A new report was released this morning by GSMA examining Canada’s mobile economy, suggesting the telecommunications landscape in Canada has reached a critical juncture. “The Mobile Economy Canada 2026” is ostensibly a study of Canada’s wireless sector. The report supports themes frequently discussed on these pages: productivity, competitiveness and Canada’s place in an AI-driven global economy.

With digital infrastructure increasingly viewed as a strategic economic asset, the continued evolution of mobile technologies will be critical to strengthen Canada’s innovation ecosystem, supporting industrial modernisation and enhancing the country’s long-term global competitiveness. However, sustaining that trajectory, depends on investment conditions, which have become more demanding as the market has matured.

The headline numbers in the report are impressive. Mobile technologies generated US$120 billion in economic value in 2025, equivalent to 5.4% of GDP, while supporting almost 200,000 jobs and contributing US$14 billion in tax revenues. By 2030, GSMA forecasts that contribution will rise to US$170 billion.

An infographic in the report highlights that 99% of Canadians live within mobile broadband coverage and 7/8 of us make use of that connectivity. Canada’s rate of 5G adoption is twice the global average.

But in my view, the kernel of the GSMA report isn’t found in looking at today’s release of a report based on yesterday’s numbers. As you might expect, I want to focus on tomorrow’s risks.

As I complain frequently, Canadian telecom policy has been dominated by affordability and competition objectives – important, but unfortunately short-sighted, with a populist, narrow focus. Eleven months ago, I wrote about a Liberal back-bencher rising in the House of Commons acknowledging the substantial drop in mobile prices being paid by consumers. “Canadians are paying lower prices for cellular services, with a 40% decline in prices over five years.” That wasn’t enough. She continued, “At a time when Canadians are concerned with rising costs and keeping their monthly bills affordable, can the Minister of Industry tell us how the government is working to lower cellphone bills?”

Industry Minister Joly proclaimed in response, “I, and this government, are laser-focused on making sure that we bring down costs in the telecom sector… We also said we would be hawkish on competition. We will do more in this budget to increase competition and make sure that we reform our telecommunications sector.”

GSMA argues that this framework was developed when mobile was a high-growth industry. Today, the market is more mature, revenue growth is slowing, and operators continue to face mounting obligations to fund 5G Standalone networks, AI infrastructure, cybersecurity, network resilience and future spectrum acquisitions.

The report advances a theme that my readers will recognize immediately: investment matters.

That theme echoes several discussions we’ve had over the past few years about the growing tension between consumer affordability and infrastructure investment. GSMA notes that Canada scores exceptionally well on wireless affordability while achieving mid-tier rankings on network performance measures, warning against policies that unintentionally undermine future investment incentives.

The 5G story is similarly nuanced. Canada has achieved more than 94% population coverage and reached one of the highest levels of 5G adoption globally, with nearly two-thirds of mobile connections already on 5G. Yet Canada ranks only 21st on the GSMA 5G Connectivity Index, highlighting a gap between broad coverage and leadership in advanced capabilities such as 5G Standalone, network slicing and enterprise applications.

Perhaps the most interesting section is found when the report focuses on AI.

GSMA sees telecom carriers becoming central players in Canada’s emerging sovereign AI ecosystem. Bell’s AI Fabric initiative, Telus’ Sovereign AI Factory, and operator investments in fibre, data centres and cloud infrastructure are presented as evidence that telecommunications networks are evolving from communications platforms into foundational AI infrastructure. At the same time, GSMA notes:

Canada faces structural constraints that could limit its AI ambitions. The most significant is the scale of its compute and data-centre infrastructure. As of September 2025, Canada had around 1.4 GW of operational datacentre capacity, versus more than 40 GW in the US.

Further, as I have written, AI cannot scale without connectivity. Every AI inference, every cloud workload and every edge computing application ultimately rides over robust communications networks. The GSMA report identifies mobile networks as a critical enabling layer for Canada’s AI ambitions.

The cybersecurity chapter is also worth reviewing. New legislation, mandatory outage reporting and growing concerns about infrastructure theft and cyberattacks are creating additional operational and financial pressures for operators. GSMA observes that resilience is more than an optional network enhancement. It is becoming a statutory obligation. How does this get funded in today’s regulatory and policy environment?

