“The CRTC is putting Canadians at the centre of their communication system.” At least, that is what the Commission’s press release proclaimed in announcing its latest 3-year plan.

The reality is that the CRTC is still stuck in the middle of Canada’s communication system. Everything Canadians want to watch, even on the internet, goes through the CRTC. Everything.

Recall that the Chair of the CRTC made this very clear in admonishing a witness during the Local TV hearing in January in reference to YouTube:

3619. THE CHAIRPERSON: You see and maybe your difficulty of seeing that is based on — and you’ve repeated a number of occasions in your oral representation of always referring to the unlicensed element of the broadcasting system as unregulated, as opposed to what it really is and that is unlicensed.

And let’s not forget the run-in with Netflix and YouTube last fall, when those companies refused to acknowledge the CRTC’s authority to order production of data for the TalkTV hearing. The CRTC Chair told Netflix “You operate subject to an exemption order that requires you to provide information. Failure to provide information puts at risk your exemption order.”

Rather than have its powers tested in court, the CRTC ordered the destruction of the transcripts and struck all YouTube and Netflix evidence from the record of the proceeding. Thankfully, CPAC has preserved the video record of the exchange. It is an important piece of Canada’s regulatory history and it (together with the second part) will hopefully be archived. The interaction (beginning at at 22:30 of the video) is compelling viewing.

The CRTC has also put itself into the middle of commercial contracts for programming, most notably NFL football broadcasting, not only for the Super Bowl but for a mobile football app. The CRTC is also investigating pricing models of mobile services, despite having forborne from regulating such prices.

Earlier this week, the CRTC decided that a competitive Canadian TV distributor, VMedia, would not be allowed to carry an American shopping channel, QVC, that would be a consumer alternative to Rogers owned TSC.

Although there is no evidence of QVC establishing any physical premises in Canada or having bank accounts or employees in Canada, it is clear that QVC intends to do business with Canadians located in Canada. Specifically, it intends to sell its products to Canadians on a continuous basis and to ship them directly to Canadians. As well, its toll-free number can be dialed from a Canadian telephone.
…
While there are programming services on the list that sell products to Canadians, unlike QVC, these are not dedicated to teleshopping services funded primarily by retail sales to viewers.

Buffalo’s PBS station, WNED, promotes itself with “Toronto” and the Canadian flag as part of the station’s logo. WNED actively solicits “donations” with its sales of DVDs and other items. The “Canada” page of the station’s website states “More than half of WNED | WBFO’s membership is Canadian”. The CRTC cited a 2003 decision that found “insufficient evidence on the record to show” that allowing QVC into Canada “would benefit Canada and Canadian consumers.” So much for putting Canadians in the centre of our communication system.

All of which raises the question of why, in an era of global internet content and competitive distribution, do we need regulation of any broadcaster that isn’t using over-the-air spectrum? If “The CRTC is putting Canadians at the centre of their communication system” maybe it should look at simply getting out of the way?

On June 8, one of the panels at The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit is “Personalizing Entertainment & Information”, looking at the ongoing video revolution. It is certain to be discussing these kinds of issues and more. Have you registered yet?

Although the CRTC has been using the hashtag #TalkBroadband, next week’s “Review of basic telecommunications services” is supposed to cover more than just broadband.

As the CRTC says in the public notice:

Currently, the basic service objective consists of the following:

• individual line local touch-tone service;
• capability to connect to the Internet via low-speed data transmission at local rates;
• access to the long distance network, operator/directory assistance services, enhanced calling features and privacy protection features, emergency services, as well as voice message relay service; and
• a printed copy of the current local telephone directory upon request.

Of course, much of the media attention will be focused on vague concepts such as declaring broadband as a “right”, presumably by including broadband in the basic service objective. That will raise the question of who pays, and how much will we pay to deliver on an expanded “basic” service obligation. And in a competitive environment, upon which service provider will the obligation fall. Who is the incumbent service provider for broadband?

Over the past year, I have written a number of pieces about this proceeding:

• April 30, 2015: An opening shot for the “Digital Revolution”;
• May 19, 2015: Affordable broadband isn’t just a rural issue;
• July 15, 2015: Canada still silent on low income broadband;
• August 5, 2015: Why we need to get low-income households online;
• January 21, 2016: Should broadband be part of “basic service”;
• February 2, 2016: Looking at who, not where;
• March 17, 2016: One home’s subsidy is another home’s cost; and,
• March 31, 2016: Unrepresentative survey.

The bulk of these posts have looked at the issue of broadband, but suggesting a different twist. Rather than looking at the basic service in terms of geography, I suggest that we should be considering it from the perspective of individuals.

