According to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) – the Canadian government department responsible for managing everything communication – Toronto will run out of phone numbers in five years.
The original Toronto area code of 416 is almost completely used up, and the newest area code for the city – 647 – only has about 2.5 million numbers left. Canadian area codes typically have 7.5 million unique numbers.
So yesterday, the CRTC says that the Canadian Numbering Administrator – yes there is such a thing – is looking into the creation of yet another area code for the country’s largest city.
What gives?
There are about 2.5 million residents in Toronto -- 2,503,281 as of the latest 2010 Statistics Canada numbers to be official. The entire Greater Toronto Area (GTA) which includes the municipalities immediately surrounding the city (including Toronto’s population) is about 4.4 million people.
DO the math – Canadian area codes have 7.5 million numbers – wait a sec . . . the CRTC says we are running out of numbers, yet the population hasn’t met demand?
Guess some people just can’t put down their technological toys – some of us have two or more cell phones. It isn’t all that uncommon to have a cell for work and another for personal use. Some even have a different cell for their car.
Some people even have an old style cell phone and a smart phone. They keep their old phone because – well – I don’t really know – but they do – OKAY?!?!?
Why someone needs more than one personal communications device is beyond me. Unless you’re leading a double life.
That might be fun . . . or not . . .
Though we can’t blame the lone mobile phone or our new dependence on the BlackBerry and other smart phones for our overuse of the telephone system.
Many people have more than one landline-based phone at home – say a voice line and a fax line. Some people even get their teenagers their own landline, so that they never have to hear what my mom always yelled at me when I was a kid: “get off the phone!”
Offices and other businesses account for a huge toll in the telephone numbers game. According to a 2007 study at the time, there were 75,500 businesses in Toronto. Each business can have multiple numbers – so an office with a few hundred employees could have a few hundred voice numbers – or more. And don’t forget facsimile machines. Although instant messaging and email have quickly become the dominant person-to-person communications systems thank to the Internet, most businesses still have fax capabilities. And for every fax machine, there are . . . JUNK FAXES.
It’s remarkable – and sad – that in this day of environmentalism, thoughts of greening the planet, and saving forests by using less paper, some businesses still think the best way to do business is by blasting their unwanted advertising to the masses by fax.
Some business leaders just aren’t very good leaders.
On average, most Canadians have three phone numbers – work, home and cell. So multiply 2.5 million by three, and you get 7.5 million – exactly the number of unique possible phone numbers in a Canadian area code.
War has been brewing between Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite carriers for years. At issue, who should pay for locally produced programs?
The ruling still requires federal court approval, and could be overturned by the court or appealed by the cable and satellite companies.
Broadcasters – including the primary television networks in Canada of CTV, Global and CBC – claim that unless they can collect a fee from television carriers, they won’t be able to produce local news and other locally produced programs.
CRTC reports confirm a loss in revenues, saying private Canadian TV broadcasters lost $116.4 million CDN in 2009, despite earning $8 million CDN in 2008 – that’s a huge drop of 93 percent.
Cable companies on the other hand had profits of $2.3 billion CDN in 2009, an increase of 11.9 percent from the $2.1 billion CDN they raked in, in 2008.
Though cable and satellite companies claim any new fees from the broadcasters will just be passed on to you and me – their customers.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Are Canadian broadcasters just poor money managers?
The answer – as with most things in life – isn’t that cut and dry. The real problem isn’t the broadcasters or the television carriers fault. The real blame is our own ingenuity in technological advances.
When television first started breaking into our living rooms, channel selection was pretty limited. There were only a handful of signals available over the airwaves, sent via the Very High Frequency (VHF) band. Only channels two to thirteen could be carried on this frequency, which seemed like a lot, as not even half that many actually existed. Eventually, as television and radio stations began popping up all over the United States, the American Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re-allocated all over-the-air “bandwidth” to carry the load.
