In mid March, the FCC launched a deregulatory initiative In re: Delete, Delete, Delete (GN Docket No. 25-133).

The public notice says: “Specifically, we are seeking public input on identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. We seek comment on deregulatory initiatives that would facilitate and encourage American firms’ investment in modernizing their networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and advanced capabilities.”

I’m old enough to remember Prime Minister Harper launching a Red Tape Reduction Commission in 2011, promising to “identify options for lasting solutions to fix the regulatory system to prevent red tape “creep” over time.” How do you think that worked out for us in Canada?

On one hand, we have heard Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promise when elected to cut two regulations for every new one, but he has also promised to add all sorts of new regulations for banks and phone companies to go after scammers who target seniors.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully endorse Canada looking to cut red tape. I agree that our regulatory burden is stifling investment, increasing costs that get passed through to consumers, and limiting degrees of freedom for innovative solutions. It goes far beyond regulations created by the CRTC. We have a lot of silly laws on the books – like the requirement for paper bills – enshrined in legislation enacted by Parliament. In 2014, the same Harper government that promised to cut red tape insisted that legislation was needed to provide paper bills, even as that same government was having difficulties creating a national digital strategy. No wonder!

As former TELUS CFO Robert McFarlane wrote, performative politics gets in the way of substantive value-added public policy. It is just too easy to target big corporations like telecom carriers.

It might be inspirational to look at some of the submissions to the FCC notice. An article in Light Reading has a look at what various carriers – large and small – suggested.

As readers may have noticed, I frequently cite submissions from the International Center for Law and Economics. ICLE’s submission urges “the Commission to take the “Delete, Delete, Delete” concept as far as possible, effectuating a streamlined FCC that retains only those functions undeniably critical to national interests that cannot be handled effectively by market forces or other government entities.” Its press release summarizes the submission with 5 “Significant Initiatives”, 13 “Straightforward Regulations to Eliminate or Streamline”, and 3 “Other Agency Actions to Terminate”. The complete 23-page submission covers broadcasting and telecom red-tape reduction.

ICLE says that its proposals will “increase competition, foster innovation, and improve consumer welfare.”

A recent article by Jack Mintz names smarter regulation as one of four “big bangs” to get Canada growing again. “Oppressive regulation has been the major stumbling block to investment in Canada.”

The Conservative promise to cut 25% of all federal government red tape within two years is a good one. It is somewhat of a déjà vu experience to read the promise to pass a law requiring two regulations be cut for every new one added and ensure $2 in administrative cost savings for every $1 added.

Federal regulatory requirements on businesses have ballooned to over 149,000—nearly 20,000 more since the Liberals took office. The burden is staggering: in total, government red tape costs businesses at least $51 billion annually, and that doesn’t even account for the damage caused by regulations that block major projects like pipelines, mines, and other critical projects. The result? Canada has bled $460 billion in investment—money that has fled south to the United States that should be creating jobs and powerful paycheques here in Canada.

They are right. Government red tape costs businesses billions and therefore costs consumers billions, as well. And, red tape blocks investment, including investment in digital infrastructure.

The initiative needs to start with a program like the US. Delete, delete, delete.

A month ago, in a post entitled “Foreign ownership restrictions in turbulent times”, I asked “In view of the current international trade tensions, what are your thoughts on foreign ownership restrictions in Canadian telecom?”

While there were a couple comments on that post, as well as a few emails, I noticed a relevant entry on Ted Woodhead’s blog post last week:

Last year, I proposed a review of the Canadian ownership and control regulations for telecommunications and broadcasting companies. I have revisited the view that a more liberal approach to those regulations could spur further investment and technology transfer than the currently more restrictive regime. I now would recommend that any future government tread carefully in revisiting the restrictions. No one, a year ago could have reasonably foreseen the chaos and upheaval that would be wrought by the bad actor activities of the United States. I do not believe for the foreseeable future that we can allow foreign control of these strategic industries and networks.

