An artist rendering of Don River Park, part of the mixed-use spaces that hallmark the Toronto Waterfront revitalization project.

About seven years ago, Rochester’s Fast Ferry offered daily service between Rochester, N.Y. and Toronto’s Waterfront.  Tens of millions of dollars later, the Rochester Ferry Company discovered that nobody in southern Ontario was that interested in a shortcut to Rochester, many locals found driving to Canada’s largest city faster, more convenient, and cheaper, and the point of arrival on the Canadian side was hardly a draw — situated in a rundown, seedy industrial wasteland.

By the end of 2006, the ferry was sold and sent on its way to Morocco, the CBC got a barely used International Marine Passenger Terminal (built for the Rochester ferry) to use as a set location for its TV crime drama The Border, and the rundown waterfront was well-embarked on a major reconstruction effort.

This week, Toronto’s Waterfront learned it was getting a broadband makeover as well, with the forthcoming launch of insanely fast 10/10Gbps fiber broadband for business and 100/100Mbps for condo dwellers along the East Bayfront and West Don Lands.

Best of all, Beanfield Metroconnect, the parent company responsible for constructing the network, promises no Internet Overcharging schemes for residents and businesses… forever.  No usage caps, no throttled broadband speeds, no overlimit fees.  Pricing is more than attractive — it’s downright cheap for Toronto:  $60 a month for unlimited 100/100Mbps broadband, $30 a month for television service, and as low as $14.95 for phone service.  Bundle all three and knock another 15 percent off the price.  The provider is even throwing in free Wi-Fi, which promises to be ubiquitous across the Waterfront.

The project will leapfrog this Toronto neighborhood into one of the fastest broadband communities in the world.

Toronto Waterfront Fiber Broadband Coverage Map

“Having this sort of capacity available to residents will allow for a whole new world of applications we haven’t even conceived of yet,” said chief executive Dan Armstrong.

The rest of Toronto, in comparison, will be stuck in a broadband swamp courtesy of Rogers Cable and Bell, where average speeds hover around 5Mbps, with nasty usage caps and overlimit fee schemes from both providers.  DSL service in the city is notoriously slow and expensive, as Bell milks decades-old copper wire infrastructure long in need of replacement.

The public-private broadband project is a welcome addition for an urban renewal effort that has been criticized at times for overspending. Created in 2001, Waterfront Toronto has a 25-year mandate to transform 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of brownfield lands on the waterfront into a combination of business and residential mixed-use communities and public spaces.  At least $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been earmarked for the renewal project, although project managers say no taxpayer dollars will be spent on the broadband project.

Waterfront Toronto’s efforts have been recognized as bringing Toronto’s first “Intelligent Community” to the city with the construction of the open access fiber network.

Still, the public corporation has its critics.  Earlier this spring Toronto city councilman Doug Ford called the urban renewal project a boondoggle.  Other conflicts rage with the Toronto Transit Commission and the mayor’s office over other redevelopment projects.  But the revitalization project’s broadband initiative has significant support, especially among knowledge workers that could eventually become residents… and paying customers.

The 21st century broadband project is also likely to bring broadband envy across the entire GTA, who will wonder why service from the cable and phone companies is so much slower and more expensive.

For broadband enthusiasts, Toronto’s broadband future looks much brighter than yesterday’s failed ferry service, which proves once again that regardless of the technology — slow, expensive, and inconvenient service will never attract much interest from the value-conscious public.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVO The Need for High Speed 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Canada’s digital networks are some of the slowest in the world, running between one hundred to a thousand times slower than other countries in the developed world. In this episode of “Our Digital Future – The Need for High-Speed,” Bill Hutchison, Executive Director of Intelligent Communities for Waterfront Toronto describes the sorry state of Canada’s digital infrastructure, stressing the need for major investments in advanced broadband networks.  (4 minutes)

At least 20 percent of Canadians lack Internet access, according to a new survey published by Statistics Canada.  That means one out of every five homes either cannot afford, don’t want, or can’t get online.

The lack of access is most acute in low income households, where only about half with incomes of $30,000 or less access the Internet.  The income and access disparity was readily apparent when comparing broadband rich, income poor New Brunswick (70% have broadband) with service-deprived British Columbia, which has an 84% penetration rate.  In NB, you can get it but you can’t afford it; in BC if you can get it, you already have it.

Although cities in southern Canada are well-wired, smaller communities further north are often not, and the access some get is slow and unreliable.  But few are willing to live with dial-up access.  At least 96% of Canadians rely on broadband or simply go without the service.  The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has set a goal to deliver at least 5Mbps broadband service to every interested Canadian by the end of 2012.

