There is an interesting webinar on Strategic Autonomy coming up this Wednesday morning, January 27, 2021, from 10:00am – 11:30am (Eastern time), hosted by the International Telecommunications Society.

The year 2020 will be known as the year the Covid pandemic changed our lives and livelihoods. Up to date, more than 60 million people have been infected and 1,4 million people have died. We can expect a wave of bankruptcies, unemployment and a big pile of additional public debt that will have to be shouldered by next generations. And we have seen tremendous disruption of supply chains, further escalation of the conflict between the US and China (and further focus of these rivals on each-other), spectacular growth of the digital economy and a huge push towards a digitalized society.

Strategic autonomy looks at having a sufficient choice of suppliers to avoid dependence on any single company or national supply chain. In addition, the subject examines issues of information and network security and the reliability of suppliers and issues associated with political landscapes.

Are national industrial policies equipped to appropriately assess resilience in supply, cyber security and issues of independence.

This webinar has a Euro-centric focus but appears to raise issues of relevance to those of us in Canada and the United States.

“A year after the pandemic hit, this webinar looks at the background and the fundamental questions involved in the building of the next phase in the digital communication infrastructure that is key to the recovery of the European economy.”

Opening remarks: Professor Erik Bohlin (Chalmers University and member of the ITS Board of Directors)
Moderator: Dr. Georg Serentschy (Serentschy Advisory Services GmbH and ITS Corporate Board Member)

Confirmed speakers:

• Thibaut Kleiner, Director Policy Strategy & Outreach, European Commission
• Dr. Paul Timmers, visiting research fellow at Oxford University and former European Commission director. Paul is one of the leading academic experts in the field of strategic autonomy
• Derk Oldenburg, Foreign and EU Digital Policy Expert
• Carmen Gonsalves, Head of international Cyber Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
• Jonathan Sage, Government and Regulatory Affairs Executive, IBM.

The complete program description is available here [pdf] and registration for the event is free.

I look forward to seeing you online.

If I was asked to put together a list of places in Canada that needed government support for broadband infrastructure, I don’t think the City of Toronto would crack the top 1000 places. I might examine some of the suburbs in the Greater Toronto Area, to make sure those rural areas had upgraded access, but the city proper? Not a chance.

Next week, Toronto’s Executive Committee is considering an item entitled “Affordable Internet Connectivity for All – ConnectTO”. The City’s Technology Services group “is seeking City Council’s support to lead “ConnectTO”, a collaborative program that aims to centralize stewardship of municipal resources and assets to deliver the City’s goals on equity and connectivity, including creation of a City of Toronto broadband network.” A City of Toronto fibre-enabled broadband network is envisioned.

Of course, I am one hundred percent behind initiatives promoting universal affordable internet connectivity. I have been beating that drum for 13 years now, on these pages and in public discussions.

Where I tend to have problems with otherwise well intentioned proposals is in two areas: confusing access to broadband with adoption of broadband services, and confusing affordability with average prices. The 9-part report does both, and in doing so, steers City Council toward a solution for a non-existent technology problem when the focus should be on social services.

The report going to Toronto’s Executive Committee has a number of flaws. In the Report for Action by the City’s Chief Technology Officer, Technology Services Division, the Background reads:

Well-developed broadband infrastructure is essential for residents to participate in the digital economy, learn online, and to access government services. The CRTC has set minimum service levels of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps) download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed and access to unlimited data for high-speed broadband. However, research from late 2020 indicates that 39% of Torontonians surveyed did not have internet speeds that met the CRTC minimum service level. The same research indicates a majority of the 62 countries in one study offer 100 Mbps as the most frequent internet speed. More recently, there are concerns that 50 Mbps download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed is not sufficient for the more data intensive ways which Canadians are now using the internet, such as online learning, electronic business transactions, etc., especially with multiple simultaneous devices being used in the same household.

I could devote this entire blog post to explain the flaws in this one paragraph.

