A few weeks ago, I wrote about “The CRTC’s regulatory twilight zone”, where Canada’s communications regulator appears to be disconnecting expectations from reality. That post talked about the Commission’s requirement for ISPs to publish plan information in a standardized database format, as set out in its recent Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2026-238: Making it easier for consumers to shop for Internet services.
Apparently, the CRTC was unaware that AI capabilities already embedded in web browsers can compare prices today, with a query such as “which mobile carrier has the best offer for US roaming and 100GB of data and free nationwide Canada calling and texts?” No standardized database format required. No regulatory mandate needed.
Indeed, a few weeks ago, the UK regulator (Ofcom) released an update on its research, “Exploring what impact the adoption of AI could have on the experience of telecoms customers”. A note by Dean Bubley (Disruptive Analysis) observed that the report was released in the same week that Meta’s new Muse AI agents started helping people manage or renegotiate their subscriptions in the US.
Let’s look at another issue that is bound to arise: commitments to a typical internet speed. My September post referred readers to Ted Woodhead’s concerns about how the Commission defines “typical” when the service providers commit to delivering internet service. “The typical download and upload speeds are the speeds customers should expect to receive at all times which ISPs have committed to delivering during pre-sale.”
The speeds customers should expect to receive at all times. That is a pretty strong requirement, and may set an unachievable expectation in the minds of many consumers.
Unachievable, not because the service providers aren’t delivering what they promise. Unachievable because consumers may not be able to accurately measure the service quality being delivered.
There are many forms of interference that result in disconnecting expectations from reality. Roger Entner of Recon Analytics recently talked about problems introduced inside the customer’s household: a “label tax – the difference between what you buy and what you get”; and, a “Wifi tax – a mismatch between your router and your laptop”. Writing on X, he summarizes some of them as “Buy 5 Gbps fiber, but your motherboard tops out at 1 Gbps. Then Wi-Fi can take another ~90%, so a gig plan turns into 100 Mbps on the laptop. Who owns that experience, the ISP or the device ecosystem?”
When the subscriber runs Speedtest on their computer, how will they account for the other devices sharing their home network? Or devices that are injecting interference into their home network?
“Who owns that experience, the ISP or the device ecosystem?”
How many complaints to CCTS will be generated by this expectational mismatch? How will CCTS handle such complaints?
As I noted in my newsletter at the end of September, I am concerned that Canadian telecom policy is following a regressive, reactive path, adding regulations despite the presence of intense facilities-based competition. I recognize that the CRTC had to respond to the legislative changes to the Telecom Act enacted by Parliament in 2024. However, the Commission had flexibility under those provisions to be far less prescriptive in its decision, anticipating and even encouraging investment in more advanced AI capabilities by consumers and service providers alike.
Another missed opportunity.