I have noticed a couple new blogs this summer that I have started to follow.

Jeff Wiener of Digitcom started The Telecom Blog in May and he has some interesting perspectives as the head of a company focussed on customer network implementation.

I also enjoy reading Michael Hennessy’s too infrequent rants [and his Dylanesque references] on When Dogs Ran Free.

Check out their sites; I am happy to hear about other voices with fresh and diverse thoughts.

Random thought for the day: I noticed that some of the people who want more legislation for internet regulation are the same ones who are saying that we have sufficient laws for copyright – that there is no evidence that the current laws don’t offer enough protection. Just saying.

---

Update [August 11, 7:30 pm]
I was correctly advised this evening that my aside comment should have distinguished between the issue of counterfeiting and copyright. The link points to a story that specifically deals with counterfeiting, shut down using trademark and copyright law.

When I watched the Industry Committee meeting on Friday, I was struck by what appeared to be a lack of understanding of basic accounting by some of the Members of Parliament. I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised; let’s call it disappointment.

Of note was the apparent inability to reconcile the “$149M book value” of the Nortel wireless business unit with the substantially higher amount ($1.13B) being paid by Ericsson. These numbers are important, because the foreign investment review rules kick into play if the book value of the asset being acquired exceeds $312M.

Considering that this business unit is basically a group of knowledge workers, it isn’t really surprising to have such a discrepancy between the book value and the market value.

What would make up the book value? Depreciated computers and office equipment, some lab equipment, inventory, some cash, accounts receivable? The total value of the employees and the utility of their collective knowledge would not likely be reflected on the books – we outlawed ownership of staff about 175 years ago.

I found that part of the meeting troubling.

---

Update [August 10, 10:00 am]
Mike Z. has stepped down from Nortel and Nortel’s board has been reduced from 9 people to 3.

A story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal caught my eye yesterday. It talks about the concerns that coffee shops are having about their internet access policies.

Many people set up temporary offices in places with public WiFi access and use the real estate for hours at a time for the cost of a cup of coffee.

I remember a decade ago advising a property management company on the risks associated with enabling free WiFi in their food court – a space that already had challenges providing sufficient seating. How would the business model work? It isn’t the communications link that is expensive; the issue is the opportunity cost of a table that isn’t generating revenue.

Is this the start of a serious trend to inhibit free access?

In the meantime, find a way to compensate the owners for use of their space – buy an extra sandwich or muffin and give it to that homeless person you passed on the way in.

The opposition parties have succeeded in calling an emergency meeting of the House of Commons Industry Committee to wade into the sale of Nortel’s business units.

While the trigger event is the recent Ericsson deal, the committee might as well be looking at the entire business liquidation process, since wireless is just the first of a number of business units to go.

The NDP industry critic, Brian Masse said in a press release:

The Conservatives are using taxpayer money to help a foreign company steal very valuable assets at a lowball price, while a leader in Canadian innovation who is offering a higher price, is blocked. It is outrageous.

The Committee meeting allows opposition members to get their views into the transcripts, helping to build campaign literature for the next election.

Will the minority government resist the calls for intervention in Ericsson’s acquisition of Nortel’s wireless business?

Members should remember that there are a large number of Canadians who are employed by foreign technology firms, including 1500 Ericsson’s research labs in Montreal.

Last week, I commented on the harsh language used by Ontario’s Finance Minister, who was quoted saying that “LTE was partly funded with Canadian taxpayer money, and he doesn’t want it going to a foreign company.” This came from the guy signing cheques for more than a quarter billion taxpayer dollars for France-based game studio Ubisoft.

So, last Friday, Democrat US Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eshoo introduced a Net Neutrality Bill that has been attracting a lot of attention.

I caught a tweet on Monday evening from CIPPIC that asked “where’s ours!!”

Of course, when you read the bill [ pdf, 49KB], you’ll realize that most of these proposed protections are already part of Canada’s Telecom Act. The one novel proposed amendment to the 75 year old US Communications Act was one that seeks:

to ensure that consumers receive meaningful information regarding their communications services;

In other words, increased transparency, as was suggested by a number of parties in the recent network management proceeding.

Canada’s regulatory framework already captures protections that the US is just starting to consider in legislation. What more is needed?