I have written about regulatory overreach in the past, but I never imagined that I would witness such egregious examples as those emerging south of the border.

If you somehow missed it, ABC/Disney suspended the Jimmy Kimmel show following some “ill-advised” comments by Kimmel about the assassin of Charlie Kirk. Let’s face it, trying to find humour from a political assassination demonstrated questionable judgment.

Too soon? The funeral hasn’t taken place yet. In today’s polarized environment, the subject should have been treated like kryptonite by any national programming host.

So, from a purely commercial perspective, it would have been understandable and fair game for ABC/Disney to intervene.

But, the timeline of events show that the decision was catalyzed by a comment from Brendan Carr, the chair of the FCC:

There’s actions we can take on licensed broadcasters. Frankly, I think it’s really sort of past time that these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say “Listen, we’re going to preempt. We’re not gonna run Kimmel anymore, until you straighten this out, because we the licensed broadcaster are running the possibly of fines or licensed revocation from the FCC, if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.”

So, I think again Disney needs to see some change here. But, the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage, to the extent that it’s what comes down the pipe in the future, isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities. But, this sort of status quo is not acceptable where we are.

Some additional context is warranted.

The FCC’s own website notes that the regulator cannot interfere with what is said on the air, with a extremely narrow exceptions, including news distortion. So it is interesting that FCC Chair Carr used that term in reference to Jimmy Kimmel.

I would not have considered late night talk shows to be news programming. And if news distortion is prohibited for comedians and talk show hosts, I think that would mean the end of the opening monologues for most of those shows.

Still, the thinly veiled threat toward licensed local stations stung Nexstar, America’s largest broadcasting group, with 200 stations in 116 markets, serving 220M people. A month ago, Nexstar entered into a $6.2B agreement to acquire TEGNA, a deal requiring FCC approval. Not surprisingly, Nexstar announced that it would preempt the Jimmy Kimmel show, and not carry it on its stations – precisely the remedy suggested by the FCC Chair.

With a giant hole in its coverage area, Disney/ABC pulled the plug.

Would commercial considerations have led to a similar outcome anyway? After all, the comedic lines were in poor taste and were certain to offend a large swath of Americans. We’ll never know. But the FCC Chair had no business making those threatening comments.

In Canada, we have experience with regulatory chairs making comments that resembled summary judgments. In my view, it was inappropriate regulatory overreach.

When I ran The Canadian Telecom Summit, for many years, the CRTC Chair would speak, often in an interview format. Open files were clearly off-limits.

We should not expect regulators to be cloistered for their terms, unable to speak to the media or the industry. However, perhaps we should be talking about what are the appropriate boundaries? I am also conscious of this week’s on-air antisemitic rant by Radio-Canada’s Washington correspondent. How should a regulator respond to such an incident?

As Canada moves to introduce legislation on hate and the promotion of terror, limits on speech freedoms are being more clearly defined. How should regulators ensure timely reactions to violations?

שנה טובה | Shana tova.

This year, Rosh Hashana, the two-day holiday marking the Jewish New Year 5786, begins Monday evening, September 22.

Over the past few years, I have talked about how Rosh Hashana (literally “head of the year”) is different from the celebrations marking the arrival of January 1. It is a time of reflection and introspection. We review the previous year, and look ahead to the next.

As I reflect, I note that the past two years have been unlike any other in my lifetime. For Jews around the world, these are extremely troubling times. Jews in Europe and North America are actively questioning whether it is safe to wear signs that visibly identify ourselves.

As I noted two years ago, the first month in the Jewish calendar (Tishrei) is filled with holidays – what should properly be termed Holy Days. Combined with Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, there are 7 holy days this month. This year, all of the 7 holy days fall mid-week, meaning that observant Jews need to take a lot of time away from the office. Rosh Hashana is on the 1st and 2nd of Tishrei; Yom Kippur is on the 10th of Tishrei (this year falling on October 2); Sukkot runs from the 15th to the 22nd of Tishrei, so October 7-8 and October 14-15 (the first two and the last two days) are holy days. Please try to help your employees, your colleagues, your students, by making reasonable accommodations for observance of the holidays. My office will close Monday (September 22) at 2pm for the holidays.

In 2023, the last day of Sukkot fell on October 7, a day that forever changed the world for Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora. A few weeks in advance of that day, in my 2023 post, I asked if the world was more tolerant than I experienced in my early working years. That was before we witnessed the waves of antisemitism that have continued to rise over the past two years.

