Most of us take network reliability for granted. We expect our devices to be connected wherever we are. We expect calls to get through, emails to clear the outbox, direct messages to be received.

In a survey of US mobile consumers, Opensignal reports that reliability ranks second only to cost when deciding on a wireless carrier. Network reliability is considered twice as important as data transmission speed.

And indeed, most of the time, the networks work.

Still, we have all had the frustration of entering a dead zone, or experiencing a networks failure. Canadian carriers are investing billions of dollars each year improving coverage and extending network reach. As reported by PwC [pdf, 5.5MB], Canadian mobile carriers are reinvesting 17.9¢ of every dollar of revenue, a capital intensity 23% higher than that of the US (14.6¢) and upwards of 50% more than Australia (11.6¢).

Earlier this year, I wrote about network resilience. In that post, I referred to a White Paper by Dr. Georg Serentschy, the former head of the Austrian telecom regulator and past chair of BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication). That paper included a recommendation calling for the establishment of a central coordinating body as “an important step towards overcoming the usual historically fragmented governance structures.”

A few weeks ago, I took a somewhat critical look at the CRTC’s recently released strategic plan. A year ago, the CRTC’s action plan included a bullet point to “Work with government partners to improve the reliability of Canada’s networks, including access to emergency services”. No comparable activity is listed in this year’s plan. The closest is an action calling for “issuing a decision to help improve the reliability, affordability, and competitiveness of telecommunications services in the Far North.”

To me, that doesn’t go far enough.

More than a year ago, the file closed for the CRTC’s consultation on “Development of a regulatory framework to improve network reliability and resiliency”. We still have not seen the outcome of that consultation.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released “A Telecommunications Reliability Agenda” last year, with “three pillars at its core”:

• Robust Networks and Systems
• Strengthening Accountability
• Coordinated Planning and Preparedness

As Dr. Serentschy writes, “governments cannot tackle these challenges alone, nor can industry.”

When we are accustomed to always-on, high quality communications services, it is easy to become complacent with the concepts of network reliability and resilience. The topic should remain a focus for carriers, regulators, and agencies at all levels of government.

Last week, my post included a discussion of what can happen to capital resources when network operators find an inhospitable telecom policy environment.

Building effective network resilience requires a regulatory and policy framework that actively promotes network investment. Consider the resultant improvement in network reliability to be an intangible public dividend.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw two articles by academics writing in the Hill Times, each looking at rural broadband solutions. Each presented a different perspective.

In “Tackling the ‘wicked’ rural broadband gap”, by Professor Gregory Taylor of University of Calgary, the subtitle says: “Policymakers must resist the temptation to throw up their arms in frustration, or—worse—leave the entire problem to the whims of Elon Musk.”

“Towards a new Canadian broadband future?” was written by Professor Erik Bohlin, the Ivey Chair in Telecommunication Economics, Policy, and Regulation at Ivey Business School at Western University. The subtitle on his article reads “We will need to face the reality that the fundamental competition now is not primarily between the telecom carriers, but with other value systems.”

Professor Bohlin writes about “Canada’s lagging productivity and weak investment climate, especially around broadband infrastructure, which provides a foundation for a thriving digital economy… Long-standing gaps with the United States in both labour productivity, and information and communications technology investments have been identified by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development”

In the past two months, we have seen two major corporate transactions among Canadian telecom operators. Bell announced a $5B acquisition of US-based Ziply Fiber. adding 1.3M addresses to its fibre footprint. Rogers invested $4.7B to take majority control of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. Each deal represents investment in businesses that are independent of Canada’s telecom policy framework.

Earlier this month, the UK moved closer to approving the merger of mobile operators, Three and Vodafone. The Competition and Markets Authority set out a remedy package that would permit the deal to go through, taking the UK down to 3 carriers in a market with 93 million mobile subscribers in a land area a quarter the size of Ontario.

My immediate reaction to the Bell transaction was that this is another indictment of Canada’s telecom regulatory and policy framework. I wasn’t alone with this line of thinking. TD Securities wrote “Having some diversification into the U.S. could be useful if Canadian market conditions do not improve, and we like the flexibility to allocate less capex to Canada and more to the U.S. if future government/regulatory policies do not reward investment in Canada.”

Professor Bohlin points to the CRTC’s mandated wholesale access to fibre networks as “pivotal for investment incentives.” He notes that for 25 years, the European Union “followed a primary emphasis on mandated access in telecoms, and has lower rates.” The EU identified a telecom investment gap in the order of 200-billion euros required to achieve connectivity targets for 2030. An EU white paper [pdf, 555KB] calls for an increased focus on investment incentives for advanced communications infrastructure.

