A colleague steered me to the Branham 300 list of Canada’s top technology companies.

The problem with lists is that they are almost immediately outdated. But I think there are more fundamental problems with this list. I’m happy to overlook whatever glitch or typo led to RDM Corp being listed as number 97 and number 101. But there are more fundamental problems that seem to infest this particular listing.

I can understand how it must be difficult to gather financial information about private companies. But there are a lot of private firms that make the list, and a fairly abbreviated list of companies that are excluded from the listing in a note on the front page. This is hardly an inventory of software firms of any measurable substance. Keep in mind that company number 250 has revenues of less than $2.5M.

In addition, there are a number of public companies that are mysteriously absent from the list. Companies that are listed on the TSE, the London Exchange, the Venture exchange. Some independent phone companies appear to be missing, despite SEDAR information that confirms internet revenues that would put them into the top 250. [It is unclear why Branham chooses to ignore wireline voice revenues, despite including, for example, Nortel’s and Aastra’s equipment sales that support voice services].

Why take the time to point out these problems? Because policy makers may try to draw conclusions based on these flawed studies. The Branham Group claims “The listing has become pre-eminent the world over as the authoritative indicator of the health of the Information Technology industry in Canada.” An article on the Branham website presents some conclusions of its own that must be challenged based on missing company information.

Since it was so easy for me to find obvious problems in the list, it makes me wonder what else may be missing, if we were to take some time digging. Maybe the right conclusion is that there is tremendous activity in ICT going on in Canada, so much activity among the medium and smaller firms that we can’t produce an accurate listing.

A flawed inventory can be a problem for initiatives such as ICT Toronto. If they start with a list such as Branham’s, that understates the current level of activity, then it will be difficult to accurately measure the efficacy of their new initiatives. We would not want bad data to take the credit in 3-5 years for new ICT activity, when all they may have actually achieved is a better census.

I recently met with John Maduri, who is now heading up a company with a rather unique approach to rural broadband, Barrett Xplore.

What’s unique? He isn’t looking for a government handout. He hasn’t gone to government agencies saying ‘Give me $$$ and I’ll deliver broadband to the unwashed, underserved, your down-trodden.’ Instead, Barrett is delivering a 99.99% available, city-quality broadband experience to anyone in Canada who wants it, no matter where they live or work.

What Barrett Xplore has done is built a viable business plan that uses various solutions, including Motorola Canopy technology where appropriate or Telesat Ka-band in other areas. They are actually adding customers at a respectable clip, with reasonable prices, and a positive NPV. The entire country is within their potential serving area.

Unfortunately, the CRTC’s Deferral Account Decision has created problems for Barrett. That Decision told the incumbent telephone companies that they could and should use excess payments (that subscribers made to prop up local rates in urban areas) to subsidize the incumbent broadband roll-out to rural areas. It was a Robin Hood decision – taking money from one group to give to another. Bell has appealed a part of the Decision to the courts; we can expect to see an appeal (or more) to Federal Cabinet in the next few weeks.

With the best of intentions, it seems that whenever we see these kinds of programs, there are problems. As I mentioned in my post about ICT Toronto, it just seems that we need to avoid trying to pick winners and we need to resist the temptation to intervene in the market. Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, Decision 2006-9 made it tougher for John and his venture to go out and compete. And it was all with the best of intentions by everyone concerned.

I’d like to think that we should be clearing out of the way of entrepreneurial ventures like Barrett Xplore, not putting obstacles in their way. Hopefully, John and Barrett Xplore will be able to look back at this as just a speed-bump, not a barricade, as they continue to bridge the digital divide.

Jeff Pulver has started a campaign to Save the Internet. The objective, in the words of Jon Arnold:

Hmmm. Who are the people who have controlled the Internet so far? Hasn’t a free-market, business-oriented approach been the main driver of the innovation to date? Even the most anarchistic software developers appear to have been seduced by the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I can’t figure out what kind of Net Neutrality rules Jeff wants from the government. On one hand, he is looking for guarantees of wide open access – no interference in anyone’s bits. But use government interference to provide those guarantees. An internet world with no rules would mean that anyone can have anything, which sounds good on the surface. But that also means that someone could steal everything.

