Summer is over and it is time for advocacy to move back onto the rubber chicken circuit.
There are a couple luncheon addresses coming up this week that are certain to pointed address the issues associated with the rules for the advanced wireless services spectrum auction.
Ted Rogers is speaking at the Canadian Club of Ottawa today and we’ll hear rebuttal from Pierre Karl Peladeau of Quebecor speaking at the Empire Club in Toronto tomorrow. Watch for wireless spectrum auction issues to be a major part of their speeches.
By the way, Industry Canada tells us that there is some PCS spectrum available on a first come, first served basis. Spectrum for Northern Quebec, the Yukon and Saskatchewan can be yours for the asking.
Last week, Rogers and RIM launched a GPS enabled version of the the Curve, bring the device to consumers in Canada first.
The device has all of the multi-media capabilities of the original Curve (model 8300) that is available in other markets, including a 2 megapixel camera. The 8310 also adds a built-in GPS, which integrates well with Blackberry Maps (or a downloaded version of Google Maps) as well as the Telenav Navigator application for turn-by-turn audible directions.
Many others have written about the device, including Mark Evans who spoke of buyer’s remorse for having just bought the original version of the curve a week before the launch of the 8310. My point is that RIM launched the 8310 here first.
The CRTC has a consultation underway to consider the delegation of the Commission’s investigative powers with regard to Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules complaints.
The consultation is a perfectly understandable process to make use of new bodies that can likely be better resourced to focus on such specific consumer complaints.
However, the CRTC has added a little twist that seems to be an attempt to revisit the exemptions to the Do Not Call List rules that Parliament created in its amendments to the Telecom Act. It has asked for comment on:
the Commission’s intent to establish a rule to require all telemarketers and clients of telemarketers, including those exclusively making telecommunications that are exempt from the National DNCL Rules, to register with, and provide information to, the National DNCL operator and to pay fees that may be charged by the third party who will be responsible for the investigation of Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules complaints. [emphasis added]
The Act seems pretty clear that exempt groups are exempt from this kind of registration:
[Section 41.7(1)] An order made by the Commission that imposes a prohibition or requirement under section 41 that relates to information contained in any database or any information, administrative or operational system administered under section 41.2 for the purpose of a National DNCL does not apply in respect of a telecommunication…
and then continues to enumerate the exempt types of communications.
How does the CRTC reconcile an intent to have exempted groups “register with, and provide information to, the National DNCL operator”, when the Act specifically exempts precisely the requirements for such information?
As much as people may not like the exempted types of telemarketing calls, these were established by parliament. As such, the CRTC has no business asking for advance registration and fees from these groups.
Last week, I had the opportunity to spend the Rosh Hashana holiday in Hamilton and as a result, I was exposed to some inspirational thoughts from Rabbi Daniel Green during the synagogue services.
I don’t think he targeted his sermon for my benefit, but he seemed to be talking right to me in the opening of his sermon on the second day. He began by talking about accidental calls from a jostled cell phone, using that introduction to speak about interpersonal communications and the challenges that have been introduced by technologies that are most fashionable today.
The point he was making had to do with the increasingly rare skill of listening. Much of our industry has focussed on enabling more rapid communications. When we are always on-line, we rush through each interaction. Short forms in text and instant messages. Informal, brief email. Quick encounters on cell phones. Impersonal calls from telemarketers.
Is there enough attention being focussed on better, deeper communications? Helping people listen to each other.
Telecommunications is a two-way pipe. How many people simply are looking for gaps in the other person’s speech in order to insert their comments?
In the telecom industry, we can introduce all sorts of innovative technologies. Who is helping to ensure that communications, real in-depth communicating, gets improved – or at least maintained – along the way?
I have been involved in some interesting multi-disciplinary projects at two universities that may partly address these concerns. I’ll write more on that later this week.
To date, most of the discussion on net neutrality has dealt with the behaviour of conventional wireline ISPs. RCR Wireless News is carrying an opinion piece called “Paying for the bandwidth we consume” by Mark Desautels, VP – Wireless Internet Development for CTIA – the trade association for the US wireless industry.
His article follows up on reports of Comcast cable moving to discontinue internet access service to so-called “bandwidth hogs”.
… how much greater are the implications of bandwidth hogs are for wireless networks, where bandwidth is scarcer than on the wireline side, particularly as wireline networks are upgraded from copper and coaxial cable to fiber optics.
His article seems to advocate the demise of the all-you-can-eat service plans for wireless and wireline providers alike. His argument seems to be that most people are subsidizing a few heavy users.
Yes. But what is your point? The same could be argued for all flat rate services – including my local sushi bar.
Much is made of the fact that consumers prefer flat-rate pricing because they know what it is going to cost each month, and that is understandable. But it also creates (potentially) huge subsidies between users. My question is: If consumers were aware of the amount of the subsidies they might be paying, would they be as opposed to paying for the bandwidth they actually use as is generally believed?
Consumers like the predictability of flat rate pricing, but should be given clarity about what are the boundaries.
If there are upper thresholds on consumption, then the service should not be sold as unlimited. Where are the tools or warnings that can let a user know that they are reaching the upper bounds? Do any users know what kind of activity will raise warning bells?
