Anyone else catch the news about how Estonia is going to introduce voting by cell phones in 2011?
Last year, Estonia used internet voting, which proved to be secure despite worries about hacker attacks, identity fraud and vote count manipulation.
Given the low voter turnout in Canada’s last election, why wouldn’t we look at similar ways to increase the participation rate?
Technorati Tags:
Estonia, election, e-government,
I found out about the latest way telemarketers get around the Do Not Call List.
Like other people, some of my mobile phone numbers are now getting calls from shady Florida timeshares and cruise lines, quite possibly as a result of appearing on the DNCL. Annoying calls haven’t slowed down; they just start with a survey.
Last night, there was a new twist.
I received a call with Private Name and Number in the display. That wasn’t too unusual. I have a number of colleagues who call that way, not just sleazy call centres. It was from a company that has duct cleaning equipment ‘in my neighbourhood’.
When I asked them for their name and number, they gave me a phone number for a small independent contractor who has nothing to do with the call centre. How could we prove otherwise?
The only way to truly find out who is violating the telemarketing rules will be to book an appointment with these guys.
Has anyone seen any real benefits from the DNCL? It seems to me that we have legislation that adds costs to the good guys while doing close to nothing to stop the bad guys. In this economy, did we really need to add another cost of doing business?
I would prefer to chop yet another government database and just teach Canadians that modern etiquette permits slamming the phone down on unwanted calls. It’s cheaper, and let’s face it, it feels so good.
Will the government repeal the DNCL?
Technorati Tags:
DNCL
Last Thursday, MTS Allstream lost its appeal for the CRTC to review and vary part of its essential services decision related to the classification of Ethernet access and transport services and related services.
MTS Allstream wanted these services to be considered “essential” in order to take advantage of cost-based rates which might be as low as half of the current tariff.
The CRTC seemed to rely on statistics that may have been self-fulfilling:
20. … MTS Allstream argued that the ILECs’ legacy digital access and transport services are not adequate substitutes for Ethernet services.
…
22. As noted above, the Commission based the classification of Ethernet services on the data regarding the extent to which competitors self-supply high-speed access and transport services or lease these services from third parties. The data indicate that competitors self-supply or lease from third parties a large proportion of their service requirements. The Commission notes that self-supply is a potential substitute to leasing services from ILECs.
Let’s try to understand this a little better. MTS Allstream said that access circuits like DS-0s, DS-1s, etc. aren’t substitutes for Ethernet access; they wanted ethernet access to be designated as essential. The CRTC looked at “the extent to which competitors self-supply high-speed access” and found a large proportion of their service requirements were self-supplied.
Well, duhh! Of course that was the case – competitors couldn’t affordably lease facilities from the ILEC because the CRTC has not mandated them as essential. So, pretty much the only way competitors would deploy high speed access, if they have them at all, was through self-supply or third parties.
The CRTC should have simply stated that it has always supported facilities-based competition. High speed ethernet accesses will generally depend on fibre and we have long held that there is no inherent advantage for ILECs over new entrants for such facilities.
The Commission may have reached the right conclusion to match its policy objectives, but for the wrong reasons – and the statistics were forced to produce the answer it needed.
How can we be sure its conclusion is correct for all markets across Canada?
I have to wonder if the Public Works / DND dispute with Bell and TELUS [see yesterday’s posting] be resolved any easier had the CRTC had ruled in favour of MTS Allstream in Decision 2008-118? That case may demonstrate that there could be a difference in how to regulate (or forbear from regulating) the very large enterprise market versus the smaller business markets.
The game of chicken being played with the communications network for our Department of National Defense (DND) is a demonstration of what is wrong with government contracting.
Read the file on the CRTC website and you would scratch your head with wonder [start from the bottom and work your way up].
Basically, here is what happened: Bell had been providing DND with its national communications services. Two years ago, TELUS won the replacement network RFP, which required that the transition be completed in 12 months. It missed.
