As news emerges that the Universal Broadband Fund (UBF) will not be renewed, we should turn our minds toward the next connectivity challenge: transitioning from building networks to maintaining them.

For more than a decade, Canada’s national connectivity agenda has been defined by expansion. Billions in federal and provincial funding, paired with unprecedented private‑sector investment, pushed high‑speed broadband deeper into rural and remote communities than ever before. With the UBF now expected to sunset as Canada approaches its 98 per cent coverage target, it’s tempting to declare victory.

But, the next phase of connectivity spending will be harder, less glamorous, and far more politically neglected. Canada’s the next connectivity challenge means shifting our focus from funding broadband network expansion to figuring out how to pay to maintain those networks. At a recent conference, I expressed concern that we are not ready for the implications.

Expansion is a capital project. Maintenance is a lifecycle obligation. One is celebrated with over-sized ceremonial cheques and ribbon‑cuttings; the other is an ongoing cost centre that rarely earns political credit. Yet as climate pressures intensify and networks age, maintenance will determine whether Canada’s connectivity gains are durable or fragile.

The first challenge is resiliency. Wildfires, floods, and extreme storms are no longer rare events. Operators are reinforcing towers, burying fibre, hardening power systems, and redesigning routes to avoid single points of failure. These investments are essential, but they are also expensive — and they don’t fit neatly into the traditional “build more coverage” narrative that has dominated public policy. A kilometre of fibre washed out by a flood costs the same to replace whether the community has 50 residents or 5,000. Maintenance is indifferent to density.

The second challenge is sustainability of rural builds. Many of the last‑mile projects funded over the past five years were viable because governments subsidized the initial capital. But the long‑term operating costs — repairs, upgrades, backhaul, power, and labour — fall entirely on service providers. In low‑density areas, those costs can exceed revenue. Without a policy framework that acknowledges such lifecycle realities, Canada risks a slow erosion of service quality in precisely the communities that were hardest to connect in the first place.

A third challenge is technology refresh cycles. Fibre may be durable, but the electronics aren’t. Wireless networks require continual upgrades to remain efficient and secure. Satellite constellations evolve rapidly. The policy conversation has not yet caught up to the fact that “connected once” does not mean “connected forever.” The cost curve of maintenance is rising even as the political appetite for funding is declining.

What Canada needs now is a Connectivity Maintenance Strategy — a shift from one‑time capital injections to predictable, outcome‑based support for resiliency, lifecycle upgrades, and climate adaptation. This doesn’t mean recreating the Universal Broadband Fund. It means recognizing that connectivity is critical infrastructure, and critical infrastructure requires ongoing stewardship, especially in high cost serving areas.

For more than a century and a half, Canadian carriers have built our national telecom networks. Canada spent the last decade extending advanced networks to rural and remote regions. The challenge for the next decade will be keeping those networks standing, resilient, and modern.

Maintenance may not be headline‑grabbing, but it will define whether our connectivity achievements endure.

Sometimes it must feel like the CRTC is just spinning their wheels – we’re running the engine but not getting anywhere.

Monday’s Globe and Mail reports that “The federal government is planning a series of steps that would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to roll back key decisions it has made implementing the controversial Online Streaming Act.”

For the past few years, a substantial amount of effort at the regulator has been focused on implementing the “modernization” of Canada’s Broadcasting Act driven by the Online Streaming Act.

Three years ago, I observed that the Online Streaming Act was driving the CRTC to budget a 40% increase in staff levels with a 60% higher cost. As it has for the past few years, the CRTC’s 2026-27 Departmental Plan identifies “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” at the top of its list of key priorities.

How many staff years of effort – by the Commission and by participants in these multi-year regulatory proceedings – are being squandered by this latest government policy flip-flop?

As I flipped through CRTC Departmental Plans, I noticed that the plans for the past 4 years have been signed by 4 different Cabinet Ministers responsible for the Commission:

• 2026-27: Marc Miller
• 2025-26: Steven Guilbeault
• 2024-25: Pascale St-Onge
• 2023-24: Pablo Rodriguez

The lack of stability from the policy leadership doesn’t help.

Similar observations can be made on another key file. While “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” is first on the list of key CRTC priorities, “Promoting competition and investment for Internet and cellphone services” is next. I have written extensively on the investment part of that priority.

A CRTC letter last Friday serves as an exhibit for spinning their wheels on the competition side. The CRTC file 1011-NOC2023-0056 has housed follow-up to its 2023 “Review of the wholesale high-speed access service framework”. Three years into the process, the Commission realized that it is working from stale data:

Commission staff notes that the Cable Carriers submitted their initial Phase II cost studies between June 2023 and April 2024. However, Commission staff is concerned that the costing information currently on record may no longer reflect the prospective incremental costs of providing these services. Consequently, to ensure that final rates are just and reasonable and reflect the current technological and economic environment, the Cable Carriers are directed to file new Phase II cost studies, including all associated tables, using a five-year study period starting 1 January 2026 and incorporating the most recent available data for equipment costs, labour rates, and network demand.

These new studies need to be filed by September 3.

