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?

Yesterday, I wrote about TELUS launching the iPhone and its HSPA network on November 5.

Today, TELUS announced simpler pricing, called Clear Choice with Clear and Simple Pricing.

TELUS is also simplifying the number of rate plan options.

Beginning November 5, TELUS will offer clear and simple pricing, with no System Access Fee (SAF) or carrier 911 fee, across business and consumer wireless rate plans.

Existing TELUS clients can continue to renew on their existing rate plans or have the option to switch to the new rate plans at launch.

Nokia has announced its Christmas line-up of phones and accessories.

Bluetooth earpieces, headphones and speaker phones figure prominently on their website.

The current version of the Nokia Holiday Gifts website only shows phones for the Rogers network. Nokia plans to update the site frequently – possibly showcasing more devices and choices after some of the competitive HSPA networks launch later this year. For example, the Nokia website shows the E71 in grey and white for the Rogers network, but Mobile Syrup is saying that TELUS will offer that device in black and red.

An preliminary version of the site showed the Nokia N86 incorporating an 8-megapixel camera including Carl Zeiss optics. The phone can be bought from on-line sources in Canada, but it isn’t being promoted by a carrier, yet.

Will it be available through one of the major service providers before Christmas?

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.