For the past year and a half, DND has used up the 18 months of month-to-month of transitional renewals that were allowed under the customer specific arrangement (CSA) that governed their old network. That CSA expired on Monday, but service is continuing until the CRTC renders its decision. There was no provision to extend the old arrangement beyond these 18 monthly renewals.
TELUS is still not able to finish the transition of most of the network for about 6 more months and parts may not be ready for up to two years.
Bell has said that they no longer offer that arrangement; the service has been replaced by a new tariffed service, but that requires a 5 year commitment – just sign here please. Sorry, we don’t offer that any other way.
If this was a normal private sector customer, the old carrier would be helpful, sometimes to the point of bending over backwards to assist the new carrier.
Why? Because in the private sector, customers have long memories. RFPs don’t have to be fair; there can be all sorts of subjective points awarded for intangible, qualitative factors like service history. Not so for the government. Public Works, the contracting arm of our government, won’t be able to consider any of these antics when it comes time to award its next piece of business.
With government, contracts are awarded based on quantitative, unemotional points scoring. It is a clean slate for each procurement. Do you think the taxpayer is better off this way? Still, since there is no downside for Bell in future contract opportunities, they are behaving exactly the way their shareholders should be proud of.
Hopefully the government lawyers are learning how to deal with end-of-contract transition clauses a little better.
What does side of the net neutrality debate does Google really support?
That was the question raised in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ), although Google’s Washington-based Telecom and Media Counsel Rick Whitt reaffirmed the company’s support for net neutrality in his blog posting rebuttal.
The WSJ article suggests that support for net neutrality may be softening as companies understand more about the realities of delivering quality to users.
Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.
So where does Google stand on the issue of imposing net neutrality regulations?
Last week, I looked at some of the comments filed in the CRTC’s New Media proceeding.
Let’s return to Google’s comments, in part because the submission provides wonderful evidence of the emergence of diverse Canadian new media content and also because the company appears to endorse a vision of the internet that keeps regulators at bay. It is understandable that the WSJ is finding it tough to follow Google’s position.
Google’s filing with the CRTC includes examples of Canada’s presence on YouTube that should serve as notice to those who rely on traditional handouts that there is already a vibrant Canadian production presence in new media, without having waited for incentives.
I cited one quote from Google’s 20 page submission last Wednesday, but I left out the last two sentences from that paragraph, which may be relevant to the WSJ discussion. So let me repeat this quote from Google, emphasizing those last two sentences:
Without regulation the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been, and will continue to be, implemented on the Internet. The New Media Exemption is the best regulatory approach to keeping the Internet awesome. It should remain in place without change. It should not be varied, removed, replaced, or supplemented with regulation. [emphasis added]
Catch that? Google is not asking to vary, remove, replace or supplement current internet regulation – presumably, not even supplementing with net neutrality legislation.
Google continues a few paragraphs later with a further endorsement of how the internet has succeeded without regulation.
New and evolving tools put the power to easily and inexpensively create and disseminate legal content in the hands of users. All this has been made possible by creators experimenting with Internet business models, without regulation influencing their development.
Which begs the question of why, in the context of net neutrality, Google so often appears to be asking for regulation that might prevent experimentation by ISP’s with various business models. Google uses a footnote in its submission that is a little confusing:
In this submission, Google uses the term “access” to mean the ability of Internet users to view, hear, and find content, and not network neutrality issues.
Google defines the access issue as one that appears to largely be covered by existing non-discrimination regulations and rational business behavior:
So long as the broadband “on ramps” to the Internet remain open to all, and the broadband providers themselves supply sufficient capacity to support robust Internet access, the Internet can serve as an important content distribution platform.
Other parties, such as Primus, address this point in submissions, noting that the Sections 27(2) and 36 of Telecom Act ensure that internet-based content will continue to be widely and easily available.
As Google says in its submission, why would we want regulation to inhibit experimenting with Internet business models?
So, is the WSJ correct that Google may be softening its stance on new net neutrality regulation?