Amplitude Modulation (AM) and Frequency Modulation (FM) went to radio, while television stayed with VHF, and got an additional frequency – Ultra High Frequency (UHF), which carried television stations 14 to 83.
For those old enough to remember changing channels on their televisions long before remote controls existed – YES there was a time – there were two knobs on the boob tube. The primary VHF band, allowed you to tune in channels two to thirteen, and then you often would tune that dial to “U” (or some other similar symbol) and continue channel surfing on the other dial to get the few scattered stations on the UHF band.
As television caught on, more channels crept into the airwaves, and soon signals were being carried by cables buried deep underground. To get cable initially, you needed to purchase or rent a cable box, which allowed you to get as many as 60 to 99 channels depending on the cable box – again that seemed like way more than you’d ever need.
When digital television came out, the numbers of channels became a moot point. Technology even solved the mysterious channel one phenomenon – channel one was never available on analogue-based systems as that frequency is actually reserved for emergency responders in many parts. But thanks to microchips, computer processors, and the completely electronic format of digital signals, digital television channels can be assigned any number, and the number of ‘em is just as endless.
This gave rose to the specialty channel boom – from the 24-hour all news networks, weather channels and other information-based programming, to the movie networks, documentary channels, there is even a channel called “Fireplace Channel” which – you guessed it, shows a roaring fire in a quaint fireplace 24-hours-a-day seven-days-a-week. Though you may start to question your sanity if you watch the Fireplace Channel for long.
And this is what is killing your local programming – not the ineptitude of broadcasters, or the greed of cable and satellite providers.
The more correct term for this phenomenon is “narrowcasting” instead of broadcasting – as specialty stations cater to very narrowly defined demographic groups. Sports channels run nothing but sports-related programming, catering to sports fans, while science, technology and nature channels cater to people interested in those specific topics, while the Fireplace Channel caters to – well – uh – er – we aren’t sure who THAT channel is for!
The point is, as television stations become more specialized, the television viewing market splits into fragments of individual viewers, each person watching the specific television stations which cater to each individual’s own interest. I love science, technology and nature shows, found on stations such as National Geographic and Discovery. I also enjoy movies, so I get all the move networks. You may like movies, but prefer classic cartoons, so you get Teletoon Retro. Everyone’s individual tastes are different.
This is bad news for broadcasters, which cater to a general audience, trying to have a little bit of everything for everyone.
Why would I waste time even browsing channels which don’t typically cater to my specific interests, when I can tune right into channels that do?
So broadcasters in the traditional sense – the CTVs, Globals and CBC networks – are losing viewers, and that loss in viewers trickles down into less ad revenues, as the fewer people watching, the less likely companies will pay big bucks to promote their products and services on that channel.
Also, specialty channels offer a unique opportunity for commerce – they deliver the specific viewers interested in the specific types of goods and services for that station.
Think about it, wouldn’t, say a power tools manufacturer have a better chance of selling their products on a channel which specializes in home renovations, than on a broadcaster which may not even have a home renovations show?
As the television market continues to fragment, thanks to these specialty channels popping up all the time, traditional broadcasters will continue to lose money.
Just as the traditional broadcasters lose money, the television carriers earn more – because we are willing to pay more to subscribe to the specific channels we want to watch. That’s why the cable and satellite providers are raking in the big bucks, while the broadcasters are losing their fiscal shirts.
Allowing the broadcasters to charge additional fees to offset this loss in revenue isn’t going to make matters any better in the long-term. In the short-term, sure, any money you toss at a problem in the short-term appears to solve it.
But in the long-term, there simply won’t be enough viewers watching the traditional broadcast outlets. Unless the broadcasters begin narrowcasting, they will continue to bleed viewers until there is nothing left to but bone dust in the sand.
Many of us use major big-name Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for everything from sending emails, poking someone on facebook, tweeting on Twitter, or shopping for the latest gizmos on eBay.