The CRTC characterizes the issue as: “The basic service objective ensures that Canadians in all regions have access to affordable, high-quality telecommunications services.” It typically has placed the focus on the part that says “in all regions”. For about 10 years, I have argued that there are Canadians in all regions who differ on what can be considered “affordable”.

Whether it is broadband or dial-up, wireline or wireless, voice or data, what you and I consider to be affordable may not be the same, and that is especially true for someone on social assistance. There are hundreds of thousands of urban Canadians who simply cannot afford the going rate for telecom services.

If we are concerned about affordability, why aren’t we looking at urban consumers as well?

That is why I continue to believe that the CRTC needed to be looking at who, not where we have been failing in delivering the basic service objective. And it is why I was so disappointed that the CRTC commissioned study by EKOS Research failed to address the challenges faced by unconnected Canadians in urban centres. In the public notice, the CRTC said it “will ask Canadians to provide their opinions on the telecommunications services they consider necessary to participate meaningfully in the digital economy today and in the future.” It is unclear how the CRTC fulfilled this commitment with Canadians who aren’t already online.

Still, the CRTC has received evidence on the issue of affordability. According to the hearing agenda, on Thursday, April 14, a number of consumer groups, including 2 panels of individuals from ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) will be appearing.

Lifeline service has just been extended in the US to include broadband, there are significant risks. Professor Daniel Lyons, of Boston College Law School, writes that the FCC’s plan “amounts to a $2.25 billion annual bet that giving a little bit of money to millions of low-income households will somehow solve the broadband gap.”

The oral hearing begins next Monday, April 11. It will be streamed on CPAC.ca and you can follow me on Twitter, or follow #TalkBroadband.

Yesterday, the CRTC released a report by EKOS Research.

EKOS Research Associates conducted two types of public opinion research on telecommunication services in Canada and prepared a report for the CRTC. The first part of the report presents results gathered through a questionnaire that was completed by more than 30,000 Canadians. Between January 14 and February 29, 2016, close to 29,000 individuals completed the questionnaire. EKOS also administered the questionnaire with a separate sample group of over 1,600 Canadians representative of the population as a whole.

As EKOS acknowledges in the report, the “open” version of the consultation was completed by 28,794 individuals who “were self-selected and therefore do not comprise a random sample”. As a result, “the survey is not considered to be representative of the Canadian population and no margin of error can be applied to the results.”

The headline that CBC ran with said “Home internet is essential, but too pricey, CRTC survey suggests: Only a third of Canadians are satisfied with internet prices, while half are dissatisfied”. I’ve said before that I tend to question a survey that finds that anyone is satisfied with the price of anything. I’d like to see prices lower for electricity, gas, sushi, kosher food, tomatoes, milk, butter, taxes, cars and oh yeah, I would like lower internet prices, too.

But that isn’t what I picked up on. I noticed that despite kvetching about dissatisfaction with the price, the CBC article said all but 2% of the survey respondents – for the “representative” portion of the survey – subscribe to home internet.

That was a source of concern to me. The CRTC’s 2015 Communications Monitoring Report showed a take-up of 82% of households, but the EKOS “representative” study was reported showing a 98% take-up. At the time of the Monitoring Report, nearly 1 in 5 Canadian households didn’t subscribe to internet service, but only 1 in 50 members of the “representative” survey were Canadians without home internet. One would think the digital divide was solved if you read the EKOS report. [editor’s note: The EKOS study also has a category of “Home Phone Only” of 4% that needs to be added to the 2% “No Home Internet” figure reported by CBC. This would be consistent with adoption levels at various points of the report showing 91.4% – 95.6% adoption of internet. This would imply that well over a million new households went online in a 14 month period. That is not consistent with the public data reported by the 5 biggest internet services providers in Canada: Bell, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS and Videotron].

This survey was commissioned in January to help inform the CRTC’s “evidence-based proceeding on basic telecommunications services.” One of the key issues being reviewed in the hearing is “ensur[ing] that Canadians continue to have the ability to participate in the digital economy”. The Notice of Consultation states “the Commission will ask Canadians to provide their opinions on the telecommunications services they consider necessary to participate meaningfully in the digital economy today and in the future.”

How do we explain the CRTC publishing a study that missed speaking to Canadians who don’t have home internet?

The CRTC’s press release for the public opinion report quotes the Chair saying “Access to basic telecommunications services is crucial for Canadians to actively participate in the digital economy. Since the launch of this consultation, we have been researching and analyzing the vast amount of information submitted. Canadians have risen to the occasion and have been participating in great numbers.”