Incentives to invest is a common theme on this blog. Professor Bohlin calls for “increased dialogue between industry and government about the fundamental objectives for developing a strong, viable Canada, and the enabling role that telecom infrastructure may play in achieving that vision”.

I read the Taylor piece with a more critical eye, given that he erroneously states “most telephone service of the 20th century was provided by public provincial, and, in some cases, municipal services — MTS, SaskTel, Alberta Government Telephones, Edmonton Telephone, and BC Tel — which had to step in when the private sector came up short.” (One of those companies – BC Tel – is not like the others.)

Professor Taylor’s article complains about the number of rural Canadians who still lack access to broadband services that meet the CRTC’s national objective.

It has been eight years since the CRTC made the bold 2016 objective that “Canadians in urban, rural, and remote areas can access affordable, high-quality telecommunications services,” and set 50 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 10 Mbps upload as the ambitious targets to qualify as the required speeds. That audacious goal doubled the 2015 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) target when the American regulator set benchmark speeds at 25/3 Mbps. However, this once-bold policy stand is starting to look increasingly timid in 2024. In its recent 2024 Broadband Deployment Report, the FCC raised its fixed speed benchmark for broadband to 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload.

I have written before that when some Canadians are wanting for any kind of affordable broadband, it takes a measure of arrogance to proclaim that 50 Mbps isn’t good enough.

The latest CRTC’s data is nearly two years old. At year-end 2022, 93.1% of Canadians had access to broadband exceeding the objective. That blended average is composed of 99.4% urban and 67.4% rural. So the focus on rural connectivity is understandable. Still, it is unclear why Professor Taylor used even older 2021 data in his article, saying that only 62% of rural households had access to the broadband objective. We can see a significant improvement was made between 2021 and 2022, growing from 62% to 67.4%. More work needs to be done, but 5.4% represents more than 350,000 people, a substantial achievement.

In the coming weeks, I am working on a post that takes an in-depth look at technology adoption and affordability. Watch for it on these pages

Professor Taylor’s article concludes with a reference to wholesale access to fibre networks, somehow seeing increased competition as a regulatory initiative promoting investment. The CRTC itself recognizes the deleterious impact of mandated access on investment incentives and its decisions attempt to mitigate those concerns.

A few years ago, I wrote “Isn’t some broadband better than nothing?”. For people without access, the best rural broadband solutions are the ones that can be delivered now. Three years ago, I wrote, “Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien.”

In developing rural broadband expansion, it is impractical to restrict solutions to universal fibre access. It is better to get some broadband service to unserved areas rather than wait for so-called future-proof connectivity.

We can’t wait for a perfect solution for broadband for all Canadians. But we can strive to do a lot more, a lot better, and a lot sooner.

That means improving the conditions that promote investment in advanced digital infrastructure.

Last night’s Cabinet directive on the CRTC’s wholesale fibre decision (2023-358) may show signs of tangled up regulatory processes.

Ted Woodhead has a good review of the issues that were under review and the likely resolution. As an aside, if you don’t already subscribe to his blog, you should.

As Ted writes,

In an after hours announcement Minister Champagne directed the CRTC to reconsider its earlier decision to mandate High Speed Access resale allowing the large incumbents Bell, Rogers and Telus to resell each others’ FTTH services in Ontario and Quebec.

Of course the Minister couldn’t just say that, he first had to deny the Bell Petition that would have rescinded the wholesale decision altogether or vary it on his motion. Rather than do that himself, the Minister referred it back to the CRTC to *ahem* reconsider.

Ted’s blog post discusses the issues motivating the review, so I won’t get into that aspect of the Cabinet determination.

I want to focus on the process. Why couldn’t the Minister make the changes that are implicit in Minister Champagne’s statement and the Order by the Governor-in-Council itself?

The answer may be found in certain government processes that create challenges under the timelines set out in the Telecom Act. I have written before about the various channels of appeals of a CRTC decision. In this particular case, Bell appealed to Cabinet, which engaged the timelines set out in Section 12(1) of the Act.

12(1) Within one year after a decision by the Commission, the Governor in Council may, on petition in writing presented to the Governor in Council within ninety days after the decision, or on the Governor in Council’s own motion, by order, vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration of all or a portion of it.

Unpacking that complicated sentence, this means that you have 90 days to file an appeal (a written “petition”) following a CRTC decision you don’t like. If Cabinet wants to act, it has until one year after the CRTC decision to make changes to the decision (“vary”), rescind the decision, or refer it back to the Commission for them to do the dirty work. Note that Cabinet can act on its “own motion”, meaning that it doesn’t need to wait for a “petition” to come it. Cabinet can also simply allow the calendar to run out and do nothing.

