A newly published paper from University of Calgary examines whether Canada’s spectrum policy has succeeded in promoting the interests of wireless consumers.

The paper, by Jeff Church of the Department of Economics, and Kent Fellows of the School for Public Policy, examined the opportunity cost associated with the spectrum set-asides in 2008. Recall, the original AWS-1 spectrum auction set-aside 40 MHz for new entrants, and the remaining 50 MHz was for open auction.

The issue of spectrum policy has been a frequent theme on these pages. A couple years ago, I wrote “Spectrum scarcity driving up wireless costs”. A number of articles have referred to costs, as much as $100 per year per subscriber, associated with Canada’s stubborn adherence to a four carrier policy.

Last December, Jack Mintz (President’s Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary) wrote, “Ottawa’s fourth wireless competitor fixation slows 5G adoption”, saying “Canada’s overall telecom policy is failing”. Mintz cites the Church / Fellows research – not yet published at the time of his article – when he claims “set-aside policies are misallocating spectrum, contrary to consumer interests.”

The newly published paper concludes “Allocating the set-aside spectrum to the incumbents instead of the entrants would do more for consumers by increasing quality than subsidizing competition.”

The data shows that Canada’s singular focus on boosting a fourth competitor through set-asides has had only a modest impact on consumer welfare. “We estimate the effect of the set-asides was to increase consumer surplus over the three year period from 2011-2013 by $932 million and the number of subscribers in 2013 by 1.4 million.”

However, the Church / Fellows research found that the number of wireless consumers would have increased by an additional 1.8 million to 2.5 million subscribers and the consumer surplus would have been $5.9 to $8.2 billion greater.

The set-aside policy had a modest impact in reducing quality-adjusted prices, from one to two percent, whereas if the spectrum was allocated to the three incumbents, quality-adjusted prices would have fallen by four to six percent. The focus of the Federal Government then, and since, was on the wrong market failure: the welfare gains from using spectrum policy to address a perceived market power issue are insignificant relative to the benefits of reallocating spectrum to increase the quality of wireless service.

As Jack Mintz explained, “In the interest of price competition, set-asides restrict incumbents’ quality of service.”

Rather than using set-asides to effectively subsidize new entrants, Church and Fellows found that it would have been better for wireless consumers had the government provided all service providers with unencumbered access to more spectrum.

Getting rid of the set-asides would increase service quality, and result in even lower quality-adjusted prices.

How should parliamentarians approach the public policy challenges arising from emerging technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

That question appears to be the raison d’être of a multi-partisan working group known as the Parliamentary Caucus on Emerging Technology (PCET). The Caucus is co-chaired by Members of Parliament Michelle Rempel-Garner, Anthony Housefather, and Brian Masse, as well as Senator Colin Deacon. The Caucus was formed recognizing that emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are usually deployed “faster than the speed of government.”

PCET recently issued a report as an update on its summer discussions with various parties from Canada and abroad. The report listed key take-aways:

1. Canada needs more forums and opportunities for multi-partisan discussion and education on issues like AI, in the House of Commons and the Senate
2. Canada can benefit from working collaboratively on the international stage on these issues
3. Consider how standards and other tools can help to address the issue of AI in the interim, as we await for legislation to be in force
4. It is worthwhile to look at ways for government to have regulatory agility on AI
5. Canada should consider what other international players are doing, and how their approaches could be implemented in the Canadian context

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece called “Regulatory humility”, suggesting that a little more regulatory humility goes a long way to minimize unintended consequences.

I am encouraged by the initial set of take-aways, especially the section calling for regulatory agility in approaching regulation of emerging technology. “The PCET was founded on the principle that oftentimes, regulators and parliaments are left playing catch-up on new technologies. With AI’s capabilities quickly expanding, and as these technologies are rapidly deployed, other mechanisms must be explored by the government to protect Canadians while also encouraging innovation.”

As I have written in the past, “Politicians looking to score points with intervention in the digital marketplace should carefully reflect on whether new laws are actually needed. What problems are we trying to fix?”