Think of the Internet as a public library. I suspect that in Jeff’s view, the doors never close and there would be no requirement for a library card. No one would even need to sign out a book – to maintain complete anonymity for the users. Users would return the books when they are done, because it is the right thing. Not because the operator of the library charged a fine for overdue books. And extra copies of the books in greatest demand would magically appear, so there was never a shortage of supply.

It is an interesting utopian view of the world and I hate to wake the dreamers – but there need to be reasonable limits. You want non-discriminatory access, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be fees associated with certain applications that have atypical requirements. In the context of the Shaw/Vonage dispute, it seems to me that, as long as Shaw isn’t purposely interfering with Vonage users’ bits, there is nothing wrong with offering a premium service that has quality of service guarantees in exchange for a fee.

For as long as I can remember, and I have been using the internet for more than 20 years, there have been Acceptable Use Policies to apply a semblance of order. Open, but not free. That is where I draw the line.

There is no such thing as free. Someone always pays the price. The advocates for open and free internet are generally looking for someone else to be paying their bills. If we want the internet to thrive, let market forces figure out the rules.

I have been reading (itBusiness, Globe, Star) about Toronto’s plans to get onto the global map for Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) research, development and production. I have to admit I am more than a little bit cynical.

The city’s report claims that Toronto is third to San Francisco and New York for ICT in North America, and yet, the city wants more. It sounds like a Rodney Dangerfield cry for ‘We don’t get no respect’. So let’s throw some government money to make us feel better. Toronto is number 3 in North America. It wants to be in the top 5 in the world.

Why am I cynical? This is the same city that has fought the telecom industry whenever it wanted to install fibre under the streets. In fact, it feels so strongly about the evil wealth of the telecom sector, that it has used their tax dollars to fund court appeal after appeal after appeal of the CRTC’s decision that says cities have to stop pillaging the industry. As I have written before, the CRTC and the courts have told the cities: “Enough!”

Toronto is the same city that pays for its publicly-owned electric utility to offer free WiFi, not to provide high speed access to the underprivileged areas of the city, but to compete head-to-head against the private sector in the city centre.

Want a good start to stimulate ICT? How about declaring the GTA to be a ‘telecom friendly free-trade zone’? If carriers want access to upgrade facilities, why not welcome them with the same gusto that Toronto has for the movie industry? It seems to me that movie production trucks are a bigger source of traffic tie-ups than fibre-optic construction, but no one (including me) would complain about them disrupting the movement of cars. Let’s be as positive about new telecom infrastructure.

Fostering private sector competition – vigourous competion – is a way to stimulate the industry. Treating high tech infrastructure as a monopoly public utility is a guaranteed road to failure. Every time I hear the traffic reports talking about the continued closure of the intersection of Jane and Highway 7, it serves as a reminder that our governments already do a lousy job maintaining civil works like sewers and streets. Why would we want to trust government with the provision of critical electronic infrastructure?

Sure, government does a good job up front. It is the ongoing capacity planning and maintenance that are just plain underfunded. It’s only natural. Initial installations are sexy and make for good photo ops. Maintenance is boring.

A federal public servant that I respect once told me that governments typically do a lousy job of picking winners. If Toronto wants a strong ICT sector, it has to foster an environment that creates the right incentives for businesses to do it on its own.

Like a best practice for management, it seems to me that the key to fostering a stimulating, energized and creative work environment for ICT in Toronto is for government to clear roadblocks and then get out of the way while the industry does its own thing.

Rather than knocking on the doors of the existing private sector success stories and asking for them to contribute to pay for this new ICT initiative, let’s hope the mayor is receptive to just standing on the sidelines and cheering them on to do their own thing. Sometimes, the best form of stimulus may cost nothing at all.