Let’s look at the timetable for last night’s Cabinet Order. The CRTC issued Telecom Decision CRTC 2023-358 on November 6, 2023. As stated in the Order, Bell filed its petition on February 2, 2024 (88 days after the Decision). Cabinet released its Order on November 6, 2024, exactly one year after the Decision.

The language of the Order implicitly tells the CRTC the expected outcome from its “reconsideration”. So why didn’t Cabinet use its powers to vary the Decision itself? After all, the CRTC already has such a jammed up schedule that its strategic plan calls for “addressing backlogs”.

Could it be that the Treasury Board’s regulatory impact analysis requirements have created so much red tape that Cabinet cannot complete the required impact analysis and still conform to the one-year review deadline set out in the Telecom Act?

As a result, asking the CRTC to “reconsider” allows Cabinet to bypass the impact process, but its add more work to a Commission already tangled up with its own work schedule.

It is also worth noting that the CRTC’s decision from last year (2023-358) has been superseded by the CRTC’s release a couple weeks ago of rates for the broader competition policy framework set out in August.

Last night’s Order in Council includes an explicit reference to the August decision, but it does not reference the CRTC’s October 25 interim rates order. At paragraph 9, doesn’t that CRTC order explicitly address the competitive and investment issues contained in the Cabinet reconsideration directive?

9. The interim rates will allow competitors to better serve Canadians using the latest available technology. The rates will provide competitors with the opportunity to innovate and to attract customers by selling a range of communications services over FTTP, including Internet, television, home phone, and smart home solutions. The rates will also ensure that those who build Internet networks will continue to invest in high-quality Internet access across Canada.

Will the CRTC respond to the Cabinet reconsideration with finalizing the interim rates set in October, or will more substantive changes be made?

The clock is ticking on the CRTC’s August 13, “Competition in Canada’s Internet service markets” framework. If a petition to Cabinet is going to be filed, the 90-day deadline is coming up early next week.

---

(Today’s blog post title is a nod to Bob Dylan’s Tangled Up in Blue, with apologies)

October saw two irregular process letters from the CRTC that reek of political interference.

On October 7, a letter was sent to Bell, Rogers and TELUS, “calling on Canada’s large cellphone companies to take immediate action to reduce roaming fees.”

The Commission expects Bell Mobility Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., and TELUS Communications Inc. to report back by 4 November 2024 on the concrete steps they are taking to respond to these concerns. If the Commission finds that sufficient action is not taken, it will launch a formal public proceeding.

Another letter dated October 30 was sent to Bell, Cogeco, Eastlink, Northwestel, Rogers, Quebecor, Sasktel, Telebec, and TELUS saying, “It has come to my attention that customers have recently reported being surprised by increases in fees related to their services during their commitment periods and are frustrated at the situation.”

If the actions of service providers negatively impact the price certainty that customers deserve and that the Consumer Protection Codes are designed to ensure, as the Vice President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy of the CRTC, I will be directing CRTC Staff to determine what regulatory processes need to be launched to create safeguards that will limit these actions on a going forward basis.

Hold on.

In each case, the CRTC reminds the service providers that there are Codes in place that provide certain consumer protections to address the concerns. Yet, the form of the letter is somewhat coercive, threatening new regulatory processes if the service providers don’t fall into line. But, if there is a code of conduct already in place, why send these letters?

Let’s face it. The last thing the CRTC wants to do is launch a substantial regulatory process. The Commission has long recognized the trouble it has with its internal processes.

A year ago, the CRTC’s Action Plan committed to “Make faster and more transparent decisions”. This year’s Strategic Plan is less ambitious on that point, saying instead, “The CRTC will continue to: Issue timely and clear decisions; address the historical backlog of Part 1 applications and post new ones as they are received; and inform Broadband Fund applicants of the status of their application once a decision has been made.”

Look at an example of the CRTC’s Review of the Broadband Fund. The consultation opened more than a year and a half ago. A CRTC director recently was quoted in an industry newsletter: “We hope to have a decision come out probably in the next year or so”. That adds up to three or more years.

With the international roaming letter, the CRTC is seeking a solution for an issue that is no longer a problem. The marketplace has already provided a wide range of options. As I described a few weeks ago, consumers already have access to plans that include roaming to many of the most popular destinations. Freedom Mobile has plans available that include data as well as unlimited talk and text for roaming in 92 countries. There are add-on passes that provide similar access for up to 101 countries for as little as $30 for 30 days.

Both of the October letters refer to consumer Codes put in place by the CRTC. As noted in the October 30 letter, “The Consumer Protection Codes are designed to rebalance the relationship between customers and their service providers – to empower them in these relationships.”

