Yesterday, I wrote about the paradox of diverse viewpoints on the internet. In the interest of helping to present you with an alternate perspective, let me tell you about the release of book called “For Sale to the Highest Bidder: Telecom Policy in Canada” earlier this week from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In the book, the “S” is written using a dollar sign.

There are a couple excerpts available on-line – the introduction and a piece about the privatization of BCE by the OTPP. From what I have read so far, this book clearly espouses a different view than what you can expect to usually read on this website.

For example, the chapter entitled Strange Bedfellows at BCE asserts the deal may betray a type of comradeship between the teachers’ union and the Bell unions:

As it now stands, we have a bizarre situation where teachers, who are unionized and tend to be progressive politically, find their pension funds used to increase foreign ownership which they likely oppose and which has uncertain consequences for their brothers and sisters in the acquired company. The transformation of the pension funds of workers into just another variety of profit-maximizing firms should be seen as one of the lost opportunities to transform capitalism, at least marginally, toward a human scale.

It is unclear that there is any pseudo-scientific research to back these claims. Are teachers more “progressive politically”? Would teachers choose to have OTPP invest with political motives or be primarily profit driven?

There is no presumption that the employees of such bought-up companies, or anyone other than the select list of the equity fund’s shareholders, benefit from this shuffling of the cards. The increasing prevalence of such activities, which benefit the few at the expense of the many, presumably helps to explain why the overall distribution of income and wealth has worsened in developed countries.

This paragraph ignores the fact that the “select list of the equity fund’s shareholders” is a very large list of current and future teachers. What is the factual basis to throw out a line like “the overall distribution of income and wealth has worsened in developed countries”? Would anyone really prefer to have the distribution of poverty in under-developed countries?

I have not yet spent the $15 plus shipping and handling to be able to read the whole book, although I’m not sure I need that much diversity in my reading diet. With their progressive agenda, I’m surprised that CCPA is chopping trees down to print their book, burning carbon to ship it and deliver it. Why not simply use the web to distribute the material under a creative commons license?

Maybe I’m just waiting to be able to download it for free.

Last Sunday, Rex Murphy’s Cross Country Checkup (on CBC Radio One) explored “Are There Legitimate Limits to Free Expression?”

You can download the program in MP3 format or listen to it using Real Audio.

The program explored the debate on various fronts: human rights commission complaints, campus discourse, government funding of films. I’m not going to contribute to the hyperbole being generated around Bill C-10. I’ll leave it to others to sort out the confusion between withdrawal of taxpayer support and the issue of censorship.

I’d like to look at diversity on the internet. The host’s introduction to the program asked:

Free speech is taken to be many to be the absolute central engine of a functioning democracy. Is it giving way before the pressures of political correctness, or the emergence of bureaucratic bodies under the guise of “protecting against potential future offenses?” Or are there justifiable limits to free speech? …and if there are …who should decide …and how?

A number of callers were concerned that magazines and journals were not giving sufficient space for opposing viewpoints. One caller suggested that a 100 word letter to the editor is hardly a fair response to a 6000 word essay.

One of the points that the host made was that in an internet era, an infinitely wide array of diverse views are possible. But I would suggest that conventional media has often been more effective at presenting opposing viewpoints – especially informed viewpoints.

Let me offer an observation of a possible paradox of internet media: While we have never had greater access to diverse viewpoints, we are also better empowered to restrict our news sources to those channels, blogs, RSS streams that are more likely to align with our current thinking.

A recent piece observes:

Web 2.0 is a mass movement that lends legitimacy to the majority opinion and uses peer pressure as an effective tool against those who disagree with the consensus.

In a Web 2.0 world, information is not usually imparted directly from authority. It either arrives through social networks or is sought out directly by individuals. The search methods in Web 2.0 favor the volume of supporters of a narrative and have little relationship to the degree of truth in the narrative.

Just as the internet empowers increased access to diverse viewpoints, we might wonder if its narrowcasting capability enables increased isolation from such diversity.

An article in last Monday’s New York Times talks about a joint initiative by the six largest cable companies in the US to develop a capability for advertisers to buy targeted and interactive ads.

Cable companies would presumably leverage information collected by set-top boxes in order to deliver ads that the Times suggests are better focussed than Google. It is all to increase the cable companies’ share of the $70 billion spent on television advertising in the United States.

The executives involved in Project Canoe think that, by working together, they can increase the cable industry’s take from $5 billion a year to $15 billion a year

When will these technology and agency capabilities migrate into Canada? Would Canadian cable companies create a similar consortium?

Do consumers have any idea of how much information is being gathered in their set-top boxes?

Technorati Tags:
cable TV, NY Times

The ITU is holding its 8th Global Symposium for Regulators in Pattaya, Thailand this week, with a theme of “Six Degrees of Sharing: Innovative Infrastructure Sharing and Open Access Strategies to Promote Affordable Access for all.”

Open access on mobile networks has been a recurring theme recently. Sharing is a different matter. How can networks be shared and still promote product differentiation? There are a number of models globally, some of which will be discussed at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

In view of yesterday’s deadline for participation in Canada’s upcoming AWS auction, I wonder if there are any network sharing plans among the applicants. Perhaps the right question is not “if” but rather “how many of” the business plans call for sharing of networks with other operators? Have any incumbents, especially those on CDMA networks, looked at network sharing as a means to overlay GSM platforms – with a reduced hit on capital?

On an obliquely related topic, I received a note last week about an initiative to promote improved ICT infrastructure to indigenous communities in the Americas. How would network sharing and open access further the objectives of the Indigenous Commission for Communication Technologies in the Americas (ICCTA).

An increased reliance on market forces means that the role of regulators, gathered this week in Thailand, is shifting from economic regulation to social regulation. In an information based economy, how should we define universal service and basic service obligations? What do these mean in a competitive industry structure?

Technorati Tags:
ITU, ICCTA, Canadian Telecom Summit

In the classes I teach at University of Toronto, I try to impart to the engineering students an appreciation of the level of influence played by government policy and regulation. This week, Ottawa again becomes a focal point for the telecom industry in Canada

Later today, anxious wireless service providers in waiting will engage couriers to try to anonymously deliver packages to the 15th floor of 300 Slater Street. Those packages will have the application forms and irrevocable letters of credit for authorization to bid in the upcoming Advanced Wireless Services auction. We should have the list of applicants by Friday, although the list will not include a statement of whether or not Industry Canada has approved the companies’ ownership structures.

I will be watching to see if Montreal-based artist Matthew Biederman submits an application, possibly under the name “The Office of Spectral Ecology.” A news story discusses his “poetic” aspirations for an “open and free” public space. He hopes various arts councils will back him financially. I would love to hear your comments on this proposal.

And in other news, across the river, CRTC hearings resume tomorrow in the matter of Bell’s change in ownership. Following the dismissal of the bondholders’ suit, CRTC approval is a final gate to pass through in order to move to closing. The key open issue remaining for the CRTC to examine is confirmation that pension fund rules will permit Teachers’ planned special voting structure through a trustee; Ontario pension rules limit direct ownership to 30%.

These are some previews of coming attractions. I’ll try to provide more as it happens, complete with commentary. Just like you see on those Buffalo TV stations: Fire in Tonawanda, film at 11. Stay tuned to this channel.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Industry Canada, AWS Auction, Bell