STAC 2024, Canada’s premier tower industry event, will be taking place March 26 – 27, 2024 at the Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre.

I am a long time supporter of the annual STAC Conference. The event is the annual gathering of the Structure, Tower and Antenna Council, a group administered within the Canadian Telecommunications Association.

STAC 2024 brings together the people who physically construct Canada’s telecommunications networks. As I have written before, I have frequently been jealous of people who work in construction. At the end of a shift, those workers can see what they accomplished. That is a huge advantage over the kinds of longer range jobs that I have had.

The event is dedicated to tower safety in Canada. The annual STAC conference is a vibrant forum for sharing crucial insights and best practices that are vital to maintaining Canada’s renowned tower safety record. Located at Vancouver’s downtown Sheraton Wall Centre, STAC 2024 is expected to unite more than 300 professionals from across Canada’s communications and tower industry, spanning wireless carriers, broadcasters, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, landowners, safety equipment suppliers, and safety trainers, among others.

We have clearly seen the essentiality of these dedicated telecommunications professionals:

• as the communications industry continues to extend service to rural and remote areas;
• communications services providers reinforce network resilience in the face of changing weather patterns; and
• carriers enhance and expand 5G networks in urban, rural and private applications.

STAC 2024 represents an opportunity for them to convene, interact, celebrate successes, and learn from each other.

STAC and the STAC 2024 Conference & Exhibition are administered by the Canadian Telecommunications Association, which is dedicated to building a better future for Canadians through connectivity. Through its advocacy initiatives, research, and events, the Association works to promote the importance of telecommunications to Canada’s economic growth and social development and advocate for policies that foster investment, innovation, and positive outcomes for consumers. In additiona to STAC, the Association also facilitates industry initiatives, such as the Mobile Giving Foundation Canada, Canadian Common Short Codes, and wirelessaccessibility.ca.

What is the cost of misinformation?

We know that there is a real societal cost associated with viral misinformation, but what price do purveyors pay to spread their messages?

It turns out, it is pretty cheap. according to a recent article in Fortune, “For as little as $7, TikTok users can garner thousands of views on TikTok, opening a low-cost pathway to spread propaganda on hot-button topics.” The article discusses a surge in social media misinformation triggered by the Middle East conflict.

In Canada, we have seen senior politicians spreading misinformation in poorly informed social media messages, with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister of Innovation all implicating Israel in killing hundreds by bombing a Gaza hospital, when in fact the explosion was caused by a misfired terrorist rocket that didn’t hit the hospital.

It is shameful that none of these three senior politicians have deleted their posts or issued an online clarification. The closest we had was a late night post by Canada’s National Defense Minister (more than 4 days later), absolving Israel from blame. With nearly 7 million followers, the quick-to-tweet politicians didn’t have to pay for their false messages to go viral. The Prime Minister’s post has been viewed more than 2.6 million times, and it was reposted by more than 5,000 other users. The Foreign Minister’s post was seen more than 2.2 million times. By way of contrast, the Defense Minister has only 41,500 followers, less than 1% of the Prime Minister’s 6.5 million. By the time his post was issued, the damage was done.

So, how do we measure the cost of misinformation, especially when the misinformation is spread by people who are supposed to know better?

I have written about government regulation of online harms a number of times in the past. A few weeks ago, in “Regulating misinformation”, I asked “What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?”

The article in Fortune indicates TikTok “has had its share of criticism for propagating problematic content. It has faced multiple lawsuits for surfacing suicide, self-harm and disturbing content to kids, leading to mental health consequences.”

The BBC writes that “TikTok and Meta have been formally told to provide the EU with information about the possible spread of disinformation on their platforms relating to the Israel-Gaza conflict.” Under the terms of the EU’s Digital Services Act, companies must respond by set deadlines.

Recently, the Government of Canada announced that it plans to move forward with a bill addressing “online hate speech and other internet-related harms.” The Government of Canada’s website on Online Safety says “Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.”

How will the legislation deal with the possibility that the online harms originate with the government itself?

