DSL Extreme is an ISP operating in the US with a business model that is not unlike many of the members of CAIP. In fact, the director of the Canadian operations of its parent company (Ikano) is a signatory to the CAIP answer [ pdf, 555KB] to the high speed Cabinet appeals.

DSL Extreme is especially noteworthy because it has succeeded in negotiating wholesale access to Verizon’s FiOS network.

It is important to consider that in the US, next generation carrier networks are not regulated by the FCC. So, DSL Extreme didn’t get access to Verizon’s network because of a regulatory order; it was good ol’ fashioned negotiations across the table.

So let’s take a look at what Ikano said [ pdf, 78KB] in signing the coalition submission, opposing Bell and TELUS asking for the government to back off regulation of investment in next generation access facilities:

If granted, the Bell and Telus petitions will limit competition and customer choice for residential customers of high speed Internet services as well as various bundled voice and data services (including video and IPTV services) to, at best, the duopoly that exists today between the phone companies and the cable companies.

It is interesting to reconcile this statement against what Ikano’s US affiliate has found to be true: that it is quite possible to negotiate access to even better facilities than what is being sought in the Canadian regulatory arena. DSL Extreme is able to serve all-fibre customers.

More evidence that free markets work.

Technorati Tags:
Ikano, DSL Extreme, Bell, TELUS, Cabinet, CRTC

The OECD broadband numbers [ Excel, 47 KB] released today show that Canada continues to lead the world in cable broadband penetration, with 15.59 subscribers per 100 people, as of December 2008, and cable broadband in Canada is increasing its lead over telco DSL.

The numbers show that Canada maintained its OECD rank at number 10 and increased its lead over the UK (at number 11) by adding more broadband subscribers per capita (11 per thousand pop). The UK only added 9 subscribers per 1000 pop in the six months ending December 2008.

In the appeals before cabinet, some analysts and consultants have called for Canada to adopt British, French or German unbundling rules for DSL, failing to recognize two key facts: Canada’s high speed internet market is led by cable (not telco) broadband services; and, Canada’s market for broadband continues to outperform these European peers.

The OECD also released a report [ pdf, 457 KB] on the use of stimulus funds for broadband

This paper argues that policy makers need to evaluate the costs and benefits of any public investment in telecommunication infrastructure and select projects which can stimulate current demand but simultaneously expand the productive capacity of the economy in the longer term. All public investments in telecommunications should balance four key items – connectivity, competition, innovation/growth and social benefit.

On the issue of government intervention in a competitive marketplace, the report says:

Government investment in telecommunication networks must be used to foster competition and not to entrench existing operators at the expense of potential new entrants. One risk of governments investing in telecommunications is that they tend to have to choose winners in the market. Once one network is built or strengthened there is a relatively low chance of another infrastructure-based provider entering the market given the financial advantage already awarded to the incumbent via government funding.

We have a panel looking at Building Broadband at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit. The panel features a diverse group of leaders from Google, Barrett Xplore, Motorola, TeraGo Networks and Sasktel.

Last week, I wrote about concerns with the Electronic Commerce Protection Act (ECPA).

McCarthy Tetrault sent an alert message to its subscribers:

While the objective of the legislation is laudable, the bill’s overly broad language could circumscribe legitimate business-to-business marketing and impact software companies’ ability to deliver upgrades and patches to customers.

The article itself describes how Canada’s proposed legislation, as it currently stands, is more restrictive than other countries.

Unlike other international anti-spam legislation, the prohibition against unsolicited commercial messages in the ECPA is not limited to messages sent with some element of fraud or misleading information, sent with an “intent to deceive or mislead,” sent to addresses that were gathered using “automated means,” or sent in bulk.

The requirements for obtaining express consent are stringent and the circumstances in which an implied consent can be relied upon are limited.

Michael Geist wrote about the legislation on his blog and in his newspaper column this week, arguing that:

most of these provisions are standard fare around the world. All parties should recognize that providing reasonable consumer protections does not impede electronic commerce, but rather facilitate it.

The McCarthy Tetrault article disagrees with this assessment that a) the provisions are standard fare; and b) that these are reasonable consumer protections.

As an example, in a twist that seems to discourage increased e-commerce, businesses are not even permitted to seek consent electronically, because such a request itself would be a prohibited electronic message.

Are people not troubled by an attempt to impose limits on Canadians expressing legal communications? It is as though there is a presumption that all unsolicited messages – even those with legitimate expressions – are to be stopped.

Shouldn’t that concern more than the business community?

When we first looked at limiting the electronic distribution of content that is illegal in print form, there was a global reaction. The current draft of ECPA seeks to make it illegal to distribute content that is completely legal and has no intent to deceive. Where are the civil libertarians on this issue?

We’ll watch for changes to avoid Canada’s ECPA chilling e-commerce, rather than enhancing its adoption.

In a recent posting on one of his blogs, Mark Evans writes about “Why Social Media Fails“. He says that it is too easy to overlook the limitations of social media tools.

Facebook, Twitter, blogs, et al are weapons you can add to a communications, marketing and sales arsenal as opposed to silver bullets that can solve or fix your business challenges.

We have a panel looking at Social Media in Business and Society at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit. The panel features a diverse group of panelists from Google, MSN, Ryerson and Zoocasa and it will be moderated by David Jacobson of PwC.

Have you registered yet?

I wonder about the potential for the Electronic Commerce Protection Act to inadvertently chill some beneficial forms of electronic commerce communications.

Let’s look at the purpose of the Act:

3. The purpose of this Act is to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating commercial conduct that discourages the use of electronic means to carry out commercial activities, because that conduct

1. impairs the availability, reliability, efficiency and optimal use of electronic means to carry out commercial activities;
2. imposes additional costs on businesses and consumers;
3. compromises privacy and the security of confidential information; and
4. undermines the confidence of Canadians in the use of electronic means of communication to carry out their commercial activities in Canada and abroad.

So, we are trying to promote efficient, electronic means to carry out commercial activities. A wonderful and noble intent.