It is hard to tell what actions (or failures to act) I found most disappointing from the past government. There are so many to choose from, as frequent readers can attest.

CASL – Canada’s Anti-Spam Law – ranks right up there among the most anti-business acts by a conservative government. Once named in an Orwellian fashion as the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, for some reason CASL was given immunity from the government’s red-tape reduction provisions that, among other provisions, dictate “When a new or amended regulation increases the administrative burden on business, regulators are required to offset – from their existing regulations – an equal amount of administrative burden cost on business.”

But, even worse than CASL was the complete failure by three successive Industry Ministers to develop and articulate a national digital strategy that is a root cause of CASL’s over-reach, among so many other problems. It was a failure to demonstrate real digital leadership.

Tuesday’s Toronto Star cited an internal report prepared for the Treasury Board that says “Fifteen years ago, Canada placed first worldwide in e-government services; today the UN e-government survey ranks Canada as 11th.” According to the Star’s report, in 2013 the Auditor General found access to government online services had not significantly expanded since 2005.

It was in 2010 that then Industry Minister (and future head of the Treasury Board) Tony Clement launched a consultation on the digital economy. It took 4 years for the government to pull together a document that was little more than a campaign pamphlet. The digital economy was left “drifting aimlessly” as I wrote in late 2013. That blog post details the missed deadlines and failures to demonstrate meaningful digital economy leadership by successive Industry Ministers. It is a depressing read.

It is encouraging that the new Treasury Board President, Scott Brison, is reviewing the digital delivery of government services. We need a more comprehensive digital strategy with policy directions to guide administrative and regulatory bodies that oversee the telecommunications and broadcasting industries and issues of privacy and intellectual property rights.

In December, I wrote:

Do Governments really get power of disruptive global apps? Should regulators forbear to allow legacy industries to adapt? Do markets work?

— Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) December 14, 2015

In earlier tweets, I connected the current news of a battle between Toronto taxi drivers, Quebec’s law to order the blocking of gambling websites by internet service providers and the financial woes of CHCH television. In each case, a heavily regulated legacy industry is facing disruption from large multi-national internet-based applications. I ask the question of whether the three levels of government are responding appropriately. Are the legacy businesses being given the appropriate freedoms to respond to what is an asymmetric market?

As I have been writing for years, we are long overdue for a review of telecom policy and legislation. As a result, the CRTC continues to insist that it has the authority (even though it lacks the ability) to regulate Netflix and YouTube.

At the time he was appointed as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Navdeep Bains received a mandate letter that included as one of his key objectives “Increase high-speed broadband coverage and work to support competition, choice and availability of services, and foster a strong investment environment for telecommunications services to keep Canada at the leading edge of the digital economy.”

At the time, I asked:

How does the instruction to “foster a strong investment environment for telecommunications services to keep Canada at the leading edge of the digital economy” apply to the appeals in front of Cabinet and the CRTC that I described last week in “Does CRTC policy inhibit investment?” with its “Wholesale inconsistency“?

What signals will Cabinet be sending to the private and public sectors as it deals with the Bell fibre appeal?

How will this government begin to demonstrate its digital leadership?

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains announced a $1.25M one time cash injection to the Computers for Schools program to provide 7,500 refurbished computers and technical support to Syrian refugees.

Computers for Success Canada—Ordinateurs pour l’excellence Canada (CFSC-OPEC), through the Computers for Schools (CFS) program, makes available refurbished computers at little or no cost to those who may not otherwise have access to technology and opportunities to learn digital skills.

It is great to see the Minister investing in digital literacy skills for people who are disadvantaged, a theme about which I have written a few times in the past – maybe more than a few times [such as here, and here and here and here, among others].

All the low-cost broadband in the world won’t help a family that can’t afford the up-front cost of a computer. Recall my opening comments from The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit last June:

I will repeat what I said last year: “Kids need computers at home to do homework.”

Six weeks ago, south of the border, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wrote:

Students who lack broadband access at home are unable to complete basic schoolwork. They have trouble keeping up in the classroom. More than that, they are holding our educational efforts back.
…
The homework gap is the cruelest part of the digital divide. But we can take steps now to tackle it — steps that will help students get their schoolwork done, help expand access to the Internet, and help grow our digital economy.

Canada’s Digital Strategy, follows the politically attractive path that continues (and expands) the subsidy systems based on geography. Hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed to subsidize rural and remote regions without regard to the actual financial needs of consumers.

It is great to see the Minister targeting aid on the basis of need. As I have written before, too often, government programs have looked at providing cash on the basis of geography without focusing specifically on those who need help, regardless of where they live. It is an important message for the CRTC as it prepares for the opening of its Review of basic telecommunications services hearing next month.

The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit will include a session looking at “Strengthening Canada’s Digital Advantage in a Hyper-connected Global Economy”, hosted by Namir Anani of the Information & Communications Technology Council (ICTC). (ICTC has just released a national digital talent strategy paper.)

The Canadian Telecom Summit takes place this year from June 6-8 in Toronto. Have you registered yet??