As it turns out, the speed of a household internet connection isn’t what is driving broadband traffic. The amount of data used by a household is more closely correlated to demographic factors than the subscribed data rate.

That finding was reported in the October issue of Telecommunications Policy, based on studying usage data from Ofcom, the UK telecom regulator. “What drives broadband traffic?” found demographic factors appear to be the key drivers of traffic volumes. For example, “areas with larger households, younger population, and higher percentages of those able to speak English are all associated with higher use.”

The paper has interesting implications for rural broadband investment. The authors suggest that data traffic is not constrained by households using mid-speed services. “The benefits of policy interventions to support higher speeds remain somewhat speculative.”

The abstract for the paper notes:

Worldwide there is an ongoing policy and regulatory push to make very high speed broadband available as widely as possible. Underlying the policy interventions to support higher speeds is an implicit assumption that higher speeds will enable different (and socially valuable) use. In this paper we empirically test whether higher speed lines are associated with greater household data usage in the UK. We find that after allowing for demographic factors, higher speed in fact has a very limited relationship to traffic.

Early into the COVID pandemic lockdown, I looked at the relatively modest speed requirements for various business collaboration applications and streaming video.

I have been told the CRTC is about to update its Communications Monitoring Report data. According to the latest published data, by year end 2021, 91.4% of Canadians had access to the national objective of 50Mbps down, 10 Mbps up with unlimited data. More than three quarters of Canadian households (77.4%) have access to gigabit speeds. Among rural households, 62.0% had access to the service objective, while 36.9% had gigabit service available by year end 2021.

This isn’t to say that gigabit access isn’t useful. Depending on the household characteristics, ultra high speed broadband may deliver a better user experience. From a policy perspective, the report suggests the speed of the connection doesn’t seem to be driving household broadband traffic. Traffic appears to be more dependent on the characteristics of who is using the service.

If Canada chooses to revisit its broadband objective, similar studies could be important contributors to the discussion.

Cross subsidies cost consumers real cash.

Based on a number of recent CRTC decisions, it appears the Commission wants consumers to pay inflated prices for internet and mobile services in order for the CRTC to fund other projects.

A couple months ago, in “Ending regulated cross subsidies”, I wrote about the CRTC setting wholesale fees paid by Videotron to Rogers at rates below cost, saying that the financial shortfall can be made up “through other telecommunications services,” all of which are competitive.

Let’s be clear what that means. In the eyes of the CRTC, Videotron, a multi-billion dollar vertically integrated national telecommunications company, should be subsidized by Rogers consumers paying more for their mobile and internet services.

Does that seem right?

Last week, the CRTC sent a letter proposing to grant special dispensation to Corus noting “Corus’ unique position as Canada’s largest non vertically integrated private broadcaster.” Under the proposed Order, Corus would not have to spend as much on Canadian programming. Scotiabank estimates that this could represent around $30 million in savings annually.

Let’s focus on the language in the letter that characterizes Corus as having a “unique position” as a non vertically integrated private broadcaster. There are other private broadcasters that have been seeking relief as well. Bell (CTV and Noovo), Rogers (CityTV), and Quebecor (TVA) have all sought relief, but they are integrated companies. The CRTC has decided “the that it is appropriate to give immediate consideration to Corus’ application on an exceptional basis”, presumably because it believes the integrated companies can sustain financial losses, propped up by profits in other segments.

This makes no sense from a business perspective. Effectively, the CRTC is now depending on profits from other lines of business – internet and mobile services – to prop up money losing broadcast business units. It is an unsustainable business model, punishing shareholders and consumers alike. As I have written before, “A rational business will restructure, or shut down those units that have no opportunity to climb out of the red.”

Bell has filed an application with the Federal Court of Appeal over the CRTC’s automatic broadcast license renewals, concerned the Commission will delay hearing broadcasters appeals for regulatory relief on Canadian program expenditures.

This Commission has now provided numerous instances where it indicates a belief in a system of regulated cross subsidies from unregulated business segments. At the end of the day, these cross subsidies cost consumers real cash.