None of this means policymakers should abandon affordability objectives. Rather, the report serves as a reminder that affordability, network quality, digital sovereignty and economic growth are interconnected. Weak investment eventually translates into weaker networks, slower innovation and diminished competitiveness.

The GSMA report, The Mobile Economy Canada 2026, provides a reframing of telecommunications as something more than a consumer service. Wireless networks are a part of our national economic infrastructure, underpinning productivity, AI adoption, public safety and digital inclusion.

As Canada prepares for future releases of spectrum, AI investments, and eventually the transition toward 6G, a central question is whether the policy environment will create the investment climate necessary to sustain it.

The GSMA report can be viewed as a call for policymakers to shift from an affordability-first framework toward an improved balance of competition, consumer interests and long-term infrastructure investment – in short, a return to a more balanced approach for Canada’s telecom policy framework.

[Le rapport, “L’économie du mobile au Canada 2026”, est aussi disponible en français]

For decades, Canada’s digital policy has focused on connecting Canadians. That challenge is largely solved. The bigger question now is whether Canada will own its digital future or simply rent it from others.

That is the provocative premise behind Building Canada’s Digital Future in the Carney Era, an upcoming Ivey Business School workshop that brings together leaders from government, industry, academia and civil society to tackle an emerging question: What does digital sovereignty actually look like for Canada?

The timing could not be more important.

Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, robotics and immersive technologies are becoming foundations of economic and geopolitical power. Countries that control critical digital infrastructure, data assets and AI capabilities could set the rules.

For telecom leaders and policy makers, this should raise uncomfortable questions.

Can Canada credibly pursue sovereign AI without sovereign cloud infrastructure? Are telecom networks merely communications platforms, or have they become strategic national assets? Is spectrum policy simply a regulatory exercise, or is it an industrial policy tool?

The workshop will examine how the Carney government’s broader nation-building agenda intersects with digital policy, investment and infrastructure development. Topics include future spectrum policy, trusted cloud services, digital infrastructure financing, network resilience, Indigenous connectivity, and the governance frameworks needed to foster innovation while maintaining public trust.

The workshop agenda asks whether Canada can chart a distinct path as a “digital middle power”, balancing openness to global innovation with greater control over critical technologies and infrastructure.

Will policy makers appreciate what is at stake?

We have reached the point where our conversations shouldn’t be about faster networks or lower prices. The Ivey telecom policy workshops elevate the discussion to examine economic security, competitiveness, productivity and national resilience. The next decade will determine whether Canada becomes a builder of strategic digital capabilities or a customer of technologies developed elsewhere.

For anyone involved in telecom, technology or public policy, this is a discussion worth following closely.

Plan to participate in Building Canada’s Digital Future in the Carney Era, December 2, 2026, at the Donald K. Johnson Conference Centre in downtown Toronto. Register here.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about “The CRTC’s regulatory twilight zone”, where Canada’s communications regulator appears to be disconnecting expectations from reality. That post talked about the Commission’s requirement for ISPs to publish plan information in a standardized database format, as set out in its recent Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2026-238: Making it easier for consumers to shop for Internet services.

Apparently, the CRTC was unaware that AI capabilities already embedded in web browsers can compare prices today, with a query such as “which mobile carrier has the best offer for US roaming and 100GB of data and free nationwide Canada calling and texts?” No standardized database format required. No regulatory mandate needed.

Indeed, a few weeks ago, the UK regulator (Ofcom) released an update on its research, “Exploring what impact the adoption of AI could have on the experience of telecoms customers”. A note by Dean Bubley (Disruptive Analysis) observed that the report was released in the same week that Meta’s new Muse AI agents started helping people manage or renegotiate their subscriptions in the US.

Let’s look at another issue that is bound to arise: commitments to a typical internet speed. My September post referred readers to Ted Woodhead’s concerns about how the Commission defines “typical” when the service providers commit to delivering internet service. “The typical download and upload speeds are the speeds customers should expect to receive at all times which ISPs have committed to delivering during pre-sale.”

The speeds customers should expect to receive at all times. That is a pretty strong requirement, and may set an unachievable expectation in the minds of many consumers.

Unachievable, not because the service providers aren’t delivering what they promise. Unachievable because consumers may not be able to accurately measure the service quality being delivered.

