There is an article on TMCnet that articulates the problem with importing foreign open access regulatory models without consideration of the North American reality of facilities based competition.

A success of the regulatory framework in Canada and the United States has been the presence of multiple communications channels in most homes and businesses.

In most countries where open access rules apply, the competitive landscape is quite different.

That has huge financial implications for any firms contemplating building ubiquitous high-speed access facilities. In countries where, for legal, regulatory or other reasons there is not ubiquitous cable broadband already in place, a service provider might seriously entertain building an open access network, relatively safe in the knowledge that virtually all contestants will be wholesale customers.

As our report showed [Figure B.1.3 on page 81], few other countries have such ubiquitous cable broadband and telco broadband infrastructure, operated by competing companies (in some countries, the incumbent telco is also the cable company). In Canada and the US, the broadband market is already fragmented with an almost even split on each of the cable and telephone infrastructure. Further, satellite and wireless (fixed and mobile) take another portion of the total market off the table.

So where the open access broadband model, in a different country, might reasonably be expected to achieve nearly 100 percent or more of the addressable market, the potential return is cut in half where the achievable share is no more than 50 percent.

The article challenges readers to build their own spreadsheets to run the numbers.

Among themes that come to mind for future exploration:

• Is open access too focussed on an enforced fiber-to-the-premise investment strategy to be compatible with technological neutrality?
• Is nationalization of infrastructure required?
• Would both cable and telco infrastructure have to be acquired for competitive neutrality?

Others?

The Globalive ownership matter continues to generate an enormous number of comments on various news sites.

I’m not going to get into forecasting how the Industry Minister will proceed on this file; I suspect that we may receive guidance in the next week. I will observe that from a process perspective, contrary to what was reported in the Calgary Herald, Globalive did not appeal the CRTC decision to cabinet; that would have triggered a lengthy consultation process set out in Section 12 of the Telecom Act. At this point, the Minister is reviewing “of his own motion”, which has less formal structure set out in legislation.

That isn’t the theme for today.

I want to look at some commenters who somehow draw a parallel between overseas outsourcing of jobs (by some service providers) to foreign ownership restrictions.

More particularly, I find it fascinating that so many writers assume that an English accent that isn’t clearly from the Ottawa Valley leads to a conclusion that some carriers are answering calls in Mumbai as opposed to downtown Toronto.

Are so many ranters so isolated that they have not noticed the number of Canadians that enrich our society with multi-lingual capabilities?

It is tough work – especially for those in customer service – to try to exude a smile through the phone lines. In a previous job, I spent an hour on the phones in our call centre to gain an appreciation for the folks in that job. I came away with great respect for them.

Let’s face it, customer service reps answer the phone dozens of times each day, knowing that they are about to speak to someone who likely isn’t calling just to say “thanks, have a nice day”.

And if you do happen reach someone in an overseas centre, the chances are that your billing problems don’t come close to their survival issues at home. And, he or she is trying to follow the script to empathize with you, while your supplier of goods or services is trying to cut costs.

So, the next time you call, cut the voice on the other end of the phone a little slack.

After all – it’s US Thanksgiving – get in the spirit of the season. Ho, Ho, Ho!

Ovum has released a report that looks at some long term trends for global telecommunications.

In Straight Talk Telecoms 4Q09, Ovum introduces a series of reports on the state of the telecoms industry in the year 2020.

There are numerous tidbits of interesting observations and forecasts. I found this one in a section looking at “Tiering of broadband offerings increases to
combat rise in traffic”:

Where tiering has been introduced, it typically relies on one of two measures for differentiating various packages: total traffic downloaded per month, and, more rarely, time spent online. We believe neither of these will be sustainable in the long term, because neither meets the test of easy comprehension or tracking by customers. We believe that a different model will instead come to the fore, which will differentiate by usage patterns, with web, email, gaming and video packages offered by providers at increasing price points.

Of course the challenge is whether such pricing plans will be permitted under the new rules for internet traffic management.

According to Ovum, end-to-end delivery of a quality experience will require a new set of capabilities, delivered by SMART players, where SMART stands for ‘Services, Management, Applications, Relationships and Technology’. Those that can’t rise to the this level are seen likely to fall back on the role LEAN operators: Low-cost Enablers of Agnostic Networks.

Advocates for internet access as a plumbing service have suggested that dump pipes are necessary to permit the greatest opportunities for innovation in the development of applications.

Will regulation limit the ability of carriers to offer SMART choices?

I like to seek out obscure notations within court and regulatory rulings.

Like this one that can be found in today’s decision by the BC Supreme Court on the issue of who has the fastest and most reliable network:

[5] The wireless telecommunication industry in Canada is dominated by a corporate triumvirate consisting of Rogers, Telus and Bell Mobility Inc. Much like the triumvrs of the late Roman Republic, the competition among them is intense.

Battling claims in court, heavy investment in infrastructure. These aren’t the typical characteristics of a cosy oligopoly portrayed by some.

And now there is a judicial finding of intense competition. Rogers Claims – Fastest Most Reliable – Judgment http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=23080573&access_key=key-2fhcrrtug51z8yl4tamf&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

What is the meaning of this hash tag “#rodo“? For many of my readers who follow me on this blog, you must still be new to Twitter.

Otherwise, you would have seen my numerous tweets from the launch of Rogers On Demand Online (RODO) Beta last night – targeted at the social media crowd.

I was one of the few grey haired guys invited to join; I commented at one point that when I think Beta and video, it reminds me of my first VCR. Most of the others in the room may not have ever seen a VCR!

Anyway, I’ll be playing around with the Rogers on Demand Online Beta for the next little while. Some of the important points that I picked up:

• The service will be available to any Rogers subscriber to any Rogers service. So, even if you are just subscribing to one Fido phone in an otherwise TELUS or Bell or Teksavvy or Primus household, you will be able to get a free account.
• Premium content will be available to subscribers to premium video. So, all users can get access to content on the over the air portions of the site, such as CityTV, but other content will be available to other users. This is an advantage over Hulu, which does not get access to premium content.
• Initially, there will be two different bit rates for different quality images (and different impact on your monthly bit caps).

I’ll let Rogers tell their own story about features – you can look through my tweets to see some of the highlights.

As I was heading home, a colleague and I chatted about what had been presented and we agreed that RODO has the potential to be an industry game changer on many, many levels.

RODO brings quality video (contrasted with user generated) to Canadians, with full licensing of the content. It is a different business model from the many of the popular US services – such as Hulu – but it recognizes the need to provide value to all the players in the food chain, while giving customers access to the content they want. [Rogers will have to work hard to make network content available quickly, racing against unlicensed copies.]

By authenticating the user and using ad support, there is tremendous knowledge about the viewer available for improved targeting of consumers – increasing the potential for higher rate ads.

By tying the service to Rogers customers, there is the opportunity for inoculation against churn. Video services will encourage customers to buy higher bandwidth and high bitcap services driving improved performance from the internet business unit.

The deeper you look, the more potential you see for On Demand Online.

As David Purdy, Rogers VP Video Product Management said last night, “we’re no longer in the cable TV business; we’re in the video entertainment business.” Rogers On Demand Online demonstrates a means for broadcast distributors to maintain relevance. Profitably.

As a streaming media vehicle with an easy user interface, coupled with terabytes of archival storage, does On Demand Online provide a portal for more Canadian content?

Will RODO accelerate telco FTTN deployment?

Will local content be able to find a home on this portal, allowing users to access news and information whether on road or at home?

So much more.

See Marketnews and Lara Skripitsky for further coverage.