Regulatory delay — the glacial pace of CRTC decision making — can slow investment in Canadian communications infrastructure.

Communications networks don’t stand still. Years before customers ever run a speed test, capital is committed for fibre placement and activation, towers are built, and spectrum gets deployed. But, while technology is moving at the pace of innovation, regulation often moves at the pace of… well, regulation.

That gap is becoming a problem.

Over the past few years, I’ve written frequently about the tension between policy ambition and the practical realities of building and operating communications infrastructure. Examples include earlier posts on regulatory uncertainty, flip-flops on wholesale access frameworks, and my recent post on the pace of CRTC proceedings which led to the Federal Government needing to provide emergency band-aid support for CPAC.

The communications sector is continually being asked to do more — connect rural communities, harden networks against extreme weather, support AI workloads, expand 5G, and prepare for 6G — all while competition intensifies, driving prices lower. Yet the regulatory machinery that governs the companies making these multi-billion dollar investments continues to grind at a seemingly glacial pace.

This mismatch has consequences.

Regulatory delay directly affects decisions about capital allocation. When approvals, pricing frameworks, or access rules take years to finalize, uncertainty can freeze or slow corporate investment decisions. Capital is mobile; it will flow to jurisdictions where the rules of the game are clear.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out repeatedly, despite the government’s Policy Direction to the CRTC requiring regulation that is efficient, timely, and proportionate:

• Delayed decisions on wholesale access create uncertainty about returns on fibre builds.
• Slow spectrum policy processes leave operators unable to plan long‑term network evolution.
• Protracted consultations on resilience, consumer protections, or competition rules introduce risk premiums into investment models.

In an infrastructure-driven sector needing billions of dollars in annual capital investment, regulatory indecision is effectively a hidden tax on progress.

Our government says it wants more investment, more competition, more innovation. Yet the very processes designed to achieve those goals can inadvertently be undermined through regulatory delay.

Just last week, the CRTC launched a public consultation on developing a methodology for mobile coverage reporting. But as the Globe and Mail reported, the Commission “issued its request for comments nine months after it received the recommendations on which it is now asking for feedback, and three years after François-Philippe Champagne, then minister of innovation, science and industry, issued a policy directive ordering the telecom agency to develop and implement a standardized and robust approach for reporting mobile wireless coverage.”

Another recent example is the CRTC’s multi‑year consultations on network resilience and outage reporting. While the intent is sound — we all want more resilient networks — the process has become sprawling, reactive, and increasingly prescriptive. As I’ve written before, when regulators ask “which measures should be mandatory?” before understanding feasibility or cost, the result is predictable: companies pause, waiting to see what obligations will ultimately be imposed. Unfortunately, the longer the regulator takes to decide, the longer the delay in making investments in resiliency.

It took 5 years from the launch of a consultation (in October 2020), until the CRTC finalized rates (in October 2025) for competitors to attach fibre to telephone company poles. Last Friday, Bell filed an application for a Commission review, saying the CRTC made a number of errors in calculating the “final” rates.

It isn’t just the CRTC. There have been issues with the political nature of spectrum licensing – an issue that led the 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel to recommend removing the function from ISED and transferring it to a more independent regulatory body (the CRTC). Last summer I wrote about the Court admonishing the Department in handling Mobilicity’s spectrum transfer, and awarding damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars:

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.

A week and a half ago, another judicial case found that ISED had been unreasonable in rejecting the transfer of some 700MHz spectrum from Xplore Mobile to TELUS. The decision refers to the Department’s analysis invoking a criterion undisclosed to the applicants, “in preference to the more fact-based and nuanced arguments advanced by Xplore and TELUS.” As such, “ISED’s decision to reject the Licence Transfer Application was therefore unreasonable as well as procedurally unfair.”

Around the world, telecom regulators struggle to keep pace with technological change. The countries that will win the investment race are certain to have one thing in common: regulatory clarity.

Not necessarily deregulation. Not necessarily lighter regulation. Just faster, smarter, more predictable regulation.

Investors are able to price risk. How do they put a price on ambiguity?

Regulatory delay can have a compounding effect: rural builds get pushed out; urban densification slows; new entrants hesitate; equipment procurement cycles slip; and, innovation ecosystems lose momentum. Perhaps most importantly, Canada risks falling behind in the global competition for digital infrastructure — the foundation upon which AI, advanced manufacturing, and the next generation of services will depend.

If Canada wants to attract and retain private capital for communications infrastructure, regulators need to rethink not just what they decide, but how they decide.