Here in Canada, the big ISPs are cable television giant Rogers Cable, telephone giants Bell Canada and Telus, and American network giant America Online.
These large corporate ISPs provide dedicated, high-speed broadband Internet access on their own proprietary networks.
However, many more subscribe to smaller third-party ISPs that offer disco
unted rates, when compared to the primary ISPs. These third-party ISPs lease network access from the big ISPs, and then re-sell it in bulk to cost conscious consumers.
This provides competition in the ISP market, as the smaller ISPs compete against the very same larger companies providing them with network access, driving down prices while providing more options for consumers.
That was until last year, when the Canadian government wiped clean from the rule books the law requiring the big ISPs to provide access to their networks (for a fee) to the smaller third-party carriers. This came in the form of a ruling by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) that said that Bell and Telus no longer had to provide access to their broadband Ethernet network to the smaller competitors.
Winnipeg-based Manitoba Telecom Systems (MTS) has appealed the CRTC ruling, and a decision will be made by the Canadian government by the end of the year. MTS was bought out by Allstream, a larger telecom company, but still a dwarf when compared to the large ISPs in Canada.
Since then, the smaller carriers and their customers have
been worried about the Internet being pulled out from under them at any time. Imagine, going to your computer, loading up your favorite web browser, only to have the screen scream back at you error messages because your Internet connection doesn’t exist?
Although the third party carriers may be smaller than the ‘big boys,’ they pack a big punch. A campaign by MTS last month has generated over 85,000 angry letters to Members of Parliament (MPs), backing them and their cause.
What is that cause?
The Coalition for Competitive Broadband – led in part by MTS and over 50 other third-party ISPs – says the CRTC has failed to ensure a competitive marketplace for Internet services, and has failed to look out for the interests of Canadians.
"This cabinet recognizes that government has a role to play in ensuring healthy competitive conditions," said Chris Peirce, chief corporate officer for MTS Allstream, in a statement. "There's a wealth of evidence that the CRTC has no idea how to ensure competition, and that is why the government must continue to direct the CRTC."
It’s all about competition in a fair and level playing field for the coalition. The coalition says that without proper access to the primary ISP’s networks, Internet rates will increase, reducing access to the Internet for the poor, and severely limiting small and medium businesses access to the Internet. The coalition references numerous global studies, backing their claims.
Meanwhile, Bell and Telus poo-poo these studies, simply saying they are wrong. They point out that Canada is world leader when it comes to broadband technologies. Bell and Telus say the smaller third-party ISPs don’t care about competition; they just want access to their big broadband networks for below market prices.
Competition in the telecom industry continues to flop. Back in the 1990’s, the CRTC paved the way for deregulation in the telephone sector, allowing consumers to choose which company they wanted to do business with for their telephone needs.
At first BCE, the parent company of Bell Canada, and all the other su
bsidiary telephone companies in the country complained, saying deregulation was bad, as it would drive up prices and reduce technological improvements. They even tried to scare us by saying if you plugged in a phone that wasn’t one specifically designed for their network, it wouldn’t work.
Smaller mom and pop phone companies popped up briefly, re-selling phone services to consumers. Most of these got gobbled up by Bell, and the other big telecoms. The ones which remain, tend to be Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) based companies, which don’t need to lease telephone lines for their services.
In fact, the only competition that really exists in the telephone sector in Canada is between a select few big companies. A handful of American companies have entered the mobile phone market – Virgin for one – but for the most part, Canadians don’t enjoy a free and open market in telecom.
The prices are driven by an elite group of suits and ties ruling the industry through their supersized companies.
There is just as little competition in the high-speed broadband Internet market. It’s all the same companies – unless you go with one of the smaller third-party resellers, who – if the CRTC ruling stands – may one day pull the plug on your Internet service.
Canada is one of the most wired countries on the planet – studies constantly tell us that. But that doesn’t mean we have a competitive market, full of choice. On the contrary – our Internet – just as our telecom network – is one of the most monopolistic in the world.
