Search Results for: affordable

When shopping for services, we know network technology and quality can be competitive differentiators.

Canada’s wireless association, the CWTA, has told us that Canada’s wireless industry invested $2.6B in capital in 2011 alone, as wireless has “become a critical component of our economic prosperity.”

Just a couple of months ago, differentiating on wireless network quality was a matter before the courts, after the Competition Bureau challenged an ad campaign where Rogers’ Chatr brand boasted fewer dropped calls than the new entrant wireless carriers and said that its subscribers shouldn’t worry about dropped calls.

Other failures have been on the application side. There have been some celebrated outages for Blackberry users affecting customers around the world.

The CRTC has toyed with quality of service reporting requirements over the past 20 years. In its original Long Distance decision, the CRTC required local phone companies to provide their long distance competitors “with the earliest possible notice of all network outages affecting the operation of [their] network.” In 2000, the CRTC codified this and required “that the telephone companies should report all service outages that affect competitors and that exceed 15 minutes in duration.” Further, the CRTC required filing: a) the duration and reason for the outage; b) the extent to which service to the telephone company’s other customers was affected; c) the time at which service was restored to the competitor; and d) the time at which service was restored to the telephone company’s other customers.

Driven by the Policy Direction, as part of a paperwork reduction initiative, in 2009, the CRTC eliminated this reporting.

Also in 2000, the CRTC had required reporting of major service interruptions affecting large groups of customers. In Decision 2000-24, the CRTC defined three categories:

• Category 1 – Local network outage causing small community isolation lasting 60 minutes or longer.
• Category 2 – Local network outage relating to 10,000 lines lasting 60 minutes or longer.
• Category 3 – Local network outage relating to 30,000 lines lasting 60 minutes or longer.

The world of telecommunications has evolved since quality of service indicators were established. Wireline services are in decline; the latest CRTC monitoring report shows there are now nearly three times as many wireless connections as there are residential phone lines. Over the past five years, Canadians disconnected more than 1 million wired lines and added 5.8M wireless services.

In a competitive environment, consumers have choices. In announcing the Wireless Code, CRTC Chair JP Blais said:

The wireless code is a tool that will empower consumers and help them make informed choices about the service options that best meet their needs. To make the most of this tool, consumers also have a responsibility to educate themselves.

To make informed choices, consumers need to have access to useful information upon which they can make decisions. What network quality information should consumers have available? What services should be reported? Should VoIP, Long Distance, Wireless, internet access all be captured or just local wireline services? What about TV distribution? What about applications like Blackberry Messenger, Skype, Twitter, Facetime, etc.?

The three pillars of the CRTC’s 3-year workplan are Create, Connect and Protect. The Connect pillar is described as:

The CRTC’s activities under this pillar ensure that Canadians can connect to quality and innovative communication services at affordable prices and have access to creative content. This includes services that facilitate access to the communication system by Canadians with disabilities. By fostering competition, the CRTC strives to provide Canadians with choice and improved rates and services.

In the United States, there is a Network Outage Reporting System operated by the FCC. The system, applicable to wireline, wireless and interconnected VoIP services, is considered essential enough that the FCC has kept that system running during the current US Government furlough. Because of the impact on consumer access to emergency services, the reports to the FCC are made available to the Department of Homeland Security.

It is perhaps appropriate that the the CRTC launch an inquiry today looking at “Matters related to emergency 9-1-1 services“. At paragraph 151 of the Inquiry Officer’s Report, there is a reference to the concerns in the United States about network reliability, and at paragraph 181, there is reference to improved data collection requirements. At paragraph 245 of the Inquiry Officer’s report, he suggests that a multi-stakeholder organization be charged with “Devising performance metrics for carriers, databases, and other networked participants, including levels of service to [Public Safety Answering Points].”

Should the CRTC be collecting and disseminating network outage information that helps consumers make informed choices? Should that information be restricted to Public Safety purposes, or be used to help consumers make informed choices about their communications services?

The Government of Canada has been running a series of ads with the tag line: “Less noise. More facts.”, with directions to readers to get more information on a special Industry Canada website.

I tweeted earlier this week that I think the campaign is unseemly and sophomoric.

On reflection, I think the government needs to take its own advice and provide less noise and more facts.