Three principles could help:

1. Time‑bound decisions: Set firm timelines — and stick to them (such as US “Shot Clock” regulations). Uncertainty is often more damaging than an unfavourable ruling.
2. Evidence-based decision making: Policy should follow data, not narratives. As I’ve noted before, telecom prices have been falling for years, despite political rhetoric to the contrary.
3. Regulatory humility: Not every problem requires a new rule. Sometimes the best decision is to let the marketplace work.

Communications companies are ready to invest billions of dollars of capital, and have the expertise to deploy technologies that power the digital economy. What is needed is a regulatory and policy environment moving at something closer to the speed of the industry being governed.

In a world where connectivity underpins everything from economic growth to national security, Canada can not afford continued regulatory delay.

The first International Telecommunications Society (ITS) webinar of 2026 is entitled, “How AI Changes Us”. The one-hour webinar will take place February 19 at 9:30am (Eastern).

What happens to the human mind when we begin sharing the world with new kinds of intelligence?

I have been supporting the ITS webinars for a number of years now. These free one-hour sessions present global experts to an audience around the globe for interesting insights and discussion of topical issues. The last session, held in mid-November, looked at “The Productivity Paradox and the Promise of Co-Intelligence”. February’s session will include a conversation discussing “Psychology, Morality, and Meaning in an Age of Intelligent Machines”, bringing psychology to the centre of the AI debate.

The presenters for the February event are two leading psychologists working at the intersection of human behaviour, trust, and artificial intelligence:

• Paul Bloom: Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto and author of numerous books, among them The Sweet Spot and Against Empathy. Professor Bloom is widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost thinkers on moral psychology, meaning, and human motivation.
• Azim Shariff: Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia and Director of the Centre for Applied Moral Psychology. Professor Shariff is a global expert on morality, religion, and the ethics of emerging technologies, including AI.

Why do we trust some machines and fear others? Does AI change what we value and how we find meaning? How will children develop when they grow up with AI tutors and companions? What can moral psychology teach us about human-centric AI and alignment?

The webinar is scheduled for one hour, with 30 minutes dedicated to presentations and 30 minutes to question and answer.

This folks at ITS are saying “How AI Changes Us” is for anyone thinking seriously about AI, ethics, mental health, education, or the future of human flourishing in an age of intelligent machines.

Long time readers will recall that I come from a family of mental health professionals, so the theme of this upcoming webinar resonates with me. I hope to see you online on February 19.

And, please remember that Bell Let’s Talk day is coming up next week, January 21.

Last week, Rogers launched its Screen Break initiative, intended to help Canadian families address excessive screen use among youths.

The Screen Break program was developed subsequent to new research on youth screen time in Canada, surveying more than 1,200 parents and 500 teens and tweens aged 11–17. The research was conducted last October 30 – November 11, using the Angus Reid Forum, an online public opinion community.

The data offers a useful snapshot of how Canadian families are navigating the realities of smartphone use.

The findings will resonate with anyone following debates on digital‑wellbeing. It also identified important questions with respect to expectations placed on telecom service providers.

The most striking gap in the study is perceptual: Most parents see a problem; most youth don’t.

• 96% of parents care about reducing or improving screen use.
• 95% are concerned about excessive screen time.
• Only 37% of youth believe they spend too much time on their phones.

This disconnect isn’t necessarily surprising, but the scale is noteworthy. Parents overwhelmingly believe screen time is harming focus, productivity, sleep, and physical activity for their kids. Youth acknowledge some measure of risks, but nowhere near the same magnitude.

How does this divergence shape household dynamics — and perhaps, public expectations of industry?

Parents are underestimating their kids’ screen time by 90 minutes per day. Rogers’ data shows youth reporting 5 hours and 14 minutes of daily smartphone use, while their parents estimate 3 hours and 44 minutes. That’s an hour and a half blind spot.

For years I have cited Peter Drucker’s principle “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” How can parents manage their kids’ screen time, when they don’t have an accurate picture of the amount of time in the first place?

And with 89% of youth exceeding a 2‑hour guideline recommended by Canadian health organizations, the gap between parental expectations and experienced reality continues to widen.

The study stops short of claiming causation, but there are consistent correlations between higher screen time and feelings of personal well-being. Youths with 6 or more hours per day report lower overall well‑being, feeling less included or supported in their communities, and being less active physically.

These findings align with broader research: screen time itself isn’t inherently harmful, but excessive use often coexists with other challenges.

