To: The Honourable David Emerson Minister of Industry C.D. Howe Building, 11th Floor, East Tower 235 Queen Street Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H5 From: Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada 25-118 Aldersmith Place Victoria, British Columbia, V9A 7M9 July 21, 2004 Dear Mr. Emerson Re: New approaches to telecommunications advice Our congratulations on your appointment as Minister of Industry. I write on behalf of Telecommunities Canada (TC), a national association for sharing the practices of community networks, regarding the pending telecommunications policy review. We recommend that any such review include access to a growing body of Canadian experience about the nature of community online. Also, noting such things as Bell Canada's recent calls for attention to the issues of VOIP, VDSL and deregulation, we anticipate that another "Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC)" may be considered as the best approach to structuring that review. In particular in: "Sabia ratchets up pressure on Ottawa," by Dave Ebner, Telecom Reporter, Globe and Mail, Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - Page B1, we saw quotes from Michael Binder, speaking as the assistant deputy minister for telecom at Industry Canada. In calling for a greater focus on communications technology as an industry, Binder said, "The whole Government will have to think about this," and that Canada "may now benefit from a formal review." We certainly agree with the necessity to update the policy frameworks that will guide future programmes. But we strongly recommend a different approach than IHAC for any accompanying advisory processes. There is now far more at stake than issues of industry support. We recommend something open, transparent, and broadly representative of Canadian experience of the Information Society, something that points toward where we're going, not where we've been. Any review of Canada's policies for support of the "communications technology industry" must be conducted against the broader context of Canada's capacity to address its own transition to an "Information Society." A new review should ask, "What is the real operating model of an 'information Society' and where does it come from?" To answer that question, people at the centre of any national policy planning process need to interact deeply with the changing nature of citizens' experience. Without achieving a broader consensus on the socio-economic and political context of Canada's transition, we all have very little basis for understanding and discussing what needs to be done in response. Canada's transition toward becoming an Information Society is well advanced. To mirror the changes that have occurred as a consequence, new and different models of dialogue are now necessary. There is much to be gained by effectively informing a process of policy formulation through public participation that is more broadly socio-economic in its scope and implications. Events have overtaken the IHAC model and its primary focus on industry participation. The issues of public interest and policy involved have grown much more complex than Mr. Binder's phrase "communications technology" encompasses. They should no longer be considered outside of the context of experience with effective use of those technologies. The traditional telecommunications carriers view the idea of "convergence" of media as a major source of their problems. But what we see happening is not convergence. It's a replacement of one set of communications technologies with another. Via interactive communications based on Internet Protocol (IP), there are now many more stakeholders involved in what used to be called telecommunications when Connecting Canada was conceived. To use the primary carriers own language, what was formerly viewed as a telecom market has already become "services" market that includes the "triple play" of data, voice and images over the same IP-based networks. The discussion must move to considering how all application providers gain access to existing infrastructure. This is a change that the current framework of regulations and policies does not anticipate. The diffusion of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) is certainly a prime contributor to productivity growth everywhere in our economy. But it is also a potent indicator of change in social structure. Therefore, while we agree that the creation of a favourable environment for the spread of ICTs remains an important responsibility for policy makers, we see the demands of that responsibility to be much greater than previous reviews have anticipated. For example: * Open networks (operator neutral networks) are the key to the growth of essential new competitors and the emergence of now unknowable new services in a networked economy. We need new business and regulatory models that support the interactive peer-to-peer traffic that is now understood clearly as the key to rapid growth in broadband use. * If a networked market can best be understood as a "community" of actors, then the consumers of those services are as much a factor in the balance of distributed functions as any of the other actors. But when are their voices ever heard in the "business case?" * In a Connected Canada, there are unnoticed local communities of place, practice and interest that are interacting globally and thereby expressing Canadian experience of transition directly. These groups exhibit characteristics of being global, horizontal, distributed and self-organizing. We can begin a process of review by identifying and talking with those who have already made the transition to daily life online. We can ask them how they would design an increased national capacity to understand what is happening to us all. * The lessons emerging from hands-on community experience of broadband show us that, whatever the applications of broadband to daily living may be, they are not to be found exclusively in sectors of service. They are to be found in the new ways that people connect to each other. As any sector adapts, what it learns about transition will be found in two places. First in that sector's openness (its connection) to other