How will the CRTC respond to evidence that its regulatory hypothesis is failing?

Recall, two months ago I wrote about CRTC Vice Chair Adam Scott speaking at a Scotiabank investor conference, where

We go through proceedings to crystallize issues and identify the strategically important outcomes that our decisions need to promote. And then we take the evidence on the record and use it to form a regulatory hypothesis—that by taking a certain course, we will see a certain type of outcome.

His address stated “we understand that advancing consumer interests also means supporting investment: in high quality services, resilient networks, excellent customer service, and all the other elements required of a strong telecommunications service provider.”

When the CRTC finalized its wholesale fibre to the home rates a few weeks ago, the final lines of its media release stated: “The CRTC will also closely track industry progress in investing to connect more Canadians to high-speed Internet and other communications services. In doing so, the CRTC will follow the evidence and act quickly to adjust its approach if necessary.”

What if the evidence is already showing that the current regulatory framework isn’t supporting investment? We started seeing signs that investment was beginning to decline when the CRTC released its annual monitoring report, showing an industry-wide drop of 10% between 2022 and 2024.

In the government’s Spring Economic Update [pdf, 8.2MB], the government’s headline Sovereign Wealth Fund includes “Leading Canadian companies will help build our energy, transportation and telecommunications infrastructure and future economy.”

However, Canada’s leading telecommunications companies are announcing dramatic reductions in their plans for investment in infrastructure.

A few weeks ago, we saw further evidence when Rogers cut its capital guidance by 30% for 2026, with strong statements issued by the company Chair and by its CEO at the 2026 Annual General Meeting. CEO Tony Staffieri said:

We operate in a capital-intensive sector, a sector that requires long-term investment cycles and regulatory policy that supports them.

Yet, at every turn, we face changing regulatory decisions that undermine investment – decisions that increase costs, reduce revenue, and create market uncertainty.

Decisions that reinforce an uneven playing field, and don’t reflect smart, modern regulation that ensures companies like Rogers can compete fairly and equitably.

As we look to the next few years, we have sharpened our strategy to reflect these market realities.

Executive Chair Edward Rogers said:

companies like Rogers need a modern regulatory regime that rewards investment and ensures fair and equitable competition. The opposite is happening today. The current approach is antiquated and creates an uneven playing field. It makes it hard for companies to plan, build, and invest long term.

This is a capital-intensive business with a long horizon for a return. We do not think in terms of months, or a few years, but in the next 5,10 to 20 years.

Regulatory certainty and stability matters.

Today’s telecom markets have never been more competitive, but we have also never been more regulated.
…
Rules that penalize innovation and investment in Canada have never worked and will never work. Investment slows, jobs are lost, network quality and innovation suffer.

Rogers has since announced significant job cuts.

Bell’s first quarter 2026 results reflect reduced capital spending on Canadian telecom; the company’s guidance for 2026 forecasts a shift in capital spending toward investments in AI data centres, not in its core telecom infrastructure. As Bell CEO Mirko Bibic stated during the first quarter investor call, Bell will “focus capital investment on higher return opportunities.” He noted that capital expenditures have fallen from $5.1B in 2022 to less than $3B in 2026 and said that Canadian telecom investment will continue to decline given the current environment.

Whether or not it’s the kind of more kind of micro rules that are coming out, wireless that you refer to, or the bigger kind of more policy oriented fundamental rules like fiber access, put all those together, and clearly it’s having an impact on investment in the industry.
…
If you just look at the capital investments over that short period of time in our industry on an annual basis, there’s literally multiple billions of dollars of annual CapEx that are no longer being invested.

Last week, 2026 investor guidance pointed to a 10% forecasted reduction in capital spending by TELUS.

Together, we have seen capital investment reduced by more than $3B annually. Yes, annually.

Prime Minister Carney recently announced an investment summit. “At a time of unprecedented trade disruption, our bold mission to unlock $1 trillion in new capital will create growth, good jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.”

Commenting on the current regulatory environment, in February, Scotiabank asked, “wouldn’t it make more sense for incumbents to materially reduce capex”? A few weeks ago, when the CRTC issued its decision setting final rates for fibre-to-the-premises, various financial analysts assessed the impact of the rates when compared to the interim rates. Bank of America Global Research wrote, “More concerning is the recent steps the CRTC is taking to force changes in fees the providers can charge. The CRTC is adept at finding new areas to dictate how the providers can operate in the market.”

When he addressed the Scotia investor conference, CRTC Vice Chair Scott said “A good regulator, like a good builder, will adjust to conditions on the ground. We will need to, and are in fact required to, actively gather the evidence that will inform us as we go.”

It is worth repeating what I stated a few weeks ago: The regulatory environment doesn’t just shape competition — it shapes the network Canadians will have a decade from now.

The conditions on the ground are showing that the regulatory framework is failing to support investment, let alone incentivize investment. The CRTC typically moves at speeds that could be described as a somewhat glacial velocity (the final wholesale fibre rates decision followed a decade of CRTC processes).

