Topping the list is whether the government tinkers with the auction framework to help foster greater marketplace competition. Some of the large incumbents unsurprisingly favour an “open auction” with no bidding limits, but assuming Paradis concludes that some measures are needed, the choice will likely come down to either a spectrum set-aside that reserves some spectrum for new entrants and smaller companies or spectrum caps.

The last spectrum auction included a set-aside, which opened the door to a handful of new competitors such as Globalive, PublicMobile, and Mobilicity. A further set-aside may make sense since this round of new entrants may look to use the spectrum primarily for wireless broadband services, providing a potential alternative to the cable and telecom dominance.

If another set-aside proves too unwieldy, a spectrum cap, which would limit the amount of spectrum any single company could hold, may emerge as the alternative. A spectrum cap might prove effective if combined with two additional conditions.

First, the implementation of a use-it-or-lose it principle that would require all bidders to use the spectrum within a defined period. The use-it-or-lose-it approach would help guard against the hoarding of spectrum, particularly for incumbents who may overbid in the hopes of keeping new competitors out of the market.

Second, safeguards against opportunistic flipping of the spectrum with the prohibition on its sale within the first five years of the auction. The trio of policies – caps, mandatory use, and a block on transfer, may increase the number of successful bidders.

Another critical issue is who should be entitled to bid for the spectrum. The last spectrum auction featured Canadian ownership requirements, thereby limiting potential entrants. Given that Canada is one of the only developed countries that has retained significant telecom foreign ownership restrictions, the auction provides a tailor-made opportunity to eliminate the restrictions by opening the market to all bidders.

The spectrum policy decision will also determine which spectrum is available for auction and which is reserved for alternate purposes. The government has already indicated that it plans to grant some of the spectrum to law enforcement agencies, which intend to create their own emergency wireless network.

Many leading technology companies have recommended allocating some of the spectrum for unlicensed purposes. This spectrum, which would be free to anyone to use without the need for licence or government approval, could yield new services and technologies.

Beyond the technical details of the spectrum auction, the final billion-dollar question is what the government should do with the auction proceeds. While the $4 billion in proceeds from the last auction went into general revenues, this auction represents the best – perhaps only – opportunity to access billions of non-tax dollars for the digital economy.  The money could be used to support broadband initiatives, digital content creation, and digital skills programs. 

I don't think it is that TekSavvy is increasing prices by a few dollars per month. First, the TekSavvy increases pale in comparison to what the company announced last year when implementation of UBB appeared imminent. At that time, it promised usage caps starting at 25 GB in Ontario. Second, the TekSavvy price increases are also smaller than those imposed by incumbents like Rogers. One need only search for Rogers Internet price increases to see increases or limitations of service (that effectively meant paying the same for less) on at least an annual basis - 2009, 2010 and 2011. Third, the Electronic Box pricing demonstrates that prices may come down in some places.

Rather than focusing on cost, the real story is competition. This announcement is precisely what the CRTC had in mind when it released its decision. TekSavvy is offering far better plans than the incumbents. For those consumers in Ontario frustrated with small caps or high prices, you have an alternative. TekSavvy's ability to offer unlimited plans and 300 GB for the same or less than the incumbents highlights just how uncompetitive the Canadian marketplace has been and debunks claims that low usage caps are directly linked to provider costs.

TekSavvy is doing more than offering better value plans, however. The greater variability in speeds and the inclusion of off-peak data usage from both TekSavvy and Electronic Box demonstrates how independent providers can begin to differentiate their services from the incumbents. As I argued after the CRTC's decision in November, expect to see more of this as the independent ISPs grapple with the new regulatory framework.

The differences between cable and DSL pricing point to another form of competition. A consumer looking to switch to TekSavvy or Electronic Box is very likely to switch to their cable product, which is significantly cheaper for the same speeds and data usage. If this trend continues, Bell will begin to lose serious wholesale market share as users leave the Bell network for cable via the independent ISPs. This may generate new wholesale competition as Bell lowers wholesale pricing so that it is more competitive with the independent ISP cable offerings.

While the CRTC pricing remains a concern (forthcoming according to a new filing by the independent providers), it seems that we will see real product differentiation. This doesn't mean scrimping on data with middle of the night Netflix viewing (as Nowak suggests) since 300 GB caps allow subscribers to watch three movies a day every day and still have about 120 GB left over each month (or more than the entire Rogers cap). Rather, it means the very real fears of 25 GB caps with no practical competitive alternatives - which was the future many in Ontario were facing less than one year ago - are over. That's the real story from yesterday's TekSavvy announcement, not the price increase that still leaves the company with a better value proposition than the incumbents.

March. Canada and the European Union reach a preliminary agreement on a major new trade agreement. While much of the attention is directed toward the implications for the agricultural sector, Canada quietly caves on patent issues that may add billions to pharmaceutical costs. Meanwhile, Canada formalizes its open government commitment at a global meeting in Brazil.

April. After months of delays, lawful access legislation is introduced. The new bill consolidates the three earlier lawful access bills but leaves the substance unchanged, rejecting widespread criticism over plans to mandate new surveillance technologies and mandated disclosure of personal information.

May. The CRTC conducts another fact-finding exercise on the impact of over-the-top video services such as Netflix. The exercise fuels hope among some groups of new regulatory requirements for online video providers, but the CRTC ultimately decides to delay any new action until the conclusion of the next round of new media hearings planned for 2013.

June. Bill C-11, the copyright reform bill, passes the House of Commons with few changes from its original form. All opposition parties vote against the legislation. The bill still requires Senate approval, but stakeholders begin thinking about the courts as copyright holders explore enforcement lawsuits, consumer groups consider a constitutional challenge to the digital lock rules, and some creator groups entertain legal action on the limits on fair dealing.

July. Nearly one year after proposing anti-spam regulations, the government unveils modified regulations and seeks further public comment before the law takes effect. The new regulations establish a series of new exceptions to the law consistent with the demands of several marketing groups.

August. Rogers Communications, the last major Canadian ISP to use traffic shaping tools to restrict the use of peer-to-peer technologies, drops its approach several months after a CRTC net neutrality enforcement action concludes it is violating Internet traffic management regulations.

September. Canada gains entry to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations after it signals its willingness to consider reforms to all sectors of the economy. The TPP negotiations raise the possibility of a massive overhaul of Canadian intellectual property rules.

October. The Supreme Court of Canada releases its much-anticipated set of five copyright rulings. The court sides with Apple and Canadian telecom companies in concluding that music previews may be treated as consumer research for the purposes of fair dealing, rejects SOCAN’s bid for compensation for the music found in downloaded video games, and confirms Access Copyright’s demand for payment for classroom copies.

November. Bill C-11 receives Senate approval, becoming the first major copyright bill passed in Canada in nearly 15 years. The decision immediately renders some of the new Supreme Court copyright decisions moot.

December. The constitutionality of PIPEDA, Canada’s private sector privacy law, receives its stiffest test as companies facing tougher enforcement demands by Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart opt to challenge the validity of the law in light of the Supreme Court’s December 2011 decision on a national securities regulator.