Some wondering out loud today.

I wonder if the current system of supplier-side subsidies is working effectively to increase broadband adoption in Canada.

There is a higher cost per subscriber to provide services in less densely populated areas, but why does that necessarily translate into a requirement for an across the board subsidy from the government? It is as though the government initiatives for extending broadband begins with a premise that equates “rural” with “poor”.

After all, many residents in unserved areas have made a conscious lifestyle choice to reside outside of an urban landscape. Fresh air, more land, fewer neighbours.

Rural residents read the store ads in the national papers and are envious of prices available to city dwellers. They are used to paying more for many staples, since there is often less competition; bread, lettuce, meat, appliances, among other essential items, often are cheaper in the city.

Still, many draw healthy salaries, and generally, rural residents tend to enjoy lower housing prices.

It is understandable that they would like to get a government subsidy for their broadband service. I would too.

But is it reasonable for government initiatives to focus on universal subsidies on the supply side? Such approaches risk anointing winners and creating losers, potentially precluding opportunities for competitive supply. And we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars being spent without significant impact on broadband adoption.

Are the funds being spent effectively? Is there another way?

I wonder about a direct end-user incentive such as a broadband tax credit. Using the existing tax system, policy makers could apply the credit as broadly or focussed as they choose.

Perhaps the program could target lower income earners, regardless of where they live, offering $20 per month to connect to entry level broadband. Perhaps an additional amount would be available in rural areas. Maybe there could be a one-time credit to cover equipment installation – or even buying new computers.

Such an approach could create the right environment to encourage multiple service providers to enter more markets. This approach increases the pool of potential subscribers, rather than limiting the number of suppliers to a monopoly.

Such an incentive plan might fit other services like mobile phones or even a program to match Italy’s approach to stimulate the conversion to digital TV. But those are subjects to be explored sometime in the future.

How will broadband figure in platforms for the next election?

Technorati Tags:
rural, broadband

My friends at Privacy Laws & Business are reporting on proposed legislation in the Netherlands to protect against publication of unauthorized personal information on the web. Last month, the data protection authority (CBP) published recommendations to give people the right to demand that information about them is removed from websites.

The publication of personal details on the internet can follow people for years. Personal details should therefore be used with caution, particularly on the internet.

The recommendations would require that private individuals must give permission for information about them to be put on the internet. Websites which refuse to remove unwanted information face civil court proceedings.

How will the proposed rules apply to foreign websites? Will citizens be able to enforce their privacy rights if targeted from abroad?

The European Privacy Officers Network is holding a roundtable discussion in The Hague tomorrow evening and Wednesday.

Technorati Tags:
privacy

Last Sunday’s NY Times carried an article about cell phone jamming equipment making its way into the US. It would be surprising if the equipment hasn’t leaked into Canada as well.

[Jamming devices are not permitted for sale or use in Canada. Their use, possession, sale, manufacture, distribution or importing would contravene sections 4 and 9 of the Radiocommunication Act.]

James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University, provided an insightful quote

If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people. The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights.

When this subject was examined by Canadian regulators five years ago, I recall hearing a radio interview with a thespian from the Stratford Festival whose support was being sought for silencing cell phones in the audience. The actor demurred, suggesting that the rare ringing during a performance was less of a distraction than people coughing, yet no one was calling for the audience to be subjected to a medical check-up before being admitted.

I tend to believe that jamming cell phones is not just illegal – it can endanger lives. What about simple common courtesy on both sides?

Your views?

Technorati Tags:
jamming, NY Times

Just returning to the office after a few days in Atlantic Canada visiting with the team at Barrett Xplore.

I have spoken of Barrett many times in the past and I am on their advisory board.

Barrett Xplore continues to expand its fixed wireless footprint into underserved parts of Canada – its satellite internet service is already available everywhere. Fixed wireless solutions provide an even better broadband experience at a lower price point and with an easier installation.

Our vision is simple — more for rural Canada: more choice, competition, and availability of broadband access, applications, and accessories.

What is remarkable is that Barrett Xplore’s business plan isn’t predicated on government assistance or draws from the CRTC’s deferral account.

Policy makers need to ensure that government rural broadband strategies don’t serve to distort market forces and inadvertently damage the successful business that is allowing companies like Barrett Xplore to expand without handouts. Over the coming days, I will try to add some thoughts on possible alternate different approaches for policy makers to promote increased broadband adoption.

My daughter couldn’t hold off any longer waiting for an iPhone. She is now a proud owner of an iPod Touch – and she loves the device.

Thanks to built in WiFi, she can use the device as an internet access terminal and do her emails as well as load up music and videos from within the university buildings or through other internet hot spots.

When you reflect on the alternate forms of connectivity that are built into these devices, and consider the way that people like Alec Saunders have avoided excessive roaming charges, you can see that the carriers have limits to their negotiating position with companies such as Apple or Google who are seeking a slice – a big slice – of the wireless pie.

It seems to me that all that is missing from the iPod Touch is a microphone and my daughter’s iPod Touch could become a WiFi enabled telephone. No carrier required. Would Apple consider such a strategy to bypass the carriers?

You know, ’tis the season for people to be shopping for new electronics. Even without the iPhone in Canada, there are lots of new phones appearing in ads and on the shelves of dealers for the upcoming peak shopping season. The LG Shine is now available from Rogers, Bell and TELUS – it looks like it is the RAZR for 2007. I stopped by a couple stores this past weekend and I noticed that the packaging for the new HTC Touch at TELUS stores was inspired by Apple. The bundle includes a hefty micro-SD memory card to help make this a hit with recipients of that gift box.

The industry is dreaming of a shiny Christmas.

Technorati Tags:
Apple, iPod, WiFi