In his first [and only] address to The Canadian Telecom Summit in June 2013, then new CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais told the gathered ICT executives that “factoring in the needs of your customers—Canadian citizens, creators and consumers—should be a critical factor in your business planning” and “responding to the constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking as you define your place in the digital world.”

I recall remarking at the time that it was a good thing that we had Ottawa helping remind us of consumer focus, as though information and communications technology and services leaders needed such guidance.

Quoting Mary Kay Ash, Chairman Blais told The Canadian Telecom Summit:

“Everyone has an invisible sign hanging from their neck saying, ‘Make me feel important.’ Never forget this message when working with people.”

Mary Kay understood that paying close attention to customers’ interests and making them feel valued builds loyalty. She recognized, too, that focusing solely on quarter-to-quarter profits might mean missing the big picture. Maybe losing out on long-term trends.

When Chairman Blais was appointed, he was given a mandate letter. Among other things, he was told:

Over the years, I have watched the broadcasting activities of the CRTC and believe that the Commission could do a better job to ensure consumer participation at the Commission and focus on its core duties. I would like to see the Commission comprehensively address consumer affordability and service complaints, ensure consumers are aware of and able to participate in broadcasting proceedings, and regulate broadcasting undertakings only to the extent necessary.

The CRTC has tried to reach out to Canadians, trying evening sessions (acknowledged by the Chair to be “a flop”). For major hearings, like the “Talk TV” and “Talk Broadband”, the CRTC has tried to engage with average Canadians through Twitter and Facebook campaigns.

These are like trying to meet short term objectives, without investing for the long term. Take a look at the “online tool” listing Communication Service Providers in Canada, so proudly announced by the CRTC a few weeks ago. Seriously, try it out and please tell me if you consider the tool to be consumer friendly.

The private sector (being consumer focused since their paycheques actually depend on it) might have asked consumers to enter a postal code and then get presented the service options. Or, consumers may have been offered to make use of layers on a mapping application. That would be a consumer-centric approach.

The same lack of attention to an easy user interface can be found when looking at the CRTC’s file system for regulatory proceedings. I would love to know if Commissioners have tried to find files themselves on the Commission’s website, or if they have a team of taxpayer-funded employees who navigate through the murky site for them.

The CRTC should take the Chairman’s advice: “responding to the constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking”. For Canadians consumers to participate at the Commission, the CRTC doesn’t need its self promotional spending on social media and glitzy Discoverability events. Rather, it should heed its own advice and make investments for the long term, understanding that it too recognizes that the “constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking as you define your place in the digital world”.

It is long overdue for the CRTC to invest in a more mundane project to make its website more accessible.

Facebook and Analysys Mason released a report on the “State of Connectivity 2015” [pdf], that should be considered prerequisite reading material for those participating (and adjudicating) the upcoming CRTC Review of basic telecommunications services.

The four key barriers to internet access include:

• Availability: Proximity of the necessary infrastructure required for access.
• Affordability: The cost of access relative to income.
• Relevance: A reason for access, such as primary language content.
• Readiness: The capacity to access, including skills, awareness and cultural acceptance.

These barriers do not arise in isolation, nor can they be addressed in isolation. They function as a cluster, each one affecting the others. Unless corporations, government, NGOs and non-profits work together to address these chief barriers to access, the digital divide will persist and expand.

Despite Canada’s expansive geography, service providers have been able to tackle the challenge of “Availability”. At The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit, Allison Lenehan of Xplornet spoke of increases in speeds being made possible by his company and he challenged the Canadian industry to set a goal of 100 Mbps service to be available to all Canadians.

The general affordability of mobile broadband in Canada was highlighted in a chart looking at “Average expenditure on mobile internet as a proportion of household income”, noting that this “does not account for all the variables that affect affordability, but it enables an approximation of the percentage of people who can reasonably afford internet services.”

As we plan initiatives to assist with affordability (a subject I have raised frequently), the report observes “Innovations that have the potential to significantly improve affordability, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, are by nature risky. Given the very low amounts of money that individuals can commit, operators and other innovators must carefully plan and implement new tariffs or business models, to balance effectiveness with financial sustainability.”

Availability and affordability are just 2 of the 4 factors. The report says that for internet content and services to be relevant, they must be: Useful, Relatable and Accessible. Do content and services bring value to people, economically or otherwise? Is content compatible with individuals’ interests and culture, and services meet local needs? Beyond word-of-mouth, advertising and promotion, do platforms and devices enable people to find relevant content and share it easily?

Finally, individuals must be ‘ready’ to use the internet, implying: they have the skills to find and consume content, including language literacy (the ability to read and write) and digital literacy (the ability to use connected devices and the internet); they have an awareness and understanding of the internet and the benefits of being online; and, there needs to be a cultural or social acceptance of using the internet, a factor that the report claims particularly affects women, and is linked to attitudes about their education and empowerment. “Many people who can read and write lack the digital skills or a sufficient understanding of the technology required to get online, which affects their confidence and likelihood of becoming connected.”

The report is an important read for policy makers concerned about universal connectivity. Today is the deadline for submissions for the CRTC’s Review of basic telecommunications services, prior to an oral hearing beginning in mid-April. Will anyone submit this report as part of their evidence? Will the CRTC invite Facebook to share the insights they gained in preparing this report by participating in the basic services review?

