Life on the Broadband Internet
The role of technology and policy in transforming online culture – chronicled by David Ellis
Beyond UBB: the CRTC’s war on Canadian consumers
197 days
***
Economic practices are the most transparent ITMPs. They match consumer usage with willingness to pay, thus putting users in control and allowing market forces to work.
***
In my previous post, I suggested the consumer ISP complaints revealed recently are bad enough, but only the tip of a much larger iceberg. The more unsettling issue is that the complaints in question were effectively secret and had to be dragged out of the CRTC through an Access to Information request by Michael Geist.
Yet there might be a silver lining in the complaints fiasco. It may prove to be a useful step in moving the debates on Canadian broadband away from the much-coddled incumbents and, at long last, over to Canada’s much-ignored consumers. Peter Nowak wrote a recent post on the fiasco, referring to it as “the net neutrality bombshell” – and suggested von Finckenstein’s inability to create a viable network neutrality framework will be seen as his “biggest failure at the CRTC.” (more…)
More complaining: a “warning” about Geist’s “allegations”
205 days
***
***
Before getting back to the CRTC’s war on consumers, I’d like to make a brief mention of the strange press release issued on Monday by Xplornet concerning Geist’s ATI request and the revelations that ensued.
Michael has a full discussion of the Xplornet press release here. Though he includes the full text, he omits the most interesting part: the headline, which reads “Warning to Editors re: Allegations made by Michael Geist” (release here). Here’s the warning, or attempt at censorship, depending on your point of view:
“Reprinting this blog entry, or Geist’s allegations regarding Barrett Xplore Inc. (or Xplornet Communications Inc), represent the publication of materially misleading statements regarding our company. “ (more…)
Get yer grimy paws off my Netflix: the scam, continued
233 days
***
(Updated Sunday, June 19)
This post and the one prior are devoted to a critique of the CRTC’s OTT proceeding, oops, fact-finding exercise – and the role of the Online 
Broadcasting Working Group (OBWG). Of its 11 publicly announced members, I’m looking at 5 in order to illustrate just how far removed from a “factual” exercise this circus will be. They are ACTRA and SOCAN (covered last time), plus Astral, the CMPA and Peter Grant.
Exhibit F – Astral: “The objective is … that we maintain a level playing field within the system—a system that is a very positive and strong element in terms of our Canadian culture, identity and the Canadian economy.” André Bureau, Chair, Astral Media, April 14. OBWG member.
Whenever you hear a Canadian media mogul saying all he wants is a level playing field, while draping himself in the flag, run for cover. Astral owns 22 TV services, including US “wraparounds” like HBO Canada. They have lots to lose in the OTT wave. I wonder what they’ll say to the OBWG and the Commission… Competition? Bring it on!
The old guard will continue to find lawyers who will continue to argue that every “new media” innovation is just another form of broadcasting, and therefore has to be regulated – meaning they, the moguls, have to be protected from anything that might compete with them. Since our moguls couldn’t innovate their way out of a wet paper bag, they harbor much fear and loathing for innovators like Netflix, because innovators are smarter and their business models have legs – unlike, say, being a subsidized, highly protected reseller of US TV shows with no Plan B for the digital age.
Get yer grimy paws off my Netflix: Ottawa’s big OTT scam
235 days
***
Canada’s (“frightened,” “alarmed”) media gatekeepers go on a rampage, led by the regulator
So… the CRTC holds sub rosa meetings in March with a roomful of interested parties about the growing “threat” of over-the-top (OTT) Web content. The same 
week, the Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage issues its report on “…The Move Towards New Viewing Platforms,” a compendium of witness statements all arguing new viewing platforms are a threat to Canadians. Shaw e.g. warns (p.5) that “by consuming valuable capacity, over-the-top providers threaten to undermine our significant network investments and impact the quality of service offered to our ISP customers. Finally, consumers will ultimately suffer, with fewer Canadian choices.”
