There is an article in EETimes by Fay Arjomandi of Vancouver-based Mobidia that may shake up the fans of the 10 year old stupid network principle. The stupid network essay calls for intelligence to reside at the edge of the network, rendering IP networks to plumbing pipes – with carriers ignorant of the application and services being transported.

The Arjomandi article suggests that what is really needed is a sharing of network intelligence and joint management of network efficiency practices. The article suggests that devices should be active, intelligent network elements within the network.

Such an approach would enable end-user devices to share the responsibilities of network management for uplinks while core network nodes manage the downlinks.

This will require devices to be service-, network- and policy-aware. Such awareness will provide a much more comprehensive, efficient and wireless-friendly way to negotiate QoS with the network; enforce network policies; and queue, prioritize and manage traffic right at the source, based on its type, before sending data over precious network resources. This will eliminate the need for extra transactions over the wireless link for QoS parameter exchange. The device becomes a self-managing element within the network that manages uplink traffic.

Interesting approach. Still, I suspect there are many IP network purists who would oppose any network-based means to manage demands on network capacity.

Israel’s Communications Ministry has issued a notice that it intends to prohibit phone companies from linking minutes to handset sales, in an attempt to further open up the market in advance of the introduction of mobile number portability in December.

Israel already has among the world’s highest level of mobile phone penetration, estimated at 116% in 2006, so it is fascinating that Israel’s government felt that further intervention in market pricing was warranted.

According to the story in the Jerusalem Post, the intent is to enable more retailers and suppliers to enter the market for handsets:

In order to move new players into the market we have to make it fair. Therefore, cell phone service providers will no longer be allowed to subsidize the price of expensive handsets by offering free minutes.

An analyst suggests that the move will help independent retailers and handset manufacturers, but it is less clear how consumers benefit.

Should carriers be limited in the types of offers that they can offer consumers? What is the role of pricing regulation in the wireless market?

Technorati Tags:
Israel, mobile

Yesterday, the Competition Policy Review Panel released its consultation paper. This consultation should be of interest to the Canadian telecom industry for at least two reasons. In part, the Bell Canada connection to the members of the panel is striking. Of the five members of the panel, three are current or past directors or employees of Bell, including panel chair, former BCE CEO and Chair Lynton (Red) Wilson.

In addition, the consultation paper identifies telecom and broadcasting as two of the six specific sectors for which specific investment regulations apply. The consultation paper asks for input on these:

Canada maintains specific regimes to govern, review or restrict investment in six sectors: telecommunications, cultural industries, broadcasting, transportation services, uranium production and financial services.

1. What changes, if any, are required to Canada’s sectoral investment regimes to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on Canada’s competitiveness?
2. What have been the impacts of these investment regimes on productivity and competitiveness in the specific sectors?

Are there alternative mechanisms that would achieve the non-economic policy objectives of the sector while also ensuring maximum competitiveness of firms operating in the sector?

Inputs are due to be submitted by January 11, 2008.

Technorati Tags:
Competition Policy Review Panel, CPRP

Later this week, we will be watching financial results from the major carriers, with Rogers and MTS Allstream reporting on Thursday and TELUS on Friday. Bell reports on Wednesday of next week and Videotron’s numbers will be in Quebecor’s release next Thursday. So, over the course of the next week or so, we’ll have a chance to compare the effectiveness of different approaches to telecom marketing in the past quarter.

Looking at the results posted by Glentel (the largest independent wireless retailer), it may have been a strong quarter.

The aggressive marketing and new enhanced phone plans for customers, first introduced by the cellular networks in the 2nd quarter, had a positive effect on sales in the 3rd quarter.

I exchanged some emails with some colleagues through the weekend. We discussed the variations in marketing mobile voice and data services. Most of the carriers have launched new devices – many of these targeting the back-to-school youth market.

One approach has been to drop prices. Another is to invest in differentiated products – some launching customized or exclusive handsets; some with unique network capabilities.

