An article in Telecommunications Policy got me thinking more about how regulatory authorities should deal with network resilience in a competitive marketplace.

The paper notes that facilities-based competition, such as that promoted in Canada, fosters improved resilience, with “multiple independent networks operated by ILECs, cable providers, and wireless operators, creating a dense and diverse infrastructure.”

But the paper includes a warning.

However, the resilience benefits of competition can be undermined by poorly designed regulatory policies. Spectrum allocation without deployment requirements or mandated roaming and MVNO access without infrastructure obligations may reduce incentives for operators to build and maintain independent networks. In Canada, such policies risk concentrating traffic on fewer networks, thereby increasing systemic vulnerabilities. Policymakers must ensure that regulatory frameworks support infrastructure diversity and investment while maintaining competition.

The paper also noted that “market forces often fall short in two key contexts: remote and rural areas and regions requiring systematically hardened networks”.

In remote and rural areas, the low population density and high costs of deployment—such as building towers, transport infrastructure, and power generation—make it economically unviable to serve customers with even a single network, let alone multiple redundant networks or hardened infrastructure. Similarly, in regions facing extreme environmental risks, such as areas prone to wildfires, flooding, or hurricanes, the economic incentive to invest in layers of duplication and advanced hardening is often insufficient without external support.

Two months ago, I wrote that it is important to recognize that all networks will fail. Improving network resilience helps ameliorate the situation when a failure condition exists.

Increasingly complex network architectures, coupled with more extreme environmental conditions, will lead to the potential for more network failure events, with even greater impact.

How do service providers build more resilient networks? How does the industry collectively create a more resilient national infrastructure? What is the role of government regulatory authorities, policy makers, and emergency preparedness organizations?

Let’s look at how the CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, is dealing with resilience and survivability. The Commission’s approach appears to be largely reactive, emphasizing post-event reporting and compensation.

In early September, the CRTC issued a Decision requiring “Mandatory notification and reporting of major telecommunications service outages”. In the eyes of the regulator, “This decision will help improve coordination whenever a major outage happens by requiring TSPs to notify the Commission and other government authorities within specific timeframes. These notifications will help ensure that relevant authorities are aware of outages so that they can help manage them and their impact on Canadians.”

Personally, I’m not convinced there will be any meaningful help managing outages coming from the relevant authorities.

On that same date, the CRTC launched two additional public consultations:

1. “Development of a regulatory policy on measures to improve the resiliency of telecommunications networks and the reliability of telecommunications services” [TNC CRTC 2025-226]; and
2. “Consumer protections in the event of a service outage or disruption” [TNC CRTC 2025-227].

The latter is effectively examining what kinds of communications from service providers should be mandated during service disruptions and what kinds of refunds will be required. Initial comments were due a couple weeks ago. The reply phase closes December 15. Frankly, in my view, if the market is sufficiently competitive for the CRTC to forebear from price regulation, then we should ask why the CRTC is wading in on consumer refunds and communications.

I am more interested in the former, TNC CRTC 2025-226 which has initial comments due December 3 and replies due at a date still to be determined. It is a far more complex proceeding.

In this consultation, the Commission is developing a regulatory policy on measures that TSPs should take to help improve the resiliency of telecommunications networks and the reliability of telecommunications services. The Commission is gathering views on (i) what principles should guide the development and implementation of the regulatory policy, (ii) how TSPs should design and operate their networks to help make them more resilient, and (iii) how the regulatory policy can help support the safety of Canadians in all regions of the country, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities.

Two and a half years ago, I wrote about a report issued by the Canadian Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (CSTAC). That report [pdf, 474KB] is referenced in the CRTC’s Notice of Consultation. Notably, the CSTAC report says “recommendations contained in this document are neither directive nor mandatory”. That is why I get concerned when I read the CRTC consultation repeatedly asking “Which of these measures should be mandatory, and which should be considered best practices?”

The CSTAC report included more than 100 detailed recommendations to improve network resilience for telecom services providers to implement “to the extent commercially, operationally, technically and physically practicable”, and there were 9 specific requests from government.

As I have frequently observed, even with all the best preparations in the world, networks will still occasionally go down.

As the CRTC continues its examination of ways to improve network resilience, it should explore how the Commission can contribute to the proactive planning and coordination across all branches of government, including the identification of funding required in rural and remote areas where redundant facilities simply don’t exist.

How should telecom policy evolve to improve the incentives for investment in infrastructure?

A recent Policy Briefing from Hill Times focused on telecom. At least two of the articles addressed the question of whether government policies will support investment in telecom infrastructure, or constrain it.

In “Major projects? Not without telecom”, Canadian Telecommunications Association CEO Robert Ghiz emphasized that none of the transformative projects under discussion (such as liquefied natural gas expansion, tide water pipelines, or the proposed high-speed rail link between Toronto and Quebec City) can succeed without investment in world-leading telecommunications networks.