Many of the patriots who showed up for the Standing Committee hearings then become members of the OTT Working Group, alleged to comprise some 35 “industry executives” – we don’t know for sure since their activities and membership are secret, even though they are operating with the sanction of the regulator. They subsequently change their name to the Online Broadcasting Working Group (OBWG) – and with a stroke of the pen ensure that no one will construe OTT content for anything but broadcasting (what they call begging the question, i.e. assuming what is to be proved).
On May 25, the CRTC “responds to Netflix critics” (Wire Report headline) by issuing a notice of consultation – structured not as a formal “proceeding” but a “fact-finding mission” – a nuance with important implications, especially for Ottawa’s tiny consumer advocacy community. Now that the Netflix critics have got their official “fact-finding” exercise, the OBWG does us all a favor on June 6 by revealing who the group’s members are. (more…)
Standing corrected: Stats Can on the Internet Use Survey
242 days
CIUS analyst Ben Veenhof provides feedback on my analysis
On Monday I posted part 3 of a 3-part series on what’s wrong with the CRTC’s broadband target. While the CRTC’s specifics – especially the 5 meg downlink, 1 meg uplink, and 2015 target date – have been grist for the pundit mill, my take is a little different. In a word, the CRTC’s regulation of retail Internet access, as well as its inability to understand how the Net works, have rendered the target meaningless.
You’ll undoubtedly want to read the posts for yourself. But it’s easy to pull out my biggest issue with the Commission’s ivory-tower approach: they’re way too stuck on the geography problem to have any time for the affordability problem. In other words, where residents happen to live in Canada should be playing a much smaller role in Internet regulation and broadband development than how much money Canadians make – or don’t make. (more…)
Misguided assumptions behind the CRTC’s broadband target (3)
245 days
***
How do you know?
This is an important question in many walks of life. In the natural sciences, it’s the most important question.
I’ve been doing some work with my son recently and had a chance to see that for myself. As a medical geneticist, Jordan devotes a lot of time to carrying out research and sharing his findings with other scientists in peer-reviewed journals. In his field, the standards of proof are extremely high, both because molecular medicine is so complex and because peoples’ lives are at stake.
I’d be exaggerating if I said lives were at stake in my classroom. Yet what I teach liberal arts students in a seminar about the Internet is based on a sense of respect for the same principle: you can’t write a research essay based on hearsay.
Students make bold assertions without giving a thought to why we should believe them. Of course, it’s a lot less work for the student writer to forget the “proof” and move on. But it’s well worth the effort on everyone’s part to encourage an understanding of when empirical evidence is important and when it isn’t.
Which brings us to the CRTC. (more…)
Misguided assumptions behind the CRTC’s broadband target (2)
258 days
***
***
(Updated May 25)
Broadband’s 3 A’s: access > adoption > activity
There are three distinct stages of broadband development for policy purposes.
The first is access or availability - the physical presence of a DSL, DOCSIS or other connection a consumer might lease if she so chooses. As the data show, however, the presence of a backyard drop is a necessary but far from sufficient condition of broadband purchase. Our would-be customer must also be aware the potential connection exists; own a computer; feel comfortable with technology; and feel she can afford the cost. (New evidence for this well-established finding appears in the FCC broadband report released May 20: “… the FCC report also finds that approximately one-third of Americans do not subscribe to broadband, even when it’s available. This suggests that barriers to adoption such as cost, low digital literacy, and concerns about privacy remain too high.” From the press release; emphasis original. See end of this post for more on the FCC.)
The fact alleged by the CRTC that 95% of Canadians enjoy theoretical access to wireline broadband means nothing to the average consumer, let alone a Canadian too poor or technically illiterate to adopt. Last year some provincial politicians went even further, claiming their citizens enjoy 100% broadband access. As the Wire Report noted in an article dated August 25, 2010, “Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick may boast 100% penetration, but according to Statistics Canada, [only] 77, 76 and 73% of residents, respectively, use the Internet [in those provinces].” And some of those users are still on dialup, which makes the real broadband takeup in those provinces even lower.
Canada’s mighty broadband policy: build it and they will come
(oops)
