November 5 is the date that TELUS will be activating its HSPA network, with speeds of up to 21 Mbps over what is being called the largest 3G+ network in Canada.

Pricing for the iPhone is now being advertised.

Consumers will now have more choices for suppliers of some of the world’s top selling devices. As TELUS President & CEO Darren Entwistle said in the press release:

Our new wireless network enables advanced speeds and services for more than 30 million Canadians based on the most innovative wireless technology available today. More importantly, it offers Canadians more choice and timely access to almost all major mobile devices in the world across TELUS’ three leading wireless networks.

Let the games begin.

A long time reader wrote me a note that is worth sharing.

Normally, I use a smaller font size for quotations, but to ease your reading, I’ll keep the size normal:

Have followed with interest your comments on the need to analyze the demand side for broadband before reaching any conclusions about penetration rates.

I agree.

However, we might learn something in this regard from our long experience with narrow band penetration rates. Generally, narrow band i.e. old fashioned local exchange voice service, has been almost universally available, due to cross-subsidies, and penetration rates have been very high (over 90%) in most parts of Canada. (I am leaving aside the more recent replacement of wireline service by wireless).

But there are exceptions. In many communities North of 60, penetration rates for traditional narrow band voice service have been much lower, often in the 60-80% range. From a national policy perspective, some might conclude that our telecom policy “failed” these communities. But, there is another point of view.

The low penetration rates, in spite of massive subsidies, are only a “failure” if one assumes that residents of such communities ought to exhibit demand and consumption patterns that mirror those of the urban south.

Clearly, this reflects a projection of our urban technophile values on all others and an assumption that those who do not adopt such values are wrong or have been left behind. In fact, the residents of many such Northern communities have made an entirely rational economic calculation of cost and value and determined that, for them, telephone service is not worthwhile. If there is any “failure”, it is that of urban policy makers who assume that their own demand and consumption patterns are right for everyone.

We must, of course, recognize, that broadband offers a different (i.e. much wider) suite of capabilities to end users. Nevertheless, in developing a broadband strategy, we should not fall into the trap of assuming that only one set of consumption patterns is right for all.

There will almost certainly be some user groups, including some in urban Canada, who will decline to adopt broadband in spite of any subsidies. Our many years of experience with narrow band subsidy programs has already demonstrated this.

A few years ago, I remarked that it seems patronizing to assume that all rural and remote users require a subsidy for broadband. In our recent report, we observed that some big ticket items like housing are often less expensive in rural areas. We need to understand inhibitors on the demand side – price is only one factor.

Your comments are invited.

Bell is getting into the Olympic spirit and hopes to get all Canadians thinking about the Games (which are less than 4 months away).

As the Olympic Torch relay gets under way, why not carry a virtual torch with you? Bell has created an animated torch that can be used as a mobile phone wallpaper or screensaver. Visit http://bellvirtualtorch.mobi for the mobile download. (Bell Mobility customers can text “torch” to 2044 – standard text and data charges apply.)

Or for that matter, you can get a screensaver for your computer here.

You can follow the live torch relay here.

Be sure to check out the new Vancouver 2010 website. My favourite Olympic event? Short track relay.

Other voices are finding problems with the data at the core of the FCC’s broadband study, produced by Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

On Monday, George Ou of the Digital Society think tank systematically trashed the Harvard Berkman Study, concluding:

The underlying data cited by Berkman study is simply too flawed to be of any use. And because the study bases its conclusions on flawed data, the conclusions drawn in the Berkman broadband study are equally unreliable.

Bret Swanson (former executive editor of The Gilder Technology Report) writes:

the real purpose of the report is to make a single point: foreign “open access” broadband regulation, good; American broadband competition, bad.
…
The gaping, jaw-dropping irony of the report was its failure even to mention the chief outcome of America’s previous open-access regime: the telecom/tech crash of 2000-02. We tried this before. And it didn’t work!

There will be more criticism leveled at this report. Bottom line?

As we stated on page 24 of our report [ pdf, 944KB], in undertaking any international comparison, one must be cautious not to fix on any one measure regardless of whether it provides good or bad news. Much more can be learned by considering a range of indicators and most importantly, understanding and taking into account the underlying factors that influence the results.

Ignoring this understanding, too many are seduced by capturing easy headlines and fail to do their own scholarly analysis of the data.

Xchange is reporting that the FCC is surveying citizens to find out why people with access to broadband still aren’t signing up.

Sound familiar?

At a session at Supercomm, the FCC spoke about low adoption rates as a key hurdle, rather than access.

The FCC is developing a national broadband plan that aims to expand broadband reach to all U.S. residents but policymakers still have to figure out why some people resist subscribing to broadband.

As we wrote last week, in our recent report, we made the same observation and two of our recommendations dealt with this issue.

• Shift more attention to adoption issues (including adoption of next-generation services) and encourage socio-economic research focused on better understanding the obstacles to, and inhibitors of, broadband adoption
• Consider programmes to improve digital literacy and the use of incentives (tax-based or otherwise) to target and overcome any barriers to broadband adoption

Which side of the border will act first on demand-side programmes to overcome barriers to broadband adoption?