Many may think, “Who cares? This is just a Background paragraph. Move on.” I think that these flaws form a basis for erroneous thought that tends to permeate through the report and its 8 associated appendices. Some of the materials are wholly irrelevant, as if to provide filler, or add heft to the filed materials. But the recommendations in the report seem to flow from the erroneous background, and that makes me somewhat distrustful of the rest of the materials.

Let’s take a look at some of the problems in this paragraph. I won’t quibble with the first sentence, although it leaves out what most of us use our broadband for: entertainment (music, streaming videos, social media, etc.). But since this is a serious matter before the City executives, I guess the CTO wanted to stick to the introduction lifted verbatim from the CRTC. Unfortunately, that didn’t continue into the second sentence. The CRTC continued with “That is why we set new targets for Internet speeds. We want all Canadian homes and businesses to have access to broadband Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads.”

There is a subtle, but important difference there. The CRTC didn’t set a minimum service level. It set a target for all Canadians to be able to access those service characteristics, leaving it up to Canadians to choose whether or not they want to subscribe to that speed. The error in the second sentence is why the very next sentence is so completely misleading and flawed: “However, research from late 2020 indicates that 39% of Torontonians surveyed did not have internet speeds that met the CRTC minimum service level.”

On first read, one might think that Toronto is a broadband backwater, with nearly 40% of of the city unable to access to the CRTC’s broadband speed objectives. That simply isn’t true. Virtually every household in Toronto has access to gigabit speeds (and faster), from at least 2 competing service providers, Bell and Rogers. Many residents have access to alternative fibre-based services from companies like Beanfield Metroconnect.

An appended report from Ryerson, the research source for the data in the above highlighted paragraph, is disappointing in what I see as a lack of scientific and analytic rigour. Much of the report is based on survey data, with 80% of the 2500 responses coming from an online survey. No wonder the study found 98% of the respondents had internet access! The first 80% needed internet access just to answer the survey. The other 2% must have come from the telephone survey respondents.

The Ryerson report, Mapping Toronto’s Digital Divide, contains a number of other data mismatches that can be detected by looking carefully. I’ll highlight a couple instances, such as this paragraph:

A majority of the 62 countries in one study offer 100 Mbps as the most frequent internet speed. Such speeds allow for simultaneous and noninterruptive web browsing on multiple devices, including streaming services in 4K high resolution. While many countries around the world do not offer speeds lower than 100 Mbps, Canada continues to remain among the few internationally to continue to provide internet speeds less than 9 Mbps, alongside notably the US and UK.

Without looking to the footnotes, one might think that the statement in the second sentence refers to the same collection of 62 countries as discussed in the first sentence. But that would be wrong. In fact, the second sentence is based on ISED’s 7 country pricing comparison. The sentence is inaccurate.

Ryerson looked at data speeds as well and the report presents results in an embarrassing and extremely misleading fashion.

The global average download speed for broadband internet as of November 2020 according to one source was 91 Mbps; while the Canadian Internet Registration Authority found the average Ontario download speed was 52 Mbps from April 2019 to March 2020.

There are multiple obvious flaws in this data. The timeframe used for the global datapoint was November, 2020, while the Ontario data is from a year earlier. In addition, the global datapoint came from Ookla’s Speedtest, while the Ontario data is from the deeply flawed CIRA speed test. There was no reason for this. Ookla’s Speedtest has Canadian specific data (156 Mbps), broken down by province (Ontario was 153 Mbps) and indeed, Toronto specific data (171 Mbps). Why wouldn’t the authors match the data source and timeframe?

It comes across as authors torquing the presentation of data to fit some kind of an agenda. Ryerson should retract the report and redo it with greater academic rigour.

Toronto does not have a problem with the availability of broadband, and there is absolutely no reason for the city to contemplate construction of fibre facilities. A number of the appendices are dedicated to maps and analysis of how to build fibre to libraries that clearly have available existing commercial services. If Toronto wants to assist with private sector digital infrastructure investment, it can facilitate access to ducts, rights of way, municipal electric poles or other support structures for fibre, and make available vertical real estate for radio antennas.

I have often written that people frequently confuse broadband adoption with broadband access. It is somewhat easier to contemplate ways to fix gaps in broadband access; it’s just an engineering problem. In urban markets, the economics have permitted multiple competing companies to build gigabit broadband infrastructure to virtually every corner of the city.

