June 12, 1992 marked the release of the CRTC’s landmark decision to open up facilities-based competition in telecommunications markets. I remember the day like it was yesterday.

The Canadian Telecom Summit was launched to celebrate the 10th anniversary of that decision; it was a kind of reunion for many of us who had been so involved in transforming the market dynamics of this sector. This year’s event marks 25 years of competitive communications in Canada. And for the past 15 years, we continue to meet each year to discuss the trends and issues that influence development in this critical sector of the digital economy.

What is the state of competition in Canada’s telecommunications industry 25 years later? That is the subject of a report being released today by the Montreal Economic Institute [6.9MB, pdf].

This year’s edition, the fourth annual report, surveys where Canada stands and finds:

• Canadians continue to enjoy competitive, quality telecommunications services, and are among the biggest consumers of telecommunications services in the world;
• Penetration and usage rates for tablets, smartphones, and LTE connections are among the highest for industrialized countries;
• Canadians continue to enjoy some of the most advanced and efficient wireless and broadband Internet services in the world;
• The prices Canadians pay for wireless services remain generally higher than in Europe and in Australia, but comparable to or lower than in the United States and Japan. However, Canada ranks first in terms of affordability when taking into account income per capita and the state of competition in the market;
• Considering the additional costs associated with the Canadian market’s low density of users per km², Canada fares relatively well both in terms of prices and in terms of the quality of services offered.

The report also examines policies that may be inhibiting the kinds of investments necessary to enable the Internet of Things (IoT). As I have recently pointed out, the report says “the CRTC too often merely pays lip service to the principles of the Policy Direction, and has largely gone back to its old interventionist ways.” The report does not entirely blame the CRTC “for the lax enforcement of the principles enshrined in the Policy Direction.” The report authors say that the Harper Government, which had introduced the Policy Direction in 2006, later “embraced a more interventionist telecom policy agenda,” with “its reaction to the CRTC’s 2011 decision on usage-based billing” serving as the most blatant example.

The report says we may need “to recognize that the Policy Direction was a good initial compromise between regulatory discretion and direct government involvement in the policy-making process, but that more is needed to counter the regulator’s documented tendency to undermine its principles.”

Looking forward, the report is concerned that bad policies will become even worse.

In the first three annual editions of this Research Paper, we made the case that the best policies to bring about an optimal level of competition in the telecommunications sector were policies that let markets decide how many players, and which ones, should offer services.

The authors reiterate their concerns given “the rising importance of the Internet of Things,” which is facilitated by investment in the next generation of wireless networks, 5G, requiring billions of dollars of further investment. The report’s conclusion warns that “policies embraced by Industry Canada and the CRTC over the past decade aimed at propping up undercapitalized wireless players and broadband resellers” could discourage investment in IoT architectures and thereby harm the economy.

A key component of the federal government’s priorities is the so-called “Innovation Agenda.” If it wants to “walk the walk” when it comes to innovation, it should stop fighting yesterday’s regulatory battles. Instead, Ottawa should adapt its policies to the new IoT reality, so as not to hamper the tremendous positive impact it will have on Canada’s economy.

The report is certain to contribute to themes being explored at The Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place June 5-7 in Toronto.

Join in the discussion.

Have you registered yet?

In 2015, the government of Canada released what it called its digital strategy, a pamphlet called Digital Canada 150 [3MB, pdf]. It set a vision:

By Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, our vision is for a thriving digital Canada, underscored by five key pillars: connecting Canadians, protecting Canadians, economic opportunities, digital government and Canadian content.

Five pillars, each with different objectives and each promising a variety of actions to achieve those goals.

How have we been doing? In “Measuring success,” I wrote, “Set clear objectives. Align activities with the achievement of those objectives. Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.”

In “Canada’s innovation scorecard, I asked “How should Canadians measure our innovation agenda? How do we define and measure success? How do we know that we are heading in the right direction?”

We are just 2 months away from Canada’s 150th birthday. How well have we achieved the vision for “a thriving digital Canada?”

A month from now, we’ll look at these issues at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 5-7 in Toronto. Have you registered yet?

All of these individuals will be speaking at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 5-7, in Toronto. Register today and save $250.

Along with another 45 panelists, these leading executives and thought leaders will share their big picture visions of where we are headed as an industry.

What role will they play in shaping how Canadian information and communications technology and services transform our business and personal lives?

And you will have a chance to ask questions, share your thoughts and engage in give-and-take with our speakers and the other attendees at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit.

• Networking and Learning.
• Forming Relationships and Exchanging Views.
• Challenging and Listening.

All of this and more is what makes The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit the must-attend event of the year.

Service providers, equipment & solutions vendors, application providers, professional services organizations, end-users, financial analysts, government and investors. All will be present at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit.

And so should you.

Register today for The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Register today (May 1) to save $250!