Once again, I think we need to ask how many cycles have been burned – the CRTC staff and industry participants – by working with the cost studies now ruled to be out of date. What does this mean for the entire wholesale framework?

The 2026-27 Departmental Plan indicates total expenses for the CRTC are forecasted to be $123.6M, up roughly 50% from the $81.6M from the 2022-23 Plan, with staff levels growing from 547 to 740 over that same period.

There is a real cost to running the engine and spinning those wheels. Sometimes, I just shake my head and wonder how much tread is left on these old tires.

Like most of you, I’m tired of spam.

When my phone rings, most of the time my device shows it is “Likely Spam”. In such cases, if the call actually connects, I end up talking to an overseas call centre telling me their air-duct cleaning crews are in my neighbourhood and can offer me a special rate. Or, people claiming to be calling from the “promotions department” of [insert name of phone company], offering deals too good to be true. Or, it is a recording from scammers claiming they are my credit card company (or Amazon) flagging potential fraudulent transactions – ironic, right?

And then there are the emails that get past my spam filters. Somehow, I got added to a US-based medical professional mailing list and I have been receiving all kinds of messages targeting a doctor in the Phoenix area. (As an aside, I wonder if the doctor in Phoenix is receiving telecom newsletters.) That medical mailing list is being sold to pharmaceutical companies, training companies, real estate firms, auto dealers, and anyone else who wants to reach doctors in Arizona. Most of the time, I click unsubscribe and that ends it – but just for one company.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an invitation to a webinar about some new treatments for drug-resistant bacteria. As fascinating as new antibiotics might be, my evenings are tied up. (I just don’t want to miss watching the Stanley Cup playoffs.) Most significantly, there was no ‘unsubscribe’ button. The sender was from a company with a market capitalization measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, this was not your classic spam.

In Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) lingo, this was an unsolicited commercial electronic message sent by a company with pretty deep pockets. They should know better. Even in the US, there are rules known as CAN-SPAM that cover these kinds of things.

And like I said, I’ve gotten kind of tired of spam. So, I decided to stop ignoring it. I dealt with the source directly. This is a real company, with revenues that are approximately double the entire Canadian telecom sector. I figure they have an army of lawyers who would not want some renegade salesperson to be harming the company brand.

I called their Canadian customer service line and reached a supervisor who was actually quite sympathetic. From her, I learned the name of the Canadian head of legal, and from the corporate website, I found the name of the global chief legal officer. The company uses a standardized email address scheme which enabled me to send my official complaint in writing.

I had an immediate automated response from the customer service email address with a case number. I heard back from the Canadian legal office within a couple of hours, letting me know that the team appreciated the importance and was investigating. Within a week, I heard from the US-based corporate chief privacy officer, who identified the steps taken to remove my address from various company distribution lists. The company was still working to identify the third-party source that originally provided my information. A few days later, I was updated with the name of the list provider and provided with assurances that my information was removed from their databases.

A review of my past posts about CASL will show you that I was never a fan of the legislation. I continue to think that it has done more harm to legitimate business communications while doing little to reduce harmful and fraudulent spam. Twenty years ago, I wrote how people can take matters into their own hands.

So I did.

No regulatory submission. No fines were issued. I was fed up with the medical / pharma spam, so I dealt with it. At least those annoying health care related emails will slow down, even if not fully come to a stop.

Now, I wonder if I say “yes” to getting my ducts cleaned, could I get those calls to stop for a couple years?

Are regulatory authorities using best practices when assessing competition in telecommunication markets?

In a new paper [pdf, 364 KB], the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) argues that US communications markets are more dynamic and competitive than legacy regulatory frameworks assume. The submission urges the FCC to modernize its analytical approach, emphasizing technological convergence, cross‑platform substitutability, and the centrality of investment incentives in broadband and video markets.

ICLE’s core thesis is that traditional market silos — fixed broadband, mobile, satellite, and video — no longer reflect how consumers behave or how firms compete. Households now switch fluidly among cable, fiber, fixed wireless access (FWA), mobile broadband, and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite. This substitutability constrains pricing power even in markets that appear concentrated on paper. The rise of FWA is a prime example: T‑Mobile’s Home Internet service has grown to millions of subscribers, directly pressuring cable operators and accelerating churn. Cable’s counter‑move — bundling MVNO‑based mobile services — illustrates how formerly distinct markets now operate as a competitive continuum.

ICLE argues that the FCC’s competition assessments must reflect these cross‑technology dynamics. Market definitions built around legacy service categories risk overstating market power and understating the competitive discipline imposed by emerging substitutes.

While convergence increases competitive pressure, ICLE stresses that it does not change the underlying economics of broadband deployment. High fixed and sunk costs, long payback periods, and economies of scale mean that only a limited number of facilities‑based providers can operate sustainably in most markets. Policies aimed at maximizing the number of competitors may therefore undermine the investment needed for next‑generation networks.

ICLE warns that fragmentation — especially in markets with modest density — can reduce per‑firm revenues below sustainable levels, deterring fiber upgrades, 6G deployment, and rural expansion. The organization argues that the FCC should prioritize sustainable competition: lowering deployment costs, streamlining permitting, and ensuring merger policy accounts for investment benefits, not just static concentration metrics.

