In his June 7 remarks to open The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit, Industry Minister Tony Clement launched a consultation process to examine options for liberalizing foreign direct investment in the telecommunications sector.

The received comments are now posted on Industry Canada’s website and make for interesting reading. Some of the submissions show some strategic gaming, with parties more concerned about doing damage unto competitors, rather than simply being concerned about their own direct benefit.

There are a bunch of submissions categorized as petitions, with emails that were generated by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. CEP had its own paper that led with an interesting point that made me smile:

Although well-publicized research by the OECD has fostered the view that Canadian mobile telephone rates are substantially more expensive than in other countries, what is less well-known is the fact that the study’s serious methodological flaws led to flawed conclusions.

CEP undertook new research to correct the OECD’s study’s flaws, and found that based on Canadians’ actual wireless usage, only 4 of 28 OECD countries have mobile prices that are lower than Canada’s.

They didn’t need new research – we found the same thing in our report last year “Lagging or Leading.” I’m not sure we would agree with the conclusions that are drawn by CEP relative to that study, but it is gratifying to see their support. [CEP rejected the 3 options set out by Industry Canada and concluded that no changes are required].

The body of the CEP filing opens with a history of telecom ownership in Canada, examining the phenomenon of the provincial crown corporations. The document and its global comparisons are worthwhile reading.

Too often, it is easy for us to focus on the submissions from the big carriers and the trade press has also talked about submissions from the new wireless entrants. But we need to remember that this was a public process – not just a canvassing of the telecom industry.

The status quo is not a viable option, and CEP might have carried more political weight had it sided with the CRTC’s proposal: the 49% solution set out as option 1.  But be sure to take the time to read CEP’s paper for an eloquent, fact-based set of arguments from an organization representing 120,000 Canadian workers.

In a week that should have seen RIM celebrating the launch of its new touch-screen Torch model, the company’s shares have been tumbling due to the threat of service disconnection in a number of Persian Gulf and Asian states.

The United Arab Emirates joined India, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in demanding back door access to monitor what users are doing on their Blackberries. Indonesia is reported to be joining the RIM-bashing party.

With 40% of RIM’s revenues now coming from outside North America, RIM has to overcome these challenges.

Security is one of the core corporate attractions of the Blackberry; complying with the eavesdropping requirements of a handful of countries could result in compromises for all existing users, including users from government agencies.

Although the Canadian government is said to be defending RIM’s interests, the US State Department has been getting more ink for its involvement in the discussions with foreign governments.

Still, we need to keep in mind the conflicted interests of North American governments in electronic eavesdropping for police and national security purposes.

The US has CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) requirements; Canada has existing Lawful Access requirements and it has been trying to update these laws (but bills keep dying on the expiration of sessions of Parliament).

How different are the lawful access requirements of other countries? How will RIM navigate its way through these challenges, while maintaining the trust of its core corporate clients?

It appears that some finesse will be required by the US and Canadian governments in defending RIM’s core principles.

Last week, Rogers announced the launch of its Chatr brand, aimed at the lower price end of the market.

Yesterday, there were two announcements from TELUS that point to the other end of the spectrum:

• Dual Cell mobile data to offer speeds of up to 42Mbps; and
• a Content Delivery Network partnership agreement with Edgecast.

These announcements seem to point to TELUS increasing the state of competition at the high end of the telecommunications market, with advanced services for mobile and internet hosting.

As I mentioned to Network World, when asked to comment on the Dual Cell announcement:

increasing [market] share doesn’t always mean dropping your prices; investment may allow you to increase your average revenue per user

A healthy competitive marketplace can be characterized by vibrant competition among various service providers, including investment in innovative new products and technologies. It is more than just price.

Yesterday, the CRTC published its 2010 Communications Monitoring Report [pdf 7MB], the latest compendium of the state of the industry, as it stood at the end of the year 2009.

In an interview, I observed to Network World Canada that the report shows that 75% of Canadians now enjoy residential internet service; two thirds of Canadians subscribe to broadband. But the CRTC’s report also shows that 95% of Canadians have access to at least one terrestrial broadband service supplier; 96% have access to a mobile broadband service and virtually everyone can access broadband when satellite-based service is included.

Yet one in three Canadians has not signed up for broadband.

Why?

What’s holding them back? That to me is a far more important question for the government and policy makers than trying to figure out how to reach the three or four per cent that don’t have a wireline broadband choice.

Why aren’t we focusing on those folks?

I continued by wondering if there are too many households that don’t have computers. I suggested that perhaps there should be a program to encourage computer ownership, especially where there are school-aged children in the household.

That’s a digital divide that isn’t a rural and remote problem..

For almost a full month, I have been operating without a wireline internet connection, and the sky hasn’t fallen.

My son had 3 graduate student friends staying with us and you can bet that they were exercising the satellite broadband that has been powering our main internet connection.

The other connection that we have used has been mobile internet, using a USB stick.

It is somewhat strange that the CRTC has asked for comments from people as to whether wireless internet is a substitute for wireline – or for that matter, why is the CRTC asking if mobile telephony is a substitute, when its own communications industry monitoring report found that 8% of households were wireless only as of a year and a half ago.

What, then, is the purpose of the CRTC asking for consumers to answer these questions:

3. Do you think that cellphone service can be a substitute for traditional home phone landline service? Explain why or why not.

4. Do you think that wireless services (e.g. Wi-Fi, 3G networks or satellite) can be substitutes for landline services to connect to the Internet? Explain why or why not.