Canada’s telecommunications providers have a strong record of investing in the networks that make these projects possible. Over the past decade, the industry has poured more than $130 billion into building and upgrading wireless and wireline infrastructure. That investment has delivered among the fastest and farthest-reaching networks in the world.
…
In short, the industry has shown it can invest at scale, drive innovation, and deliver lower prices and more value. But sustaining that record depends on the right policy environment.

When governments establish rules that discourage investment—whether through wholesale internet access frameworks that undercut incentives to build, or consumer policies that pile on compliance costs without improving outcomes—they risk diverting resources away from the very networks that Canada’s major projects will depend on.

Writing in the same edition of Policy Briefing, Erik Bohlin, the Ivey Chair in Telecommunication Economics, Policy and Regulation at Western University’s Ivey Business School, observes that investment resources are currently flowing outward from Canada, rather than attracting foreign direct investment. Why?

“Among others, Canada’s existing inventory of regulatory measures—including spectrum set-aside policies, roaming policies, mobile virtual network operator measures and more—may need to be questioned whether they may run counter to broader resilience goals.” He asks, “What are the resilience impacts of network-based competition vs. service competition?”

Both articles speak to the need to support investment in resilient, world-class telecommunications networks, aligning telecom policy with our overall national industrial policy.

Supporting investment for network resilience has been a frequent theme on these pages. As Robert Ghiz writes, “Just as governments are designing policies to reward building of other critical infrastructure, they must ensure that their policies and regulations encourage continued capital investment by facilities-based network providers.”

Last week, Brian Lilley wrote in the Sun papers, “In the United States business investment is up as they cut useless regulations and welcome companies. In Canada, we won’t cut regulation and the PM puts out a list of preferred projects that still may not happen.” In linking to that article, Senator Leo Housakos tweeted, “Canada’s challenge has been attracting foreign investment and keeping capital from fleeing. Lilley is absolutely right that the lack of investment into Canada is largely due to bureaucracy and government interventionism.”

At the very least, government policy should not discourage investment – a theme explored in my post last week.

Ideally, in Canada’s current economic climate, seeking to stimulate national infrastructure projects, there should be better support for digital infrastructure.

Gaslighting: A manipulative psychological tactic that causes individuals to question their reality, memories, and perceptions, often leading to confusion and self-doubt.

There was a revealing moment in the House of Commons last week, one that perfectly captures the cognitive dissonance in Ottawa’s approach to telecommunications policy.

During Question Period, Liberal MP Alana Hirtle proudly cited the fact that “Canadians are paying lower prices for cellular services, with a 40% decline in prices over five years.” That was a rare acknowledgment from government benches that prices have indeed gone down, down dramatically, even as prices for most other goods and services have gone up an average of more than 20% during the same period.

But, rather than pause to consider what that says about the effectiveness of Canada’s competitive market (and the scale of private-sector investment driving it), the Minister of Industry chose to double down. Mélanie Joly responded that government would “do more… to increase competition” and “make sure that we reform our telecommunications sector.”

Alana Hirtle (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Budget 2025 is a generational investment in our economy, in our industries and in Canadians. Canadians are paying lower prices for cellular services, with a 40% decline in prices over five years, but these bills still eat into the pockets of Canadians. Budget 2025 has proposed measures to lower costs for Canadians and improve competition.

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?

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and I, and this government, are laser-focused on making sure that we bring down costs in the telecom sector. We took the right decision this summer to uphold the decision of the CRTC to increase competition in the telecommunications 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.

When a back bencher rises during Question Period, you can be certain the member is preparing to lob a soft ball, asking a planted question so the Minister can try to hit one out of the park by providing a prepared answer aimed at getting media coverage. Still, it was more than a little strange to hear (in the same breath), the government admitting that prices are down, competition is up, while insisting the system needs “reform.”

That wasn’t principled policy making. It’s gaslighting.

Let’s be clear: you don’t get falling prices, high levels of private sector capital investment, and world-class infrastructure, without competition.

Canada’s facilities-based carriers invest more than $12 billion annually, nearly 18% of sector revenues, building, upgrading, and expanding networks. That’s more than international peers in the U.S., Australia, the UK, and elsewhere. At the same time, the government’s own data show mobile prices have dropped by more than 40%, with popular plans being comparable or cheaper than those in the US, and home internet prices lower today than they were five years ago.

Those are the kinds of outcomes policymakers dream about: lower prices and massive investment. If that’s not evidence of effective competition, what is?

As I have written before, the government’s so-called “reforms” risk undoing exactly what’s been working.

