On Monday, Ontario’s Speech from the Throne set out the agenda for Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government. Interestingly, what was called the “Open Ontario Plan” did not lay out plans for an open government, for open access to digital files or records.

Ontario set out plans for expansion of post-secondary education, promising to add 20,000 university seats and creation of an on-line institute.

Ontario’s colleges and universities will also play a key role in the five-year Open Ontario Plan, starting with the addition of 20,000 students this year. The plan also targets e-learning with a new Ontario Online Institute, which will give students access to the best professors in top university programs from their home computers.

Of course, this presumes that the students have homes and computers to start with. We have seen programs such as Toonies for Tummies asking us to help disadvantaged children have access to a proper meal.

There wasn’t a lot of discussion of digital economy issues, perhaps because the province assumes that communications falls under the sole purview of the federal government. However, there are many areas of government impact that fall under provincial jurisdiction.

How can provincial governments drive broadband adoption? I was listening to a Digital Inclusion Summit conducted by the FCC yesterday. One of the best speakers was Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, who commented that the destiny of a child can be predetermined based on their zip code.

With broadband, a child’s ability to learn is not limited solely by where their school is located.

To what extent are we doing enough to look at this problem in Canada? As mentioned yesterday by HUD Secretary Donovan:

Federally-assisted housing offers a platform to reduce these barriers through local outreach and training that educates people on specific ways that technology can improve their lives, and on how to use it. Through digital literacy training to get people comfortable with technology. And through workforce development and financial literacy training so that they can get the most out of it.

The US National Broadband Plan, to be released next week, will be looking at how to bring down the cost of computers and monthly broadband service fees for low-income families who lack the opportunities to make use of digital technologies.

Broadband stimulus programs in Canada have typically been aimed at supply; isn’t it time to focus on elements that improve accessibility and demand?

As if cued by yesterday morning’s supplementary blog post about the CRTC’s review of how much maple syrup is running through the veins of Public Mobile, the Commission issued a release about its review of Mobilicity (the service provider formerly known as DAVE).

The CRTC indicated that Mobilicity also has a relatively complicated ownership structure meriting further review under Type 2 procedures (see yesterday’s post for more info about these categories) and there was a lot of supplementary information already put on the public record as an attachment to the Commission’s letter [pdf, 250KB].

For example, slightly more than 75% of the equity is coming from outside Canada, although that investor is getting less than a quarter of the votes. About half the debt is coming from vendor financing of the equipment.

While the CRTC is saying that Mobilicity “appears to comply with the legal control requirements of the Act,” it still needs to review the “control in fact” to see if there are other ways that company might be controlled by non-Canadians [recall the double negative language in the Telecom Act].

the Commission will apply the existing jurisprudence relating to determinations of control in fact, while taking into consideration that when the Government varied Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-678, it stated that the “decision to vary is specific to the facts of this case”.

How will CRTC reviews of ownership interfere with launch plans for the new entrants?

Mobile Syrup is saying that Public Mobile plans a “soft launch” next Monday. Will CRTC approvals get in the way?

Last November, the CRTC opened a file to begin the examination of the ownership and control of Public Mobile.

As we have come to know, the CRTC needs to affirm that carriers operating in Canada are in conformance with Telecom Act requirements. Under Canada’s current regime, Industry Canada’s approvals for the purpose of awarding radio licenses is not considered to be sufficient.

In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-428, the Commission established a four-type review framework to apply to ownership and control reviews.

In December, the CRTC informed Public Mobile that it had determined that its application was Type 2:

the ownership structure of Public Mobile is of a complex nature and could hold precedential value for the industry and the general public. The Commission does not consider, however, that the evidentiary record would be improved by third-party submissions.

In other words, the ownership approval is not an open-and-shut case, but we don’t need outside assistance on this one. The file has been quiet since then. The Commission has said that it will issue a formal decision and open its files for public examination upon conclusion of its review of Public Mobile’s ownership.

Public Mobile has started its teaser ads and it has been preparing some retail stores. Is the wait for CRTC approval on the critical path and will this possibly delay a service launch?

Last fall, we released a report called “Lagging or Leading” to take a fresh look at the state of broadband infrastructure in Canada [pdf, 1.0 MB]. It is a sizable piece, that assesses a number of comparative international studies and identifies many of the problems associated with comparing apples and oranges.

In Saturday’s Globe and Mail, there was an essay that seems to validate many of the messages of our report last fall. The piece was authored by noted economist, Leonard Waverman, dean of the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary. Professor Waverman does research on the growth and productivity impacts of the rollout of telecommunications and computers. He is also lead author of The Connectivity Scorecard, [we wrote about it here] which ranks countries according to a new definition of how telecom infrastructure, ‘smart’ usage and complementary skills and capital drive economic growth and productivity. The co-author of the essay was Scorecard collaborator Kalyan Dasgupta, of the London office of global expert consultancy LECG.

The essay is important reading. It observes that

Economists with extensive practical experience of telecommunications regulation have already rebutted the Berkman Center report that harshly assessed Canadian broadband performance

Still, the essay takes time to highlight difficulties with attempts to transplant measures from other countries.

The “lines per 100 persons” measure is misleading and less conceptually solid than measures based on household and business adoption rates. Indeed, both business and household adoption rates should be measured separately and in different ways.

As the essay observes, “broadband cognoscenti often look upon European regulation with admiring eyes.” Perhaps that is why they are willing to allow ideology to cloud their analysis of data.

International comparisons almost always suffer from limited data and limited comparability, particularly comparisons of prices and speeds. This is why great humility and caution are required in drawing policy conclusions from such comparative data. Regulation curtails economic freedom, which is why a very high standard of evidence is required to justify regulation.

On Tuesday June 8, Dr. Waverman will be participating on a panel at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit looking at International Perspectives on ICT Strategies. These issues are especially important given the plans by government to develop a national digital strategy.

Have you registered yet?

A week ago, a tweet was directed to me asking about download caps.

It was possibly a rhetorical question, but it may also demonstrate a lack of understanding of capacity constraints and cost drivers on wireline and mobile broadband networks.

An unlimited buffet advertised (but not necessarily offered) in other markets won’t last forever. AT&T’s CEO has already said that the company will need to “progress more toward variable pricing. Heavier consumers will pay more than lower consumers.”

In the old days of email, file transfers and news groups as the main applications on the internet, delays due to queuing of transmissions was less of a concern. Who would notice a second or two delay? Streaming content, gaming and voice are far less tolerant of these.

I wonder if we can frame the network engineering problem as having two components when we define broadband capacity: the throughput speed and the volume of traffic to be carried. Think of it in terms of a car. You can put a powerful engine into a car to make it go fast, but the size of the gas tank and how much fuel is on board determines how far you can go.

Are unlimited offers sustainable?