PCET says its approach favouring regulatory agility would “ensure that the digital economy is not left behind in Canada, while also recognizing that having regulatory agility could mean that concerns are mitigated more promptly.”

That is a reasonable philosophy. And the multi-partisan working group is a welcome approach.

While on the topic of AI, on October 23 there will be a webinar from the International Telecommunications Society looking at “Achieving Equitable AI Governance: Balancing Innovation and Responsibility”. The one-hour webinar begins at 10am Eastern and registration is free. Frequent readers know that I have been a big fan of the ITS webinars for staying current on emerging policy issues with top subject matter experts from around the globe.

I hope to see you on-line.

Online disinhibition effect is a term used by psychologists to refer to the tendancy by some who hide behind online anonymity to be nasty without fear of repercussions.

In the early days of my blog, there was a piece called “4 degrees of impersonal communications” in which I wrote:

people say things in emails that they would never say to someone over the phone. And, over the phone (especially in a voice message), we seem willing to speak in ways that one would never consider saying face-to-face.

I will add that people say things in anonymous comments on blogs that add a further dimension. Perhaps it is a sign of the indifference associated with mass anonymity.

In the segment, correspondent David Pogue spoke with professor Mary Aiken, a forensic cyber psychologist who shared four ways online conversations differ from in-person conversations:

• First, we can see each other in real life, looking at visual cues, reading body language.
• Second, online exchanges may not take place in real time, leading to the possibility that things are taken out of context or misinterpreted.
• Third, most online discussions are public, meaning that the impact of insults have the potential to be amplified, increasing the impact, the shame and the pain.
• Fourth, online anonymity means no repercussions for being mean, or hurtful.

“Add all this together and you get what psychologists call the online disinhibition effect.”

The segment refers to a report from Paladin Capital Group, “Towards a Safer Nation: The United States ‘Safety Tech’ Market” [pdf, 2.0MB].

A new sector, the online safety technology or ‘Safety Tech’ sector, which complements the existing cybersecurity industry is gaining prominence. This research report has found evidence of an emerging and thriving US Safety Tech sector that aims to deliver solutions to facilitate safer online experiences and protect people from psychological risks, criminal dangers and online harm. Importantly, Safety Tech innovations also have the capacity to protect people from the corrosive effects of misinformation, online harassment, discrimination, and extremism which increasingly threaten democracy and civil society.

What is the difference between cybersecurity and cyber safety? Binary; cybersecurity primarily focuses on protecting data, systems and networks; cyber safety or Safety Tech focuses on protecting people.

As the CBS correspondent says in the segment, “Never in the history of the internet has anyone’s mind been changed by being yelled at”.

As Canada’s Parliament considers legislation to address online harms, can technology help to address solutions? How do we separate the person from the idea?

Canadian broadband policy is under review. And, it should be. Through the years, Canada has taken a number of stabs at development of a national broadband strategy.

The CRTC is in the midst of its Notice of Consultation on the Wholesale High-speed Access Service Framework, including a significant reconsideration of regulatory tools for wholesale broadband. Furthermore, earlier this week, reply comments for the CRTC’s Broadband Fund Policy Review were due. These initiatives could have long-term impacts on the functioning of the Canadian broadband markets, access and the state of competition.

On Wednesday, October 18, a half day event in Toronto will examine national broadband policies in Canada, and around the world.

Participants will explore a variety of questions in pursuit of a successful broadband policy, including:

• What are the workable alternatives for government?
• How should everybody be included?
• How should companies invest and innovate?
• How should a competitive marketplace be built?
• How should the increased government funding for broadband be used?
• What will Artificial Intelligence and a metaverse mean for broadband policy?

