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

Following up on yesterday’s posting about a vision for a Digital Canada, I noticed an article on CBC that quotes various critics kvetching about the lack of broadband leadership in the budget.

Some seem to equate tax dollars with commitment to a knowledge economy.

Are government handouts the only way to demonstrate leadership? Perhaps inspiration can be found by a commitment to providing e-government services. Leadership can be seen in implementing any or all of the studies that have been commissioned by various governments over the past decade.

Creating and maintaining the right regulatory and policy environment for sustainable private sector investment should be the number one objective from the government.

Once again, there will be a Regulatory Blockbuster panel at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Early Bird rates are available until the end of February. Have you registered yet?

I wrote yesterday about last week’s release of the Digital Britain report.

Canada has been pretty good about studying the future. It is the follow through that seems to be missing. We have had a broadband taskforce, a spam taskforce, a telecom policy review panel, a competition policy review panel, etc. Two weeks from today, the CRTC will commence the public hearings phase of its review of Canadian broadcasting in new media. The Commission has already received 153 submissions from individuals, content providers, industry lobby groups, telcos, broadcasters, unions, church groups and academics.

We have CRTC monitoring reports that look at the state of telecommunications, broadcasting and new media.

We’re pretty good at producing studies. Can we follow through?

The broadband website has been moved to our national archives; the broadband.gc.ca website announces:

With the completion of the Broadband for Rural and Northern Development pilot program and the final round of the National Satellite Initiative (NSI), this Web site is now closed.

Does that strike anyone else as interesting? Is the work of building broadband really done?

It seems that there are lots of studies, but it is hard to find a clear statement of vision for Canada’s digital future. As we invest in measures to jump start job creation, what concrete measures will affirm Canadian leadership in a global digital economy.

Technorati Tags:
Digital Britain, CRTC, new media, broadband

On Thursday of last week, the UK released its interim Digital Britain report, setting out a strategy for building their knowledge economy.

The report contains more than 20 recommendations, including specific proposals on network issues as well as cultural issues such as the future of radio and intellectual property rights.

Of most immediate relevance to regulatory activities underway in Canada, the report sees no grounds for net neutrality legislation. It is concerned that net neutrality regulation might prevent pricing innovation, differentiation of offers and serve to discourage investment in higher-speed access networks.

Ofcom has stated that provided consumers are properly informed, such new business models could be an important part of the investment case for Next Generation Access, provided consumers are properly informed.

On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented.

The full report can be downloaded [ pdf, 1.07MB]. It sets out 5 main objectives:

• Upgrading and modernizing Britain’s digital networks – wired, wireless and broadcast – so that Britain has an infrastructure that enables it to remain globally competitive in the digital world;
• Creating a dynamic investment climate for UK digital content, applications and services, that makes the UK an attractive place for both domestic and inward investment in our digital economy;
• UK content for UK users: content of quality and scale that serves the interests, experiences and needs of all UK citizens; in particular impartial news, comment and analysis;
• Fairness and access for all: universal availability coupled with the skills and digital literacy to enable near-universal participation in the digital economy and digital society; and
• Developing the infrastructure, skills and take-up to enable the widespread online delivery of public services and business interface with Government.

Note that in the fourth bullet, universal availability is tied to near-universal adoption. As I wrote in November, as we increase broadband service availability, we need to focus on getting people to actually get on-line.

The Digital Britain report calls for a digital Universal Service Commitment to be effective by 2012, delivered by a mixture of fixed and mobile, wired and wireless means. Their target is a modest 2Mbps service. There are no suggestions on how to fund this Commitment – that is left to later.

How will Britain address service adoption? It will encourage the development of public service champions of universal take-up.

Technorati Tags:
Digital Britain, net neutrality