“There is no ‘magic number’ of mobile operators”.

That statement appeared, almost as a non-sequitur, in a press release from the UK Department for Science, Innovation & Technology. The department announced funding and support for the next evolution of 5G and “a national mission to connect all communities.”

But it then continued to say:

To help the mass adoption of 5G across the country, the strategy sets out a clear pro-investment framework for mobile network operators by driving down deployment costs and improving demand. The government has also reconfirmed that there is no ‘magic number’ of mobile operators, whilst noting all decisions on consolidation are for the Competition and Markets Authority.

The release noted that the UK expects to have gigabit broadband available to 75% of the population and expects to deliver 99% by 2030.

(According to figures from the CRTC, Canada had already reached 75% gigabit broadband coverage by year-end 2020, nearly two and a half years ahead of the UK.)

The UK announcement seems to be recognizing the importance of a developing a government policy environment to support investment in digital infrastructure. And as part of that, the government said there is no ‘magic number’ of operators, almost inviting consolidation if it will promote investment.

Promoting investment in high-quality networks is a key element of the Canadian Government’s Direction to the CRTC on a Renewed Approach to Telecommunications Policy.

It is an important factor as the new CRTC begins its review of a number of files.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity. And, connectivity depends on investment.

From the earliest days, regional networks have been a part of the North American telecom landscape, often plugging gaps in rural and remote regions.

Nearly 150 years later, regional networks still play an important role in bridging the digital divide.

A recent report by STL Partners describes “How Regional ISPs are Bridging the Digital Divide Through Innovation” [pdf, 740KB].

The report suggests that regional ISPs should explore new business models to close the digital divide.

Regional ISPs can overcome their unique challenges by developing business models that are not accessible by the larger carriers. Many smaller ISPs are formed by public entities, such as electric cooperatives and tribal governments, meaning that they operate locally and are more attuned to their community’s needs. In this report, we will highlight innovative business models that regional and rural ISPs are pursuing to bridge the digital divide, focusing on four key factors: technology, partnerships, financing models, and new services and customer segments.

Under technology, STL speaks of the role of wireless access, including TV White Space and LEO satellite, supplementing fibre that “can be impractically expensive for rural deployments, where population density is much lower.” I agree. We need to be technology agnostic as we bring broadband to unserved and underserved areas.

However, regional ISPs aren’t the only ones examining new services and customer segments to create business cases for rural investment. Mobile service providers will continue to explore the role of their networks in providing additional services, and can deploy fixed wireless access over 5G networks to deliver residential broadband.

It will take lots of industry participants, deploying a variety of technologies, to bring broadband to every Canadian household.

However, don’t confuse regional networks with municipally owned networks.

Frequent readers will recall that I am not a fan of municipally owned broadband networks. Unfortunately, too many ill-conceived and naive business plans result in squandered time and taxpayer dollars. ConnectTO was an example of a solution in search of a problem. Its proponents thought one of the world’s most fibred cities would benefit from the city building a new, government owned overlay network.

Beaumont, Alberta provides another example of when a smart city plan isn’t so smart.

As I wrote in “The Broadband Divide’s Little Secret”,

We have well-meaning advocates and academics in Canada pushing agendas for municipal broadband with no evidence, or in the case of ConnectTO, deeply flawed evidence, to support their assertions that gaps in adoption rates are all about price.

The mistake that emerges from a lack of good economic and social data analysis is that governments are tempted to apply the wrong solution to solve the wrong problem.

I wrote before that too many community networks are failing their constituents. I have also written that government programs to provide better broadband are failing underserved markets.

There is a role for municipal and regional governments in driving increased access to broadband in those underserved areas. Governments (at all levels) need to ensure that policies and programs stimulate investment in sustainable competitive network facilities. And, local and regional governments are uniquely suited to drive rates of digital adoption.

Investment drives connectivity. And, Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

A couple weeks ago, I saw a press release from HomeEquity Bank announcing a series of videos to help unmask the scams that are targeting Canadians. I think they are worth sharing.

The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre (CAFC) says fraud and cybercrime cost Canadians more than $530m in 2022. A recent article by Christine Dobby (Toronto Star) says those annoying telephone scam calls represented more than 10% of that total, $57M.

HomeEquity Bank’s campaign shows how easy it is to create and run a convincing deepfake scam. Using readily accessible AI technology, the series has a deepfake impersonator appearing as actor Keanu Reeves. Thieves have used Reeves’s name in a frequently reported celebrity romance scam.

The HomeEquity Bank deepfake takes viewers through three common scams to raise awareness of some of the most frequent methods of fraud targeting Canadians.

The series demonstrates how simple it can be for almost anyone to be transformed into a convincing impersonator. “The deepfake impersonator recorded the videos virtually from his home, and didn’t need any special cameras or devices to create the effect.”

HomeEquity Bank’s target market skews toward more senior client base, with its reverse mortgage product. The elderly are a frequent target for these scams.

The bank created the series as a follow up to its 2020 “Catch the Scam” campaign with Frank W. Abagnale, the con man and imposter featured in the Stephen Spielberg film “Catch Me If You Can.”

That 2020 campaign featured 4 videos, highlighting:

• The Grandparent Scam
• The CRA Scam
• The Lottery Scam
• The Romance Scam

Better education helps to unmask the scams, making them less profitable. As HomeEquity Bank writes, “We should see sharing our own experiences with scams as a means of better protecting us all. That means breaking down the stigma that comes with being the target of a scam. The more scams we can recognize and share with others, the less successful scams will be.”