National and international experts will provide perspectives from other countries and regions, together with discussions of on-going developments in Canada by senior government officials.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy, ISED
• Erik Bohlin, Professor, Ivey Business School, and Ivey Chair in Telecommunication Economics, Policy and Regulation
• Carlo Cambini, Professor, Politecnico di Torino
• Annegret Groebel, Director International Relations, Bundesnetzagentur
• Heather Hudson, Professor Emerita, University of San Francisco
• Sarah Oh Lam, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute
• Romel Mostafa, Director, Lawrence National Centre for Policy and Management, Ivey Business School
• Eli Noam, Professor, Columbia University
• Gérard Pogorel, Professor Emeritus, Télécom Paris
• Adam Scott, Vice Chair, CRTC
• Ian Scott, Former Chair, CRTC
• Georg Serentschy, Serentschy Advisory Services
• Glenn Woroch, Adjunct Professor, University of California at Berkeley

This workshop, Comparative Perspectives on Broadband Regulation and Access, is funded in part by the Ivey Chair in Telecommunication Economics, Policy and Regulation, as well as the Lawrence National Centre for Policy and Management at the Ivey Business School. Registration includes lunch, all sessions, and a cocktail reception to wrap up the day. It all takes place at Ivey’s Donald K. Johnson Centre in the Exchange Tower at 130 King Street West in the heart of Toronto’s financial district.

The full agenda [pdf, 450KB] and registration information are available on the event website.

Be prepared.

That was my key takeaway from last week’s release from the Canadian Telecommunications Association, “Internet and Cellphone Preparations and Best Practices for Hurricane and Storm Season”.

Issued in advance of Hurricane Lee hitting the Atlantic provinces, the press announcement pointed to the website <TelecomPrepare.ca> and brochure, “Preparing for Severe Weather Events & Other Emergencies” [pdf, 553 KB].

Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and snow and ice storms are becoming more commonplace endangering Canadians, damaging property, and posing a risk to critical infrastructure, including telecommunications networks.

Canadian telecommunications providers are continually investing to strengthen their networks to better withstand extreme weather events and other natural disasters. They have also partnered with governments, public safety officials, power companies, and each other to help maintain connectivity when people need it most.

Despite these preparations, power supply, poles and cables, and other equipment can still be impacted, sometimes resulting in temporary service outages. To prepare, there are steps you can take to protect you and your family, including keeping your devices charged.

Sections include:

1. Monitor Weather and Be Ready for Emergency Alerts
2. Prepare for Power Outages
3. Create an Emergency Communications and Critical Information Plan
4. Preserve Battery Power
5. Help Reduce Network Congestion
6. Placing 9-1-1 Calls

This past weekend, when power outages from the storm meant people lost access to residential TV and internet service, many people turned to their mobile devices for connectivity. That added extraordinary load on wireless networks, leading to congestion.

Telecommunications services providers have been investing in improved network resilience and have a mutual support agreement in place to increase continuity in times of emergency including weather related events. Still, communications can be impacted by loss of power, or downed poles, cables, and towers, resulting in reduced network performance or temporary service outages.

Bell Aliant issued a tweet through the weekend explaining the steps being followed to restore service in the wake of storm damage. The storm wrought significant damage to provincial power lines which inevitably impacts telecommunications service continuity. Downed power lines create a hazard for crews trying to access damaged telecom infrastructure. Authorized crews can only work once conditions are safe to do so.

Bell Aliant’s Network Recovery website indicated:

Bell’s network is designed to withstand extreme weather with extra layers of protection like redundancy paths, and network battery and generator backup systems to minimize the risk of disruption if commercial power is lost.

In advance of Hurricane Lee, we have activated our internal emergency response process for 24/7 planning and coordination of our response to the evolving situation. Additional preparations included:

• Comprehensive network review to ensure stability
• Fuelling our fleet of generators and vehicles
• Positioning generators to critical sites that support high-density fibre routes and public safety communications
• Having crews and resources from other regions on standby to support restoration if needed
• Communicating with provincial EMOs, premiers’ offices, key federal ministers and other local partners to ensure effective coordination and support
• Working collaboratively with other network providers, like Eastlink, Telus and Rogers and local power companies

As Canadian Telecommunications Association President and CEO Robert Ghiz said, in advance of storms we need to be prepared. “We are recommending that individuals take the necessary precautions that can help them stay connected when it matters most.”

Be prepared.