Rogers’ recent Screen Break initiative has sparked a broader question that the industry hasn’t really confronted head‑on: what role, if any, should telecom service providers play in digital wellbeing?
It’s not a hypothetical. The data shows that 62% of parents and 55% of youth believe telcos should help address screen‑time challenges. That’s a remarkable shift in public expectation — and one that places the industry at an unexpected crossroads.
Australia and France have recently placed age restrictions on the use of social media by youths. Legislators in other countries, including Canada, are looking at similar age limits. At the same time, scientific studies do not appear to support legislative prohibitions. A recent Australian study published by JAMA Pediatrics found “moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being.” Last month, Oxford’s Journal of Public Health published a study that found “There was no evidence that time spent on social media or gaming frequency predicted later internalizing symptoms among girls or boys.”
The Globe and Mail reports that Canadian government officials are considering a ban for kids under 14 years old. The scientific evidence doesn’t support legislative prohibitions. Instead, as my doctor says about most things I find enjoyable, the studies show that moderation is key.
For decades, telcos have provided the plumbing for our digital world: essential, foundational, but largely invisible. Digital wellbeing, by contrast, has traditionally been the domain of platforms, educators, and parents. Yet here we are, with families looking for help.
So what does that actually mean? Is there a case for telco involvement?
- Parents are increasingly frustrated by the fragmented nature of device‑level and app‑level controls. A network‑level solution — simple, centralized, and device‑agnostic — is appealing.
- At the same time, public trust in platforms is eroding. Social media companies are not seen as neutral actors in the wellbeing debate. Telcos, by contrast, are viewed as utilities. That neutrality creates permission space.
- The research indicates that the market wants help from their phone company. When two‑thirds of parents want tools, that’s more than a niche. It seems to be an adjacent product category waiting to be defined.
On the other hand, arguments can be made against telco involvement. Network‑level parental controls raise legitimate questions, such as questions about privacy and network neutrality. What data would need to be collected? Who will decide which apps are “healthy”? How does the industry avoid accusations of privileging or penalizing certain apps? Will this lead to regulatory entanglement? Once telcos step into wellbeing, will regulators and policymakers expect them to enforce standards? Or worse, will regulators and policymakers define those standards?
A pragmatic way forward may be for service providers to avoid becoming the arbiters of digital wellbeing. Instead, look for a suite of tools, such as usage dashboards, time‑of‑day parental controls, and household‑level profiles. These would be for parents to opt into, not rules imposed from above. Connectivity with context.
The industry has an opportunity to support families without becoming moral gatekeepers. It would be a focus on empowerment, not enforcement, developing tools respecting privacy, neutrality, and user choice. Can service providers support parents by providing the tools needed to parent responsibly?
Whether or not the industry wants it, digital wellbeing is becoming part of the telecom conversation. The question now is how to develop the category responsibly.