Over the past few weeks, I have been concerned about a growing number of calls for broadband to be considered a public utility. We all want to find ways to get more people to have access to broadband. Treating broadband as a public utility just isn’t the right way to get there.

In conversation with host Matt Galloway on the May 26 edition of CBC Radio’s “The Current”, Laura Tribe of Open Media said:

Matt Galloway: And so now is the time you say, to talk about this as an essential service. People have suggested that the Internet could be a public utility. What would that mean?

Laura Tribe: So the CRTC in 2016 ruled that is a basic service. That it is something of a part of our communications packages that everyone should have access to. As an essential service, it really means the government is obligated to ensure connectivity. The same way that you are guaranteed electricity or water, you would be guaranteed that there’s Internet available to you.

In reality, the CRTC didn’t rule that the internet is a basic service, as I described as “Error 1” in my blog post from a month ago, “Words matter. Accuracy matters”. No matter how many times Open Media mis-characterizes the CRTC’s broadband policy, TRP CRTC 2016-496, it won’t change.

But, let’s focus on the main subject: “Should broadband be a public utility?”

Later on that same CBC radio program, Maryam Monsef, Canada’s Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development, appeared:

Matt Galloway: So do you support the idea of the Internet being a public utility?

Maryam Monsef: I believe it’s an essential service and I’m open to the idea and one of the things that my officials and I are working on is adding and tweaking what we were ready to roll out before COVID. And this is among the many good ideas that we are considering. What are the pros? What are the cons?

Happily, Minister Monsef asked for the pros and cons.

So it was especially timely to read last Thursday’s post by University of Florida’s Mark Jamison, Director of the Public Utilities Research Center. As his biography indicates, he provides international training and research on business and government policy, focusing primarily on utilities and network industries, including directing the PURC / World Bank International Training Program on Utility Regulation and Strategy.

In “Is broadband now a public utility?”, he writes: “I thought the days of telecommunications being considered a public utility were far behind us. Then came the pandemic! Suddenly broadband seems as important as electricity. And some people believe that hands-on, utility style regulation will do a better job than competition for delivering needed broadband to everyone. I don’t know whether to think of this as Back to the Future or Deja Vu.”

His post continues with an hour-long conversation with Dr. Scott Wallsten, President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute. Dr. Wallsten was the economics director for the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, and he served as an economist for The World Bank.

A few weeks ago, Dr. Wallsten wrote “Is Broadband a Public Utility? Let’s Hope Not”. In that post, Dr. Wallsten writes, “Some argue that the importance of broadband and the gaps in usage prove we should consider broadband a public utility like electricity, water, and gas, and regulated as such.”

Sounds somewhat apropos for our current conversation, right?

Dr. Wallsten writes:

Calling broadband a public utility seems like a nifty way of solving last-mile access problems. But experience with actual public utilities should give anybody pause before advocating that approach. Electricity prices have increased more than broadband prices, innovation in electricity has been slower, and productivity growth lower. To top it off, electricity was not brought to the country faster than broadband has been.

Since Minister Monsef wants to understand “the cons” associated with broadband as a public utility, she and her team needs to consider the points made in this video. The conversation warns of the consequences of public utility regulation and also, of government ownership.

We should be wary of calls for utility-style regulation of the internet and deeply concerned about suggestions that governments (at any level) can build, operate, maintain and invest in capacity and upgrades more effectively than the private sector.

I have written many times before that the history of Government PTTs – Posts, Telephone and Telegraph – is not a proud one.

The conversation between Drs. Wallsten and Jamison is worth your time to watch; it is a must-see by officials working on Canada’s broadband policy and regulation.

As Dr. Wallsten concluded, “We need solutions to filling gaps in broadband coverage. Treating broadband the way we treat public utilities is not one of them.”

At the Rural and Remote Broadband Conference earlier this week, a number of speakers used roadways as a metaphor for a utility model of internet investment, saying that we don’t have different roads for different makes of cars.

No, we don’t. Almost every type of vehicle can ride on top of almost any road.

Then again, we don’t have different broadband networks for different applications riding on them. Almost any application can ride on top of almost any network.

The reality is that we have multiple roadways, not a single roadway to move traffic around. In the Greater Toronto Area, we even have competing roadways, with Highway 407 competing with Highway 401 for east-west traffic.

If there is any doubt about the benefits to competition in the broadband facilities business, you just need to take a look at the speed competition in Western Canada.

A little over a week ago, Shaw introduced “Fibre+ Gig”, offering residential customers gigabit download speeds. And now, TELUS has launched “TELUS PureFibre 1.5 Gigabit Internet” with 1.5 Gbps download and 940 Mbps up.

Competition in facilities is working to drive the deployment of new technologies and better service options. Real consumer choice. It is worth noting that Bell offers 1.5 Gbps service in Eastern Canada; Bell and Rogers both offer gigabit per second services.

It’s a cautionary lesson for policy makers developing plans for stimulating investment in rural broadband. When government money is used to subsidize a network, it has the potential to chase away facilities competition. While some would argue that people only need one connection, in Western Canada, we can see the evidence of the benefits of competition.

