Cogeco Data Services has announced a 10 year deal with the City of Toronto to expand the fibre network that already connects all schools and school board buildings (as we wrote about in March), under separate deals with the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Under the terms of the deal with the City announced earlier this week, Cogeco Data Services will provide a fibre optic-based wide area network to various departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, serving a majority of the City’s 50,000 employees.

The new sites will be installed over a three year period with the first coming on-line later this year. Cogeco Data Services expects 95 per cent of construction completed by 2011.

There is a lot of fibre being deployed in a variety of communities by telephone companies, cable companies and alternate providers such as Atria and Cogeco Data Services. Businesses and residences are being served with fibre to the premises solutions, often with multiple suppliers in a building.

How do we improve statistical data collection to improve our understanding of the state of advanced networks in Canada? We’ll at this question some more on Monday.

The CRTC issued its decision in the review of Globalive’s ownership. Reading some of the re-tweets and comments on various news sites and blogs, I see the distain for our regulator that might be expected from those who don’t have an understanding of Canada’s structural framework.

As Michael Geist wrote:

It is tempting to blame the CRTC or the incumbent telecom providers (who filed the complaint over the Globalive structure) for this mess, but the real culprit lies with outdated legislation that prioritizes Canadian ownership over a competitive Canadian marketplace.

I agree with that assessment. Last month, I wrote about the Telecom Policy Review Panel’s views on liberalization of foreign ownership.

One of the Globalive lawyers, Hank Intven, was a member of that panel that delivered its report three and a half years ago. Shortly thereafter, Hank was commissioned to develop a book detailing the specific legislative changes required to implement the recommendations of the report.

The Panel was created by the last Liberal Government and its response was delivered to a the new Conservative Minister of Industry. I remember asking a local Liberal MP if the bipartisan origins of the TPRP would permit a more constructive legislative approach to speed discussion and passage of the package of reforms.

Silly me.

So here we are. Where do we go from here? To those who wonder how Industry Canada could approve the ownership and then watch the CRTC deny approval, there are a number of reasons that we can discuss.

The CRTC set out the remedies required to gain approval in its decision. The fastest and most certain course would be for Globalive to bring its structure into conformance and receive authorization from the Commission.

Alternatively, Globalive can appeal to Cabinet, but with such a process, the Telecom Act has prescribed timetables to allow consultations with the provinces and the public. This would not be fast and I’ll ask lawyers to consult on whether Cabinet has the legal authority to simply ignore the foreign ownership restrictions entirely. It is possible that the path of least resistance would be for Globalive to ask Cabinet to order the CRTC to delete paragraph 118 of the Decision – the one dealing with Orascom holding the debt – perhaps using a justification of the exceptional circumstances of the current economic situation.

Alternatively, Globalive could sit on the spectrum asset, waiting for legislation to remove the foreign ownership restrictions. I’m not holding my breath.

One way or another, there will be new players in the Canadian mobile space. Public Mobile, DAVE Wireless and Videotron are also building networks.

At the end of the day, Globalive entered the spectrum auction fully aware of the ownership regulations and precedents for previously approved corporate structures. It acquired new entrant spectrum that had been set aside to enable smaller start-ups to offer increased wireless choices to Canadians and it outbid the others perhaps hoping that it could push the envelop a little further.

All along, Globalive has been in control of the timetable for approval. The next move is up them as well.

The issue of indirect regulation came up again in last week’s internet traffic management decision.

The issue: how does the CRTC impose regulations on service providers that aren’t carriers? So, the CRTC created two new definitions to distinguish between “secondary ISPs” (defined as service providers that don’t own their own facilities and therefore aren’t regulated as carriers; and, “primary ISPs” that own transmission facilities and are therefore more easily brought before the CRTC as carriers under the Telecom Act.

The CRTC assumed that “secondary ISPs” must get access to their customers by dealing with at least one “primary ISP” and so the Commission ordered all “primary ISPs” to include a contractual obligation for their wholesale clients (ie. “secondary ISPs”) to agree to abide by the rules.

This is problematic on a number of levels.

First, as I described last week, the requirement doesn’t capture secondary ISPs that don’t deal with a primary ISP. It is quite possible for an ISP to do all of its wholesale buying through another secondary ISP. Alternatively, there may be colocation companies that are carriers, but not ISPs. The latter can be dealt with by simple rewording of the order; let’s face it, the use of the term “primary ISP” instead of “carrier” was to appease the “secondary ISPs” who may have found the term “reseller” to be pejorative. It isn’t as simple to go after second tier “secondary ISPs” (should they be called “tertiary ISPs”?).

More fundamentally, what happens if a secondary ISP is in breach of its contractual obligation? How does this get enforced?

In the absence of meaningful regulatory oversight, will an industry association enforce a code of conduct to provide assurance to Canadians? Still, the CRTC didn’t believe a voluntary code offers sufficient consumer protections. Don’t customers of secondary ISPs deserve the same protections?

Hughes Network Systems has announced that Canada’s largest rural broadband provider, Barrett Xplore has committed to acquire and operate over 10 Gbps of capacity on Jupiter, a next-generation, high-throughput satellite. Jupiter is scheduled for launch in 2012.

With Jupiter, Barrett Xplore expects to offer a range of broadband packages up to 10 Mbps for residential service and up to 25 Mbps for business, with performance and pricing comparable to that in terrestrial broadband markets.

John Maduri, CEO at Barrett Xplore said:

Jupiter will enable Barrett Xplore to provide significantly enhanced service offerings to our current customers, and offer additional capacity to serve hundreds of thousands of rural Canadian households. This considerable investment in satellite capacity demonstrates Barrett’s ongoing commitment to rural broadband and strengthens our ability to reach all rural Canadian households with cost-effective, high-speed Internet.

The agreement is valued in excess of U.S. $100 million.

My electric utility came to the house on Wednesday and installed my new smart meter. Earlier this year, we installed the Peaksaver thermostat.

The idea behind the smart electric meter is to enable the utility to charge differential prices based on the time-of-day or day-of-week when we consume power.

The Peaksaver thermostat not only enables some very cool programming and remote internet access, but also permits the utility to kill the air conditioner for a brief period (hopefully not noticeable) during the hottest, most power intensive days of the summer.

I wonder if the concepts behind these capabilities might find application by a creative ISP.

For example, internet services don’t really have a monthly capacity constraint; monthly download caps are a convenient measure of total consumption for proportionate allocation of resources, but the pipes are really provisioned for peak load. For real-time applications, like voice calls and streaming content, ISPs need to make sure there is sufficient capacity to handle everyone’s aggregate requirements. Less sensitive applications can be delayed slightly without any impact.

Outside of the peak, it doesn’t matter as much if an individual user is consuming a little or a lot; the network capacity is sitting available.

It seems to me that an ISP might want to create a service offering that provides user incentives to shift loads out of the peak – for example, offering software utilities to make sure those routine software updates are scheduled to downloaded during slower network loads, and perhaps exempting such behaviour from contributing to the download caps.

What about another product that permits interruptible service? Rather than degrade all bandwidth intensive traffic, would some consumers be interested in a service that cuts certain bandwidth intensive applications at peak times – like killing the air conditioner on peak electrical days.

Of course, these kinds of network based developments require network operators to have the flexibility to deploy and use technologies like DPI interfacing to various billing and management systems – and to advise customers on what is going on.

Would such services help preserve flat rate internet for some users, while providing effective economic internet traffic management?