Next Tuesday, the CRTC’s New Media hearings open in Gatineau. The Commission has scheduled time for oral presentations through the middle of March.

As we described last October, the proceeding is looking at how Canada’s broadcasting system is affected by new mechanisms, such as the internet and mobile devices, as contrasted with traditional over-the-air and cable delivery.

The Commission sought responses to six main themes, the third of which has attracted calls for a levy to fund Canadian content:

1. Defining broadcasting in new media
2. The significance of broadcasting in new media and its impact on the Canadian broadcasting system
3. Are incentives or regulatory measures necessary or desirable for the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content in new media?
4. Are there issues concerning access to broadcasting content in new media?
5. Other broadcasting or public policy objectives
6. The appropriateness of the new media exemption orders

There are a number of different visions being set in front of the Commission.

CBC does not yet see evidence of new media displacing conventional TV viewing, given stability in weekly TV viewing hours. It notes that

most of the professional video content that is being consumed on the Internet continues to originate from traditional media. At the present time and into the foreseeable future we see new media and traditional media as being co-dependent.

CBC also observes that its new media broadcasting activities are not self-supporting at this time, nor does CBC expect this to change in the near to medium term.

Many creative groups are calling for ISPs and mobile operators to contribute to a new fund to support the creation of Canadian content. Others are telling the CRTC to keep its light touch, if not hands-off, approach to new media.

In his October, 2008 speech at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ convention, Ofcom Chair Philip Graf said that the UK regulator viewed its role as more of a facilitator than regulator. CAB’s submission quotes him suggesting that government should:

• Encourage providers to develop classification, search and filtering systems that parents can use to inform themselves and protect their children.
• Promote transparency and informed consent for adults, for example in the areas of behavioural advertising.
• Promote kite marking and branding by responsible site operators including those of the traditional broadcasters and newspapers who have web sites and
• Promote media literacy so that parents and children understand how to sensibly access, understand and use material.

We’ll be monitoring to see how the Canadian model unfolds.

---

Update [February 10, 9:10 am]
Thanks to Pamela for pointing out that the hearings are only running for 2 days next week [Tuesday and Wednesday (Feb 17/18) before resuming for a week on Feb 23, taking a week off and finishing during the week of March 9. The agenda that shows who is appearing on each day can be found on the CRTC website.

A comment on my posting from last Monday points to critiques of some of the job creation figures being thrown around the broadband debate in the US.

A warning bell sounded for me when reading the Reuters article. I had to wonder if we are guilty of creating an unquestioned myth surrounding some of the economic benefits of universal broadband?

It is somewhat reminiscent of the “big lie” on internet growth that helped fuel the dot-com boom. As such, it is a wake-up call to all of us to pause and examine our arguments for increased government broadband investment.

The key question now being raised is the quantum of jobs benefits, which seems to be sourced in a July 2007 article from the Brookings Institute [ pdf, 231KB].

We can all agree that broadband is good; more broadband is better. Building broadband creates positive economic impact – during the construction and once people go on-line. But, we need some critical research rather than blindly extrapolating results produced under specific sets of assumptions. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true – just more authoritative.

An article entitled “Not So Fast” in the January 29 issue of the Economist says:

When it comes to promoting economic activity, it is easy to see why having broadband is better than not having it, but most benefits are likely to come from wiring people up in the first place rather than making existing connections hum faster. In Japan and South Korea over 40% of households have fibre links capable of blazing speeds, but that does not seem to have resulted in more rapid economic growth, or the emergence of new applications unavailable to consumers with ordinary broadband.

The article notes the potential for market distortions when governments intervene.

Fibre networks are already being built by private companies in many countries; the prospect of handouts might cause them to delay their plans, in the hope that the state will pay for things they were going to do anyway.

It is important to ensure that we have more informed discussion when we’re talking about pouring millions, if not billions of tax dollars into these project.

I suspect I was long overdue for a system crash. In the more than 27 years that I have been a PC user, I have never had a major system crash – until yesterday at noon.

I dutifully did weekly back-ups and daily protection for critical files. For two years now, I have used a continuous on-line back-up service called Carbonite and it was a lifesaver.

As a result of its easy on-line access, I was back on the air in less than 20 minutes – pressing my laptop into service. It will likely take the weekend to download most of my files. There are 40GB in the back-up. I suspect that I will have lost a few pieces that are in progress and had not yet been backed up.

If I don’t reply to your recent email, please write me again – I didn’t mean to ignore you.

Let me recommend to all of you that you keep your back-ups current and brush your teeth after every meal.

Technorati Tags:
Carbonite, backup, recovery, SME

Last December, I wrote about some of the absurdities of government contracting that contributed to putting our department of national defense in a bind for its telecom network.

At issue has been the need for Bell to continue to provide services while TELUS implements its network.

Last week, the CRTC pronounced judgment on what Bell can charge the government for continuing to provide services because of a failure by the new supplier to meet the contractual terms for transition of the network.

In a single sentence, the CRTC sided with Bell:

The Panel has considered the issue in light of the submissions this morning, the clarifications and after due consideration is of the view that the offer as put forward by Bell this morning in accordance with the terms and the clarification given today is appropriate under the circumstances.

A day earlier, the Commission castigated a late TELUS attempt to change the Commission’s process:

The Commission notes that TELUS is a sophisticated and experienced participant in Commission proceedings and considers that it was incumbent on TELUS to make any objections known at the earliest possible opportunity and not on the eve of the Commission decision.

Although the indemnification terms between the government and TELUS are confidential, it is suspected that Bell’s fees will not be absorbed by the taxpayers. The size of the indemnity could significantly impact the shareholder value that could be generated from what was a celebrated $213M win in 2007.

In reviewing the transcripts, Public Works acknowledged that only Bell and TELUS bid on the contract, although Bell suggested that a third bidder might have participated, but declined because the RFP had stipulated a 1-year maximum for the network transition. Of course, the failure to meet the tight time requirement has been the heart of the dispute.

Complex networks need time to implement; even more time to migrate. With a network migration, the carriers have to keep service running despite all of the fingers that keep getting in the way. Think of redoing your bathroom while living in the house, versus doing the renovations before moving in.

Perhaps more time needs to be allocated for implementation. Clearly, customers need to ensure that flexibility is in place to transition at the end of the contract. Does the RFP process allow the bidders to propose new solutions, or is the solution predetermined. Too often, RFPs are really RFQs: competitive bidders are forced to quote on someone else’s optimal design.

BMV Holdings is announcing a name change tomorrow, together with plans to announce “a key technological development.”

The boilerplate language at the bottom of the invitation may signal plans to operate under the brand name “Public Mobile”:

Formed in 2008, Public Mobile, formerly known as BMV Holdings, is a value-based wireless carrier offering customers flat-rate wireless voice and data services in Ontario and Quebec commencing in the third quarter of 2009. The company’s PCS G Band spectrum covers almost 19 million Canadians in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor across Ontario and Quebec. G Band spectrum is an extension of the existing PCS spectrum in the 1.9 GHz range and shares the same characteristics as spectrum currently used by wireless carriers across North America. At a price of only $52 million, the PCS G Band spectrum will enable Public Mobile to deliver a cost-efficient consumer wireless across the two provinces.

Will Public Mobile be the public face of BMV?

---

Update [February 5, 11:30 am]
As we predicted yesterday, BMV officially launched its new operating brand, Public Mobile. At its launch, Alek Krstajic also placed the first commercial G Band wireless call on a standard CDMA phone, manufactured by ZTE. Alek will be speaking on June 17 at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Early Bird rates are available until the end of February. Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
BMV, Public Mobile