Governments can’t run networks.

It seems that our collective memories are short.

There was a time that most of the world’s telephone networks were agencies of the government: PTTs – Posts, Telephone and Telegraph departments. Those agencies were real life examples of how effectively – actually, how ineffectively – communications services could be delivered by governments. Indeed, the migration to mobile, with high adoption rates outside of North America, was stimulated in part by citizens revolting against pathetic landline networks that were built and operated by their government-run telcos.

The Digital Economy consultation provided a predictable opportunity for some closet Marxists to put away their anti-corporate protest posters and call for a return to nationalized communications networks. [The submissions can be found here]

The submissions are more subtle – perhaps learning from the recent G20 that the public has trouble sympathizing with black-hoods rampaging through the streets – but the message from these folks is that big businesses are bad; only governments can make the necessary investments to do right.

WRONG!

Government may be have been great at initial investments – the oversized cheques create photo ops that are important for re-election – but one look at our roads and electric grid will hopefully remind you that the public sector does a lousy job at ongoing maintenance, repair, upgrading and continuing capital planning. It is partly because government accounting doesn’t distinguish between capital and operating expense – a buck is a buck – and partly because routine maintenance can be deferred in favour of emergency snow removal or sewer repairs.

And let’s not forget the multi-zillion dollar deficits that aren’t really conducive to massive capital investments in communications infrastructure and operations. All those in favour of tax increases, please board the next flight to Greece.

Anticipating a rush to find counter-examples, let me offer up Sasktel – Canada’s last provincially owned crown communications company. It is, sans doute, a leading performer in the sector. Sasktel offers a quintuple play: landline and wireless voice, internet, TV and premises security. It has always led in fibre optic deployment in its backbone and it offers broadband internet to every home and business in the province.

Which begs the question: why is this an exception? Why has Sasktel been able to succeed where so many others have failed? Academics – can we get some research on this?

That solitary counter-example isn’t sufficient to change the overwhelming pattern of failure of governments to run public works effectively. The power blackout in Toronto last week provides an exhibit of how public works most often just don’t work for the public. 

Those submissions that call for government investment in community networks are asking for our tax dollars to be bet on the spin of a roulette wheel. Those are lousy odds.

As if to follow up on my blog posting yesterday, today Allot Communications released a special Mobile Report about the impact of the World Cup on network traffic.

Allot says that mobile devices did not replace big screen televisions during the World Cup, but created a new category where the two operated alongside each other – the small screen enhancing the viewing on the big screen, with additional football and match-related information in real time. The mobile devices were seen providing an ability to watch replays and distribute them virally.

Among the highlights of the report,

• Lunchtime matches showed the largest bandwidth increase with 31%
• Video streaming and P2P increased moderately by 11% and 13% respectively
• Mobile data bandwidth usage experienced a 16% overall increase during post-match mornings

Traffic on YouTube was seen increasing by 32% on the mornings after matches.

In the wake of the World Cup finals driving enormous streaming video across the globe’s internet backbones, Canada is receiving the final submissions for its Digital Economy consultation.

There was a last minute extension granted that pushed the deadline to tonight at midnight. As an aside, there was a bit of ambiguity on what exactly was meant by “The deadline for ideas and submissions on Canada’s digital economy strategy has been extended until midnight, Tuesday, July 13.” After all, with all of the time zones we have in Canada, the time midnight varies. For that matter, the time “midnight” occurs twice each day: at 00:00 and at 24:00. Which was meant? Even the countdown timer was confused, showing 2 days remaining all day on both Sunday and Monday. It seemed humourous that a digital strategy consultation specified an imprecise analog time, rather than a universally understood specific digital time.

But I digress.

The last minute extension meant that some submissions are available early. I had a chance to skim through some, including a few that indicate that Canada’s infrastructure is doing pretty well; our adoption needs attention.

Which brings me back to the World Cup. Just as we Canadians experienced for the Vancouver Olympics this past winter, the World Cup drove spectacular levels of broadband usage on a global scale. Some of the more impressive statistics from Rogers were: More than 75,000 fans signed up to Rogers On Demand Online (RODO) to be able to watch matches streamed live; through last Friday, almost 225,000 hours of FIFA action was watched on RODO; more than 10% of the matches viewed were in a language other than English; nearly 10,000 fans downloaded a Rogers On Demand Mobile app, letting them watch live on their smartphones. According to an article in the National Post this past weekend, when Sidney Crosby scored the goal that earned Canada’s gold medal in hockey, “a torrent of texts, streaming video and other data requests” flooded Bell’s mobile network.

Use of technology increases when people see the value of (or at least they apply a value to) the technical capability. The assumption is that we are helping educate a new group of users among those who watched the Olympics on-line or streamed World Cup action to their computer or smart phone.

Step by step, event by event, we are increasing Canada’s digital literacy. Increasing broadband adoption will require increased engagement by people who haven’t been able to find enough value to justify the effort and cost of going on-line – up until now.

Last week, I wrote about my satellite broadband service powering my work at the cottage.

I have a few other options where I am located, thanks to my cottage being located within reach of mobile broadband networks delivering HSPA+.

Using 3 different devices, I thought I would show Speedtest results from the mobile networks data access (my Barrett Xplore Speedtest results can be seen at the bottom of this post).

A Nokia data stick on the Rogers network connects easily and has its own connection software, that includes a monitor of how much data has been used in a session – allowing users to easily keep an eye on their usage and manage their connection accordingly.

I also connected my computer to my Blackberry, using the IP modem option on Blackberry’s Desktop Manager. Although it uses the same network, the speeds are slower, possibly due to limitations imposed by my operating system on the computer. Still, the connection is more than adequate for video and audio.

And finally, I tethered a Nokia 3G phone on the Bell network, again potentially limited by the computer’s operating system speeds for the USB port.

The mobile devices offer additional options for broadband connectivity, each with their own benefits and compromises. The Nokia phone software warned me about an operating system issue and recommended a ‘Hotfix’ to improve the connection. This made me wonder about user measurements of broadband speeds in general – how many tests produce results that show connections that are slower than the network capabilities due to limitation in the end-user equipment?

For many, the lower monthly usage thresholds generally associated with mobile broadband aren’t a material issue; others, with families sharing a single connection, may need the higher download speeds and higher monthly activity levels usually permitted by fixed connections.

Here is how my satellite connection measured up:

Your comments are encouraged.

Most of the reports on yesterday’s Federal Court of Appeal decision have talked about how the court decided that ISP do not have the burdens of being regulated under the Broadcast Act,  although the caveat in Paragraph 59 of the Decision says:

that this conclusion is based on the content-neutral role of ISPs and would have to be reassessed if this role should change

I wonder if there is a corollary. I wonder if this Court decision creates an incentive for companies that are currently regulated as BDUs to rearrange themselves to look more like ISPs. There are a number of IPTV BDUs that are already delivering their service over internet technology. At what point does a remote control become a keyboard, a set-top box become a PC (many are already running Microsoft software), a screen is a screen, regardless of size or resolution.

Why is my ISP, providing access to the linear programming of CPAC.ca different from my cable company delivering that same content on Channel 97?

The next question of course is what are the characteristics that make a streaming video website different from a broadcaster? Many broadcasters deliver their signals directly to BDUs using fibre – no transmitter towers, no spectrum?

The corollaries and potential extensions to the Federal Court of Appeal decision could make the best argument for the need for Parliament to revisit the Broadcast Act in today’s IP world.

The future of financial support for Canadian content development were at stake when the CRTC asked the Court to examine the issue. The implications of the ruling could cause the current funding mechanisms to collapse even faster.