How net neutrality can be anti-competitive

March 29, 2007
Nicholas Carr asks if a “neutral” network may actually be anti-competitive. He points out that the issue is more complex than many consider.

In an interesting posting, he suggests:

If net neutrality becomes law, it would prevent big companies from locking in an advantage at the protocological level – giving certain types of data privileged status – but it would allow big companies to lock in an advantage at the infrastructural level.

The protocol may be neutral, but those content providers that can afford to build better infrastructure, or mirror their sites, are able to buy advantages that confound the democratic ideals sought by those idealists who would impose net neutrality legislation. Hal Singer asks questions about Google’s motives in his commentary in today’s National Post.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Ottawa bridges the digital divide

March 28, 2007
Barrett XploreWhen you think of Ottawa, you think of Parliament Hill, museums, high tech research parks.

Some readers may not realize that significant parts of the city of Ottawa do not have access to broadband internet service. As a result, Ottawa issued an RFP to find a service provider that would provide universal coverage to the unserved areas.

Today, Barrett Xplore was approved as the preferred private-sector partner to complete rural broadband coverage in Ottawa.

While many of us in urban regions take broadband availability for granted, lower population density creates a challenge in terms of broadband delivery to rural Canada and a gap for the delivery of public services. John Maduri, CEO of Barrett Xplore says:

Our wireless and satellite technologies bridge that gap, and offer rural broadband that’s fast, affordable and reliable. Getting broadband everywhere in Canada is no longer limited by technology. The City of Ottawa’s thorough and extensive tender process confirmed that Barrett is the best fit for rural broadband delivery.

… Sustainable, rural broadband is here, now. There literally isn’t a single square inch of Canada where we can’t provide broadband.

I act as an advisor to Barrett Xplore. Its approach brings important options for internet access to Canadians. Proof that broadband service delivery is hardly the exclusive domain of telcos and cablecos.

Following up on last week’s provincial budget, as Ontario moves to extend broadband into rural and northern communities, we’ll be watching for continued fixed wireless and satellite deployment and further expansion from Barrett Xplore.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Net neutralist shows true colours

January 25, 2017

In a Hill Times letter that was intended to critique my previous week’s Op Ed, Russell McOrmond actually helped prove my thesis: there are elements among net neutrality proponents that want to nationalize the communications infrastructure of Canada’s carriers.

In his letter, he comes clean with a statement that confirms his objective.

You can find the full text of Russ’ submission (pre-editorial chopping) on his blog.

If we built communications networks the way I believe we should, we would have a separate communications infrastructure utility that is separate from any specific product or service someone would want to connect to. … It should be just as easy to connect directly to the home of someone else in Ottawa, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service.

Let’s look at the design objective – to be able to connect as easily to someone else’s home, or to a government service, as it is any specific commercial service. I’d suggest that this objective is consistent with that of every carrier. Do any of you have any difficulty using the commercial internet to do just that?

The question I have is, why does he think that there needs to be a new “very-high-speed connection at my home (example: fiber)” connection to accomplish this objective? And if you believe that this new utility is a viable business plan, then go ahead and get it financed. Except for one little problem: I don’t think he wants a commercial venture to operate this network. The term utility, at least in Canada, is often a code word for a government-owned operation.

No – I am not a McCarthy commie conspiracy kind of guy. Still, up until this letter to the editor, it is rare for the neutralists expose their nationalization objectives in plain language. We generally have to infer their ultimate objective.

But Russ’ letter concludes with precisely such a statement:

Not only are the incumbent service providers in North America not a useful path for rolling out future services, but we need to wrestle this critical infrastructure out of the hands of existing telecommunications and cable companies.

And these are the folks who took umbrage when I warned in my Op Ed to beware of the People’s Republic of Net Neutrality.

I am happy you put such clarity into your letter to the editor. Thank you for your support.

Is it doublespeak at the CRTC?

January 25, 2017

There is a deadline fast approaching for Cabinet to finalize its variance of the CRTC’s local forbearance decision from last year. The final order must be issued by April 6, 2007 – Good Friday.

So the CRTC rushed out a forbearance order for Fort McMurray today, perhaps to demonstrate that it was still in-charge. Why do I say ‘rushed’? The order was released at 11:00am but contained a significant enough typo that an amended order was released 3 hours later.

The caveat in the order was:

The Commission approves the introduction of local forbearance in the Fort McMurray residential relevant market once [TELUS] has demonstrated that it has met the CQ of S [Competitor Quality of Service] criterion that will be in effect at the time of its CQ of S filing.

Both Bell and TELUS were incensed with the terms of the order. According to Janet Yale of TELUS:

It is an undeniable fact that Fort McMurray residents have a choice of competitors for their basic phone service, and yet the CRTC insists on maintaining outdated restrictions on TELUS’ ability to make its best offers to customers. The conditions for deregulation they set out for local phone service are unattainable in any practical sense, and were rejected as such by the federal government. Their decision today runs entirely contrary to the government’s directive.

Lawson Hunter of Bell said:

This proves the need for the government to move forward on its commitment, as confirmed in the recent federal budget, for a new regulatory framework for local service forbearance that will bring the full benefits of open competition to consumers.

Their concern is that cabinet may choose not to issue a final version of its variance announced in December.

When the kids were young, they would ask for a cookie before dinner, and my wife would answer them with a ‘yes’ – as soon as they finished their dinner. The CRTC said yes, you can have forbearance…

Taming the internet

March 27, 2007
Mark Evans has a posting today with a title that is reminiscent of an Op Ed that Bernie Farber wrote in the Ottawa Citizen last fall: Taming the web’s Wild West.

As Bernie wrote at that time:

Those of us challenging the spread of hate promotion have tried for many years to find the fine balance between the right to free speech and the right of individuals not to be the objects of hate and violent speech.

Unfortunately, the dark side of the internet has chosen another target. Mark Evans suggests

the time has come for everyone (government, the business community, think-tanks, etc.) to determine how to fight the dark side while still allowing the Web to flourish and grow

There is a session that will look at the issue of Illegal Content on the Internet at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit. Bernie will be there, as will experts on child exploitation. It will be an interesting opportunity to explore meaningful ways to deal with these issues.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , ,

Scroll to Top