Some statistics, starting with those without Internet service:

• 56% lacked interest or need;
• 20% cited the cost of the service;
• 15% don’t have access to a computer;
• 12% don’t understand enough about computers or the Internet to use it;
• 93% of households with children had Internet access while just 58% of single-person homes had the service;
• 81% of urban homes had access to broadband, just 71% of rural homes do;
• 71% of Canadians access the Internet from a traditional desktop computer, 64% use a laptop, 35% use a tablet or smartphone for access, and just 20% rely on a video game console to get online.

Statistics Canada surveyed 30,000 Canadians as part of its research.

Shaw’s wallet-biting usage billing shark finally gets the net, at least for some of the company’s broadband plans.

After a firestorm of protests from customers across western Canada, Shaw Communications this week unveiled new Internet packages and pricing that dramatically increases usage allowances and introduces unlimited use plans.  Stop the Cap! reader Mark shares the good news that consumer pushback can make a difference:

Today we are excited to share our new direction on Internet pricing and packaging with you, our customers. With your help, we’ve created a model that we hope you’ll agree is fair, flexible and offers a variety of options for customers today and into the future.

We’d like to thank the hundreds of customers who took time to come out to the 34 sessions and those who shared their ideas online. Many of those who participated are the technology innovators who told us they wanted an Internet experience that worked not only today, but for the needs of tomorrow. We also heard that our customers wanted transparency, more choice of internet speed and data options, increased flexibility to meet their varied needs, and above all, fairness.

The decisions we have made coming out of those sessions are far reaching. We went into the session thinking it was a discussion about pricing and packaging, and came out with a new vision for the future. Put an end to your struggles, as the perfect packaging solution to enhance your product is available at https://www.andex.net/blister-cards/.

One of the biggest decisions we have made is to undertake a major upgrade of our network by converting our television analog tiers to digital. In making this move we will triple the capacity of our network, freeing up space for more Internet, HD and On Demand programming. This conversion will start in June and will take sixteen months to complete. As a result of this upgrade, it will open up opportunities for Shaw to offer industry leading broadband performance.

While it is unlikely many Shaw customers clamored to see the cable company convert to an all-digital system (which requires a set top box on every connected television), the aggressive move to expand DOCSIS 3 technology will provide Shaw the option of pitching faster Internet speeds to customers — exactly what they intend to offer:

1. Increased Data Consumption with our Existing Model: Customers can choose to stay with their existing packaging and pricing except with much higher data levels. Our existing acceptable use policy will remain the same as it is today.
   

   Package	Speed	Current Data	New Data	Bundle Price	Standalone Price	With Personal TV (SPP)
   Shaw Lite Speed	1 Mbps	15 GB	30 GB	$27	$37	$64.90
   Shaw High Speed	7.5 Mbps	60 GB	125 GB	$39	$49	$74.90
   Shaw Extreme	25 Mbps	100 GB	250 GB	$49	$59	$84.90

2. New Broadband Packages: We have created new packages featuring industry leading performance and greater value. These broadband packages will come bundled with TV and will roll out in two phases. Phase 1 will be available in June, 2011 and Phase 2 will become available as the network upgrade occurs. Our advanced digital network will be activated neighbourhood by neighbourhood over the next 16 months starting in August, 2011.Customers who choose one of the new packages will enter into an automatic upgrade program. Those who go over their data consumption will be placed in the next higher package for the remainder of the month. The following month’s data will be reset and customers will return to their original package unless they choose to stay at the higher level.We have also created unlimited data options for our customers, an Unlimited Lite and Unlimited 100. As the new network becomes available, we will also offer Unlimited 250.
3. Phase 1 Broadband Packages (Available June, 2011)
   

   Package	Download Speed	Upload Speed	Data	With Legacy TV	With Personal TV (SPP)
   Unlimited Lite	1 Mbps	256 kbps	Unlimited	Add $59.00	$84.90
   Broadband 50	50 Mbps	3 Mbps	400 GB	Add $59.00	$84.90
   Broadband 100	100 Mbps	5 Mbps	500 GB	Add $69.00	$94.90
   Broadband 100+	100 Mbps	5 Mbps	750 GB	Add $79.00	$104.90
   Unlimited 100	100 Mbps	5 Mbps	Unlimited	Add $119.00	$144.90

   Phase 2 Broadband Packages (Rolling Launch Starting August, 2011)

   Package	Download Speed	Upload Speed	Data	With Legacy TV	With Personal TV (SPP)
   Unlimited Lite	1 Mbps	256 kbps	Unlimited	Add $59.00	$84.90
   Broadband 50	50 Mbps	5 Mbps	400 GB	Add $59.00	$84.90
   Broadband 100	100 Mbps	10 Mbps	500 GB	Add $69.00	$94.90
   Broadband 100+	100 Mbps	10 Mbps	750 GB	Add $79.00	$104.90
   Broadband 250	250 Mbps	15 Mbps	1 TB	Add $99.00	$124.90
   Unlimited 250	250 Mbps	15 Mbps	Unlimited	Add $119.00	$144.90

While this represents a welcome change for Canadians long weary of stingy usage allowances, the pricing for the company’s unlimited use options is on the high side, and is not an available option for the most popular lower speed tiers, with the exception of the company’s 1Mbps “Lite” plan, where it carries a ludicrous monthly fee of $59, the exact same price customers will pay for a 50Mbps plan with a 400GB monthly limit.

