Last week, the CRTC issued its long overdue regulatory policy decision, Telecommunications in the Far North [TRP CRTC 2025-9]. The CRTC’s Phase II review process was launched nearly three years ago, following an initial consultation launched in November 2020. Remember the CRTC’s promise in October to “continue to issue timely and clear decisions”.
In its press release, the Commission pointed to three key actions to help improve services in the Far North:
First, the CRTC is requiring Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel), the region’s largest service provider, to automatically reduce customers’ bills when Internet services are disrupted for 24 hours or more. These credits will help address the impact of network outages on residents’ daily lives.
Second, the CRTC is making it easier for other Internet service providers to use Northwestel’s network to sell services to customers. This will help foster competition and provide more choice in the Far North.
Third, the CRTC is launching a public consultation to develop a subsidy to help improve affordability. This subsidy will help bring the cost of Internet services in the Far North closer to those in other parts of the country.
I will let others comment on whether a mandated couple dollars in bill credits (imposed solely on Northwestel) is a meaningful incentive to improve network reliability. The subject of reliability begins at paragraph 124 of the Decision.
I am also going to bypass the Commission’s approach to wholesale in the Far North. The CRTC says it will have a follow-up proceeding to determine the rates for Northwestel’s Wholesale Connect service, after waving its hands over a magical assumption that “rates for Wholesale Connect can be low enough to allow competitors to enter the market, but high enough not to harm investment” [see: paragraph 214].
Let’s open the discussion of the subsidy plan, recognizing that the Commission has just launched its “Call for comments – Implementing a retail Internet service subsidy in the Far North”. Initial interventions are due February 18 and replies 10 days later. The consultation opens with a statement:
The Far North is an exceptionally challenging region to build and maintain telecommunications infrastructure. The remoteness of communities, low population density, and geography make providing telecommunications services much more expensive than elsewhere in Canada. This has led to unaffordable Internet prices for many residents.
In last week’s Decision, the CRTC decided to offer a universal subsidy, funded by the National Contribution Fund. In other words, telecom subscribers across Canada will pay a little more, regardless of their own ability to pay, in order to provide subsidies to residents of the Far North, regardless of their actual financial need.
I recognize that the prices charged for internet services in the Far North are higher than prices for comparable services in much of the rest of Canada. I also recognize that there are some people for whom those prices are unaffordable. However, let’s also consider household income levels. According to Statistics Canada, in 2020, the national median household income was $84,000. Yukon’s median household income was $100,000; NWT was $127,000; and, Nunavut was $118,000. Half of all households in the Northwest Territories had more than $127,000 in income. None of the 10 provinces had 6-figure median household incomes. So, while prices for telecom services are higher than in the Far North, it is overly simplistic, and somewhat patronizing, to conclude that these prices are universally unaffordable.
The CRTC notes [at paragraph 14] “that residents of the Far North pay, on average, more than one and a half times what Canadians living elsewhere in the country pay for a 50/10 Mbps service”. In reply to that statement, I think it is relevant that, on average, the median household income in the three territories is more than one and half times the median household income of each of the provinces east of Ontario.
It is worth referring back to my post from May of 2023, Affordability of telecommunications services, where we examine a variety of measures of affordability. Looking at price alone is somewhat sophomoric.
Fifteen years ago I asked “Does geography determine needs”. As I wrote then, if we are concerned with broadband affordability, shouldn’t the subsidy be needs-based, independent of where the person lives? Nearly 17 years ago I first called for the development of a needs-based subsidy program. That is what ultimately led to Connected for Success from Rogers, Internet for Good from TELUS, and the national Connecting Families program. All of these are funded completely by the participating telecom service providers.
I am somewhat surprised that the 86 page decision failed to mention that NWTel announced its participation in Connecting Families during the course of the oral hearing in 2023. That program offers eligible low-income families and seniors access to internet services for as little as $10 per month. How was that announcement completely ignored in the decision?
In addition, I need to point to the 18-page dissenting opinion filed by Commissioner Claire Anderson, appended to the Decision [pdf, 821KB]. Long time readers of my blog know that I love writing about dissenting opinions.
From her opening sentence, Commissioner Anderson is clear. “I fundamentally disagree with the majority decision in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-9 (the Decision) that the most meaningful and effective means of achieving affordable and accessible telecommunications services in the North is to provide a uniform subsidy to all telecommunications service providers, including international players”. She also takes issue with the majority’s finding on wholesale.
There are 12 pages in the main body of the Decision devoted to “Reconciliation in the Far North” [paragraphs 279-351]. The summary of the Decision was made available in: Inuktitut (South Baffin) [HTML and pdf], Inuinnaqtun [HTML and pdf], South Slavey [HTML and pdf], and Tłı̨chǫ (Dogrib) [HTML and pdf].
Commissioner Anderson is harsh in the closing of her dissent as she turns to the issue of reconciliation. As the first Indigenous woman (a citizen of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation) and first Yukon resident to be appointed to the CRTC, one might have expected her perspectives to carry a little extra weight around the board table. She was clearly disappointed with the outcome. “We invited Indigenous people to invest their time and efforts into making submissions on the record with the promise that we would be listening, under the premise that we would be responsive.” [paragraph 57 of the Dissent]
“Unfortunately, with all respect, the regulatory outcomes provided for in the Decision suggest that this meaningful engagement did not go both ways.” [paragraph 61]
And her concluding paragraph [63]:
We cannot say that we are advancing reconciliation or that we considered what Indigenous people had to say about UNDRIP and modern treaties. Indigenous intervenors, like Ms. Southwick, wanted to “move mountains” and asked us to create a more level playing field in which Indigenous people could participate more fulsomely in the economy. This was an opportunity for transformative regulatory change. Instead, the Commission responded by putting art on the walls.
More than four years after the first consultation was launched until the CRTC delivered its policy for the Telecommunications in the Far North. As far as the Commissioner Anderson was concerned, instead of transformative regulatory change, the Commission provided summaries in 4 indigenous languages – putting art on the walls.