There are many forms of interference that result in disconnecting expectations from reality. Roger Entner of Recon Analytics recently talked about problems introduced inside the customer’s household: a “label tax – the difference between what you buy and what you get”; and, a “Wifi tax – a mismatch between your router and your laptop”. Writing on X, he summarizes some of them as “Buy 5 Gbps fiber, but your motherboard tops out at 1 Gbps. Then Wi-Fi can take another ~90%, so a gig plan turns into 100 Mbps on the laptop. Who owns that experience, the ISP or the device ecosystem?”

When the subscriber runs Speedtest on their computer, how will they account for the other devices sharing their home network? Or devices that are injecting interference into their home network?

“Who owns that experience, the ISP or the device ecosystem?”

How many complaints to CCTS will be generated by this expectational mismatch? How will CCTS handle such complaints?

As I noted in my newsletter at the end of September, I am concerned that Canadian telecom policy is following a regressive, reactive path, adding regulations despite the presence of intense facilities-based competition. I recognize that the CRTC had to respond to the legislative changes to the Telecom Act enacted by Parliament in 2024. However, the Commission had flexibility under those provisions to be far less prescriptive in its decision, anticipating and even encouraging investment in more advanced AI capabilities by consumers and service providers alike.

Another missed opportunity.

In June, the CRTC launched a proceeding with the stated intent of making consumer protections for communications services more clear and more consistent by combining the four separate codes (home phone, wireless, internet, and TV) into a single unified Code (the Consumer Protection Code), while reducing administrative burden.

A number of the initial submissions express concerns that simply combining four Codes into a single document does not make the regulatory framework simpler or contribute to reducing administrative burden. The Commission’s Working Document – a proposed unified Code – runs 33 pages.

The Canadian Telecommunications Association (CTA) cautions that the Working Document isn’t clearer or simpler. “Those objectives require the Commission to assess whether existing requirements remain necessary, proportionate and appropriate considering current market conditions, and whether they can be simplified, modernized or eliminated.”

Among the 24 questions posed to intervenors, only one (Q.12) asks “Are any other updates to the rules for early cancellation fees for wireless services needed to account for other evolving industry trends?”

Shouldn’t that be asked of every clause in the document? Shouldn’t the CRTC be looking for ways to update all of its rules?

CTA wrote:

The Commission should use this proceeding as an opportunity to modernize and rationalize, rather than simply amalgamate, the existing consumer protection framework. Consistency should be pursued where there is a sound policy basis for treating services alike, but differences should be retained where the nature of the service, the consumer issue being addressed or the costs of compliance justify different treatment. Similarly, where market and technological developments have overtaken the circumstances that originally justified a requirement, harmonization should provide an opportunity to simplify or remove that requirement rather than extend it to additional services.

Along those lines, TELUS says that choice and competition in the TV market “have rendered prescriptive protections unnecessary and largely irrelevant to consumers.” TELUS says there is no need for the new unified Code to include TV.

Similarly, certain prescriptive elements of some of the individual codes have not kept up with changes in the marketplace.

In its Working Document, the CRTC proposed to extend a $50 cap on data overage charges (that currently applies to wireless services) to Internet services. In a world of unlimited residential high-speed internet, is that really necessary?

The lowest priced iPhone in 2025 retailed for C$999 as contrasted with the highest price for an iPhone in 2015, C$769. An iPhone 18 Pro Max with 2TB of storage is currently listed at C$3,699. Amortizing such a device over two years at 0% financing costs more than $150 per month. Can’t we treat consumers like adults and let them have the option of spreading increased device costs over a longer period of time than the maximum 24 months set out by the CRTC more than 13 years ago?

In the interest of administrative simplicity, a number of submissions called for the CRTC to clearly assert federal jurisdiction over consumer protections for communications services. Otherwise, service providers will be left having to navigate the Commission’s unified Code, as well as 13 provincial and territorial regimes setting out inconsistent regulations.

I frequently write about regulatory stability and Calvinball. Last week, I wrote that government operates under different pressures than business. I’m not sure that the regulator appreciates the impact of some of its decisions on service providers operating businesses at scales of more than 10 million consumers.

There is a cumulative impact of decisions on the stability of business operations. With hundreds of retail outlets, thousands of customer service representatives, even small changes to retail consumer regulations can lead to changes in business processes, information systems, point of sale terminals, and training for customer service representatives and third party agents.

As the Commission continues down this path, we should ask, “for whom are we reducing administrative burden?”