Are there lessons from developing world initiatives from which Canada can learn to help reach universal digital connectivity?

The City of Ottawa plans to vote on a resolution supporting the CRTC in an Federal Cabinet appeal over wholesale access to fibre optic facilities. The motion, put forward by former CRTC staffer Jeff Leiper, contradicts the position of Mayor Jim Watson, who submitted a letter supporting Bell Canada’s appeal.

WHEREAS in July 2015 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled that large cable and telecom providers would have to make their new fiber-optic infrastructure available to smaller competitors; and

WHEREAS the decision made by the CRTC aims to promote competition and affordable internet for Canadians including those residents living in the City of Ottawa; and

WHEREAS in the fall of 2015 a request was filed with the Governor in-Council to review and vary the Commission’s decision; and

WHEREAS a final decision has not yet been made by the Federal Government with regards to this request to review and vary so the City of Ottawa still has an opportunity to share its position; and

WHEREAS other major municipalities, such as Calgary, have expressed their support for the CRTC decision and where the City of Toronto recently carried a similar motion requesting council support competitive and affordable internet prices.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa support the CRTC’s decision to require the sharing of fiber-optic networks between large and small competitors; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the outcome of this motion be shared with the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure to ensure the City’s position is known as recommendations are prepared.

A few weeks ago, the City of Toronto passed a similar motion, designed to contradict the position of its Mayor, John Tory.

On the surface, one might think that these are big cities that should have no concerns about whether major phone companies and cable companies will invest in upgrades to broadband infrastructure, providing fibre-based internet access to all of the residents.

That may be true in Toronto, where the city itself has a population of more than 2.6 million people living in an area of 630 square kilometers. Toronto is the core of a census metropolitan area (CMA) with about 5.5 million people. The density of Toronto makes it quite likely that fibre optic facilities will quickly be available to all its residents. Indeed, there are a large number of residents who have access to fibre that was built independently by companies other than their incumbent cable company or phone company.

But at just under 900,000, the city of Ottawa has just a third of the population of Toronto, living in 2,778 square kilometers, a geography more than 4 times the size of Toronto. Ottawa has much less than 8% of Toronto’s population density, thanks in part to annexations and amalgamations about 15 years ago that led to about 75% of the Ottawa CMA’s population (1.2M) being within the city’s own boundaries, whereas the City of Toronto represents less than half of the population of its CMA.

These numbers can help one appreciate that there is a lot of Ottawa that is quite rural, quite different from the urban core that houses all the picturesque scenes that show up in typical post cards of our nation’s capital.

Jeff Leiper represents the Kitchissippi Ward, located just west of downtown Ottawa. It is quite urban, especially compared to many of the other wards in the City.

It is important to note that there are parts of Ottawa that are so rural that conventional wireline broadband services are not available. When we speak of the impact on the engineering economic studies created by regulated wholesale access, there can be no doubt that substantial parts of the city of Ottawa will fail the business case for building fibre optic facilities.

When Mayor Watson wrote to Cabinet, he expressed concerns for all of his residents, recognizing the sprawling nature of his city, saying:

Bell has stated publicly that it plans to invest $20 billion through to 2020, with one objective being to bring fibre-to-the-home service to millions of homes and businesses in communities large and small. My understanding is that the recent CRTC decision would impact their planned investments, leading to significant delays in the deployment of this technology.

These investments would have been greatly welcome by our residents and the business community, given their positive impact on the quality of service as well as their potential for job creation in our city. Unfortunately, I fear that our local economy and the residents of Ottawa – as well as those of other smaller cities, towns and rural areas – will be impacted negatively by these delays in deployment.

Mayor Tory expressed concerns for the extended greater Toronto area,

Bell’s $1 billion fibre build-out in Toronto, and other investments that are poised to follow, will provide the modern communications infrastructure needed to generate economic opportunity across the board from mature industries like financial services, to small business and entrepreneurs, to our research clusters, to public institutions like hospitals and universities.

These investments extend beyond Toronto’s borders as well and are key to our ability to sell the Greater Toronto region as a premier place to locate and expand business, and the important work we are doing building the Toronto-Waterloo innovation corridor.

Anyone who actually understands the principles of engineering economics will recognize that mandated wholesale access changes the business case for building fibre. Those changes will impact deployment.

The resolution in front of Ottawa city council aims “to promote competition and affordable internet”. It fails to even consider the impact on investment and innovation and the potential to deny fibre optic deployment for many Ottawa homes and businesses.

I suspect that the business case will remain positive for Kitchissippi and Somerset wards, and a few other of the more densely populated areas of Ottawa. But other Ottawa Councillors will need to consider whether the residents of their own ward will be left behind as a result of the distortions to the business case for fibre.

When Ottawa city council votes today, will Councillors consider all of the households in the city’s expansive border, those who are rural and those in the urban core, all of whom pay taxes to their city?

---

[Update: February 24, 12:45pm] Ottawa City Council voted 17-7 to defeat the resolution