In video, ICLE contends that broadcast ownership rules and retransmission‑consent frameworks no longer match market realities. Broadcasters now compete with national streaming platforms unconstrained by ownership caps, yet broadcasters remain subject to legacy restrictions rooted in spectrum scarcity—an economic rationale ICLE argues is obsolete.

Retransmission consent, originally designed to counter cable bottlenecks, now creates bargaining asymmetries that can inflate fees and distort negotiations. ICLE recommends comprehensive reform: either phasing out retransmission consent entirely or pairing ownership deregulation with safeguards that reduce blackout risks and limit fee escalation.

ICLE wants the FCC to modernize its analytical framework when assessing competition to reflect converged markets, cross‑platform competition, and the investment‑driven economics of broadband. Interventions by regulators should avoid distorting markets that are already delivering lower prices, improved quality, and greater choice. The role of the regulator is to promote predictable, investment‑supportive policy. “The agency’s guiding principle should be to reduce regulatory distortions, preserve investment incentives, and allow competition — not legacy silos — to discipline communications markets.”

There is much in the ICLE’s paper that is relevant for Canadians. It is worth a look.

Canadian telecom investment is slipping, as I have been writing over the past few months. After years of sustained capital spending, operators are now pulling back. At the same time, expectations placed on networks — economic, social, and security‑related — are rising sharply.

A new report from PwC [pdf, 2.6 MB] lands at this important moment for Canada’s telecommunications sector. The report warns that Canada’s digital ambitions are resting on infrastructure that is increasingly taken for granted, and the conditions required to sustain investment are eroding.

The data-filled report tells a compelling story. Since 2021, Canadian operators have invested roughly $59 billion in networks, enabling faster speeds, broader coverage, and meaningful affordability gains for consumers. Wireless CPI has fallen 45.5% since 2020, and wireline CPI is down slightly over the same period. It is an extraordinary contrast to rising costs in shelter, food, and transportation. Canadians are paying less while getting more, making telecommunications services a rare bright spot in an otherwise inflationary environment.

These outcomes didn’t happen by accident. They were funded by some of the highest capital intensities in the world. Between 2021 and 2024, Canadian telecoms invested an average of 18% of revenue back into their networks — higher than peers in the US, UK, and Australia. The report shows that investment delivered near‑universal access to 50/10 Mbps broadband, gigabit availability to 90% of households, and a 410% increase in average mobile data usage since 2017.

But, despite the sector’s performance, the investment trend is now moving in the wrong direction. The PwC report confirms capital expenditure trends I discussed a couple of weeks ago. Annual capex has fallen from $12.5 billion in 2022 to $10.9 billion in 2025, a decline driven by moderating telecom revenue growth, rising regulatory costs, and a policy environment that increasingly prioritizes short‑term affordability optics over long‑term infrastructure resilience.

The report highlights a striking figure: in 2024, operators paid $2.5 billion in government and regulatory costs — an amount equal to 58% of their combined net income. Layer on top of that more than $30 billion spent on spectrum over the past decade (including some of the highest mid‑band 5G prices in the world), and the investment squeeze becomes even more obvious. Every dollar directed to taxes, fees, and spectrum is a dollar not available for rural builds, network hardening, or next‑generation upgrades.

This matters because telecommunications is no longer just a consumer service. It is the enabling layer for Canada’s economy, public safety, and digital sovereignty. The report catalogues the sector’s expanding role: supporting emergency services, powering digital supply chains, enabling remote work, and underpinning AI adoption across industries. In 2025, telecom contributed $86 billion to GDP and supported 611,000 jobs across the economy. These spillovers depend directly on sustained capital investment.

The disconnect is growing. Writing about the PwC report, TD Securities said, “The regulatory environment has already caused a reduction in privately funded infrastructure investments, which could have helped Canada’s economy and competitiveness in the future.”

Policymakers continue to treat telecom as a utility to be cost‑controlled, while simultaneously expecting the sector to function as critical infrastructure — resilient to extreme weather, secure against cyber threats, and capable of supporting data‑intensive national priorities. The Senate’s recent warning on copper theft, the rollout of NG9‑1‑1, and the federal focus on supply chain resilience, underscore how essential networks have become. But, essential infrastructure cannot be maintained on shrinking investment.

The PwC report also highlights the implications for rural and Indigenous connectivity. While progress to date has been meaningful — 50/10 access on First Nations reserves has risen from 39% to 66% since 2020 — gaps remain substantial. Closing them requires capital, and capital requires a stable, predictable investment environment. Without it, the pace of progress will slow.

If investment continues to decline, Canada risks compounding its already weak productivity performance.

Canada’s digital future depends on reversing an investment decline already underway. That will require a regulatory and fiscal framework that recognizes telecommunications as critical infrastructure, not merely a consumer product. Policy makers must ensure the networks upon which Canadians rely remain robust, resilient, and ready for the demands of the next decade.

The PwC report is a reminder that strong outcomes we enjoy today do not guarantee strong outcomes tomorrow. Sustaining Canada’s digital advantage will require policy choices that support and encourage — not undermine — the investment engine driving a 21st century economy.