How can we design broadband subsidy programs to have the least distortionary effects on market forces?

Perhaps more than ever before, the availability of universal on-line connectivity has been a prominent part of the public conversation. With people stuck at home, awareness of the digital divide has never been more profound.

It is worthwhile taking a look at intermediate successes that should be celebrated. We should take the time to understand the significance of factors that lead to success, to see if we can replicate them in other areas.

Canadian carriers’ investment in mobile wireless has resulted in Opensignal declaring last month that Canada has the world’s fastest mobile networks. A follow-up Opensignal report tells us that “rural users in Canada on the networks of Telus, Bell Mobility and Rogers have download speeds that surpass those experienced by users in most countries.” Indeed, the report continues, saying “rural Canadian users have far better download speeds than users in five of the seven G7 countries in the world.”

While there is more work to be done in 4G availability in rural markets, Opensignal indicated that rural 4G access climbed to nearly 90%, up to 10% higher than last year.

Canada’s policy framework favouring facilities-based competition in mobile services has delivered world leading network quality, in urban and rural markets.

How do we make sure that all Canadians have access to reliable, high-speed fixed communications, including voice and high speed internet?

How should the various levels of government create the right policy environment, policies, stimulus and incentives to accelerate investment programs in un-served and under-served markets?

Still, at the end of the day, it takes more than technology to get everyone online. Universal adoption needs universal access and universal demand. Most government programs have targeted the denominator side of the equation, without sufficient focus on the numerator.

It just takes money to stimulate supply. And that over-sized ceremonial cheque makes for a great photo op.

Stimulating demand is a lot harder.

We need to start working harder at doing that hard stuff.

Statistics Canada data shows that household computer ownership has stagnated at 84-85% since around 2013. Indeed there are apparently more households that have internet service than those with computers.

Do we understand why?

What steps will we take to address the needs of Canadians who have access to affordable services, but still have chosen not to adopt digital connectivity.

As I have written before, “A national broadband strategy needs leadership to understand and deal with concerns and fears that may inhibit adoption. It will take more than technology to get everyone online.”

River TV, Canada’s first live and on-demand streaming TV service, officially launched today, giving home-bound Canadians another option for video content. The service has spent the past 6 months in trials.

The service runs on an app on a variety of platforms: Roku streaming players, Amazon Fire, Android TV (including NVIDIA SHIELD and Google Play-enabled TVs), and Apple TV. For mobile, there is currently an iOS version with Android promised soon.

The content library is growing with a combination of live-TV and thousands of hours of on-demand content. The channel line-up currently includes: Global, Showcase, W Network, CHCH, History, H2, Adult Swim, Slice, Teletoon, Treehouse, YTV, MovieTime, Lifetime, Crime & Investigation, National Geographic, Smithsonian Channel, Silver Screen, plus US streaming channels that RiverTV says are only available in Canada on its service, such as Cheddar, Newsy, Law & Crime, Newsmax, Real Vision, REVOLT and DrinkTV.

You may be asking where are the channels from Bell Media and Rogers Media, like CTV or City-TV?

As a virtual broadcast distribution service, RiverTV’s service falls under the new media exemption, relieving it of most regulatory obligations. But as a corollary, there is also no obligation for content providers to make their channels available. As a result, RiverTV needs to negotiate access and reach a mutually agreeable business arrangement with content providers. Today, RiverTV aggregates specialty channels from Canadian programming groups including Corus, Blue Ant Media, Channel Zero and Wildbrain (formerly DHX), as well as a variety of US channels.

On the other hand, RiverTV is just $16.99 per month (after a 7-day free trial), with no contracts and the ability to cancel or restart your subscription at any time.

RiverTV is the latest entry by VMedia, a company with a nine-year history of disrupting Canada’s TV marketplace. Recall a 2016 post mentioning VMedia’s attempt to make QVC available to Canadians. The process to reconsider the CRTC’s original determination has been sitting at the Commission for more than 2 years since the file closed. The Federal Court of Appeal had found the CRTC’s April 2016 denial to be unreasonable.

The rules that govern access to content by over-the-top services were clarified by a court ruling in 2016 by another VMedia case.

It will be interesting to see if RiverTV can continue to increase the selection of on-demand content and additional live channels.

With so many people spending so much time at home, will RiverTV find a receptive segment in the market? Will this prove to be an especially opportune time to launch?

Do you have any spare computers collecting dust?

Does your company regularly upgrade computers for your economics, engineering or graphics departments?

There is no better way to dispose of those machines than by donating them to Canada’s Computers for Schools Plus program to be refurbished, re-used, or recycled responsibly. Since 1993, the program has distributed more than 1.7 million refurbished computers to schools, non-profits and low-income households.

Concerned about the data on those machines? As noted in a recent article in the National Post, the program uses industry best-practices and can issue Certificates of Destruction. “The measures in place meet the requirements of the federal government, including the program’s largest single donor, the Department of National Defense.”

There is a different Computers for Schools agency in each province and territory. Each has put in place health and safety procedures to protect donors and staff during these times.

Contact your local agency to learn how you can help. Learn more about Computers for Success here.