Unfortunately, the CRTC’s research and analysis appears to have missed talking to the Canadian households in the greatest need of being heard.

---

[Editor’s note: Clarification was sought from the CRTC in advance of publication of this post; the CRTC did not return our calls.

We stand by our criticism of the EKOS report commissioned by the CRTC to add to the record of the Basic Services proceeding. The report authors are not scheduled to appear to testify and therefore, the flaws in the report would not otherwise be subjected to testing. Although the survey was supplemented by focus groups attracting people from remote communities, the report failed to provide a voice to the majority of Canadians who are not subscribing to internet services.

From the outset, I have written that “Affordable broadband isn’t just a rural issue“. As I wrote at the time, before we answer the question about “where” the CRTC should be acting, perhaps we need to have a more clear understanding of “who” needs help and “why”. The EKOS report failed to provide that clarity.]

Yesterday, the CRTC issued a public notice for “Establishment of a regulatory framework for next-generation 9-1-1 in Canada“. Along with the formal public notice, the Commission issued a press release, launched a splashy video, and a new website: http://www.canada.ca/next-generation-911.

The public proceeding will cover many issues, including:

• NG9-1-1 services
• NG9-1-1 architecture and responsibilities
• transition steps and timelines
• funding
• confidentiality
• reporting and monitoring

A little over two years ago, the CRTC announced “Text with 9-1-1 services for hearing or speech impaired persons“. At the time, I wrote: “Regrettably, I am not convinced this is a service that truly meets the needs of the community it is intended to serve.” The user interface struck me as too complicated. I closed off that post with a question: “Should people need a training course and have to invest in new mobile handsets in order to make emergency calls?”

The blog post attracted more comments than any other in 2014, with a debate about my harsh reaction.

Two years later, the wireless industry is preparing to release an instructional video to help potential users learn how to Text with 9-1-1. Yesterday, an email circulated among the review committee providing comments on the draft video. One of the people who most strongly defended the text with 9-1-1 user interface in the comments on my blog post admitted that he had trouble making his first test call. He wrote: “When I practiced my first call I forgot to press the send phone.” Since most of the target community never makes voice calls, this person, who has been deeply involved with the design of the service, forgot to push the “send” button after dialing the numbers 9-1-1.

It has been 4 years since Canada allocated 700MHz spectrum for use by public safety agencies. Commercial carriers began using similar spectrum within two months of getting the spectrum. That led me to suggest that new approaches might be worth exploring. One of the biggest challenges in improving public safety communications is governance: the CRTC is exploring national solutions, but most first response agencies are municipal. This is an area that the CRTC plans to explore.

At the end of the day, next generation 9-1-1 will require the public safety organizations to upgrade their equipment, which is an area the CRTC acknowledges is beyond its jurisdiction:

13. Local PSAPs have their own internal systems composed of hardware and software used to receive 9-1-1 calls, display caller information, and dispatch emergency responders. PSAPs’ systems fall outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, as explained below.

The oral hearing opens in January, 2017. Initial submissions are due May 20, 2016.

Hopefully, Next Generation 9-1-1 won’t require people to view an instructional video before making an emergency call.

For three full days, The Canadian Telecom Summit delivers thought provoking presentations from the prime movers of the industry. The Canadian Telecom Summit gives you the chance to hear from and talk with them in both a structured atmosphere of frank discussion and high octane idea exchange and schmooze in a more relaxed social setting of genial conversation.

The leadership of the telecom, broadcast & IT industries will converge at the Toronto Congress Centre from June 6 to 8 to discuss the key issues and trends that will impact this critical sector of the economy. Join more than 500 of your peers, suppliers, policy makers, regulators, customers and competitors in attending telecom’s most important gathering.

The past year has witnessed the release of a number of significant regulatory and policy decisions that are certain to impact telecommunications and broadcasting industries for years to come. That is why we are so happy that our speakers at The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit will include Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien, CRTC Commissioner Raj Shoan, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, former Minister Maxime Bernier, among more than 70 other industry leaders, including Dr. David Bray, Chief Information Officer of the FCC. Check out the conference brochure for the details on confirmed speakers. And we will be announcing shortly our keynote speakers from Bell, Intel, Red Hat, and Wind River.

Why not plan on joining them?

The Canadian Telecom Summit has become the place for Canada’s ICT leaders to meet, interact and do business, inspired by high-octane interaction, top-level keynote speakers and thought-provoking panel discussions.

These leaders and many more will all be at The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit.

You should be there too. Register today! Visit the conference website or download the brochure for more details.

Continuing Professional Development: The time spent attending substantive sessions at The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit can be claimed as “Substantive Hours” toward Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements for the Law Society of Upper Canada.