Last Friday, I wrote about Rogers’ trial of 7.2Mbps HSPA mobile data rates, among the first carriers in the world to launch this advanced capability. Rogers currently has the advantage of being the only GSM-based platform in Canada. This has given it access to a wider array of consumer handsets, generally at a lower cost than comparable CDMA devices, in addition to benefiting from global compatibility and revenues from inbound roaming.

All of these factors have contributed in previous quarters to Rogers’ strong subscriber numbers, enabling it to invest even more in higher speed services on its network. That will help attract high ARPU customers.

To those who posted comments or wrote emails directly to me in search of lower prices – be patient. I have said many times before that I like cheap prices too.

In the meantime, Rogers recent financial performance has given it the luxury of being able to seize upon an opportunity to invest in capital upgrades for which early adopters are willing to pay a premium for the most advanced services. [It hasn’t always been that way for Rogers; Rogers has borrowed heavily in the past to invest in technology, as you can read in the new biography High Wire Act: Ted Rogers and the Empire that Debt Built. Last night was the official book launch.]

Competition raises the bar on quality of service for customers of all the networks in Canada. Prices will come down, even if that happens at a slower pace than many of us would like.

Last Friday, Richard Warman won another significant human rights case dealing with the expression of hate on the internet. The case, Beaumont versus Warman, was heard before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Many papers covered the story, also seen on the CP newswire.

There are a couple of interesting points in the decision that I think are worthwhile highlighting. At the core was a finding that Jessica Beaumont, a self proclaimed “full-time” Nazi, had contravened Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:

13. Hate Messages

1. It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

 

• For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

 

Among the key points in S. 13 is the need to find repeated discriminatory communications. The Tribunal has found in the past that material communicated via the Internet is repeated communication, by virtue of the web’s nature, allowing anyone connected on-line to “surf” to a website and view the material. In this case, the offender knew the difference between web posting and private messages and the Tribunal had no trouble finding that the material was knowingly being communicated repeatedly.

There are three parts to the remedies:

1. An order to cease;
2. Special compensation of $3000 to Mr. Warman for her postings about him; and
3. A penalty of $1500.

The offender is 21 years old, lives at home and has a job as a salesperson earning $10.50 per hour. The financial penalties are significant for her (in the order of 3 months pay).

There is an interesting discussion of the order for her to cease the discriminatory posting in accordance with Section 54(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr. Warman and the CHRC sought a “permanent order to have Ms. Beaumont cease the discriminatory practice of communicating hate messages through the Internet or other federal communications undertaking”. The defendant argued that a “permanent” order would be a “penalty…for life”, that Ms. Beaumont would have to be forever careful in expressing political or religious views on the Internet for fear of finding herself in contempt and possibly going to jail. Her aide, Paul Fromm, suggested that the scope of any such order should be limited in time, to perhaps five years. He argued that otherwise, she would essentially be silenced forever from making political or religious statements on the Internet.

The tribunal disagreed.

A “cease and desist” order essentially puts respondents on notice that messages of the sort that they have previously communicated are in breach of the Act and that they should not repeat the practice. As such, the order merely reiterates what has already been articulated in the Act, i.e. that communicating messages falling within the meaning of s. 13 is a discriminatory practice. Mr. Fromm’s submission presupposes that the Act is ambiguous and that Ms. Beaumont will somehow unknowingly fall into a trap that leads to contempt charges being laid against her. These concerns are unfounded. According to the Supreme Court in Taylor, there is no ambiguity to be found in the language of s. 13, and the numerous decisions that have been rendered since, regarding this provision, should serve to inform Ms. Beaumont when considering what sort of material she can communicate over the Internet without offending s. 13. Moreover, she will have the “benefit” of a decision relating to her own prior Internet postings, to further inform her future communications.

As such, the permanent order to cease was issued.

Technorati Tags:
Richard Warman, CHRC