---

Continuing Professional Development: The time spent attending substantive sessions at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit can be claimed as “Substantive Hours” toward the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements.

I have been taking some time to write about last week’s CRTC decision creating a framework for evaluating ISP differential pricing practices.

I typically try to go beyond the simple reporting of what is in a decision, in order to help understand the background and interpret the strategic implications of the decision for industry stakeholders. Scott Prescott at Fasken Martineau produced a good summary of the decision itself.

The arbitrary nature of a number of aspects of the decision coupled with its failure to conform with the Policy Direction makes it difficult to apply my usual analysis. I disagree with the decision. As I told IT World Canada, “By removing choice, we’ve increased costs for consumers who decided to subscribe to [Vidéotron’s] service, while lowering costs for nobody. How is it anything but Orwellian to characterize that as ‘consumer-friendly’?” Would  the decision withstand an independent audit of compliance with the Policy Direction, notwithstanding the decision’s statement that it “(a) relies on market forces to the maximum extent feasible, (b) seeks to remove barriers to entry, (c) is a measure that is efficient and proportionate to its purpose.”

In any case, one might ask if there will be a way to evaluate the benefits of Canada’s differential pricing policy for internet service providers, given that the CRTC Chair said “A free and open Internet gives everyone a fair chance to innovate and for a vast array of content to be discovered by consumers.”

Heritage Minister Melanie Joly is trumpeting the decision as evidence of Canada’s support for net neutrality, providing “an advantage to Ottawa as it tries to encourage major digital media firms such as Netflix and Google to support and distribute more Canadian-made content.”

Is it an advantage for Canada to be enacting such a different framework for regulating the internet?

Among the first acts by FCC Chair Ajit Pai was to drop an investigation into differential pricing practices by US carriers. Earlier this week, a court struck down a prohibition on differential pricing issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumer and Market, since the practice is permitted by pan-European regulations.

So, as the FCC steers away from regulation of internet service providers and European courts re-affirm that regulators need to allow ISPs to differentiate their services, Canada becomes a testbed for what the CRTC has termed its overall “policy framework for net neutrality.”

As I have often asked, how will we measure success?

As one long-time observer of the Canadian regulatory scene was asking last week, should we expect capital to migrate to Canada because of our better rules? If we look at the rate of startups in Canada versus the rate in the US, should we expect that rate improve in Canada relative to US?

There will certainly be much discussion of Canada’s network neutrality framework at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place June 5-7 in Toronto. You can save $250 by registering before the end of April.

It is almost a defining characteristic for Canadians to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours to the south. The untrained ear may think we speak English somewhat similarly, but Canadians emphatically define ourselves as “not American” while we roll-up-the-rim-to-win.

That doesn’t keep us from wishing we had American-style prices for gasoline, milk, eggs, airfares, clothing and alcohol. It is springtime, and it is natural for us to look wistfully at greener grass growing on the other side of the border. And we can add to the list, unlimited mobile data plans.

So the City Council for Toronto recently passed a motion calling for the CRTC to mandate “reasonably priced unlimited data packages” as an option:

City Council direct the City Manager to convey to the Commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission the request that major telecommunications providers across Canada be required, as part of their licensing arrangements, to provide consumers with options for reasonably priced unlimited data packages that would be part of the cellular packages they offer.

This motion was passed just a few weeks after that same city council was unable to balance its own budget without increasing taxes and adding additional user fees. Leaving aside the issue of CRTC “licensing arrangements” (and retail pricing forbearance), we might consider whether increased regulation is the best way to increase price competition.

I have frequently written about looking at greener grass elsewhere. We seem to lose sight of how many of these outcomes emerge. US unlimited data plans were not introduced due to regulation, but rather in response to signals of loosening regulation from the new FCC chair, Ajit Pai.

I have written before about the cost of regulation in Canada [such as here and here]. Is it really reasonable for Toronto’s City Council to think we can regulate our way to “reasonably priced unlimited data packages”?

A recent paper by Roslyn Layton and Joseph Kane describes how Denmark “has pursued a largely laissez-faire approach to telecom regulation.”

Denmark has been praised as a broadband utopia, but observers often fail to understand the concrete decisions that helped create Danish telecommunications policy.

There is an official telecom policy direction requiring the CRTC to “rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible” and “when relying on regulation, use measures that are efficient and proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary.”

Still, a growing number of CRTC regulations (including regulating the internet) have served to reduce differentiation between service providers, such as with mobile video services (such as NFL Mobile).

Has increased regulation limited choice and reduced incentives for pricing as a competitive response? Is there another approach that could lead to improved outcomes – greener grass?

There are a couple panels at The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit [June 5-7, Toronto] that could examine this issue, among many, many more. The latest version of the brochure was updated today. Have you registered yet?