For months now, I have been writing about the disturbing lack of context in respect of some reports examining the state of Canada’s telecommunications industry, especially those that have cited various OECD studies released over the past few months.

As I wrote in June, it has become increasingly clear that the OECD’s analysis is flawed.

The failure by so many to analyse the data appears to confirm what President Barack Obama said recently in a newspaper interview:

I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding.

Countless statistics and rankings have been developed regarding the state of broadband networks in countries around the world. Yet, the sum total of all this work may have clouded the issues and caused confusion among policymakers and other stakeholders.

Canada is no exception. While some paint a picture of crisis, others argue that Canada has enviable broadband infrastructure and is well-positioned for the future, despite facing unique geographic challenges.

One matter that is uncontested is that the stakes are high. Countries around the world see information and communication technologies (ICTs) like broadband as key to their economic futures. In Canada, as in other countries, these issues are important to the economic present as well. Canadian telcos, cablecos and wireless providers invest between $8B and $10B each year in advanced communications infrastructure. These investments support $54B in revenues and provide jobs to more than 140 thousand Canadians.

ICT policy sets an enabling foundation for Canada’s participation in a global knowledge-based economy.

A group representing Canada’s largest internet service providers commissioned my firm to study the issue. Today, we are releasing our report [pdf, 944KB] that seeks to clarify the facts, dispel myths and provide the analysis needed to constructively move the issues forward and facilitate a more informed debate.

The report concludes that Canadians benefit from a robust, diversified broadband infrastructure. All Canadians who want to subscribe and pay for broadband can obtain service. We have 100% availability when you consider all the technology choices available. The vast majority of Canadians benefit from a world-leading level of choice in access to broadband technologies, using twisted pair, coaxial cable, wireless (fixed and mobile) and satellite.

Moreover, Canadians have access to some of the most affordable services, while also benefiting from some of the world’s fastest connection speeds for both wireline and wireless broadband services.

In terms of adoption, Canada continues to lead all G-8 countries in adoption of internet services, and ranks in the top ten for most international comparisons on broadband penetration and speeds, contradicting last week’s student project from the Said School of Business at Oxford.

With almost 70% of Canadian households already subscribing, there remains a significant opportunity to expand broadband adoption even further.

The report recommends:

• As we go through the process of developing a national ICT strategy, recognize the true state of Canada’s ICT infrastructure
• Continue policies focused on fostering facilities-based competition
• Build on the past success of private sector investment by removing current policy and regulatory uncertainty regarding investments in next-generation networks
• 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

You may download the complete report here [ pdf, 944KB]. It provides the context to enable a better understanding and discussion of the issues for expanding broadband in Canada.

A little more than 20 years ago, I joined Bell Labs and my boss was showing me around the office as he commented on his management philosophy.

He paused on the tour while we were overlooking the reflecting ponds and he seemed to be caught in a bit of a day dream. When he snapped back to the present, he said that sometimes he gets his best inspiration looking at the natural landscape.

He told me that what made Bell Labs such a great place to work was that if you did your best thinking staring out the window, then we would get paid to gaze at geese.

He went on to say that in jobs like ours, it was tough for a manager to say “today, we’re going to invent the gonculator.” So, he told me that if I was able to score matinee tickets for a Broadway show, that I should go ahead – he wasn’t watching the clock. In any case, most of us were equipped with home computers connected to the office – pretty advanced networking for the mid-80’s.

There was a lot of inventing going on; the blurring between work time and private time was an issue we learned to deal with. The tether to the office enabled more time with family, just as much as it enabled more accessibility to the office.

It is much more commonplace today for people to mix pleasure during work hours and to deal with business email and other work from home. I find that universal connectivity enables me to get away from my desk more frequently, without a concern that my clients can’t find me. But that is the nature of my work.

How do you divide your time? Does the virtual umbilical enable you to enjoy more or less personal time?

Ontario has announced that its ban on the use of handheld devices while driving is going into effect in October. A three-month grace period will be in place before tickets of $500 start getting issued in February 2010.

The new law makes it illegal for drivers to talk, text, type, dial or email using hand-held cell phones and other hand-held communications and entertainment devices.

The province’s press release points to a page with “key research” supporting the restrictions. While I support the legislation, I have written before about the questionable conclusions drawn from the research being cited to support these restrictions.

A 12-year old study from Sunnybrook is cited as the number two source by the province.

Perhaps its time to fund some newer research.

The Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford and the University of Oviedo’s Department of Applied Economics have released a new study on the state of broadband networks around the world and some [such as here and here] have already determined that the “Canadian rankings are lousy”.

Once again, it appears that logos on the page from such institutions as “University of Oxford” and “Cisco” are clouding the willingness or ability to apply a critical eye in examining the findings.

In a blog posting, Suzanne Blackwell at Giganomics questions the reliability of the broadband speed rankings which were derived from Speedtest.net.

There are a number of other questions raised by the Oxford report. The report uses penetration as a percentage of households, but it is unclear where the numbers come from.

Australia was reported to have a penetration rate of 85%, which does not appear to align with the Australian government – let’s face it, if the Australians were really at 85% penetration, would they be so keen to spend $43B on their broadband? We think that Australia is really closer to 53% penetration.

That is a pretty big discrepancy.

The Netherlands is listed by the Oxford / Cisco study at 83% but the EC recently reported it at 74%. Denmark and Norway are similarly divergent. The U.S. penetration rate is not 75% but only 63% according to the Pew Internet and American Life survey from earlier this year.

Since penetration rates are used to derive “leadership” scores, any inaccuracies or inconsistencies can cause a country to rise or fall.

Will a more academically sound paper be released describing the details of the methodology, the sampling methods and the sources of the data?

The CRTC has launched a consultation on updating its rules of procedures.

The Commission is proposing new draft regulations entitled Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure which are intended to replace both the Broadcasting Rules [pdf, 91KB] and the the Telecom Rules [pdf 230KB].

Bram Abramson observed on Twitter that this public consultation is consistent with one of the recommendations (9-27) of the Report from the Telecom Policy Review Panel. Recommendation 9-28 suggested that this process should occur at least every 5 years.

By the way, the next recommendation, 9-29, dealt with updating the process for cost awards, a subject about which we wrote last week. Last week, a consortium of carriers applied for a review of these procedures. David Elder writes more about that file here.

Government doesn’t seem prepared to move forward in introducing legislative changes to implement the TPRP’s recommendations; the CRTC is adapting to the changing industry dynamic by accommodating those changes that can be implemented within its own sphere of responsibility.