We would have liked to see Shaw introduce unlimited options for all of their usage plans (or better yet simply drop the limits altogether).  As it stands, they are effectively charging an extra $20-40 a month to be free from a usage cap on some of their new highest speed tiers. For most customers, the effective result of Shaw’s changes is a more generous usage package.

Shaw’s pricing for high speed plans is aggressive.  For what Americans would pay Time Warner Cable for 50/5Mbps service, a Shaw customer will eventually get 250/15Mbps with a 1TB limit (add $20 for unlimited).

Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor, suspects the looming hearings by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) over usage-based-billing has a lot to to with this week’s changes by Shaw, which just months earlier was lowering usage allowances.

“Shaw is doing this because the writing was on the wall,” Geist says. “When you’re in a position to offer such better pricing and data caps than what you were offering before, it highlights just how uncompetitive this market has been.”

Eastern Canadians in Ontario and Quebec will be waiting to see what companies like Rogers, Videotron, and Bell do in response to Shaw’s new pricing model.  As it stands, western Canadians will nearly get double the speeds and usage allowances those in the eastern half of the country endure from cable and phone companies.  That could be a political nightmare at the CRTC hearings, and would continue to call out the highly arbitrary nature of Internet Overcharging, whether it is found in Calgary, Toronto, or Montreal.

Phillip 'Not Picking Up What Moffett Puts Down' Dampier

Tech, business, and even a few mainstream media outlets have been booking Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett as an independent observer of all-things-broadband, without revealing he literally has a vested interest in boosting profits for the telecommunications industry.

The latest of Moffett’s heavily-slanted ideas appeared over the weekend on ZDNet, where Larry Dignan’s Between the Lines column used one of Bernstein’s “research notes” to provoke readers into a discussion about Internet Overcharging:

Metered broadband access is inevitable and may even be good for adoption of speedy Internet access.

That’s the argument from Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note. Moffett sets the scene:

• The FCC’s open Internet push allows for metered broadband.
• AT&T has introduced usage caps across its wireline business. DSL customers are limited to 150 GB of monthly consumption. U-Verse subscribers get 250 GB, or the same as Comcast. Users will be charged an extra $10 a month if they exceed the cap and it’s $10 per 50 GB after that.
• AT&T has already introduced tiered wireless plans.
• Time Warner Cable has a few usage based pricing pilots underway.

Moffett

Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks.  Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers.  Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment.  Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company.  Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:

The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.

With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

Moffett represents his interests, not yours.

Yet some of Moffett’s earlier statements would seem to argue with himself.

For instance, back in March Moffett was making plenty of noise about AT&T’s caps precisely targeting video providers like Netflix:

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

The only thing usage-based pricing indemnifies is the industry’s confrontation with revenue-eroding cable-TV cord-cutting.  And Moffett knows this, although he would probably give rave reviews to bringing similar usage-based-billing to cable television packages, which would charge you for every show you watched on top of your monthly bill.

These pricing models, already firmly rooted in Canada, have done nothing to bring the “next generation of communications” to our neighbors to the north.  Indeed, Canada’s ranking in broadband continues its decline as large cable and phone companies pocket the profits instead of committing to wholesale upgrades of their networks to deliver the kind of service increasingly common in Europe and Asia.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes last: Moffett’s prediction that AT&T’s usage pricing will increase broadband adoption.  Perhaps that’s true if you prefer telecommunications companies abuse you, but as we’ve documented over the past three years, these pricing schemes never save anyone money — they just increase the price of your service while decreasing the value of it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Canada went to the polls last week and managed to deliver a predictable majority for incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party.  Even Americans ignorant of Canadian politics knew as much, but more than a few with an interest in the country’s telecommunications future were stunned to watch some long-standing parties get handed their hats and ushered out the door into the political wilderness (for at least a few years anyway).

The former mighty Liberal Party — the one that always saw themselves as Canada’s Natural Governing Party, succumbed to an embarrassing election failure.  Leader Michael Ignatieff not only oversaw the loss of more than 40 Liberal seats in the House of Commons, he couldn’t even manage to hold his own, losing his Toronto-area seat in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.  The centrist party won just short of 19 percent of the popular vote.  That’s a long fall for the party of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who won three successive majority governments in 1993, 1997 and 2000.  Much of the party’s strong support in Ontario collapsed, with seats swiped by Conservative and NDP candidates.  The centrist era is evidently over for now.