The editorial in yesterday’s Globe and Mail called for “Ottawa to remove the obstacles that currently deter companies from investing in this country.”

When will the CRTC take a fresh look at how its regulatory hypothesis is impacting capital investment?

An article appearing in the June 2026 issue of Telecommunications Policy looks at “Revisiting the digital divide in Europe — The profile of those on the wrong side of the divide”.

The researchers found that the digital divide remains a problem in Europe, but not due to affordability or access to technology. “The prototype of the offline European would be someone who is not young, has little or no education, lives alone in a rural area, perceives their situation as financially difficult, is somewhat socially isolated, and has doubts about the benefits of communication.”

A couple of months ago, I wrote “The new digital divide: not access, but attention”, observing that a new divide is emerging, now that access to broadband connectivity has become nearly ubiquitous.

The Telecommunications Policy paper agrees with this assessment. The paper refers to an “almost universal roll-out of networks, in particular mobile networks,” coupled with declining prices, making broadband affordable for almost everyone. Carrying a data-enabled device in our pockets enables access to the world of digital social and economic interactions. “Consequently, the digital divide no longer seems to be the major concern it was recently.”

Still, despite the authors’ observation that books and newspapers are rarely seen on public transit as people focus attention on mobile screens, the research found that more than 10% of Europeans do not have digital access.

In order to bridge the divide, we need to understand what leads to people remaining off-line.

Connecting the remaining population is not simply a matter of “build it and they will come”. As the paper demonstrates, there are factors beyond price and simple access.

Understanding the characteristics of those on the wrong side of the digital divide is key to finding solutions for connectivity and improving the road to universal connectivity.

I sometimes wonder whether there is a sufficient level of business sense among the decision makers in the nation’s capital.

The latest example is the absurd handling of urgent requests for modest monthly rate increases for mandatory carriage networks – files that took nearly 2 years to be processed.

CPAC-TV is the Cable Public Affairs Channel. In July 2024, the network asked the CRTC for a rate increase, to rise from $0.13 to $0.16 monthly. The thirteen cent rate had been in effect since September 1, 2018. A couple weeks ago, the CRTC finally awarded the requested increase, effective September 1, 2026, conditional on the Commission renewing CPAC’s broadcasting licence and mandatory distribution order before that date.

A week and a half later, a two cent monthly increase was granted to TV5, effective immediately.

Recall that the CRTC issued an interim non-decision last November, kicking the can down the road until it finally got around to making a determination 5 months later. In my December 1, 2025 newsletter, I wrote:

In July 2024, CPAC asked the CRTC for a $0.03 monthly rate increase. Its current $0.13 rate was set in 2018. On November 21, the CRTC decided to defer until some unspecified time in the future. A year and a half to make a non-decision. CPAC says the deferral jeopardizes its continuing operation. To their credit, Commissioners Scott and Abramson wrote a dissenting view appended to the Commission’s Decision, saying “given the pressures these exceptionally important services face today, we should decide today. Should something different be needed down the road, we can adjust down the road.”

Commissioners Scott and Abramson demonstrated business sense in their November dissent. It is noteworthy that the decisions for CPAC and TV5 each contain dissenting opinions by Commissioners Desmond, and Paquette. In the CPAC dissent, they wrote:

17. We respectfully conclude that the application by CPAC Inc. should continue to be deferred until more permanent and sustainable solutions are put in place.
18. Significant work is underway to modernize the broadcasting system in Canada. Key policy decisions will be issued in the coming months that will address the rapid changes that all industry players are experiencing.
19. While CPAC Inc. offers a service of exceptional importance, it benefits from a mandatory distribution order and a regulated fixed rate, providing some degree of financial stability in the short term. While its financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs.
20. Waiting until the broadcasting system has been modernized before processing the CPAC Inc. application will provide a more permanent and sustainable solution and will allow for the ecosystem to first be stabilized before moving forward.

I had to scratch my head with their conclusion. “While its [CPAC’s] financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs” and so, let’s kick the can down the road once again. It is unclear to me how these Commissioners think CPAC would / could keep the lights on in the meantime.

In the meantime, let’s keep in mind that CPAC’s funding is dependent on a very modest monthly fee charged to TV subscribers – who are an ever shrinking breed. CRTC figures show that TV subscriptions have fallen from 9.0 million in the second quarter of 2024 to 8.6 million in third quarter of 2025, the latest available data. That represents a drop of $750,000 per year in revenues for CPAC.

In the case of TV5, the dissenting opinion leads with “With respect for the majority, we unfortunately cannot agree with the decision to increase the per subscriber monthly wholesale rate by $0.02 for the TV5 and UNIS TV services (TV5/UNIS TV). We consider such a decision to be premature in the context of the Commission’s ongoing exercise to modernize the Canadian broadcasting regulatory framework and given the challenges currently facing the cable sector.”

