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.

The Globalive ownership hearings conclude tomorrow.

Last night, redacted versions [ pdf, 3.9MB] of last week’s in-camera session were released. Globalive and Orascom had completely reworked their corporate structure (removing a layer of holding companies) and developed a new operating term sheet between the two days of hearings.

It is worth pointing out a few highlights from Thursday’s transcripts.

At page 94, CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein appeared to summarize the Commission’s concerns when he said:

You addressed an awful lot of points on the structure, et cetera, but the fact is that the same company owns the majority of the debt — owns practically all the debt, owns the majority of the equity and is also your principal service supplier, and you this morning said that that Service Agreement is also another way of getting your return on investment et cetera. So there are 3 large levers in one hand and that hand is not Canadian.

On page 95, the Chair defines the issue as a legal one:

Basically what you are asking for is a conditional approval, you know, without a clock, but basically give it and as soon as markets will allow us, we will Canadianize this thing so that there can be no question about it.

Except I don’t have that authority. That is the issue. I mean if the Act allowed for something like that, then, you know, your business point, we all three hear it and they are very cogent et cetera, but it is not a business issue, it is a legal issue. It is a question that there are three major levers in the hands of a non-Canadian and does [that] amount to control or not.

These levers of control would appear to be the focus of tomorrow’s closing arguments.

The Kids Internet Safety Alliance, KINSA, is presenting a benefit concert featuring Jim Cuddy (of Blue Rodeo fame) on October 29.

Tickets are $150 which includes the concert, an open bar, hors d’ouevres and snacks.

It should be an intimate evening at the Hard Rock Cafe in Toronto and the proceeds are for a good cause.

Sponsorships are available. For tickets and information, call 416-682-5502.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6YZo0ZIGSU]

The CRTC has granted interim approval to NanoFibre Inc. for its Basic Listing Interchange File Agreement, which calls to mind the existence of smaller fibre to the home (FTTH) / fibre to the premises (FTTP) service providers across the country.

NanoFibre operates in the Columbia Valley in BC and it is one of many smaller ISPs that demonstrates that there are facilities-based options beyond the incumbent telephone companies and cable companies.

The fact that NanoFibre can raise capital, build, operate and serve smaller communities begs a number of questions.

The Village of Radium Hot Springs, Columbia Ridge and Spirit’s Reach have fibre running past the front door of over 1,500 residences and businesses and more buildings are being connected every day. We have placed fibre in the ground within Pedley Heights, Copper Point and a new subdivision in Fairmont Hot Springs.

How many other FTTH companies are operating under the radar screen in Canada?

So, Bell Aliant is operating FTTH in cities in New Brunswick and NanoFibre among a number of others operating in BC. FTTH in different types of markets, from coast to coast.

How many FTTH / FTTP connections will be listed in next year’s Communications Monitoring Report?