On Friday, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) released “Spectrum Outlook 2023 to 2027”, an outline for management of Canada’s radio spectrum over the next five years.

The last edition of ISED’s spectrum outlook was released in 2018. “The 2023 Outlook outlines ISED’s spectrum plans to support wireless telecommunications services in Canada, with a focus on commercial mobile services, satellite services, backhaul applications and licence-exempt applications.”

While there are a number of policy themes that informed the development of the Spectrum Outlook, 5 are highlighted in separate chapters of the report:

1. Spectrum as an economic driver and enabler of Industry 4.0
2. Rural connectivity in the wake of COVID-19
3. Indigenous connectivity
4. Spectrum, wireless technology and climate change
5. Competition and wireless affordability

The department also said that it plans to “modernize” its fee policies. “Licence fees play an important role in incentivizing more efficient use of spectrum. Improvements to licence fee policies can potentially address growing demand while also supporting new and emerging licensing techniques such as dynamic spectrum access.”

The department sees increasing demand for data, as well as the number of connected devices, continuing to grow in the coming years, impacting the demand for spectrum. It sees low Earth orbit satellite technologies as transformative for the satellite market, driving demand for faster speeds and greater capacity in higher frequency bands.

The spectrum outlook also recognizes new applications and technologies emerging for Wifi, coupled with Internet of Things (IoT), driving demand for licence-exempt spectrum.

I noticed that ISED explicitly recognized the need for wireless technologies to be deployed in certain communities to reach the government’s target of 100% broadband access by 2030.

74. Most unconnected Indigenous communities are located in rural and remote areas that are challenging to connect using traditional wired solutions. In these areas, wireless solutions will be important to reach the Government’s target of 100% connectivity by 2030. To enable wireless solutions, access to spectrum is required.
…
77. Spectrum is also essential for satellite-based connectivity solutions. In many Indigenous communities in northern Canada, satellites not only play a vital role in providing telecommunications and broadcasting services, but also sometimes provide the only means to reach a community. ISED is considering the role that emerging technologies such as LEO satellite technologies can play in connecting communities where fibre lines may not be feasible.

The Outlook concludes with a caveat. “The 2023 Outlook reflects ISED’s current direction and efforts to provide additional spectrum for commercial mobile services, licence-exempt applications, satellite services and backhaul applications.”

What is the appropriate role for politics in the regulatory process?

Some might answer “none”. Political interventions in the regulatory process can lead to substantial distortions.

Seventeen years ago, in its report [pdf, 1.6MB], Canada’s 2006 Telecom Policy Review Panel wrote:

It is the proper role of government to establish policies and that of regulators to implement the policies and to develop the more detailed rules necessary to provide certainty as to how the policies will be applied. Comments submitted to the Panel during this review expressed broad support for the principle that the government should develop policies in the telecommunications sector. Parties also supported the principle that regulators should implement those policies in an independent, professional and transparent manner.

In 2006, the panel observed “Canada appears to be the only OECD country whose telecommunications legislation empowers government to do both”, providing “advance directions on policy matters” as well as “to review and vary, rescind or refer a decision back to the regulator on policy grounds”. That panel recommended repealing the cabinet appeal process, saying “the Panel believes the combination of the policy direction power with the Cabinet review power has the potential to undermine the integrity of the CRTC’s independent regulatory process.”

A decade and a half later, the Broadcasting and Telecom Legislative Review (BTLR) Panel did not make such a recommendation in its January 2020 report. Instead, the more recent review panel sought to rationalize the process and timelines for appeals under the Telecom Act and Broadcast Act. “While the Governor in Council (GiC) has rarely exercised its power to review, private parties have nonetheless made frequent requests when they are dissatisfied with a CRTC decision. The possibility of an appeal to the GiC does provide an important safety valve in cases in which the CRTC’s decision deviates from the government’s policy view.” Still, the panel stated that Cabinet’s powers should not include the ability to vary the decision, simply providing an ability to let the CRTC’s determination stand, reject the decision or return it to the Commission for reconsideration.

I recently wrote about the various channels available to appeal a decision by the CRTC.

As noted by both review panels, a number of other countries empower the executive branch of their government to issue policy directions. No other jurisdiction “couples this power with the ability to review a sector regulator’s decision: Canada is alone in allowing the government to direct its communications regulator, and to perform reviews of the regulator’s decisions.”

Over the past few years, that safety valve has been put into action, with Cabinet telling the CRTC to take a fresh look at CBC’s license last September (OiC 2022-0995), and urging the CRTC to consider that “Canada’s future depends on connectivity” in its review of the wholesale wireline rates decision (OiC 2020-0553).

What characteristics of Canada’s communications regulatory structure have made the appeal to Cabinet such an important piece of the regulatory process?

A British Parliamentary Committee has recently released a report discussing Digital Exclusion [pdf, 1.4MB] in the UK. The intent of the report was to call attention to the “political lethargy” in the UK that is undermining an ambition to make the UK a technology superpower.

However, the report was criticized as being “vague and superficial” in a commentary by Telecoms.com editorial director Scott Bicheno. He observed inconsistencies, such as a claim in the Committee’s press release that there are 7M households without broadband or mobile internet access. The report itself says the correct figure is 1.7M households. The report uses an Ofcom study that found 6% of UK households (which corresponds to 1.7M of the UK’s approximately 28M total households) had no internet connection, whether fixed or mobile. One can only presume the figure in the press release is just wrong, perhaps driven by a typo.

The Telecoms.com commentary concludes with a reference to the UK’s efforts to create an Online Harms bill. The article finishes with a bite. “If this clumsy legislation is anything to go by it seems the first focus for improving digital skills should be the government itself.”

