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?

One of my blog posts from last week, about The broadband numbers racket, was picked up by Circle ID, an website with news and information about developments affecting internet and infrastructure. There was a comment posted yesterday that included:

It seems like all these global broadband “ranking” evaluations are as nebulous as the college football BCS rankings. Worse actually.

My concern is that not enough scrutiny has been given to the rankings produced by reputable organizations perhaps because of a mistaken belief that such groups could not have issued a flawed report.

It is time for the media and reputable commentators to recognize that the OECD’s broadband rankings report had methodology problems and cannot be relied upon.

We’re closed on Monday for Yom Kippur, so no blog post. See you later this week.

Garbage in, garbage out. The GIGO factor.

That is how the OECD reporting on Canadian broadband has to be characterized. The same faulty study that we have talked about all summer [such as here, here and here] keeps getting cited as evidence of a supposedly shameful situation for Canadians on the internet. Some have used the flawed reporting to conclude that our industry is in crisis.

Never mind that Google’s global sales president says that Canada has world-class internet and broadband penetration.

The latest woeful citation (in the Globe and Mail Datebook) was one that should have had the writer pause to think about plain reasonableness:

Today’s chart lists the 30 countries and shows Canadians paid about $95 (Canadian) every month for high-speed Web access in September of 2008.

Do you know anyone who is paying $95 every month for high-speed Web access? Seriously. You might have one or two geeky friends who are subscribing to the very highest speed service, but does that quote sound like a fair representation of the Canadian high-speed broadband market?

Suzanne Blackwell at Giganomics Consulting has more details about the flaws in the report.

Earlier in the week, the webcast of the Globalive ownership proceeding allowed us to hear from their lawyer, Hank Intven of McCarthy’s. Hank was a member of the Telecom Policy Review panel and hearing him in action reminded me that it has been more than three and a half years since the delivery of that report.

How time flies.

Since the the panel was struck, we have had a change in government and there have been a number of different Ministers of Industry. Most of the recommendations of the panel have sat on the shelf.

In the report, the panel addressed the subject of foreign ownership restrictions, saying:

Among OECD countries, Canada has maintained one of the most restrictive and inflexible set of rules limiting foreign investment in the telecommunications sector.

The Panel had recommended a multi-phased liberalization:

• In the first phase, the Telecommunications Act should be amended to give the federal Cabinet authority to waive the foreign ownership and control restrictions when it deems it to be in the public interest.
• During that phase, there would be a presumption that investments in a new start-up telecommunications investment or in a carrier with less than 10 percent of the market are in the public interest.
• The second phase would be undertaken after a review of broadcasting policy with liberalization in a manner that treats all carriers (including the cable industry) in a fair and competitively neutral manner.

This is the regime that the Telecom Policy Review Panel had hoped for. Had government acted on these recommendations, we wouldn’t be having the current Globalive paternity test.

However, like many of the other recommendations, such legislation has not even been introduced, let alone passed. As such, the CRTC is left to enforce Canada’s current laws, with its double negatives.

Can Globalive adequately demonstrate that it is not otherwise controlled by non-Canadians?