By mandating that the three national ISPs be allowed to use the networks of their competitors, Ottawa has effectively tilted the playing field against the very companies that injected additional competition into the marketplace. Eastlink’s Lee Bragg put it bluntly: “Given the government’s disregard for the smaller regional operators who have brought healthy competition to the marketplace and the crucial importance of long-term investments in telecommunications, we are now forced to consider how this affects our ability to remain competitive.”

Will this mean that some smaller providers halt expansion plans or even pull out of some communities? Time will tell. But, this can not be the outcome that Canadians want.

Policies like this don’t strengthen competition, they stifle it. They reduce the incentive and capacity for all players to invest in infrastructure, slow the pace of innovation, and risk consolidating market share right back into the hands of the national incumbents.

We’ve seen this movie before. When policymakers chase the short-term political optics (like being “laser-focused on making sure that we bring down costs”) instead of evidence-based outcomes, investment falters, and consumers ultimately pay the price through slower upgrades, fewer options, and weaker regional challengers.

Canadians deserve straight talk, not gaslighting spin. Prices are down. Investment levels are well above our peers. Networks have been expanding. These are all signs that competition is already working.

Instead of continually rewriting the rules mid-game, Ottawa should be working to preserve, not punish, the investment incentives that delivered these successful outcomes in Canadian telecom.

Nothing breaks a working market faster than politicians trying to fix it.

The Productivity Paradox and the Promise of Co-Intelligence is the theme of an upcoming webinar. On November 18 at 9:30 AM (Eastern), the International Telecommunications Society (ITS) and the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy (University of Toronto) will host a free webinar: Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI with Ethan Mollick.

• What if the most important technology of recent times doesn’t deliver productivity on its own?
• What if your smartest colleague never slept, never stopped learning, and could work across every domain you know—and many you don’t?
• What if AI isn’t just a tool, but a partner in your thinking?
• A coach for your creativity?
• A strategist for your work?

On the surface, the promise of AI seems obvious, like electricity, the internet, or computers. But, we can learn from history that general-purpose technologies yield gains only when paired with new skills, new institutional arrangements, and new ways of thinking and behaving.

That is the productivity paradox: adoption alone does not guarantee progress.

Professor Ethan Mollick reframes the challenge for us: while AI may not soon outcompete humans, people using AI are already outcompeting people. This is the essence of co-intelligence: treating AI less as a tool and more as a collaborator — an idea with profound implications for leadership, competitiveness, productivity, and progress.

Ethan Mollick is the Ralph J. Roberts Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Wharton. He was named one of TIME’s most influential people in AI. His book Co-Intelligence was a New York Times bestseller and a “best of the year” from The Economist and Financial Times, and his substack, One Useful Thing, is among the best resources to learn how to think with AI.

The deeper questions to be explored are human, not technical:

• What new forms of oversight and trust are required when intelligence is shared?
• How should leaders measure productivity when creativity itself is augmented?
• And, how do we ensure this paradox becomes promise, not missed opportunity?

I have been a fan of the webinars hosted by the International Telecommunications Society over the past few years. It is a worthwhile use of your time, so I hope to see you online. Register here.

On December 3, the Ivey Business School at Western University is hosting “Reimagining a Digital and AI-Driven World”, the latest workshop in its Measuring the Digital Economy series.

Digital transformation and AI are rapidly reshaping how economies grow, how people work, and how public services are delivered. Yet our core measurement tools—especially GDP—fail to capture much of this change. They don’t reflect whether digital infrastructure is reaching communities, whether AI is boosting productivity or displacing workers, or whether public digital investments are delivering value.

This workshop confronts that gap directly. It brings together experts from national statistical agencies, regulators, academia, and industry to chart a path forward:

• What new indicators do we need to track digital progress?
• How should we design them?
• How can better measurement improve accountability, policy, and outcomes in the digital age?

The agenda is heavily oriented toward measurement with the agenda [pdf] including sessions such as:

• A New Measurement of Digital Divide
• Measuring the Digital Economy: Insights from China’s Platform Economy and Livestreaming Commerce
• Measurement Challenges in the Age of AI
• Towards a New Proposal for Measuring Consumer Benefits in the Digital Economy
• Measuring Broadband: Impact: Challenges and Opportunities
• Where Are We Now? Digital Metrics Today
• Where Should We Go? AI, Skills, Inclusion and the Digital Economy
• Conclusions and Outlooks: Implications for Canada

Why does measurement matter? Analysis of various GDP metrics is essential for monitoring the health of the economy. However, it is also important to assess how digital infrastructure is improving public outcomes — or whether the country is meeting national digital goals. The workshop will explore why complementary indicators are needed to fill critical gaps in understanding performance in the evolving digital and AI-driven world.

Frequent readers know that I have supported this series in the past. Consider joining me on Wednesday, December 3rd at Ivey’s Donald K. Johnson Centre in downtown Toronto for this half-day workshop centered on the digital economy. I look forward to seeing you there.