What do we mean when we talk about affordable broadband?
As I discussed earlier this week, the CRTC’s latest wholesale policy is intended “to ensure that Canadians benefit from affordable access to high-quality Internet services.” But, the CRTC didn’t define what it considers to be affordable. I wrote that the Commission is misusing the term “affordable” as a euphemism for “lower prices.”
If you search for “affordable” on my website, you will find more than 200 different blog posts.
There really isn’t an easy answer to the issue of affordability. The knee-jerk reaction by some is that lower prices are the answer. Drop prices across the board and the service becomes affordable for all, right? Such an approach would certainly be popular. Who among us wouldn’t want lower prices for anything? For everything! Doubly so for a service that sends a bill each month. But in reality, lower average prices simply won’t solve the issue of affordability for the most vulnerable households. These homes need special targeted programs for a variety of essential services, including broadband services.
As I wrote 3 years ago, there are a wide range of options available for affordable broadband services. As that post describes, some service providers have broadband options as low as $15 per month for service operating at the CRTC’s service objective speed.
Cutting prices to that level across the board simply isn’t economically viable. As I wrote last year, affordability is a complex and multifaceted concept. Affordability varies depending on the context and the goods or services being considered. Last November, I wrote about a report examining the affordability of wireless and wireline services in Canada.
We all want to see universal adoption of today’s advanced communications services. Through the operations of various affordable broadband programs, we have learned there are factors beyond price that inhibit some from getting online.
The communications industry stepped up and introduced targeted affordable broadband services despite government resistance, as described in Ted Woodhead’s post last week. The industry-led (and industry-funded) program is not subject to the political vagaries we see in the US Affordable Connectivity Program.
It was wrong for the CRTC to set an objective for “affordable access to high-quality Internet services” without a more complete discussion or definition. The way the term was used in the wholesale broadband policy strikes me as an attempt to score political points. The Commission might consider investing its attention to the more serious challenge of identifying the non-price factors inhibiting adoption of digital connectivity.