It isn’t just Barrett Xplore that is deploying a combination of satellite and WiMax to deliver broadband to tame the wild frontier.

AT&T; has announced that they are going to pursue a similar architecture, which provides a major vote of confidence to what John Maduri and his team are doing.

What is troubling to me is that everyone seems to be convinced that we need to follow the great Canadian tradition of government subsidies and handouts in order to push broadband to the masses. Everyone other than Barrett Xplore itself, which has been executing its business plan using its own money.

So, when Barrett has launched a Cabinet appeal to fight against the CRTC Decision telling Bell to provide rural highspeed service using cash from the Deferral Account. Bell says it isn’t a subsidy. In their words, it is simply topping up the business case…

Among many other items, we’ll be watching this unfold. Community broadband networks are being discussed at The Canadian Telecom Summit in two weeks.

---

Update: Tyler Hamilton has commentary on this issue in today’s Toronto Star: Telcos don’t deserve your $620M

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.