According to the CRTC’s “Coming Attractions” page, there is a plan to issue a Telecom Notice of Consultation this week, with a “Call for comments – Reducing red tape – Review of telecommunications reporting requirements”. [Updated October 6, 2026 1:15pm with link to Notice of Consultation] The Commission might want to consider whether this should be a continuous process, inherent in every proceeding.

What is the cost of implementing administrative simplicity? Will these changes deliver value for consumers, service providers, both, or none of the above?

I’ve often talked about the glacial pace of regulation on the Telecom side of the CRTC. It turns out the Broadcasting side is faring no better.

For more than a year, Canada’s broadcasting and telecom sectors have been told that the CRTC is “building a house.” In May, CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides described the Commission’s agenda as a careful construction project: laying foundations, erecting framing, ensuring the structure will last. Vice chair Adam Scott had used the same metaphor in his remarks to the Scotiabank TMT Conference, emphasizing patience, sequencing, and the importance of getting the architecture right.

But metaphors only work when they illuminate reality. Increasingly, this one obscures it. While the CRTC continues to talk about building a house, the industries it oversees are watching the neighbourhood burn.

The frustration has been documented (repeatedly) by the people who appeared before the Commission, expressing both urgency and optimism.

In early January of 2025, the CRTC launched a proceeding, The Path Forward – Working towards a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system. The oral hearing took place in June 2025; the paper filings were completed a year ago.

In a widely shared LinkedIn post, Steve Jones of Stingray Radio recounts appearing at the hearing “to plead for the modernization of content regulations at Canadian radio.” His summary is blunt: “One year later. Absolutely nothing has happened.” No modernization of CanCon definitions. No movement on ownership caps. No recalibration of exposure requirements. Not even minor progress. Eight more stations have gone dark in the meantime.

Rod Schween of Pattison Media echoes the same experience in a separate LinkedIn post. He says he arrived at the hearing with “cautious optimism,” believing the Commission understood the severity of the pressures facing broadcasters. Six months later, he heard the Chair’s house‑building metaphor. He says he is still standing outside the construction site asking the same question: “How long does it take to build a house?”

These are voices representing hundreds of stations, thousands of employees, and communities across the country relying on local media for emergency information, civic coverage, and cultural expression.

The CRTC’s glacial pace is actively harmful.

Steve Jones illustrated the contrast between technological change and regulatory inertia. He observed that in the year since the proceeding closed:

• Smartphones learned to communicate directly with satellites.
• AI learned to create and buy advertising campaigns.
• Car dashboards became global multimedia platforms.

Meanwhile, “Canada’s radio content and ownership rules didn’t move a millimetre.” Stations are still regulated by the number of AM and FM transmitters they own, as though those transmitters compete only with each other and not with a global ecosystem of unregulated digital platforms.

Technology is advancing in months, while the pace of CRTC regulation is measured in years. This mismatch is a structural failure, no different from the failed regulatory hypothesis I described in May, highlighting the investment consequences of regulatory uncertainty. Capital does not wait for proceedings. It does not pause for consultations, reconsiderations, or multi‑year sequencing exercises. It flows to jurisdictions where the rules are clear, predictable, and aligned with market realities.

Canada’s broadcasting and telecom sectors need a regulator that understands that the cost of delay is not theoretical. Regulatory uncertainty and delay can be measured in shuttered stations, reduced newsrooms, deferred and reduced investment, and diminished Canadian ownership.

A commenter on the Jones post said the CRTC “eliminated license renewals to free up staff to focus on more impactful policy changes. So annnnnny year now.” The joke lands because the underlying truth is clear: the Commission’s internal processes are not producing timely outcomes.

The CRTC speeches describe a careful, methodical construction project. But a house that takes too long to build is of no use if the intended occupants don’t survive long enough to move in.

Steve Jones says, “It is as if the house is on fire, and we’ve called 9‑1‑1… and been put on hold. For a year.”

Rod Schween is equally pointed: broadcasters are standing outside in the cold, waiting for the keys to a house that should have been finished long ago.

While the CRTC talks about framing and foundations, the broadcasting industry is talking about survival. These two conversations simply aren’t aligned.

Unfortunately, government operates under different pressures than business. Government studies, consults, reports, and eventually acts. But, eventually just isn’t good enough in today’s business environment. The business world can’t wait for Canada’s regulator to finish getting its house in order.

The fires are spreading while the Commission is still fiddling with blueprints.