A year ago, who would have thought that “bad actor” would be an appropriate phrase to attach to the United States?

He goes on to recommend that whichever party leads the next government of Canada, it should ratchet up the broadband objective to 100/10 Mbps from its current target of universal access to 50/10 Mbps service, and place a priority on funding fibre to the home projects over other technologies.

I have no issue with increasing the target speeds for access, but I prefer to have technology neutrality in government funding programs. There are some communities that simply cannot be served by wireline facilities as I described in a recent post.

If the target broadband objective gets raised, do we need to place a priority on projects that deliver 100/10 to communities that are below 50/10, or do we put upgrades on a similar footing as those delivering initial broadband?

I have long said that “some broadband” is better than “no broadband”. This is why I continue support the use of wireless solutions as part of a broadband toolkit.

Ted notes that the Liberals and Conservatives are both pledging increased investment in infrastructure and both promise to reduce the regulatory red tape. This is promising, as long as the government recognizes that we are not yet done with making affordable digital connectivity available to every household.

Should government broadband subsidies consider the ownership structure of funding recipients?

Should funding be limited to Canadian owned and controlled entities?

Should the next Canadian government have a Minister of Communications?

The Minister of Communications used to be a stand-alone Cabinet position, under both Conservative and Liberal governments. The Department of Communications oversaw radio, television, and telephone communications in Canada, and supervised the CRTC, under the authority of the Department of Communications Act.

In 1993, spectrum management and telecom policy was moved into the Department of Industry; broadcasting and oversight of the CRTC went to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

A recent OpEd in the Toronto Star argues “Canada urgently needs to re-establish a critical portfolio for the digital age and appoint a federal minister of communications.”

The authors, Peter MacLeod (principal of MASS LBP) and Taylor Owen (associate professor in the School of Public Policy at McGill) say that we need, but are lacking “a dedicated advocate to safeguard the integrity” of the communications tools, networks and services upon which Canadians rely.

From 1969 to 1996, Canada had a minister of communications who oversaw radio, television and telecommunications, ensuring our airwaves weren’t dominated by foreign interests. Under cultural champions such as Pierre Juneau, Canada boldly regulated media content, creating space for Canadian stories and voices. The famous “CanCon” rules that Juneau pioneered secured airtime for domestic artists, launching a golden era of Canadian music and television. This proactive approach wasn’t accidental — it required vision, political will and strong leadership. Juneau’s legacy demonstrates that assertive communications policy is vital to our sovereignty.

But here is the rub. Pierre Juneau’s vision, political will and strong leadership were all demonstrated during his memorable term as CRTC Chair. His term as Minister of Communications was short-lived. He did not win a seat in a by-election so he stepped down less than 2 months after his appointment as Minister in 1975. These were the early days for the CRTC. Pierre Juneau was the chair of the Bureau of Broadcast Governors when it became the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in 1968. He was the CRTC’s first Chair. He left the CRTC to join Cabinet before the CRTC transitioned to include telecommunications in 1976.

For the past five and a half years, mandate letters for relevant cabinet ministers sought legislation that expand the CRTC’s responsibilities even further to include all kinds of online activities and content. The last Parliament passed the Online News Act and Online Steaming Act, but failed in its attempts to pass controversial Online Harms legislation.

Macleod and Owen observed:

When Parliament was prorogued, two critical bills — concerning elections security and online harms — failed to pass. These overdue bills were designed to strengthen protections against foreign interference, limit harmful online content and hold digital platforms accountable. Their absence leaves Canada vulnerable at precisely the moment it needs new tools to fight back.

Earlier this year, I asked “Is it time to modernize Canada’s outdated telecommunications rules?” That piece concluded, suggesting “Maybe it’s time to modernize the Acts for a fresh, holistic look at the legislation guiding the digital sector.”