The Canadian government has ruled that it is okay for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to restrict the speed, quality and signal strength to high-use customers.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which regulates ISPs in the country announced its long awaited decision earlier this week, taking a typically Canadian approach – right down the middle of the road.
When an ISP’s customer – someone like you – downloads large multimedia files (such as movies, playing online graphic intensive games, or streaming audio or video) you take up a lot of lanes on the information superhighway. These packets of data travel on the Internet’s network of roads and highways – commonl
The more bandwidth you use, the less is available for other people using that same ISP for their Internet. To control this, and provide enough bandwidth for all users, ISPs have been known to limit the amount of bandwidth available to those taking up the most – this is called “throttling.”
Prior to this week’s announcement by the CRTC, different ISPs had very different views on whether throttling was an ethical and even a legal practice – after all, you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth usually when you sign a contract with an ISP. The last thing you’d expect is to have your ISP limit just how much of that bandwidth you’ve paid for.
Some ISPs in Canada were against the whole practice of throttling, saying it was up to them to increase their networks, to constantly grow with their customer demand.
Other ISPs claimed although they constantly expand their networks, it isn’t fair for a handful of users to use up most of the bandwidth, taking it away from other paying customers of the network.
Others were awkwardly silent on the issue, with claims from their users that they were being “throttled” but when questioned, these ISPs would neither confirm nor deny these allegations.
The CRTC has ruled in favor of ISPs, giving them the legal right to throttle their high-bandwidth customers – but they must provide at least 30-days notice to retail customers, and 60-days notice to re-sellers of their services.
This provides a sense of comfort to all – but it could be just a false sense. You as a retail customer – someone who buys Internet service directly from an ISP – will get at least a month’s notice if your ISP will limit your bandwidth.
However, the ruling by Canada’s ISP regulator fails to provide any means for consumers to take any real action. The CRTC did allow for a complaints process, so that you can make a formal complaint to them about your ISPs throttling, which will be investigated on a case-by-case basis.
But that would take time – all the while, your ISP could be throttling your access to the Internet. And even if your complaint is judged worthy and investigated by the CRTC, there is no guarantee that they will rule in your favor.
That said, they could easily rule on the side of consumers, just as easily as they can rule on the side of the ISP – all this is new ground, so it remains to be seen just how everything will play out.
The good points from this ruling – now ISPs have to provide notice to their customers if they intend to limit their bandwidth. And the complaints process allows for some sort of dispute mechanism, for consumers and re-sellers who feel unfairly limited in bandwidth.
The bad news from all of this, in these tough economic times, it could slow down the expansion of our country’s Internet, because it is cheaper – and now legal – to limit individual use, rather than spending more on building the technological infrastructure necessary to increase the capabilities of the networks.
Again, as all of this is new – Canada is now the first and only country with laws regulating the limiting of bandwidth – only time will tell.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) across Canada have different ways and views on how to manage their networks. At issue, network resources for playing online games, sharing files peer-to-peer, watching online videos, and other types of high-bandwidth content, which many of us take for granted.
ISPs across the country are struggling to manage customers who use high-bandwidth content more frequently than most on their network, claiming if they don’t do something, their other customers online experiences will suffer.
Currently the Internet in Canada is as it was when it began everywhere else – wild and free. There are no rules for how your ISP manages their network resources, just so long as they provide you with the services you pay for.
That’s created a big debate across the country, and as with many national issues, the government has been called in to create the laws and regulations governing how your ISP manages their network – which in the end will deeply affect how you use the Internet.
How is the wild and free Internet being tamed by your ISP?
ISPs typically use one of two methods to control your use of high-bandwidth content – throttling and download limits. Some ISPs use a combination of both methods.
Throttling is when the ISP intentionally slows down the flow of information sent and received over its network based on specific types of applications. Some ISPs are known to reduce the bandwidth availability for peer-to-peer file sharing applications, such as Torrent sites, others will limit bandwidth available for playing live online games, and some will even reduce the bandwidth for sending and receiving email messages.