Earlier this week, CBC/Radio-Canada’s French language Washington correspondent said, “My understanding, and that of multiple analysts here in the United States, is that it is the Israelis, the Jews, that finance American politics a lot. There is a big machine behind them, making it very difficult for Americans to detach themselves from Israel’s positions. It’s really money here in the United States. The big cities are run by Jews, Hollywood is run by Jews.” To its credit, less than a day later, CBC relieved the journalist of her duties indefinitely.

I am even more concerned about her preamble. She said on-air that her antisemitic understanding is shared by “multiple analysts here in the United States”, and no doubt across Canada and around the world. As a result, CBC/Radio-Canada’s journalist got caught because she spoke the quiet part out loud. How many others share her views, and taint their reporting accordingly, without having exposed themselves?

A year and a half ago, I wrote “Defending my identity”, trying to capture some of my feelings on what was then the 5 month anniversary of the horrific attacks by Hamas. October 7, 2023 marked the start of a global campaign attacking Jewish indigeneity in Israel, a global campaign that began even before Israel’s military entered Gaza to respond to the attacks. I encourage you to re-read that piece to get an appreciation of what Jews like me are feeling as we approach the second anniversary of October 7.

Followers of this website know that I frequently travel to Israel. Israel is an intrinsic part of my Jewish identity. When Jews pray, we face toward Jerusalem. Our prayers and our bible contain countless references to Israel. Major Jewish festivals are tied to agrarian timetables and practices in Israel. I am not an Israeli citizen, but I have family who are.

The events of October 7, 2023 have been deeply troubling to me. The response – or more correctly, the lack of moral leadership – by Canadian officials has been disturbing. The sacking of British Columbia’s NDP cabinet member Selina Robinson demonstrates a pervasive rot – or latent antisemitism – among many political leaders.

I am tired of politicians thinking that the way to respond to antisemitic acts is to write on Twitter that “This is not who we are” or claim that “Hatred and violence against Jewish communities have no place in Canada.”. Condemnations on social media are no match for intimidation by throngs calling “Death to the Jews”. Tweets are ineffective against firebombings and shots fired at synagogues and Jewish community centres.

In defending freedom of expression, I have frequently quoted Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant speech from The American President. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

Still, there are limits to those speech rights. As CIJA said in a statement, “We cannot allow mob-driven demonstrations to obstruct our right to participate fully in society.”

Which brings me to how you fit in to help in defending my identity. In resigning from British Columbia’s provincial NDP caucus, Selina Robinson wrote, “I don’t need your hugs and your emojis. What my community needs however, is for you to stand up to antisemitism.”

Call out hate when you see it online. Tell your elected officials that antisemitism isn’t just a problem for Canada’s Jews. Demand action.

And every once in a while, I’d be OK with a hug.

As I write this, the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk is fresh in the news. He epitomized Sorkin’s description of a man who made some people’s blood boil, but he punctuated his arguments with words, articulating often unpopular perspectives, challenging those with opposing views, and never shying away from a debate. I have personally required police to investigate death threats received as a result of my public profile, in one case on a matter as mundane as telecom policy. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

For the past few years, I’ve observed that the journey we travel over the course of a year often takes some detours, presenting challenges along the way. “It is rarely a smooth, incident-free trip. Sometimes, it feels more like we are riding a roller coaster. Still, we press ahead, continuing to approach each day with a positive outlook, moving forward one step at a time.”

May we soon see the unconditional release of the hostages being held in Gaza and the end of hostilities. May the year ahead be marked by good health, by personal and professional growth, and may it be a year of peace for all. Shana tova.

Sometimes, I think we need to hit pause, take a breath and appreciate the wonder of today’s technology.

It is too easy to take it for granted.

About 20 years ago, my daughter was studying overseas. We used what was then some relatively new software-based VoIP to keep in touch. I remember her complaining with a solid “What the hell” when a call dropped mid-sentence. I reminded her that she was travelling 100 km/hour on a train while I was in a car in stop and go traffic on a Toronto highway, with nearly 9500 kilometres between us. “Can we pause for just a moment, appreciate the wonder as we think about what it takes for this conversation to be taking place at all, let alone for free?”