There is no question that the current cross-subsidy system is unsustainable, having TV subscribers foot the bills for CPAC, TV5 and the National Public Alert System, for that matter. I have referred to these schemes as an off-the-books tax scheme.

But, until a more rational funding mechanism is in place, it makes no sense – neither business sense nor common sense – to be unresponsive to funding requirements for essential services operated by the private sector.

Canada’s telecom sector has been sounding the alarm about copper theft for years. Now, the Senate’s Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has delivered the most comprehensive federal examination to date. Its findings confirm what carriers, utilities, and first responders have been living daily: copper theft isn’t a petty crime; it is a direct threat to critical infrastructure, public safety, and the functioning of modern communities.

The committee’s report, Stolen Signal: The Costly Consequences of Copper Theft in Canada, [pdf, 700KB] lays out a stark picture. Since 2022, Canadian carriers have recorded more than 1,300 theft incidents, with Bell alone reporting over 1,650 security incidents, 88% of which involved copper. TELUS quantified the human impact: more than 200 million minutes of lost service affecting 170,000 customers, with rural communities hit hardest. Rogers reported outages spanning 10 federal ridings and affecting 35,000 Canadians in a single wave of vandalism.

The consequences are not abstract. Copper theft has shut down airport ticketing systems, blocked emergency calls, halted small‑business transactions, and left entire communities isolated for hours — sometimes days. In Grande Cache, Alberta, TELUS reported four community‑wide outages in 18 months due to copper theft. Electricity Canada described hundreds of annual incidents across the grid, including cases where thieves triggered life‑threatening injuries and traumatized utility workers.

The Senate report makes clear that copper theft is not simply a telecom problem. It is a cascading‑risk problem. Communications outages disrupt emergency services, financial systems, transportation, and health care — all sectors identified as critical infrastructure under Canada’s national strategy. The interdependencies mean a single cut cable can ripple across multiple essential services.

The committee’s recommendations call for:

• Criminal Code amendments to impose tougher penalties when theft interferes with essential infrastructure — a direction the government has already begun with Bill C‑14’s new “aggravating circumstance” for infrastructure‑related offences.
• National leadership on scrap‑metal regulation, encouraging provinces to standardize dealer rules, require transaction records, and close loopholes that allow stolen copper to be laundered through recycling centres.
• A federal task force on metal theft to coordinate law‑enforcement intelligence across jurisdictions.

Witnesses were blunt. Inconsistent provincial rules, limited traceability, and the ease of mixing stolen metal with legitimate scrap make enforcement difficult. Some pointed to U.S. models — including Florida’s 2024 legislation and federal statutes targeting energy‑facility sabotage — as examples of more assertive frameworks.

Telecom companies have already invested heavily in deterrence, installing floodlights, cameras, specialized locks, while accelerating fibre replacement. But, the report underscores what the industry has argued for years: carriers cannot secure every remote cabinet, pole line, or right‑of‑way on their own. The scale is too large, the geography too vast, and the criminal incentives too strong — especially with copper trading near US$13,000 per tonne.

The Senate committee’s work gives the issue national visibility and a policy roadmap. Copper theft is no longer a background nuisance; it is a systemic risk to Canada’s digital and economic resilience. The report’s title — Stolen Signal — is apt. Copper theft doesn’t just steal metal; it steals connectivity, safety, and trust in the infrastructure upon which Canadians rely.

Will this be another report that sits on a shelf, or will governments (at all levels) move with the urgency the evidence demands?

For nearly 20 years, I have written about some of the dissenting opinions that appear within CRTC decisions.

There have been some classics, as I wrote in 2016.

Commissioner Claire Anderson wrote a lengthy dissent last year as I documented at the time. Commissioner Bram Abramson has written a number of dissenting opinions, perhaps aspiring to challenge former Commissioner Stuart Langford’s record. The Abramson dissents frequently address important legal fine points, dealing with procedural issues and fairness.

Today’s post is intended to highlight the number of dissenting views in the CRTC decisions released so far this week.

• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-71: TV5/UNIS TV – Application to increase the mandatory per subscriber monthly wholesale rates
  “A joint dissenting opinion by Commissioners Ellen C. Desmond, K. C., and Stéphanie Paquette is attached to this decision.”
• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-74: Rogers Communications Inc.’s contributions to the Shaw Rocket Fund
  “Dissenting opinions from Commissioners Bram Abramson and Ellen C. Desmond, K.C. are attached to this decision.”
• Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025‑180‑2: Call for comments – Improving the public alerting system – Changes to procedure
  “the Commission denies, by majority decision, their request to be made a party to the proceeding”

These documents were released by the CRTC in just two days: April 22 and 23. Are these releases demonstrating an inability to reach a consensus with the Commission?

I expect to be writing more about the substance of some of these dissenting views. For now, I simply want to highlight an unusual pattern of dissent.