Unfortunately, Canada’s Parliamentary Industry Committee (INDU) has not really distinguished itself with exemplary digital literacy as I have discussed many times in the past.

In my view, the parliamentary committee review process is broken. That view was also expressed last fall by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Is there a better example than the Heritage Committee review of Bill C-18, the Online News Act?

Witnesses are frequently given too little time to provide meaningful responses to questions from Members of Parliament. Frequently, those questions seem designed mainly to create transcripts for campaign materials in the next election, hoping for a “gotcha” moment that can be editted into a partisan soundbite for Twitter or Facebook.

It is interesting to see that the UK parliamentary committee report on Digital Exclusion can be as poorly crafted as some INDU reports I have critiqued here in Canada (eg. this one). Indeed, it is sad that so little illumination seems to emerge from so many committee review processes.

As Professor Geist wrote, “I don’t have any obvious solutions. The reality is probably that unless Ministers prioritize accountability and MPs show some independence, nothing will change.” On that note, it has been just over 2 years since I highlighted CRTC funding of a purveyor of hate. The Department of Canadian Heritage ignored warnings until the story went viral. No one has been held accountable. Not one dollar has been recovered. The Heritage Committee review of the case resulted in no report, no admonishments, no accountability. The Ministers responsible for the funding, Rodriguez and Hussen, have retained seats at the Cabinet table.

Of course, there have been exceptions where Committee review created better legislation. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recently concluded a productive review of Bill S-245, “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)”. But, the Committee review process there was nearly derailed by partisan filibustering.

The Parliamentary Committee review process is currently broken.

Why are some committee reviews more productive than others? Why has such success been the exception, not the rule?

Will increased digital engagement drive increased partisan polarization or less?

Statistics Canada recently released data from its Canadian Internet Use Survey, 2022. In late June, I wrote about “Trusted sources for telecom data” and pointed to its “Telecommunications: Connecting Canadians” page, a subset of its “Digital economy and society statistics” portal.

The 2022 Canadian Internet Use Survey was actually conducted between December 2022 and April 2023. Although Statistics Canada has been conducting its Canadian Internet Use Survey for many years, the agency cautions against comparing data prior to 2018 because of changes in design.

While the Canadian Internet Use Survey covers just the 10 provinces, a companion article was issued last year, “Canada’s Far North less remote than meets the eye”. According to that article, “in 2021, 88% of those living in the Northern Territories said they had used the Internet over the past three months and 90% over the past 12 months. By way of comparison, in 2020, 92% of Canadians living in the provinces said they had used the Internet over the previous three months. The overwhelming majority (97%) of non-Indigenous Northerners used the Internet over the past year, compared with just over three-quarters of Indigenous people living in the North.

There were a number of notable observations in last week’s release of the Canadian Internet Use Survey:

• Internet use among Canadians aged 15 years and older rose to 95%, an increase from 92% in 2020; the biggest increase was among Canadians aged 75 years and older, increasing to 72% in 2022, up from 62% in 2020;
• The proportion of Canadians with home Internet access “remained stable in 2022 compared with 2020, at 94%, but the proportion of Canadians who reported having a download speed of 50 megabits per second (Mbps) or more increased”: 87% had a download speed of 50 Mbps or more, compared with 72% in 2020;
• 84% of Canadians had a personal mobile internet data plan in 2022;
• 2% reported having only a mobile data plan with no home Internet connection.

In addition to the infographic reproduced here, Statistics Canada provided a number of tidbits regarding Online Safety.

In 2022, 8% of Canadians felt victimized by an incident online, such as incidents related to bullying, harassment and discrimination, or related to the misuse of personal pictures, videos or other content. Among various age groups, younger Canadians aged 15 to 24 years (11%) had the highest proportion of people who felt victimized online.

About half (51%) of Canadians said that they had seen content online that may incite hate or violence, and three-quarters (73%) of Canadians reported that they had seen content online that they suspected to be false or inaccurate, such as misinformation.

As I said last month, for reliable facts and statistics I start with government agencies, especially the data produced by Statistics Canada.

Falling prices for telecommunications services highlighted yesterday’s Statistics Canada release of the June 2023 Consumer Price Index (CPI).

While Canada’s overall CPI rose 2.8% year over year, the cellular sub-component fell 14.74% and internet access prices fell as well.

As a result, prices for telecommunications services merited a special mention in Statistics Canada’s CPI summary in The Daily:

Prices for telecommunications fall

Consumers paid 14.7% less for cellular services year over year in June, following an 8.2% decline in May. This was a result of both lower prices for cellular data plans and promotional pricing.

Prices for Internet access services fell 3.2% in June on a year-over-year basis after increasing 1.0% in May. On a month-over-month basis, prices declined 5.0%, the largest 1-month decline since February 2019. This was mostly due to promotions in Ontario and lower prices in Quebec.

Since January 2021, the cellular component of the price index has fallen nearly 30% while the overall CPI has risen nearly 15%. If prices for cellular service had tracked at the average for Canadian prices, plans would be 60% higher than they are today.

The latest report on falling prices provides more evidence supporting my post from last month, where I asked, “Is it time for government telecom policy makers to say, “Mission accomplished”?”

Measuring price without consideration of variances in quality produces meaningless results. “Value” seems to be a much more relevant metric.

Policy makers need to look at factors beyond price as a measure of competitiveness. The marketplace is working. As I told the Canadian Press a couple weeks ago, price reductions we are seeing in the mobile market are “well beyond any of the expectations that were set by Ottawa”.

So, are authorities in Ottawa preparing to declare “mission accomplished”? That would be unlikely. However, with the recent substantive changes in the structure of the sector, it might be appropriate to ask if regulators should stand aside and let marketplace dynamics work.