The Pew Internet and American Life Project provides wonderful insights into trends in broadband adoption and attitudes for our neighbours south of the border.

The 2010 Report [pdf, 2.2MB] was released last week and the headline from Engadget observed that “Pew study finds majority of Americans don’t want government to prioritize affordable broadband.”

we have to imagine researchers might have seen this coming. Those with broadband don’t need it, those without it don’t want it.

It is a telling statistic – that should concern those who are looking to build enthusiasm for national or regional digital strategies.

The US is seeing a drop-off in adoption rates now that residential broadband penetration has reached two-thirds of American adults. But policy makers need to understand what is causing the lack of support for increasing adoption to the remaining third of the population.

Digital literacy remains a concern.

A fifth of American adults (21%) do not use the internet. Many non-users think online content is not relevant to their lives and they are not confident they could use computers and navigate the web on their own.

What information can be extrapolated for Canada? Is broadband access too much of a focus, when education and skills training appear to be holding back even more users?

Can we explore similar research being conducted in Canada?

Have you noticed that computers never seem to work as fast as they do the first day you take them out of the box?

Want to fix that?

Working from my northern office, I have gained an appreciation for the challenges faced by small businesses that are hours away from the hundreds of specialty computer stores that we take for granted in the cities. Within a few minutes from my office in the city, I can visit a number of shops that can sell every accessory or replacement part for my computers – from disk drives, to memory, monitors or media – and ‘my guy’ is always willing to take a quick look when a problem arises.

Over the weekend, Muskoka celebrated the grand opening of the first Staples store to come to Bracebridge , bringing office supplies and business services (at city price levels) to cottage country.

I also discovered an application that seems to have succeeded in finding system problems and restoring the cottage computers to faster speeds. One of our computers had just started generating Windows infamous blue screens of death thanks to a hiccup in the video driver.

System Mechanic has the machines singing again. If you’re having problems, let me suggest that you give it a try.

Much has been written about the Google – Verizon joint policy proposal for reasonable internet traffic management practices [release from Google here, Legislative Framework Proposal here], which was really a continuation of the work identified in January in their joint letter to the FCC.

I observed that the companies appear to recognize that American consumers and the US industry are disadvantaged by not having a non-discrimination provision set out for FCC enforcement. As I have pointed out before, the US lacks an equivalent to Canada’s Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act.

Google’s position has evolved over the past two years, as it indicates in its release of the joint proposal:

we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework.

I looked at Google’s position in December 2008, reflecting on Google’s clarification of its evolving position.

Google had set out a position as part of the Open Internet Coalition (OIC) [comments – doc and final argument – pdf] in the CRTC’s proceeding that led to its landmark internet traffic management policy. Google’s thinking on the handling of specific types of traffic management practices is an obvious evolution.

Last year, the OIC said “the Commission should require that any application specific ITMP undergo an ex ante review of the practice against our proposed test.”

Now, Google is acknowledging that certain classes of traffic can reasonably be managed differently

Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice … to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency…

Further, it no longer calls for prior regulatory approval, instead calling for enforcement on a case-by-case basis.

In Google’s New Media submission nearly two years ago, the company referred to Canadians’ leadership in adoption of a number of internet applications (such as social networking). Has the CRTC’s global leadership in dealing with net neutrality helped influence the direction of an industry consensus for US regulatory policy? At the time, Google’s submission attracted attention from its Californistic reference to keeping the internet “awesome”.

The more significant quote in that same paragraph may have actually been the second sentence: “The Commission should resist the temptation to try to fix what is not broken.”

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.