Search Results for: incentives

Financial Times has an article called The broadband numbers racket, by former FCC chief economist Thomas Hazlett, now a professor of law and economics at George Mason University.

Hazlett points out that too many people use superficial selection of statistics to bolster questionable policy positions.

Cherry picking broadband penetration numbers to imply the US is slipping into Third World status is fine for a quickie term paper, at least if Wikipedia goes down. But adults ought sort through the multi-dimensional complexity of the real world –

The article refers to a paper published in the Review of Network Economics [ pdf, 138KB]. The paper looks at different models of regulation on broadband networks and among the findings, it states

incentives for network investment decline when network owners lose a set of valuable property rights.

Both articles – from Financial Times and Network Economics – make an interesting read.

In a filing to the Federal Communications Commission released late on Monday, AT&T; set a target for 100 percent broadband availability in the United States by 2014.

Included in the plan are some points that caught my eye, including a recognition that work needs to be done on the demand side.

of those that do have access, nearly half of them do not purchase it for a range of reasons, including lack of necessary Internet-enabled devices, affordability issues and relevancy. While setting a goal of achieving universal access should be part of a comprehensive national broadband strategy, an inclusive approach must emphasize the critical importance of increasing broadband adoption.

To address the demand side, the plan includes a call for providing training and public access to broadband services; economic assistance for the acquisition of broadband services and equipment; and incentives for the development of technology and content aimed at specific users’ needs.

More details are expected to be released on AT&T;’s Public Policy website.

Building Broadband, is the topic of a special panel at next week’s The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
AT&T;, broadband

As I mentioned earlier this week, responses to the March 11 Cabinet appeals were submitted on Monday. A few parties cobbled together rushed submissions and at least one group asked for an extension – it is almost as though some groups were reminded of the deadline by this blog!

TELUS summarizes its reply comments with a call for policies that encourage and not discourage investment and innovation.

You cannot expect carriers to make risky investments if they are forced to share new infrastructure at artificially low rates in order to benefit competitors that won’t invest.

CAIP has filed responses that support the MTS Allstream application and call for the Bell and TELUS applications to be denied. In its press release, CAIP said:

Canada is no longer a broadband leader and Canadians are paying higher prices for an inferior product than customers in other OECD countries. If Bell and TELUS prevail, the situation for Canadian customers and businesses will only get worse.

Of course, absent investment in their own infrastructure, it is unclear how ISPs that resell telco DSL access services are driving increased speeds for Canadian consumers. The ILEC argument is that it is precisely the requirement to share their infrastructure that stifles their appetite for risky investment.

The outcome of the cabinet appeals will impact incentives for investment and innovation. What policy will guide carriers building and delivering broadband services to businesses and consumers. How will Canadian broadband networks evolve?

We’re exploring that theme at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit on Monday June 15, with a panel of leaders with different approaches in rural and urban settings. What are the roles for fibre, wireless and satellite technologies?

On Tuesday June 16, the Regulatory Blockbuster and the panel on Network Neutrality will look at key issues from a policy perspective. And don’t forget the address by MTS Allstream CEO Pierre Blouin who can be expected to lay out his views on the case before cabinet. The conference opens on June 15 with an address by Rogers’ CEO Nadir Mohamed.

Have you registered yet?

I received a bizarre email last Thursday that tried to appeal to my nationalist sentiments. According to the email, I should be recommending Nortel equipment to my clients because it is Canadian.

Not because it is the best way for service providers to deliver leading edge solutions to their customers; not because it is cost effective; not because it makes my services run faster and jump higher. The appeal says that we should buy Nortel’s stuff because Nortel’s stuff is Canadian; because Canadians created 5000 Nortel patents and Nortel invests pantloads of cash in Canadian R&D.; [You can see a web version of the email here.]

There is a promotion [ pdf, 674 KB] that provides cash incentives to consultants who recommend Nortel business solutions to their clients and I guess it is trying to appeal to my colleagues’ patriotism.

It seems to me that Nortel’s Canadian roots may be an interesting factor, but is it a reason to buy? I used to look to the Detroit 3 automakers because of where my in-laws live, but that loyalty seemed to be a one-way love affair.

How relevant is the flag flying in front of your suppliers’ headquarters?

Technorati Tags:
Nortel, Canadian

Are there solutions to give Canadian content access to the fast lane on our domestic network?

An idea floated in a conversation with GlassBox TV was whether Canadian ISPs should treat “.ca” traffic with priority.

GlassBox seemed to be more concerned about access to Canadian content from within walled gardens – such as mobile TV services offered by wireless service providers.

Does this accomplish enough to satisfy the concerns of Canada’s creative community that our content needs support to ensure that Canadian voices will have a platform?

Questions from both vice-chairs touched on this kind of discrimination. One question went so far as to ask about using deep packet inspection to give preference to Canadian content.

I’ll go further: what if Canadian content was exempted from monthly download caps? Would that help ensure opportunities for content distribution?

The global competition issue is where the new media proceeding meets the net neutrality debate. Elements of Canada’s creative community, seeking to impose content regulation on defined Canadian websites may end up handicapping the ability of web operators to succeed by limiting their flexibility in business models.

Are there forms of incentives that make for a better approach than allocating a pre-set percentage on content availability?