It’s a lot tougher to drive adoption. Most telecom companies separate the engineering and operations groups from the marketing and sales groups for a really good reason: these are different disciplines. One side builds and operates the network; marketing and sales develop the services that drive adoption, using the network.

While the Report for Action for the Executive Committee has lengthy discussions about broadband pricing and international comparisons, targeted subsidy programs, such as the nearly 7 year old Connected for Success program from Rogers and TELUS’ Internet for Good get only a passing mention in the Ryerson appendix, not the main document. Considering the history of Connected for Success, launched originally with Toronto Community Housing before being taken across the Rogers network, it might have deserved more significant consideration by the proponents.

Toronto, and indeed every city, has a broadband adoption challenge among certain disadvantaged sectors. As the ConnectTO agenda item Summary indicates, “access to high-speed internet is necessary for residents to equitably participate in day to day life.”

But, my concern is that this proposal veered off course with its line: “Technology Services is seeking City Council’s support to lead ‘ConnectTO'”. In November 2017, in a memo to the Economic Development Committee, Toronto’s CIO and GM of Economic Development and Culture wrote, “In Toronto nearly 100% of households have ‘access’ but this refers only to the necessary infrastructure being in place. In practice, access depends on affordability.” It is disheartening that so little progress has been made in more than three years.

This isn’t a technology issue. It requires marketing and product development. The lead should be with the agencies invested in delivering community services to disadvantaged members of the community.

Last week’s Cabinet shuffle brought a new Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry into the telecommunications policy arena, The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne. As indicated in his biography, he brings a wealth of experience at large international companies in Europe, particularly in the fields of energy, engineering, and innovation. These are great credentials for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

For telecom policy, Minister Champagne’s predecessor, Navdeep Bains, had focused on the tension between quality, coverage and price, seeking to balance the requirements for investment to support providing world-leading communications services, while ensuring affordability for all Canadians, including those in rural and remote areas. Last August, former Minister Bains succinctly summarized the policy as “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity. Our government recognizes that access to affordable, high-quality high-speed Internet is a necessity for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the importance of connectivity. The investments our government is making in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote communities, are key to ensuring equitable digital access for all Canadians. Equitable access also means that it is available at fair prices that Canadians can afford.

The message from Minister Bains last summer expressed the perspective of Cabinet: “On the basis of its review, the Governor in Council considers that the rates do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the policy objectives of the wholesale services framework and is concerned that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas.”

The critical importance of maintaining a balance of competing policy objectives figured prominently. Quality, coverage, and price.

In a blog post in late August (“Acting in the public interest”), I wrote about the tension between these policy objectives. I noted that Minister Bains was careful in defining “Price” as “offering service at an affordable level.” As such, it is clear that an affordable price is not necessarily the same as having the lowest price. “Acting in the public interest involves balancing priorities to achieve an optimal outcome. It isn’t all about price.”

There can be a high cost associated with low prices. Israel serves as an example of what happens to quality when there is a singular focus on reducing prices, as Canadians have been warned: “Prices did fall, but so did the quality of the networks. The massive reductions to revenues caused major reductions in capital expenditures, network roll-out and expansion, market capitalizations of the participants and even the number of employees.”

The past year has highlighted the importance of investment in world-leading technologies and extending the geographic reach of Canada’s mobile and wireline broadband networks. A policy framework that encourages network investment is the best way to accelerate expansion of quality infrastructure into unserved territory. The vast majority of investment in networks – rural and urban, wireless and wireline – comes from the private sector, not government. While governments support and supplement network investment by carriers, large and small, governments do not (and generally should not) supplant private sector investment.

To the extent affordability is a concern, perhaps targeted support programs can be developed to supplement Connecting Families, without increasing the level of regulatory intervention in the market, consistent with the objectives of Canada’s telecom policy.

Will the CRTC’s review of mobile services and its determination on the application to review wholesale internet rates create a shift in the balance between quality, coverage and price? These proceedings are foundational, with the potential to cause significant shifts and disruptions in the marketplace and the investment climate.

