It appears that our friends to the north are getting a little added attention on Twitter, not for the Olympics but focused rather on the telecom sector.  Back in the spotlight is the infamous Berkman report describing how Canada is falling behind the rest of the world in broadband connectivity. (Where have we heard that number before?)

That is not terribly surprising. Nor is it surprising that the industry and analysts in Canada would start firing back. What is surprising, however, is what was said.

On Feb. 23, Canadian telecom consultant Mark Goldberg of Mark H. Goldberg & Associates responded to the criticism of the Canadian Internet sector, saying:

For Canada to win in a global digital economy, our country needs to establish our own national vision that looks beyond the often-flawed and out-of-date statistical rankings of broadband infrastructure. What we need to understand is why so many Canadian households still don’t have computers; why Canada is lagging in scientific research; and how we should best promote the development of Canadian content and applications.

There’s nothing wrong with this statement. It’s quite true, in fact. For Canada to solve its problems, the country doesn’t necessarily need to follow some other country’s model. Digital Society is not a promoter of “national plans and strategies”; we believe the free market should dictate that, but Canadians know what’s best for Canadians.

However, what is intriguing is that one day after Goldberg’s comment, Jan Innes, vice president of public affairs for Rogers Communications, wrote the following at the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail:

For Canada to win in a global digital economy, our country needs to establish a national vision that looks beyond the often-flawed statistical rankings of broadband infrastructure. What we need to understand is why so many Canadian households still don’t have computers, why Canada is lagging in scientific research, and how we should best promote the development of Canadian content and applications.

Those words are strikingly similar. It’s the same paragraph with small alterations here and there. I don’t know if there is a solution to this problem, but it doesn’t look good for Rogers, and it certainly doesn’t speak highly of The Globe and Mail for not fact-checking her work. The fallout in the coming days should be intriguing to follow.