PricewaterhouseCoopers is officially launching a crowd source website, Canada’s Digital Compass, to solicit a wide range of answers to a number of questions.
For the first week, the site asks about Technology: What technological innovation or technology focus could earn Canada the role as global leader? That call is open until March 30, when the site will ask about Education: How could Canada foster the world’s strongest creative, engineering and business talent? And for the final week, Media Production: What new business models and approaches to content and distribution put Canada at the forefront?
PwC is issuing a call to action to engage Canadians passionate about “digital transformation” in defining Canada’s role in the digital economy. As a bridge between the decision makers in government, education and industry, this initiative will capture seed ideas and help to define some measures of success on how Canada can lead in the digital economy.
Not just ideas on innovation and focus; how do we measure success? A panel will review the submissions and distill the top 3 ideas that position Canada to lead in the digital economy.
Pricewaterhousecoopers is sponsoring the Business Centre at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit, providing meeting space and business services for delegates at the event. On Tuesday, June 8, The Canadian Telecom Summit will feature panels looking at International Perspectives on ICT Strategies and progress on the development of Canada’s National Digital strategy.
Interesting reading about broadband on the editorial pages of the major US papers this weekend.
The Sunday NY Times had an OpEd penned by Yochai Benkler, principal author of the largely ignored Berkman Center comparative study of international broadband performance [as we wrote a few weeks ago, University of Calgary’s Dean of Business observed that the study was rebutted by economists with extensive practical experience of telecommunications regulation]. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan had only one footnote that referred to the Berkman Center’s report. Out of all the work done by the Harvard researchers, the only observation that appeared to merit a reference was:
Some international comparisons suggest the number of retail broadband providers may be positively correlated with advertised download speeds, at least at the high end of the market, and with affordability.
And the FCC quickly followed up with:
Others rank the United States high in affordability of broadband, despite the fact that 96% of consumers have two or fewer choices, and suggest that consumers may not be willing to pay as much for high speeds as they are for other functionality.
Since the FCC report had only one reference to the Berkman study, the OpEd tries to cut out the middleman – selling to the public what he could not get the FCC to buy into.
after eight years of intense litigation and lobbying from telephone companies, the Federal Communications Commission gave in, deciding that competition between one telephone incumbent and one cable incumbent was enough — in essence, it rejected open access as a way to create competition.
Benkler misses the point. Open access is used outside of North America because in most countries, there is nothing close to the nearly ubiquitous intermodal competition that we have in Canada and the US. This model of “open access” won’t create the benefits of increasing competition and investment when competition already exists.
No matter how many times we hear the populist mantra of a cable and telco “monopoly,” the vast majority of North Americans already have access to choice; multiple facilities-based choices enabled over twisted pair, coax, fibre, fixed and mobile wireless, satellite. Multiple service providers offer consumers choices over many of these facilities.
A recent paper by Catherine Middleton, Canada Research Chair – Communication Technologies in the Information Society at Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, observes that Canada has about 500 internet service providers, less than 10% of which are incumbents. The paper discusses the problem with many open access models, with regulators manipulating the market:
It is therefore no surprise that despite being considered as a ‘‘second-best” alternative, unbundling policies have been implemented to introduce service-based competition into broadband markets in 29 of the 30 OECD markets.
However, paradoxically, service-based competition also bears the risk of actually deterring facilities-based competition and further innovation and investment in the existing single infrastructure: with the incumbent providing attractive access provisions (e.g. relatively low prices for unbundled loops), incentives for a new provider to roll out new infrastructure are diminished.
Also on Sunday, the Washington Post carried an editorial talking about the FCC’s National Broadband Plan as being “longer on aspiration than specific policy intentions.”
broadband networks have been built with billions of dollars from companies in the private sector with a legitimate right to extract profit from well-placed investments. These initiatives — and yes, the profit motive — have resulted in remarkable leaps in a few short years.
Broadband service is hardly a monopoly marketplace. And as the Post observed, “it is hard to see in this field the signs of gross market failure.”
Many of the “digirati” tweeted and provided links to the NY Times piece. Virtually none have linked to the Washington Post. Perhaps the Post’s message didn’t resonate as well with those arguing for increased regulation of the internet, but why are they afraid of sharing it with their disciples?