There are at least two major points that merit scrutiny.

The ad says “The fact is Canadians pay some of the highest wireless rates in the developed world.”

That simply isn’t true, and the government knows it. Industry Canada and the CRTC commissioned a report [html, pdf] that looked at international pricing; less than 3 months ago, then Minister of Industry Christian Paradis welcomed its release, saying:

Based on Wall Communications’ results, wireless prices have decreased 18 percent since 2008. This impressive decline shows that increased competition is keeping prices down while new technologies become available.

We know that the people responsible for the Government ad campaign are aware of the Wall Communications study; the government cites figures from that report when taking credit for prices dropping by 20%. The Wall Communications report doesn’t stand alone. The School of Public Policy at University of Calgary released a report two weeks ago on Parliament Hill. The report was written by economists who found:

wireless prices in Canada are difficult to compare to international prices because Canadians use their mobile devices differently – with a bias toward monthly plans over pay-as-you-go and with fast networks that encourage smartphone usage. This incorrectly leads to the conclusion that Canadians are paying more, when in fact they are demanding more in terms of mobile services.

The authors of the University of Calgary report are experts in competitive markets, both of them having worked at Canada’s Competition Bureau. As I wrote at the time, The paper takes aim at simplistic analysis that has led various critics to have accused the industry of being “woefully uncompetitive” and “dysfunctional and in desperate need of an overhaul.”

According to their report, “there is no evidence that there is a competition problem in wireless services in Canada.” Yet Industry Canada’s More Choice website ignores this finding. Industry Canada says it is a fiction that “There is already enough competition in the wireless market.”

The University of Calgary report is an inconvenient contradiction – one that cannot be ignored.

As I suggested on Monday, it is time to take stock of where we are. How do we create the right policy framework to encourage the continued investment of billions of dollars each year, delivering advanced, affordable services that enable Canada’s participation in a global digital economy?

I agree with one part of the ads that my taxes paid for. We need less noise and more facts. We can then follow up with thoughtful analysis and leadership.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) is meeting behind closed doors tomorrow afternoon to discuss a “Request to Undertake a Study of Telecommunications Policy“. The 4 members of the Committee who apparently requested the meeting may find support from expert reports sitting on the shelf of the Government library.

I have been writing this blog for about seven and a half years now, close to a quarter of my 33 years in the telecom sector, creating an archive of materials that highlight telecom policy and strategic issues over a reasonable period of time.

I find it interesting sometimes to take a fresh look at some of the more than 2,000 posts on this blog to see which issues are coming up again.

For example, two years ago, I wrote a piece “Time for another review,” highlighting the recommendation from the 2006 Report of the Telecom Policy Review Panel [pdf] to have a fresh look at policy issues every five years.

The Minister of Industry should be mandated by legislation to undertake a comprehensive review of telecommunications policy and regulation every five years.

It has been 7 years since the Telecom Policy Review Panel delivered its report in 2006.

How different would the wireless discussions have been this summer if the government had acted on this recommendation? Indeed, legislation mandating such a review would really not have been required; simply an act of digital policy leadership.

Earlier this morning, the Fraser Institute released a report, “Spectrum Auction Rules and Competition Policy: An Assessment” [download report, pdf], further contributing to the discussion about Canada’s digital policy.

The paper argues that while the issue of the competitiveness of the wireless sector in Canada is unsettled, initiatives to ensure that the large established carriers do not unduly restrict competition in the future can and should be addressed through the Competition Act, rather than by “handicapping” the competitive process, including spectrum auctions. As well, the likelihood of established carriers being able to restrict competition would be substantially diminished if all existing restrictions on foreign ownership in the sector were eliminated. In all other respects, efficient competition is more likely to be realized if asymmetric rules regarding the acquisition and use of assets, including spectrum licenses, are eliminated.

The Fraser Institute says that the number of competitors can be “an unreliable guide to the strength of competition in that market”; markets can be “workably competitive with as few as two or three competitors.”

The report goes on to say that recent evidence shows that Canada’s wireless carriers perform as well or better than their US counterparts. Since many observers argue that the US wireless sector is “workably competitive,” this finding suggests that Canada’s wireless market is as well.