A few behavioural patterns stood out from the study. Smartphones account for 49% of all youth screen time — more than laptops, TVs, or tablets. For girls, the study found smartphones represent an even larger share (52%) of total screen time. The study found nearly half (46%) of smartphone use happens in bedrooms, not shared spaces. It’s no wonder parents don’t have a handle on their kids use of devices.

Social media dominates:

• YouTube (22%)
• TikTok (18%)
• Snapchat (15%)
• Instagram (11%)

These patterns are important because location and app mix influence both parental oversight and the nature of the content consumed.

Parents want help; nearly two-thirds (64%) of parents say tools to manage screen time would be helpful. And, subscribers increasingly expect help from their telecom service provider; 62% of parents and 55% of youth believe telecom companies have a role to play in managing screen time.

That’s a significant shift. Historically, responsibility has been placed on platforms (TikTok, YouTube), device manufacturers (Apple, Samsung), or schools. Now, families are looking upstream — to the network layer. This is where the study intersects directly with telecom policy and market strategy, creating both an opportunity and an obligation for service providers.

Implications?

• Telecom service providers are being invited into the digital‑wellbeing conversation. This is not a space the industry has traditionally occupied. The public is signalling openness — even expectation — for telcos to help families manage screen time.
• Network‑level controls may become a competitive differentiator. Parents want solutions that don’t require configuring every device or app. Telcos are uniquely positioned to offer network‑based tools, but must balance functionality with privacy, neutrality, and regulatory considerations.
• Screen time is becoming a public‑health narrative. The correlation between high screen use and lower well‑being will fuel calls for policy interventions. Telcos will need to be prepared for that discussion.
• Transparency matters. The 90‑minute gap between parent estimates and youth reality highlights the need for better reporting tools — and shared understanding within families.

Rogers’ study reinforces what many have suspected: youth screen time is high, parents are worried, and both groups see a role for telecom providers in helping manage it. I’ll have more to say in the coming weeks.

For an industry often criticized for contributing to digital overload, there is an opportunity for telecom service providers to demonstrate leadership — not by moralizing about screen use, but by offering practical, evidence‑based tools that empower families.

STAC 2026, Canada’s premier tower industry event, will be taking place April 21 – 22, 2026 at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier.

I am a long time supporter of the annual STAC Conference & Exhibition. The event is the annual gathering of the Structure, Tower and Antenna Council, a group administered within the Canadian Telecommunications Association.

STAC 2026 marks the event’s 10th anniversary, bringing together the people who physically construct Canada’s telecommunications networks. As I have written before, I’m somewhat jealous of construction workers, the people who actually build our network infrastructure. At the end of a shift, those workers can see what they accomplished. That is a huge advantage over the kinds of longer-range jobs that I have had. There has to be a special kind of job satisfaction to be able to see what actually got accomplished at the end of a shift or work day.

As in previous years, STAC 2026 will be dedicated to tower safety in Canada. The annual STAC conference is a vibrant forum for sharing crucial insights and best practices, vital to maintaining Canada’s renowned tower safety record. Located at Ottawa’s landmark Chateau Laurier just steps from Parliament Hill, STAC 2026 is expected to unite more than 300 professionals from across Canada’s communications and tower industry, spanning wireless carriers, broadcasters, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, landowners, safety equipment suppliers, and safety trainers, among others.

STAC 2026 represents an opportunity for them to convene, interact, celebrate successes, and learn from each other. This year’s Ottawa venue presents a unique opportunity to showcase Canada’s tower industry in the city where national conversations on telecommunications and infrastructure policy take shape. The day before the main event, there will be a networking luncheon for the Women of STAC Committee on April 20. The Women of STAC Committee is hosting a Welcome Reception for all delegates that evening at 6:00pm.

Let me encourage you to register now! Early bird registration pricing is available until January 23.

STAC and the STAC 2026 Conference & Exhibition are administered by the Canadian Telecommunications Association, dedicated to building a better future for Canadians through connectivity. Through its advocacy initiatives, research, and events, the Association works to promote the importance of telecommunications to Canada’s economic growth and social development and advocate for policies that foster investment, innovation, and positive outcomes for consumers. In addition to STAC, the Association also facilitates industry initiatives, such as the Mobile Giving Foundation Canada, Canadian Common Short Codes, and wirelessaccessibility.ca.

Is it time for Canada to undertake a communications sector regulatory review?

