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.

I have been an advocate for satellite broadband service as a solution for providing broadband in parts of Canada that cannot be served economically by wireline or terrestrial wireless technologies.

This summer, I have put my faith in satellite technology to power my connectivity from my office in Muskoka. Last week, I had broadband service installed by Barrett Xplore and it is working well, delivering all of the capabilities I need to run my consulting practice.

Now, there are some who have suggested that

anyone who thinks that satellite is an effective alternative should be required to use it. And then we’d see just how effective it is as an alternative.

I have been using it – and satellite is an effective alternative. New high-throughput satellites are being launched in 2011 and 2012.

Let me flip around the statement: anyone who thinks that satellite isn’t an effective solution should be required to try it. If my tax dollars are going to be used to subsidize broadband, I’d like to see that we are looking at cost effective solutions. There are a lot of households that cannot be reached any other way without obscene levels of public subsidy.

Let’s be sure Canada explores other innovative options to bridge the rural and remote digital divide – and Barrett Xplore is providing just that.

Often, I have seen overly simplistic perspectives on the levels of service that should be demanded of internet service providers. I’d like to start a discussion on a higher plane. Comments will appear below.

There appear to be a number of people who belive that their internet access should function more like a private line as contrasted with a shared resource. Let’s be clear – $45 per month does not pay for an internet access service that delivers 10 Mbps continuously for all 24 hours in a day.

On the other hand, it seems to me that internet service providers need to be clear in letting consumers know what kind of performance criteria are being used to engineer the customers’ networks.

In the old phone company days, most people simply assumed that the dial tone was always available. But the reality was that the voice network was also a shared resource; not everyone could make a call at the same time. We had various engineering standards that were monitored.

For example, during the busiest 3 months of the year, during the busiest hour of the day, 98.5% of callers were expected to receive dial tone within 3 seconds. Local and long distance circuits were engineered to a certain level of availability.

Are there similar criteria that can be developed for internet access services?