Should the CRTC be responsible for these various online acts, or does Canada’s information and communications sector need the leadership of a strong (and elected) Minister of Communications? As I suggested in January, it would be appropriate to have a fresh, holistic review of how we govern and regulate the digital sector.

Nearly 4 years ago, I wrote Taming the World Wild Web, saying “It’s no longer a question of whether the World Wild Web can be tamed. The key question is how.”

I’m not convinced we’re currently on the right path.

In in my 2021 post, I included a reference to John Perry Barlow’s 30 year old screed, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”. Barlow declared “the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.”

I disagree.

I continue to struggle with the question of how, not if. Nearly two decades ago, long time followers will recall that I participated in filing the first application to the CRTC for authority to block certain websites because of death threats. There are more than 50 posts on this blog looking at online harms and related matters.

Last summer, in Online Platform Accountability, I wrote about an ICLE paper, “Who Moderates the Moderators?: A Law & Economics Approach to Holding Online Platforms Accountable Without Destroying the Internet”.

That piece came to mind while reading a recent article by David Newhoff. In “Too Big to Care: Should Online Platforms Remain Unconditionally Immunized by Section 230?”, Newhoff argues that online platforms, or interactive computer service providers (ICSPs) owe a duty of care to those of us who use their services. He says legislation should be aimed at creating (or restoring) an incentive for ICSPs to exercise such care.

He argues that Section 230 of the US Communications Act was intended to encourage ICSPs to act to mitigate harms arising from their platforms. Instead, courts have interpreted the immunity provided by Section 230 as applying whether or not the platform is applying good-faith efforts to block or screen online harms. Quoting George Washington University law professor Mary Anne Franks:

Put simply, a law cannot incentivize the rendering of aid if that law is interpreted to confer the same benefit upon those who render aid and those who do not. Interpreting Section 230 to shield online intermediaries from liability even when they are indifferent to or benefit from harm actively undermines Good Samaritan behavior and flouts the policy decision made by Congress.

When Parliament was prorogued in early January, some heavy handed Online Harms legislation died on the Order Paper, and now we are into a federal election. As I wrote in January, perhaps a new approach should be on the legislative agenda with new leadership coming into power.

It isn’t a question of whether the World Wild Web can be tamed. The key questions are how, and when.

What is the right number of mobile operators for a country? Is there a correct number? An optimal number?

For years, Canada’s policy has been that the right number is at least four. In 2013, then Industry Minister Christian Paradis issued a statement saying “To be clear, our government wants to see at least four players in each market.”

For a dozen years, through multiple Ministers, and changes of ruling parties, the four carrier objective has been the guiding rule in Canada.

That was why I thought it was interesting to hear so many service providers in Europe calling for changes to regulations constraining consolidation. At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, CNBC wrote “Tech ‘Please unleash us,’ Europe’s telcos urge regulators as industry bangs drum for more mega-deals”. The article quotes Marc Murtra, CEO of Spain’s Telefonica:

If we’re going to invest in technology, in deep know-how, and bring drastic change, positive drastic change in Europe — like other large technological companies have done in the US or we’re seeing today in China — we need scale. To be able to get scale, we need to consolidate a fragmented market like the telecoms market in Europe. And for that, we need a regulation that allows us to consolidate. So what we do ask is: please unleash us. Let us gain scale. Let us invest in technology and bring upon productive change.

CNBC said a number of CEOs of European operators said they would be able to compete more effectively with only three main players per market. The article said three is the model that has “become the standard in places like the US, China and India.”

In a keynote address to MWC, Tim Höttges, CEO of German telco Deutsche Telekom said, “if we cannot increase our consumer prices, if we cannot charge the over-the-top players, we have to get efficiencies out of the scale which we created.”

If jumbo sized markets like the US, China and India have consolidated to 3 major players per market, and European operators are claiming they need to consolidate to build scale for investment, one has to ask whether Canadian policy makers can continue to hold onto a magic number of 4 players in each market.