds that the phone company has been holding.

The application regarding technology choice takes no issue with any of the fundamental policies that underpin the CRTC’s decision:

The Company takes no issue with the principle of least cost technology and the Commission’s determination (at paragraph 44) approving a drawdown of $306.3 million from Bell Canada’s deferral account for the expansion of broadband services to the approved 112 communities.

In terms of the DSL Technology Directive, the Company similarly takes no issue with the principle that the proposed retail and wholesale broadband service offerings to be made available in the approved communities must be comparable to those offered in urban areas. The point of disagreement here is solely with the Commission’s technology choice, rather than these service specifications.

As we asked in our September 1 write-up of the decisions, why wasn’t Bell given the same discretion of using its own choice of technologies, as long as it delivered a specified service within quality and pricing parameters?

The procedural aspects are interesting, both in splitting the two issues (technology choice and interest calculations) and in the manner in which the technology application is filed, as both an R&V as well as a new application. It is a new application because “it relies upon facts or circumstances which are different from those relied upon by the majority in issuing the DSL Technology Directive.”

But, Bell says that the DSL Technology Directive is also tainted by “doubt as to the correctness of the Commission’s decision to direct a DSL technology-based solution rather than provide the Companies with the flexibility to choose the technology that meets the Commission’s minimum service offering comparability characteristics.” 

The deferral account has become the song that never ends. With this latest twist, the affected communities will experience more delays in having broadband service deployed.

At some point, will the CRTC recognize that this program just didn’t work, despite all of the best intentions?

Maybe the best solution all around is to refund all of the money to the rate payers and let the competitive broadband marketplace fill in the rest. As I wrote last week, it is time to stimulate demand.

This evening marks the start of Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish calendar year 5771. Our offices will be closed for the rest of the week.

Rosh Hashana observance is different from the partying that characterizes each December 31. Instead, we listen to the stentorian blast of the shofar [ram’s horn] heralding a time of introspection, examining the past year and looking forward to a year of improvement ahead.

It is my intent for this blog to challenge you, my readers, to examine issues from different perspectives.

In doing so, if I have insulted or hurt through my words, I am sorry; allow me to express my regret.

May the year ahead be filled with good health and peace. I hope I can continue to provide points of view and critiques that inspire all of us to bring forward a bright, digital future.