The Liberals take on telecommunications issues seemed mostly to rely on bashing whatever the Conservatives were doing.  Much of their criticism seemed to delight in Tory missteps and disorganization, particularly over what the party felt was incoherent policy direction for telecom issues.  Unfortunately, presenting a credible digital strategy alternative was not a high priority for the Liberals, and voters fretting about Internet Overcharging saw as much.  The Liberals have also taken flak for being too “establishment” and business friendly in recent years.  As a result, many former Liberal voters took their votes elsewhere.  At least Liberal Industry critic Marc Garneau survived.  He was successful at crystallizing the usage based billing (UBB) issue (and the CRTC’s failure by adopting it) in a way that consumers could easily understand.

The biggest catastrophe befell the Bloc Québécois, the separatist-motivated party in Quebec.  Outside of wins on the Gaspé Peninsula riding that covers the rural regional county municipalities of La Haute-Gaspésie, La Matapédia, Matane and La Mitis, and a few victories around Trois-Rivières, the Bloc was effectively obliterated — left with just four seats.  They had 47. That means the BQ is now too small to even count as an official party in Canada.  Observers say it was Quebec’s version of “throw the bums out,” with a very strong voter sentiment against “the establishment,” which in Quebec means the BQ.  Which Canadian party is the least establishment?  The NDP — and votes flowed in that direction.

On telecom issues, BQ members didn’t seem to appreciate Bell and Videotron’s usage-based-billing policies any more than the rest of Canada, and Bell in particular endured harsh questioning from BQ members at earlier hearings.

But the big news from the election was the sweeping realignment of Opposition to the Tories into the hands of the NDP – Canada’s social-democratic, left-wing New Democratic Party.  The NDP has championed opposition to UBB like no other party in Canada. Digital affairs critic Charlie Angus, who is a brash firebrand against corporate telecom abuse and their lackeys on the CRTC, will get an even larger platform to blast away at anti-consumer policies on offer from the telecom regulator.  Both Angus and the NDP champion Net Neutrality as well.  Two MPs from Toronto, Peggy Nash and Andrew Cash, will also bring strength to the NDP’s policy platform on copyright issues.

The NDP won most of the seats lost by the BQ in Quebec, and also won strongholds in western Ontario, northern British Columbia, Manitoba, and the Western Arctic.  In fact, NDP wins in Quebec were so frenzied, Leader Jack Layton found himself presiding over a dramatically younger caucus, including three McGill University students and a bartender in the heavily francophone riding of Berthier-Maskinonge.  That presents a problem for newly elected Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who so disbelieved she was a serious candidate, she spent the last week of the campaign running around Las Vegas.  She also doesn’t speak French.  A local station that finally reached her in Las Vegas to discuss her win had to abandon the interview when she was unable to offer coherent answers to questions in Quebec’s majority language.  Rosetta Stone is in her near future.  So is a trip to her district — Brosseau told the Trois-Rivières newspaper Le Nouvelliste she has never stepped foot in the riding before.  But she offered the people there seemed nice.

While the NDP doesn’t have a majority, they are sure to call out any Conservative telecommunications policies that appear to be anti-consumer, and turn them into media events — good news for a country whose television media often ignores telecommunications stories.  A five minute interview with Charlie Angus will surely deliver plenty of amusing soundbites for the evening news.

With the strengthened majority of the Conservative Party, it’s a safe bet Canadian telecommunications policies will no longer be stuck in neutral.  There are open questions if Tony Clement, Industry Minister will retain his portfolio or make a move elsewhere in government.  Clement has steadfastly insisted UBB is unacceptable to him and the government.  The upcoming review by the CRTC of their earlier decision is likely to give the government some time to sort things out.  The Conservatives ignored Openmedia.ca’s request for a formal position against UBB, something that does give us pause.

It will remain important for Canadian consumers to keep the pressure on the Tories to act when regulatory bodies like the CRTC fail.  The natural view of the Conservatives in to let the marketplace sort things out, but even they recognize that is an impossibility in a duopoly.  When 500,000 Canadians sign a petition against UBB, standing with big cable and phone companies would be political suicide.

What Conservatives are likely to promote is increased competition.  So far, that has not meant much, especially as consolidation continues in the broadcasting and telecommunications sector.  The Tories best answer for now is throwing doors open to foreign investment in telecommunications, especially in wireless.  That will mean relaxing foreign ownership rules which could help new cell phone entrants — Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile expand their competitive reach.  If the Tories adopt the new rules, even AT&T could move north of the border — but that will bring no relief to Canadians seeking an escape from Internet Overcharging schemes.  Other issues likely to come up — copyright reform legislation, royalty taxes imposed on digital devices, and piracy.