The mandate letter for Minister Champagne appears to provide for continuity in Canada’s digital policy priorities. The letter incorporates Minister Bains’ mandate letter by reference (“In addition to the priorities set out in my mandate letters of 2019…”), and is entitled “Supplementary Mandate Letter.”

It is interesting that the matter of rural broadband appears in both letters. In the December 2019 letter, broadband is referenced as:

Work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deliver high-speed internet to 100 per cent of Canadian homes and businesses by 2030.

Thirteen months later, in a COVID environment, the new letter says:

Recognizing that all Canadians need the tools to fully participate in and benefit from the digital economy, support the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development on the continued implementation of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet. Your work should include considerations around the effective use and deployment of innovative technologies, such as low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, to connect all Canadians.

I found the removal of the 2030 deadline in the supplemental letter as interesting, and perhaps noteworthy. Similarly, the specificity of LEO technologies and “considerations around the effective use and deployment of innovative technologies” merit further consideration. Is it a signal to favour policies to drive investment in facilities?

How should we interpret silence in the supplemental letter regarding other areas of the Minister’s mandate? Is it a signal that the government is satisfied with progress made to date in areas such as reductions in mobile pricing?

How will the government encourage deployment of digital infrastructure, in urban and rural markets, while preserving the balance (and tension) between quality, coverage and price?

Words matter.

Addressing the nation last week during the occupation of the Capitol, president-elect Joe Biden said, “The words of a president matter, no matter how good or bad that president is. At their best, the words of a president can inspire. At their worst, they can incite.”

In The Globe and Mail last Friday, Jana Pruden wrote:

On Wednesday and ever since, finding ways to express what happened and describe the people involved was the subject of much debate and discussion. On social media and in news outlets, the conversations played out in real time.

Were those who stormed the building protesters, insurgents or insurrectionists? A mob? Terrorists? Was what happened a protest or a riot? An occupation or a coup?

Words matter.

Sally McConnell-Ginet, a linguist and professor at Cornell University, is cited in the Globe article saying “Words are weapons, and words are also useful tools. It all depends on what people are doing with them.”

Words matter.

When reading, we need to be able to distinguish between language that is insightful and words that are inciteful. Which words lead to constructive engagement and which words are those that are destructive? What facts are being omitted because they inconveniently don’t fit the narrative being set forward? Which authors are consistently reliable and which ones seem to prefer sensationalism over substance?

For years, I have had a concern about the loss of diversity of viewpoints brought on by digital news agents, serving up stories aligned with what algorithms believe we want to read. The old paper-form newspaper was filled with all sorts of stories, including many that we might stumble upon, having no idea that we might want to find out more about gardening or vacations in a far off spot or lacrosse scores. It seems to me that those who rely solely digital news agents and on-demand video programming are missing the serendipitous discovery of stories and shows that stray from our normal comfort zones.

The day after Trump was elected in 2016, I wrote “Diversity of views”, and observed:

I noticed a tweet that said that no one in that person’s timeline was excited about seeing Trump win. To me, that is a problem. So I replied, saying “I tend to learn a lot by reading things that can sometimes make me angry”

I also said “It is a real challenge when we self-select digital news feeds, or get algorithmically selected articles served to us on social media based on what is perceived to be what we want to read. Perhaps the advantage of print media was the enforced diversity of views based on bundles of content including more than what we want.”

I have mentioned before that I subscribe to the Toronto Star, not because I agree with its editorial viewpoint, but precisely the opposite: its political slant can infuriate me. I try to read from a wide range of news sources and opinions; I don’t think enough people do the same. I would encourage you to try to do so.

Prior to Trump’s election, in August of 2016, I wrote “Reading just what we want or what we need?” In that piece, I asked:

Are our students being exposed to sufficient diversity of views?

How do we encourage reading alternate perspectives, consideration of dissenting viewpoints, and engaging in cooperative dialog?

I get concerned that too many people rely on too few sources, making them susceptible to partial truths and disinformation campaigns. We can easily see it on social media.

Words matter.

