Mark Evans writes about the Motorola Q and how it has been annointed by many as the next in a long line-up of so-called Blackberry killers.

I saw the Q this week when TELUS’ Technology Strategy chief Eros Spadotto proudly showed it off as a coming exclusive. It is bigger than the Blackberry but it offers an awful lot of capabilities.

Mark’s article in the papers this week noted that owners find them so reliable that fans seem to only replace them when they are lost. I needed to replace mine because I discovered that my Blackberry doesn’t float and it also didn’t work after drying out.

This being the time of year that I like to spend time near the waters of Lake Muskoka, let me provide some free advice to the people looking to displace the Blackberry from my holster. Motorola – take a cue for the Q.

Build a device that is waterproof and floats and I am ready to switch!

As I was reading the latest rants by Barenaked Ladies’ Steven Page, I was struck by the similar language used by both the Creative Commons crowd and the Net Neutrality advocates. I tripped upon this as I was reading a commentary in one of the trade papers that seemed to be arguing that, since digital technology makes copying so easy, we need to just let it happen.

It turns out that Lawrence Lessig noticed similarities between Fair Use and Net Neutrality a few days ago [which scares me, in that I don’t often agree with his perspectives].

I find it interesting, but not necessarily surprising, that successful musicians are revolting against the distribution system. I am certain that many are having second thoughts about the contracts that they signed when they were starving artists and now are spinning out obscene amounts of cash for their labels.

Is the need to transform the traditional music industry business model based on the view that technology has made the theft of music so easy? I need something more: it just sounds like the same argument that a street gang member could make, sneering that the innovation of steel crowbars made glass obsolete, so the jewellery industry had better transform their business model.

Copyright reform and network neutrality share a theme. Both are concerned with the public’s use of other people’s property. In one case it is intellectual property; in the other, it is the digital transport network. Who owns these assets? Who determines the limits on what the owner can charge? The marketplace? Government?

In settling both issues for the ‘here and now’, we need to be concerned with ensuring that there remain incentives that foster further development. Encouraging the development of both intellectual property and digital networks. These are important issues that require far more thoughtful discussion and less shouting of catchy slogans.

The CRTC has found that TBayTel discriminated against a competitor, but it also determined that its actions were not ‘unjust discrimination’ under the Telecom Act.

The case involved roaming arrangements between TBayTel and Superior Wireless and the decisions by both companies to compete in each other’s base markets.

The finding of discrimination was based on the fact that TBayTel treated the customers of Superior Wireless differently from the way it treats roaming customers of other carriers.

However, in its determination that there was no ‘unjust’ discrimination, the Commission considered the degree of competition in wireless services:

The CRTC found that Superior’s customers have alternatives available to them to mitigate the impact of TBayTel’s discriminatory actions.

Will the CRTC apply the same principles in assessing Network Neutrality complaints?

Vonage (Symbol VG) had its debut on the markets yesterday and promptly lost nearly 15% of its value.

I’ll let market analysts and other folks (like Mark Evans) sort out the implications for the access independent VoIP market, what it means for internet stocks, the root of Vonage’s problems and all else that is ailing in the world.

It just seems to me that when a company has its stock jump from $10 to $50 on opening day, that the company got ripped off and the brokers’ friends stole made money that should rightfully have been in the company treasury. If the stock pops, I think it means the underwriters undervalued the company.

The fact that Vonage stock went down means that the company maximized its return. That should stimulate some debate – our lines are open and your comments are welcome.

We’ll be hearing Vonage founder Jeff Citron delivering the opening keynote at The Canadian Telecom Summit on June 12.

The CRTC issued a Decision on Friday in a relatively small proceeding that is noteworthy only because the process was 4 and a half years old. That’s right.

Rogers filed its original complaint in November 2001. Arguments went back and forth through January 2002. It took the Commission 9 months before it got around to realizing that it needed more information from the ILECs, so it addressed interrogatories to them in October 2002 and responses were received within a month.

Then the file disappeared.

Rogers had complained that the rates it paid for wireless interconnection in the territories of small ILECs was too high. Rogers had been prepared for delays, so it asked for the CRTC to make any rate reductions retroactive to January 2002. The CRTC denied this portion of the Rogers request, stating:

In effect, the CRTC is saying that local rates have been subsidized by Rogers overpayments for the past 3 years. Perhaps Rogers should have pressed the CRTC from the outset to make the rates interim, from the time of the original complaint.

Still, it is unclear to me why Rogers’ shareholders and subscribers have had to pay excess amounts to the small ILECs because this file went into hiding for more than 3 years.