The report says that its main conclusions are that handicapping incumbents can have adverse consequences for efficiency that will ultimately reduce the welfare of Canadian wireless consumers.

Four years ago, during the Globalive/Wind Mobile foreign ownership review at the CRTC, I wrote about what the Telecom Policy Review Panel has said about liberalization of the ownership restrictions.

In the recent past, our government has commissioned a number of expert reports, many of which end up on book shelves with too few of the recommendations adopted.

We now have our third Industry Minister since the Digital Economy Strategy consultation was launched, seeking input on 24 questions under 5 broad themes. As I wrote at the time, then Industry Minister Tony Clement said:

Canada can and should be a leader in the global digital economy. Nothing prevents us from being the best place in which to invest, grow a digital business or create digital content for the world.

Now is the time for the private sector to step up. To contribute its ideas. And then, when the digital strategy is in place, implement the game plan.

Yes, Canada can and should be a leader in the global digital economy. But we need to be asking some very hard questions about whether the current policy framework makes it “the best place in which to invest, grow a digital business or create digital content for the world.”

Thankfully, the private sector hasn’t waited for a digital strategy to be “in place” before launching such initiatives as affordable computers and broadband for low income households, without the government.

When the House INDU Committee meets, its members may want to consider that the study on Telecom Policy is already 2 years overdue according to Recommendation 9-4 of the Telecom Policy Review Panel. It may want to ask if the absence of such a review and the absence of having “a digital strategy in place” are inhibiting Canadian leadership in a digital economy.

Perhaps the government will agree to have a fresh look at its overall communications policy.

Is it time to commission a new panel to “undertake a comprehensive review of telecommunications policy and regulation” as was recommended 7 years ago?

School aged kids in low income households are going to have access to affordable computers and connectivity when they head back to school this fall.

Rogers launched Connected for Success, a pilot program offering a $10 per month broadband internet connection, a $150 subsidized computer and software to residents of Toronto Community Housing. Rogers hopes to expand the program and Rogers’ President of Communications, Rob Bruce told The Canadian Telecom Summit in June that he would welcome other carriers to participate.

Most government programs that target the “digital divide” have looked at ways to narrow the gaps in coverage between urban and rural or remote geographies. Such programs have used government subsidies to stimulate supply based on geography, without regard to the ability to pay.

Regular readers know that Greg O’Brien of Cartt.ca and I have been calling for a change in that focus. We have been advocating for leadership in targeted, affordable access, stimulating the demand side. More than eighty per cent of Canadian households subscribe to broadband internet, but that is heavily skewed by income. About half of Canada’s lowest income households have no computer, let alone a broadband connection.

Michael Powell of the US cable industry association said it best in May 2012: “A child without access to the Internet will find life increasingly difficult in the information age.”

With no national digital economy strategy to deal with this, it is gratifying to see the private sector step up with the leadership to help provide low income kids with access to the tools that most of us take for granted for success in school.

In my opening remarks at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit, I said:

there are many households in urban areas that can’t afford to equip their homes with a computer and connectivity. Shouldn’t our connectivity strategy be as concerned about that kind of digital divide? We might find that a direct, needs-based subsidy, costs less and benefits a broader group of Canadians caught on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The digital divide is not just a chasm between rural and urban. At the root is affordability, which is a problem facing lower income urban dwellers as much as rural markets.

According to reports [here, here and here], in his opening address at The 2013 Canadian Telecom Summit, Rogers Communications President Rob Bruce is expected to be announcing a program called “Connected for Success”, providing affordable broadband, computers and software to Toronto Community Housing.

It’s unfathomable that Canadians are living without internet access today because they simply cannot afford it. With Connected for Success we’ve taken the first step to connect youth and we urge our competitors, our partners and communities to work with us to bridge Canada’s digital divide.

Today’s announcement is a huge step forward, demonstrating leadership from the private sector in providing affordable internet access to families. About half of all households in the lowest income quintile have no computer, let alone a broadband connection.

As I have been writing for a number of years, “How do kids from low income households stand a chance when so many jobs require basic computer skills?”

This kind of initiative can be expected to bring enormous benefits to our communities, urban and rural, helping to strengthen Canada’s performance in a global digital economy.