Perhaps it was only in the interest of journalistic simplicity, but The New York Times seems to have confused the web with the internet. In the NYTimes editorial, entitled Democracy and the Web, the Times seems to think that net neutrality is all about making sure that all websites load just as fast in your browser – in the interests of democratic access.

There is no mention of different applications being treated with different priority (such as voice or tele-medicine competing with file downloading). All bits are the same in the eyes of the Times, because in its simplified view of the world, the internet apparently equals web-browsing. And we can’t allow those greedy ISPs to put their selfish financial interests ahead of democratic access to MLB.com, apple pie recipes, and the American Way.

Mark Evans has a provocatively titled post, “The Web As We Know It is Dying.” The article questions the CRTC examining new media content in an upcoming proceeding:

I can’t wait to see government regulation of the Internet if, in fact, it is possible to regulate it.

On the other hand, his article seems to endorse CAIP’s request that the regulator does intervene and impose some regulations on internet access. Which is it?

He also suggests that those evil ISPs will distort the former free-wheeling internet because of their selfish money grabbing ways.

You notice that broadband carriers and cablecos don’t break out the profitability of their high-speed units? Probably because they’re very, very profitable.

Is the business really so embarrassingly profitable?

Net Neutrality will be the subject of a special panel on Wednesday morning, June 18 at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit. Register soon. Prices go up June 1.

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, Mark Evans, NY Times

Has anyone else noticed that phone calls just don’t seem to be as good as they were 10-15 years ago?

I had a number of radio interviews in the wake of the recent tragic breakdown in communications that may have contributed to the death of a Calgary toddler. Many of the discussions surrounded the potential for compromise in 9-1-1 location information associated with nomadic VoIP.

With over-the-top VoIP, the phone line just cannot be as reliable as a traditional circuit switched phone service. It needs power and it needs the residential broadband service to be working and relatively clear of heavy congestion. For an emergency call to be routed properly, the user needs to actively keep their user profile up-to-date. Still, these compromises are made in exchange for a lower price tag and a number of valuable call management features.

We put up with dropped calls in exchange for mobility; we’re willing to redial in exchange for overseas calling rates that look like domestic pricing. In general, I sense that we seem to tolerate a number of quality compromises these days on voice service in exchange for lower prices and other features.

It is unusual to see quality diminishing with the application of new technologies. Those pin-drop crystal clear advertisements seem to be a distant memory.

Axia SuperNet filed an application on April 21 for the CRTC to review its Deferral Account Decision (2008-1) on the basis that TELUS will be using some of the money in communities that already have broadband internet. Contrast this with an application by TELUS on April 23 asking the CRTC to review the same Decision, but on the basis that more of the Deferral Account funds should go to more communities.

Why do I raise these 3 week old applications now?

Axia has filed some supplemental materials from smaller ISPs operating in Alberta that had not participated in the original proceeding. There is a precedent associated with Mitchell Seaforth Cable and the community of Dublin, Ontario.

There are a few issues at play here. First off, who are the Alternate Broadband Service Providers (ABSPs) and is there a complete inventory of them and their service areas?

There isn’t a requirement for ISPs to register with the CRTC in order to provide internet access service. The CRTC knows about many types of service providers through various registration lists.

For example, carriers show up as:

• ILECs;
• small ILECs;
• CLECs;
• wireless carriers;
• other carriers; or,
• non-dominant carriers.

Some other companies operating as ISPs may show up as:

• Resellers;
• DSL providers; or
• resellers of High Speed Retail Internet Service.

But what about pure fixed wireless ISPs? They aren’t reselling anything. There is no need for them to register as telecom service providers for the contribution regime, if the only telecom service they provide is internet access (eg. no VoIP, no private line, etc.). Who speaks for them in Ottawa?

It may be a real challenge in getting regulatory awareness of precisely those companies that may be most likely to be providing remote and rural broadband – those companies that are likely to be most affected by Decision 2008-1.

Decision 2008-1 may demonstrate why companies like ABSPs need to be aware of regulatory proceedings, despite believing that there own operations are unregulated. Perhaps this is a key selling point for industry associations in their drive for members. Can the CRTC rely on CAIP or other organizations to be the representative voice of ABSPs and other independent ISPs? At the end of the day, is it the CRTC’s job to reach out to all potential interested parties or the ISPs who are responsible for watching out for themselves?

Looking beyond the disruptive impact on ABSP business plans and the potential for market distortion caused by Decision 2008-1, how does the CRTC solicit more ABSP participation in such activities as the annual industry monitoring report?

Technorati Tags:
Bell, CRTC, CAIP, Canadian Telecom Summit

It was with some nostalgia that I read of HP’s announced acquisition of EDS. EDS had virtually defined the business of IT professional services when the company was founded in 1962 by future presidential candidate Ross Perot.

More than 20 years ago, I was advising General Motors and its Information Services and Communications Authority (GMISCA) as GM built its global telecommunications network. Part way through our consulting project, GM acquired EDS and Perot’s team took over the GMISCA part of the automaker.

EDS began hiring every new grad it could find in the state of Michigan; one of its new-employee welcome parties was held on the field of the Pontiac Silverdome. EDS brought an economic renaissance to Michigan during a tough period in the mid 80’s – the state took out full page ads thanking EDS for its contributions to a renewed prosperity.

At the time, EDS was not your average Michigan corporation. EDS was known for its conservatism, its moral code (forbidding cohabitation, for example), and a strict grooming code. It was a different time – with a lot of men and women wearing navy suits, crisp white shirts and crimson red ties. Nearly twenty five years later, like most work environments, it is a little more relaxed now.

The professional services business is enormous, as evidenced by the $14B value of HP’s acquisition. For perspective, GM had acquired EDS for $2.5B in 1984.

Sebastiano Tevarotto, who heads HP’s Communications, Media & Entertainment division, will be speaking at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit at lunch on June 17. The role of strategic sourcing in business transformation will be the subject of a panel on Monday June 16. In addition, Clive Seeley of BT and CP Gurnani of Tech Mahindra will be speaking on June 17 about how British Telecom has successful leveraged strategic sourcing for many of its internal operations.

Technorati Tags:
EDS, HP, BT, Tech Mahindra, Canadian Telecom Summit

Another important milestone has been reached on Bell’s journey toward privatization.

According to a press release, Bell has now filed all the required documentation with the CRTC to confirm the new ownership structure will comply with the provisions for board composition.

A number of risk factors are still potential deal breakers, any one of which could have a material impact on Bell’s share price (which climbed yesterday to break through $38 for the first time in a little while):

1. satisfaction of the conditions to the approvals of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the Minister of Industry,
2. resolution of the appeals filed by the debenture holders with regard to the plan of arrangement, and any related stay or injunction that would prevent closing pending resolution of such appeals, and
3. certain termination rights available to the parties under the definitive agreement dated June 29, 2007, as amended, governing the terms of the transaction. The conditions to these approvals may not be satisfied, the other conditions to the transaction may not be satisfied in accordance with their terms, and/or the parties to the definitive agreement may exercise their termination rights, in which case the proposed privatization transaction could be modified, restructured or terminated, as applicable.

Will the CRTC and Industry Canada confirm that Bell’s documentation is completely in order in order to remove the first of these risk factors?

Technorati Tags:
Teachers, Bell, CRTC