As Dvai Ghose wrote in the Globe and Mail, “While the CRTC may have good intentions, it demonstrates naiveté when it comes to the private sector, and the consequences could be incredibly destructive for wireless investment and quality in Canada, risking our ability to compete globally.”

Are regulators losing sight of the target objectives? Are we sometimes confusing the means with the end? Do we even know where we are aiming?

Big questions. What do I mean?

When Navdeep Bains was Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, there was a very clear statement summarizing his communications policy objective: “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”. It was clear, concise, and measurable. The telecom sector was told that there was an understanding of the tension that exists as we balance affordability, quality, and coverage in the achievement of those objectives.

Sometimes, it can be easy to lose sight of the target when we don’t pause for a moment to surveille the situation.

Earlier this week, I wrote “Regulators regulate”. If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.

Take a look at what is going on south of the border with the FCC seeking to resurrect network neutrality regulations. As Professor Daniel Lyons of Boston College writes (quoting Justice Scalia), “Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried…”

After three years of quietly effective telecom regulation, the Federal Communications Commission has roared back to life with a new Democratic majority and an obsession to reimpose 2015’s Title II order on broadband providers. Back then, the AEI Tech Policy blog argued that these rules were, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, harmful to consumers and innovation. America’s experience since then has vindicated the decision to repeal net neutrality, leading one to wonder why this has become the Commission’s most pressing concern.

He rhetorically asks (and then answers), “if broadband providers have voluntarily adopted net-neutral practices, what’s the harm in enacting them into law?”

One concern is the chilling effect such rules have on innovation. For example, network slicing, which many providers have implemented since the original net neutrality overturn, can enhance 5G network productivity. This allows wireless providers to dedicate a portion of their capacity for specific services rather than general network packet delivery, thus improving the consumer experience for latency-dependent services.

He argues that net neutrality proponents have strayed from their roots, losing sight of the target. “When Professor Tim Wu first coined the phrase, he was concerned in part that without a neutrality principle, broadband providers would block disfavored speech online.”

Unsurprisingly, allegations that net neutrality’s repeal would mean consumers couldn’t get abortion information or receive the internet “one…word…at…a…time” were unfounded. This is because, as Wu himself notes, broadband providers also have incentives not to block content: the more content a consumer can reach, the more they’re willing to pay for access.

So why is the FCC seeking to re-introduce Net Neutrality? Regulators regulate. There is always the potential for regulatory creep. And, therein we find the concern. According to Professor Lyons, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has stated she has no intention of regulating broadband rates, despite those power being part of the proposed regulations. While this might be so, what happens with the next administration? Poorly drafted legislation – or trying to apply one set of regulations for something else – can lead to unintended consequences.

That is what I meant about being more concerned with the ‘means’ than the ‘end’. What problem are they trying to solve?

This is a problem that I think we have come to appreciate in Canada. The government is trying to apply Broadcasting Act legislation to internet content, expanding the role of the CRTC to act as an arbiter of new media.

What are we trying to achieve? How will we measure success?

Let’s look at how the government’s describes the legislation.

• C-11: “The Online Streaming Act modernizes the Broadcasting Act and helps ensure Canadian stories and music are widely available on streaming platforms to the benefit of future generations of artists and creators in Canada.”
• C-18: “The Online News Act aims to ensure that dominant platforms compensate news businesses when their content is made available on their services.”

In the government’s own words, these are the objectives of these Acts. Reading the legislation, one might be justified asking if we might have gotten lost along the way. As the government and the CRTC move forward with development of regulations that implement the Acts, how do we ensure we aren’t losing sight of the target?

When I load an address into my GPS, the system calculates a route and tells me how far the system expects me to travel. I’m told how long it expects the journey to take. Along the way, the system makes mid-course adjustments, considering traffic, routing around unexpected roadblocks along the way.

The Online News Act, and the Online Streaming Act are the first parts of Canada moving to regulate internet platforms and content.

What are the real objectives? Where are we trying to go? How will we know when we successfully reach our target? How do we know we are making progress toward the ultimate objective? Are these pieces of legislation still the best route?

When driving, we find alternate routes to avoid traffic jams and roadblocks. Is it time for the government to pause, reboot the system and recalculate?