I was thinking about that conversation as I conducted video chats over satellite connections this week with my west coast and overseas grandkids while cruising in the north Atlantic. The ship is delivering a perfectly respectable high speed internet service to thousands of users at sea.

I looked – there isn’t a giant spool of fibre trailing behind us.

Over the weekend, I read a post on social media from someone who wrote “Dear friends older than 42: You don’t have to put 2 spaces after the period anymore. That was for the typewriter era. You’re free”.

I couldn’t leave it alone, so I responded:

Dear youngin’s: some of us 60-somethings created word processing and that internet thing that set you free.

You’re welcome. Don’t patronize us.

I have been privileged in my career to have had the opportunity to work with some of the pioneers who developed some great network applications and technologies. I don’t expect people to take a peek behind the curtain to see how connectivity is delivered. But, even after 45 years in the telecom business, I am not one who takes technology – any type of technology – for granted.

I don’t mind the extra space after the period. Indeed, we might ask why the software doesn’t adjust for users (old and young) who insert an extra space. But above all, every once in a while, pause and appreciate the wonder of it all.

Regulatory accountability was a common thread in a couple of documents that caught my eye over the past week.

Earlier this month, the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) issued a 171-page report, “The CRTC’s performance, 1969 – 2025: Analysis and recommendations” [pdf], with its review examining transparency, accountability and participation.

In addition, there was another important dissent by CRTC Commissioner Bram Abramson attached to a determination about relieving SaskTel of the obligation to deliver phone books to its subscribers.

In my view, the theme of regulatory accountability runs through both.

It has been 8 years since I looked at the CRTC reporting and delivering on its service standards. The regulator had set standards for itself back in 2011, and it used to regularly report on how well it adhered to those targets.

I love reading opposing viewpoints in decisions, and Commissioner Abramson is distinguishing himself as crafting well articulated, and somewhat entertaining dissenting opinions.

1. In 1909, when then-Governor-General the Earl Grey (of Grey Cup, though not tea, fame) and then-Premier Walter Scott laid the cornerstone of Sasktchewan’s Legislative Building, they inserted a time capsule. It remained nestled, and undisturbed, until the 2011 run-up to the legislative centenary. Among the items unearthed was a 1909 book listing government offices and their phone numbers.
2. The artifact was a century old and had been chosen to represent another era. But it held little mystery. Over the century that separated the capsule’s gifters from its recipients, generations had grown up using ever-thicker versions to look up neighbours, find a locksmith, block pucks, or see over a steering wheel. It was a phone book.

…

5. It is those regulated exchanges, where the phone directory obligation made its last stand, that today’s majority decision targets, and from which I dissent.
6. I do not do so out of nostalgia. Wherever mobile and broadband services, and the software-based applications that these enable, have displaced the landline—the need for a phone book has waned accordingly. But the regulated exchanges where this obligation persisted are predominantly rural and remote. They are precisely where wireline and wireless competition is lacking, and where landlines often remain critical.
7. Nor do I dissent because the majority’s approach is facially unreasonable. Through my own lens as an urban and heavy user of mobile and broadband services, it is hard to imagine why anyone would still need a phone book.
8. But we consult to hear the perspectives of others, not to echo our own. When we began the phone book’s final deregulatory push in a pair of decisions last year – both, like this one, majority decisions of the Commission’s Telecommunications Committee — I found that the majority had (a) mischaracterized the regulatory history it relies on, (b) misapprehended the extent to which the matter had been considered previously, and (c) failed to consult those affected. I also noted that (d) the expected wave of similar applications would call into question whether taking this ad hoc route, rather than consulting on an industry-wide approach, would even be more efficient.

This is just an excerpt from the dissent, which (at 15 paragraphs) was longer than the 9-paragraph decision itself. It is the dissent’s call for improving the consultative process that connects the two documents. FRPC devotes 4 of its 14 recommendations toward an objective of more meaningful public participation.

There is much more to be found in the FRPC report – and I will try to return to the report in a future blog post. At the very least, it should serve to stimulate discussion on how to improve overall regulatory accountability at the CRTC.