Earlier this week, I was asked how Industry Canada should measure the success of its programmes designed to stimulate competition in the mobile wireless market.
After all, at this time a couple years ago, we were preparing for a spectrum auction that set-aside 40MHz that could not be acquired by the 3 largest mobile service providers, Bell, Rogers and TELUS.
Yesterday’s advanced launch by Public Mobile gives Canadians in Toronto and Montreal more choices – although it is important to note that Public Mobile bought spectrum that was not reserved for new entrants, paying bargain basement prices compared to any of their peers.
In response to a question from the media, Public Mobile CEO Alek Krstajic said that liberalization of foreign ownership rules would likely stimulate consolidation among the new entrants. Set-asides and changes to the ownership rules represent disruptions in the status quo, which brings me back to the question of how Industry Canada will measure success of actions intervening in the marketplace.
Will opening Canada’s telecom sector markets to increased foreign investment result in fewer (but potentially stronger) competitors?
Last July, the CRTC issued a joint broadcasting and telecom regulatory policy order [2009-430] setting out certain obligations to improve access to communications services for “persons with disabilities.”
Among the requirements, the CRTC gave telecommunications service providers one year to provide a new relay service – Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay).
In an IP Relay call, the relay operator transmits messages via Internet Protocol (IP)-based text conversation with a person with a hearing or speech disability and via voice conversation with a person without such a disability. The person with a hearing or speech disability communicates using text with the relay operator via the Internet and accesses the IP Relay service through the IP Relay provider’s Web page or an Instant Messaging application using IP-based text messaging supported on a web-enabled device (mobile wireless phone, smartphone, web-capable telephone, etc.).
The CRTC found that IP Relay is technically possible and that there was a significant surplus of funding available from the fees collected to support the old TTY based relay service. On the CRTC’s relay service information page, the Commission describes the modernization plans:
Previously, the CRTC determined that all wireline (traditional), wireless, and Voice over IP (VoIP) service providers were responsible for giving their customers access to TTY relay service. Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-430 extends the message relay service requirements. One year from the date it was issued, all phone companies that are required to provide TTY relay service (i.e. local phone companies, wireless providers, VOIP phone providers) will be required to give customers access to IP relay service. [emphasis added]
But let’s look at the actual Order [paragraph 21 of 2009-430]:
The Commission directs all LECs, including wireless CLECs, and VoIP providers that are required to provide TTY Relay to provide IP Relay, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by 21 July 2010. [emphasis added]
What about wireless service providers that are not CLECs? The information page creates the expectation among consumers that all wireless service providers will provide IP Relay by July 21, but the actual order does not impose that requirement.
Also, recall the issues surrounding the CRTC’s forbearance of mobile data services that I discussed last week. If IP Relay is determined to be associated with voice services, then under Section 24 of the Telecom Act, the CRTC could order mobile providers that aren’t CLECs to offer IP Relay services. On the other hand, there may be an argument that the mobile provider’s side of the service is actually a mobile data service and the CRTC has forborne from regulating mobile data under Section 24.
People with hearing or speech disabilities should be switching to mobile services and getting rid of their wireline service. When you stop to think about the target community, their best communications device would be a mobile smart phone equipped with plan that has virtually no voice minutes but unlimited text and data.
Does the CRTC Order fully align with the needs of these consumers?
Earlier in the month, I mentioned a story from Mobile Syrup predicting a “soft launch” for Public Mobile this week.
In fact, at 10:00 this morning, Public Mobile will be releasing new information about its launch date, its customer offers and its advertising campaign plans.
No word yet from the CRTC on the Public Mobile ownership review file. Under the Telecom Act, Public Mobile would not be able to offer “telecommunications services to the public for compensation” until after it has CRTC approval. [Theoretically, under the Telecom Act, a spectrum license holder could give its services away for free without the need for Commission approval. Of course, one might want to ask if selling a handset and then giving away airtime is considered to be offering a telecommunications service to the public for compensation.]
The CRTC had written to Public Mobile (and the other new mobile entrants) in December of 2008 – in advance of Industry Canada granting the first licenses, inviting the companies to begin the process of examination of the ownership and control requirements of the Telecom Act.
The store on the Danforth in Toronto is ready and other retail outlets are being builtout. We’ll learn later this morning if the wait for CRTC approval is what is standing in the way of service getting launched?