Eight years ago, the government appointed an external Panel to review Canada’s communication legislative framework. “The review examined issues such as telecommunications and content creation in the digital age, net neutrality and cultural diversity, and how to strengthen the future of Canadian media and Canadian content creation.”

The review panel’s final report, Canada’s communications future: Time to act, included many recommendations that led to legislative and policy changes. However, I’m not sure I see the report providing sufficient guidance for today’s environment.

To a certain extent, the report provided cover for initiatives the Trudeau government sought to undertake: the Online Streaming Act, the Online News Act and the controversial (and still un-passed) Online Harms Act.

All are problematic and all were predictably so. The Online News Act led Meta to pull all news links on its platforms because of the high cost of compliance. A court challenge could force a complete revisit of the Online Streaming Act. The US Trade Representative has already indicated concerns about these two acts. We’ll have to wait to see what will be contained in the next iteration of the Online Harms Act expected to be introduced this year.

The US government, in support of its technology giants, is stepping up pressure to dismantle the heavy handed funds being administered under the Online Streaming and Online News acts. In a Globe and Mail OpEd, former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies said that Canada should be prepared to sacrifice the Online Streaming Act in trade negotiations in order to save Supply Management:

Fortunately for the streamers – and very much as predicted by critics – the CRTC has become so mired in procedural muck that it has failed to fully implement the act, meaning there will be less to untangle if required. When the Online Streaming Act was passed in the spring of 2023, both then-heritage minister Pablo Rodriguez and CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides expressed confidence the process would be complete by the end of 2024. Eight of the 11 decisions the latter has made so far concerning streamers have taken at least eight months; three took more than a year, and another decision based on a process that began in 2024 has been promised for early 2026.

[As an aside, I’d be interested in what Polymarket has to say about the likelihood of any of the online bills surviving 2026.]

There are other signs that the current ways of doing things at the CRTC just aren’t working. I’m not talking about the need for little changes here and there, tailoring along the edges. Canada’s regulator is still cloaked in regulations that were designed for a monopoly era, when broadcasting needed scarce spectrum licenses, when telephone companies and cable companies were separate, and the internet was still a twinkle in Al Gore’s eyes.

It isn’t the CRTC’s fault. The regulator can only play the cards they are dealt.

It isn’t just the internet that changed things, but streaming has further exposed the frailties of the current system. Only half of Canadian households now subscribe to TV services from their cable or phone company. Just a third of households still have a wireline phone. But there remain countless regulations and subsidy systems designed for the era when nearly every household had each of those services. (A couple weeks ago, the National Post had an entertaining tribute to the wireline phone, “Last call for the landline”).

In my December 1, 2025 newsletter, I referenced lengthy delays in the CRTC’s handling applications and releasing timely decisions. 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.”

Last month, Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages had to throw a temporary lifeline for CPAC while the CRTC kicks the can down the road.

You’ll also recall my post last October talking about Cogeco asking the Federal Court to order the CRTC to release a decision. There are lots of other stale files at the Commission. For example, a reader pointed me to a tariff application seeking to destandardize some TDM-based interconnection services, because no new customers had requested them for years. The application was filed on August 1, 2024 and the CRTC standard was to issue a determination within 45 business days. On October 15, the CRTC wrote to say “Commission staff is continuing its analysis of these applications. Consequently, they will not be disposed of by the 45th business day following receipt. However, the Commission intends to issue a decision by the end of 2024.” That self-imposed deadline expired 13 months ago.

As Peter Menzies wrote, “Despite a 50-per-cent staff increase since early this century, the overwhelmed CRTC has put broadcasters in a state of stasis through license auto-renewals, while other matters, such as disputes once efficiently resolved in months, are dragging on for several years, often at great commercial cost.”

In this environment, cross-subsidies, such as cable subscribers footing the bills to operate the National Public Alert System, and CPAC, are simply unsustainable.

As I have been writing for years, the government has been using the communications industries – telecom and broadcasting – as an off-the-books taxation system funding social programs that could – and should – be funded under the general budget. The current system was designed in a monopoly era, when we all got our phones from one company and our cable TV from another, and we had no other choices.

The US government, in support of its technology giants, is adding outside pressure to dismantle the heavy-handed funding framework established under the Online Streaming and Online News Acts.

With this in mind, perhaps it is time for the government to examine another communications policy and regulatory review.

Perhaps we should consider a new approach, starting with a fresh bolt of cloth, to custom-tailor a regulatory regime that properly fits the new era.