In the meantime, here are its 14 recommendations:

With respect to transparency in decision-making the CRTC should
1. publish minutes of the meetings of the Commission and its Committees, including copies of any CRTC or third-party presentations made at these meetings within one week of such meetings;
2. ensure that all of its decisions – by the Commission and by its Committees – are
   1. signed by the Commissioners who made the decisions (including those who dissented), and are
   2. published, if necessary, by providing abbreviated summaries of the facts and outcomes of its now-secret Letter;
3. ensure that its Committees or the Commission publish decisions for not publishing applications and for not permitting public comment on matters resulting in now-secret Letter Decisions;
4. improve the timeliness of its decision-making by publishing decisions concerning
   1. broadcasting, telecom and online news applications within 4 months of receiving the applications
   2. broadcasting, telecom and online news policies within 6 months of its initiating proceedings;
5. make its ADR services more efficient, more transparent and timelier;
6. with respect to the petitions to the Governor in Council of which the CRTC is or has been the subject,
   1. publish such petitions on a dedicated CRTC website page
   2. include on that page links to any orders in council resulting from the petitions or from Cabinet, and
   3. include on that page links to the CRTC’s response to such orders from Cabinet;
7. publish annual – or more frequent – statistical updates on the CRTC’s implementation of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies.

With respect to accountability, the CRTC should
8. improve the timeliness of its decision-making by publishing decisions concerning
   1. broadcasting, telecom and online news applications within 4 months of receiving the applications
   2. broadcasting, telecom and online news policies within 6 months of its initiating proceedings;
9. make its ADR services more efficient, more transparent and timelier;
10. publish annual – or more frequent – statistical updates on the CRTC’s implementation of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies based on valid and reliable measures of these policies.

With respect to participation by the public, the CRTC should
11. enable parties interested in its proceedings to sign up for updates to these proceedings, including additions to the public record or changes to the CRTC’s processes;
12. convene an annual meeting of interested parties to determine their needs for and respond to their questions about the data published by the CRTC;
13. invite and respond to proposals concerning the CRTC’s selection of measures of Parliament’s broadcasting and telecommunications policies; and
14. invite interested parties to comment every two years on the measures it uses to evaluate its performance with respect to Parliament’s broadcasting, telecommunications and online news statutes.

There is competition for capital, and that competition is global. Dollars naturally flow to projects where the returns on investment are highest, where the investments meet the least resistance. Canada has a capital funding problem – and it isn’t just telecom.

A recent article about pipeline investment provides an example in a critical Canadian infrastructure sector. Canadian pipeline giants Enbridge and TC Energy are investing in the United States, despite the rhetoric from politicians pushing for “nation-building infrastructure” on the north side of the border.

François Poirier, the chief executive of TC Energy, said the company’s returns in the U.S. “are meaningfully higher than in Canada,” which means it will focus on the much larger market, despite hopes for a pipeline project on its home turf.

“Canada gas has to compete for capital with the other business units in the company,” Poirier said this week during a conference call on quarterly earnings.

“We are going to be allocating capital predominantly in the U.S. until competitive projects in other jurisdictions present themselves that compel us to allocate capital elsewhere.”

That has a familiar ring to it for those who follow the Canadian telecom sector. The need for government to ensure there is a friendly climate for investment is a theme that has inspired more than 100 entries on my blog.

Regulatory stability not only makes sense from a policy perspective; it has recently been determined by the courts to be a legal imperative. After more than a decade-long court battle, Ottawa has been ordered to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to Mobilicity investors after Industry Canada unexpectedly changed its spectrum transfer rules.

At its core, this action is about the transferability of spectrum licenses. But significantly, it is also about the extraordinary and unusual conduct of Government officials with respect to the Mobilicity spectrum licenses in particular.

The Mobilicity affair, perhaps one of the most underplayed telecom policy stories in Canada, was conducted during the previous Conservative government. But independent of who is in power, we have seen too many regulatory and policy changes that ignore the impact on investment decisions. With thinner margins and tighter capital, the impacts of unpredictable regulatory environments are amplified.

Canadian telecom business units have competition for capital, competing with other business units in the company, or globally in the sector. For that matter, investment dollars will simply exit the telecom sector if the opportunities for financial returns are easier to find elsewhere.

In pipelines, and in telecom, the story is similar. It is going to take more than political rhetoric to stimulate investment in critical infrastructure, especially when global trade markets are undergoing such disruptive forces driven by the US administration.

How do we ensure Canada’s private sector industry leaders – in both telecom and energy – continue to find the appropriate incentives to invest in critical infrastructure? Predictably, a stable regulatory and policy environment is an important prerequisite for investment.