processes and institutions of anticipation within Canadian society overall. Second, in the way that augmented social networks change relationships among autonomous individuals. Telecommunities Canada (TC) has never taken the conventional view of social change as technology driven. We have always assumed there is an emerging set of social and cultural changes of which the Internet is a symptom and then asked, "What new social forms are the most viable in that new environment?" TC's answer is that the form or process called "community," re-defined by being online, is the one most viable. In that view then, community networking is not defined institutionally. Community networking is defined as the shared experiences of communities of practice related to understanding how community is achieved in the online context as a public good and an essential socio-economic goal. Learning encodes experience. What is different about being online is that the learning of communities as interacting entities, not just individual knowledge, becomes accessible. As a consequence, both individuals and communities can know far more about the context of any decisions they face. Conventionally, such new informing of the politics of decision-making is being viewed as a threat to existing political institutions. And indeed, its impact is, as yet, immeasurable. But, actually, it adds a new kind of resilience to the fabric of Canadian society. Community online is thought to be an issue of the rural, the remote and the margins of socio-economic and political change in Canada. But, unnoticed, it has actually moved to the heart of Canada's experience of the structures that govern interaction in an information society. The missing ingredient in the policy equation is acknowledgement of the capacity that community online has to intensify the horizontal integration and expression of experience. In an online world, learning is a matter of both individuals and the communities they inhabit. No one agency, including TC, can have a lock on Canadian experience of transition. But we believe that the "will" of citizens online is changing in ways that can be discovered by taking a different approach to listening and learning from what is already there. We have always assumed that the condition of being in community and online presages emerging new forms of governance and innovation related to the nature of self-organizing and distributed systems. Given acceptance of the assumption that community online is an essential structural principle, what new picture of Canada as an Information Society will emerge, and what are the implications of that picture for public policy? This is a very broad question. The narrower views provided by using such policy filters as "IT sector" or "broadcasting" are no longer very useful in seeking for a deeper understanding. In essence, in a networked society, we are all "application providers." From that governance perspective, such things as reviewing telecommunications policy, revisiting Connecting Canada and addressing the democratic deficit are all inextricably linked. In other words, in a Canada that is connected, the central issue of any "telecom" policy review is really going to be about emerging new forms of governance. That places the idea of community online at the heart of any understanding of how the politics of decision-making adapt to transition. Within TC, we will continue to work toward our own long-term goal for sharing of Canadian community networking experience. We will seek to more fully inform the processes socio-economic and political change through research, design, implementation and sharing of experience about information and communications technologies that augment social networks. We will intensify the horizontal linkages among communities of practice about community online. In drawing upon that experience, we feel we are pointing an ongoing and dynamic capacity that is essential to the socio-economic development and political evolution of Canada. We recommend an advisory process that acknowledges that the users (the "demand" side of the equation) really do know a great deal about transition and convergence. We are all online now in one way or another and, as a consequence, we are beginning to see our experiences in a different light. In the production and consumption of services that operate through networks, all sorts of new balances of actors and distributed functions are beginning emerge. It would be useful to seek broader public participation in dialogue on the nature of Canada as an Information Society. Such a dialogue would surface and express what Canadians are learning about how the online context now reshapes questions about the public interest. We see the Canada consultation portal as being one means of eventually addressing this need. Of course the portal can play a larger role in linking existing self-organized dialogues on national issues, but it could evolve to do much more. It could gain the capacity to support national dialogues that are arms length. In other words, can we get the toolkit of softwares that support consultation processes to a point where it becomes apparent that anyone aspiring to a national role can and should use or enhance them? If we can, that would be a significant achievement in applying governance online in support of the essential self-referencing functions of a society of open networks. We are pointing to a gap that exists between citizens' experience and governments' perception of what drives transition. By what method or means can we narrow that gap? Assuming that, by now in a highly "Connected Canada," something quite different will be lurking below the surface of awareness, we believe a new understanding can surface about how the consequences of connectivity inform public opinion and behavior. What Canada then gains from tapping into that experience is enhanced national capacity to express what we are learning about our transition to an Information Society. Yours truly, Garth Graham For Telecommunities Canada Board of Directors cc: The Honourable Mauril Belanger, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform cc: Suzanne Hurtubise, Deputy Minister, Industry Canada