Some ISPs will have different packages or levels of service available for different monthly amounts, each level having its own data transfer limit. These are usually based on price per month, so the higher priced packages allow you to send and receive more information, while the lower priced packages have lower monthly data transfer limits. The price of the package is often connected with the maximum download speed allocated to that level. For example, one ISP may sell its lowest cost package at $19.95 month, which gives you 3 Megabits per second (Mbps) of download bandwidth, and a monthly data transfer (up and down total) of 10 Gigabytes (GB). The same ISP may have their highest package priced at $99.95 per month, giving you 19mbps of download bandwidth, and a monthly data transfer (up and down total) of 95GB.
If you exceed the monthly data transfer limit, you aren’t cut off, and banned from using the Internet until your next month – that would aggravate even the most understanding of customers. Instead, you are simply charged an additional fee for every Megabyte or Gigabyte worth of data transferred, above your monthly limit.
So, how does this affect me?
Customers of ISPs that throttle selected high-bandwidth applications complain that they are being discriminated against. Who gave the ISP the right to decide which applications deserve more or less bandwidth? By deciding which applications are throttled, the ISP is in a sense, condoning some behaviours while negating others.
And there is also the argument, that by deciding which applications to throttle and which ones to ignore, ISPs could essentially shape the very direction new developments and new technologies go. For example, if peer-to-peer file sharing is constantly limited by ISPs, than this technology won’t develop or spawn other similar technologies, because of the way ISPs view them.
For those who have data transfer limits and fees, this impacts how much they can do online. You may never go over your data transfer limit, but one month, discover a new high-broadband-based Internet portal, and get hit with a giant unexpected bill the next month.
This is highly conceivable, as more and more technologies converge, which increase bandwidth used, often in unexpected ways. For example, a new trend is in wireless home security systems, where people can set a series of wireless cameras around their home. These cameras send video and still images over your wireless network to your computer, and can email and even stream these images and video live to you over the Internet. This way, you can be at work, and still see a live video stream of your kid’s room, to keep an eye on your children.
At first blush it doesn’t appear to cost much to install such a system – but if you exceed your monthly bandwidth limit, your next high-speed Internet bill could be quite a bit larger than you expected.
Where’s all of this going?
Today, the Canadian Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which regulates radio, television and the Internet in Canada launched hearings into these issues, to try and figure out how to proceed.
Do ISPs have the right to decide which applications to throttle and which not too? Is it fair for ISPs to charge service fees for exceeding monthly data transfer limits? Is it right to have these limits in the first place? Do ISPs have the right to monitor all the information sent and received on their networks, to determine pricing packages, service fees, and data transfer limits?
These questions – and many more – will be the subject of debate for the foreseeable future, as Canada’s regulator hears from ISPs, small, medium and big business and regular Canadians like you and me, all tossing in their Two-cents worth on the future of the Internet in one of the most wired countries on the planet.
Jordan H. Green began his never-ending journey for life-long learning while writing for the campus paper in university.
From student protests, to student politics, he eventually discovered his passion for knowledge -- and even more importantly, that he could write.
And write he did, for major big city dailies, small town weeklies, monthly magazines, even doing on-air work in television and radio -- Jordan mastered the media.
Jokingly calling this blog his place to "bitch and moan" he's once again mastering the media -- this time that new fangled thing called "the net."
Enjoy.
Want to chat and discuss what you see here with Jordan H. Green? Check us out on Facebook and on Twitter -- follow the links on the main page, or search for "Jordan's Daily."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e5ce0190-9896-44db-8fba-047f90c2d539)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=414393a2-56e3-4e9d-85d7-1edc1918ca8e)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=00d06ba0-f6d0-4d3e-9c73-ef3aa0eb8e3a)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=0d6edf94-b192-48c2-9298-666cf0e5a78c)
Posts