Is the CRTC now saying that these Codes have been ineffective?

The CRTC established the CCTS – the Commission for the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services to deal with violations. Has CCTS been unable to deal with Code violations? If not, what motivated the irregular process letters?

Was the press release issued late in the day on November 5 supposed to make us think consumers just don’t know about the CCTS?

As a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC has to adhere to the rule of law, “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private … are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.” As the Supreme Court of Canada has written, “At its most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the citizens and residents of the country a stable, predictable and ordered society in which to conduct their affairs. It provides a shield for individuals from arbitrary state action.”

The not-so-veiled threats in the Commission letters appear to be opening an irregular process to deal with political concerns. There are Codes already in place, and there are established offices and processes to deal with violations. If the CRTC is seeking to modify those Codes, it must conduct a public review through its consultation process.

The tone, and the approach, in the two October CRTC letters struck me as unusual for a body that describes itself as “an administrative tribunal that operates at arm’s length from the federal government”.

Lately, the length of those arms seem to be a lot shorter.

The CRTC released its strategic plan last week. It is subtitled “Connecting Canadians through technology and culture”.

To be blunt, the strategic plan is light on details. In my view, it reads more like a preliminary outline than a plan.

There are three broad headings:

• Promoting competition and investment to deliver reliable, affordable, and high-quality Internet and cellphone services;
• Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework and creating the bargaining framework for the Online News Act; and
• Investing in the CRTC to better serve Canadians.

Under that first heading, it is interesting that the CRTC only refers to “internet and cellphone services”. Personally, I prefer to refer to “mobile services” in order to better capture the breadth of devices. More importantly, the idea of fixed telephone services is absent. Why wouldn’t the CRTC address a multi-dimensional approach, referring to voice and data, fixed and mobile?

The CRTC will continue to:

• Implement a renewed approach to Internet and cellphone competition, which includes ensuring the rates that competitors pay to access the networks of the large Internet and cellphone companies are just and reasonable.
• Monitor the markets for Internet and cellphone services to ensure the right balance between increased competition and continued investment in high-quality networks.
• Work with government partners to help connect rural, remote and Indigenous communities to high-speed Internet, including by: approving projects as part of the Broadband Fund’s third call for applications; launching a process to create an Indigenous stream of the Broadband Fund; and issuing a decision to help improve the reliability, affordability, and competitiveness of telecommunications services in the Far North.
• Support and protect consumers, including by: making cellphone use more affordable when Canadians travel internationally and within Canada; making shopping for Internet services easier; enhancing protections for outages; and consulting on new measures to help reduce online spam and nuisance calls.
• Work with provinces, territories and municipalities to help support the implementation of next-generation 9-1-1.

At least one industry veteran observed “It appears to be essentially doing tomorrow what it was doing yesterday.”

Indeed, the press release for this year’s Strategic Plan links to last year’s Areas of Focus (2023), a document dating back at least 17 months (according to the Internet Archive).

Headlines have been updated, but the three themes remain intact. “Promote competition to deliver reliable and high-quality Internet and cellphone services to Canadians at lower prices” became more balanced with “Promoting competition and investment to deliver reliable, affordable, and high-quality Internet and cellphone services”. “Modernize Canada’s broadcasting system to promote Canadian and Indigenous content” became “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework and creating the bargaining framework for the Online News Act”. “Improve the CRTC to better serve Canadians” changed to “Investing in the CRTC to better serve Canadians”. (That last one sounds like a warning it is going to cost more money.)

In the new plan, “Actions” have become more detailed and the CRTC sets out desired outcomes for each of its areas of focus. It is likely helpful for us to have a clear understanding of the outcomes being sought by the regulator. Perhaps it is precisely the increased details in the plan that gives me pause.

The Commission should resist the temptation to follow a path of centralized management of the communications industry. That is an approach that might have been better suited to what was once called a ‘Soviet-style monopoly’ era.

We have seen an increased level of regulatory micro-management of the telecom sector as I described a few weeks ago. At the beginning of 2024, I had a post asking “Can light touch regulation benefit consumers?”

Last year, we read “The CRTC will make faster and more transparent decisions”. This year, “The CRTC will continue to issue timely and clear decisions; address the historical backlog of Part 1 applications and post new ones as they are received; and inform Broadband Fund applicants of the status of their application once a decision has been made.” It sounds like a wordier way of promising the same thing.

As the CRTC moves to execute its strategic plan, it should consider increased regulatory humility and understand the potential consumer benefits to arise from a lighter hand on the market.

Who knows? Maybe it will be result in making faster and more transparent decisions.