As I reflected on the events that unfolded in Washington last week, I tweeted:

In February 2016, I wrote “Is social media better at breaking than making?”, reviewing an article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. Friedman was writing about Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian Google employee whose Facebook page was credited with launching Egypt’s Tahrir Square revolution in early 2011, that ultimately failed to provide a democratic alternative. He summarized the key points of Ghonim’s review of the failings of social media as an agent of change:

• “First, we don’t know how to deal with rumors. Rumors that confirm people’s biases are now believed and spread among millions of people.”
• Second, “We tend to only communicate with people that we agree with, and thanks to social media, we can mute, un-follow and block everybody else.”
• “Third, online discussions quickly descend into angry mobs. … It’s as if we forget that the people behind screens are actually real people and not just avatars.”
• “And fourth, it became really hard to change our opinions. Because of the speed and brevity of social media, we are forced to jump to conclusions and write sharp opinions in 140 characters about complex world affairs. And once we do that, it lives forever on the Internet.”
• Fifth, and most crucial, he said, “today, our social media experiences are designed in a way that favors broadcasting over engagements, posts over discussions, shallow comments over deep conversations. … It’s as if we agreed that we are here to talk at each other instead of talking with each other.”

As we move into a new year, a new administration in the United States, and the new phase in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps we can all be receptive to a greater diversity of viewpoints, improving and engaging in deeper discussions and conversations. Insightful, rather than inciteful, engagement.

A very large segment of society, in Canada and the United States, holds views that may seem antithetical to your perspectives. How do we discuss issues and constructively work together when such a wide gulf appears to divide us?

Words matter.

I look forward to your comments.

This year, Bell Let’s Talk day is taking place three weeks from now, January 28, which just happens to be my big brother’s birthday.

Frequent readers of this page know that, as the son of a child psychiatrist and with two siblings who are clinical psychologists, you could say that mental health is the family business. It is one of the reasons that ever since Bell first announced its commitment to support mental health in September 2010, I have felt a special attachment to support this important initiative, talking openly about what used to be an unmentionable.

The first Bell Let’s Talk Day took place 10 years ago, on February 9, 2011 and it has since grown to be a global phenomenon, with the #BellLetsTalk hashtag trending on social media platforms around the world. Recently, the initiative added new dedicated programs to address the impacts of COVID-19 and systemic racism.

This year, there are even more ways to drive contributions from Bell and add to the conversation:

• Twitter: Each time you tweet and retweet using #BellLetsTalk or watch the official video, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• Facebook: Each time you use the Bell Let’s Talk Facebook frame or watch the official video, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• Instagram: Each time you watch the official video on Instagram, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• Snapchat: Each time you use the Bell Let’s Talk Snapchat filter or watch the official video, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• YouTube: Each time you watch the official video on YouTube, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• TikTok: Each time you upload a video using #BellLetsTalk or watch the official video, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• Pinterest: Each time you watch the official video on Pinterest, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.
• Text messages: For every text message sent by a Bell wireless customer, Bell will donate 5¢ more towards mental health initiatives.

Bell Let’s Talk Day 2020 set a new single-day record with 154,387,425 messages across all platforms, growing Bell’s funding for mental health by an additional $7,719,371.25. Since the first Bell Let’s Talk Day in 2011, Canadians and people around the world have sent a total of more than 1.1 billion messages of support for mental health, bringing Bell’s total funding commitment to $113,415,135 (including Bell’s original $50 million anchor donation in 2010, and an additional $5 million dedicated to COVID-19 response).

On January 28, Bell Media plans to feature special mental health content in English and French across its TV, radio and digital properties as part of the Bell Let’s Talk Day campaign.

To drive progress and awareness in mental health issues, Bell made reducing stigma the first pillar of its program. Thinking back to when it began, there were very few corporate brands willing (or able) to support a cause like mental health. For ten years now, Bell’s prime community investment focus and the majority of its charitable spending has been dedicated to the promotion and support of mental health across Canada. It is great to see Bell’s competitors step up to add their support on social media channels.

Mark the date, January 28, 2021 in your calendar. And add #BellLetsTalk to all of your tweets to show your support.