In the US and Canada, the telecom regulators are looking at satellite to mobile phone direct connectivity. Is there a space race underway between the FCC and CRTC?

In the past few weeks, each regulator has started to examine what the FCC is calling “innovative collaborations between satellite operators and wireless companies”.

On March 16, the FCC announced the launch of a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process, adding the file to the FCC’s International Bureau’s Docket 22-271. The FCC wants to establish “clear and transparent processes” to support supplemental coverage from space, such as connecting mobile consumers to emergency services via low earth orbit satellites, where no terrestrial mobile service is available.

The FCC has asked for comments on “how this framework might best support access to emergency response systems like 911 and Wireless Emergency Alerts when a consumer is connected via supplemental coverage from space.”

In early March, the CRTC sent a letter to Apple asking for information about its “Emergency SOS via satellite and Crash Detection services”. The CRTC was following up on a presentation from early last October. Rather than conducting a full public process, the CRTC targeted Apple to respond to 30 questions, including: “Explain why Apple does not consider the Crash Detection service as a telecommunications service, the provision of which in Canada could require Apple, among other things, to register with the Commission as a telecommunications service provider.”

It is interesting to see the different approaches by the Canadian and US regulators. In the US, the FCC “proposes a framework through which satellite operators collaborating with terrestrial service providers would be able to obtain FCC authorization to operate space stations on certain currently licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services.” The FCC is also looking at adding a satellite to mobile phone allocation on some terrestrial flexible-use spectrum bands.

The CRTC does not handle telecommunications spectrum allocations; that is the responsibility of ISED. As such, the CRTC is unable to consider the potential outcomes associated with satellite to terrestrial spectrum allocations. The CRTC’s interrogatories only looked at emergency access, while the FCC also plans to examine how such connectivity “can open up innovative opportunities for consumers and businesses.”

On the surface, the FCC approach appears to be more forward looking, contrasted with what I perceived to be a somewhat more challenging tone in the CRTC’s letter.

The CRTC asked Apple for a response by March 31. As a follow-up, perhaps the CRTC will work together with ISED to explore a progressive approach that advances mobile connectivity for Canadians when we are off the beaten path.

It has been a few years since I last looked at the economics of broadband. What are the business case drivers and roadblocks that arise when pushing network upgrades into suburban and rural networks?

As the CRTC begins its review of wholesale internet access, the business case for network investment, and the economics of broadband expansion, should be significant considerations.

A few years ago, I wrote “The economics of broadband expansion”. In that piece, I looked at the economics of broadband expansion from an engineering economics perspective.

In considering the economics of broadband, look at a piece I wrote in 2016 (“FTTH business isn’t binary”) when Minister Navdeep Bains rejected an appeal of the CRTC’s 2015 wireline wholesale decision providing fibre access, but only on a disaggregated basis. That decision says, “the provision of aggregated services will no longer be mandated and will be phased out in conjunction with the implementation of a disaggregated service”.

In each of these, I explain that there is a boundary defined as where the business case for network upgrades goes negative. We know, based on the design of all of the government broadband programs, that there are communities or regions that simply cannot generate sufficient revenues to justify the cost of building broadband facilities. A government subsidy intends to provide just enough money to make the business case go positive. That is, the subsidy provides a reasonable opportunity for a return on the private capital invested.

No subsidy is generally required in areas with an urban population density, other than remote areas that may need backbone transport. So, we have urban areas that have no need for a subsidy because the business case is positive. There are many rural areas that need a subsidy because the business case is negative. A kind of contour map can be drawn defined by where the business case for fibre construction is barely at break even.

That was the concept more fully discussed in “The economics of broadband expansion”.

But let’s go back and look at the ‘urban’ side of the boundary line. That boundary is defined as precisely where the business case goes from positive to negative. Homes on the boundary effectively have a net present value (NPV) of revenues less costs of zero. The boundary defines a form of digital divide.

What happens if wholesale and retail revenue assumptions change? If revenues increase, the boundary pushes outward. More homes (on the ‘rural’ side of the boundary) would potentially now have a positive business case. On the other hand, if revenues decrease, the boundary contracts and the business case is no longer positive for as many homes.
I wrote about the CRTC’s latest review of wholesale internet access a couple of weeks ago. In its new review, I mentioned that Bank of America has said “the key will be at what rates.”

Why?

A business case looks at whether the inward cash flows from incremental revenues are sufficient to cover the incremental costs of building broadband facilities. The revenue forecasts clearly change under the CRTC’s preliminary view of the wholesale access model.

The Commission invites comments on several issues, including its preliminary views that (i) the provision of aggregated wholesale HSA services should be mandated; (ii) access to fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) facilities should be provided over these services; and (iii) the provision of FTTP facilities over aggregated wholesale HSA services should be mandated on a temporary and expedited basis, until the Commission reaches a decision as to whether such access is to be provided indefinitely.

Despite massive levels of capital investment by Canada’s facilities-based carriers, a lot of areas still do not have access to gigabit speeds. As seen in the CRTC’s data collection, 1 in 8 urban households in Canada lack access to ultra high speed broadband.

If the CRTC doesn’t get the wholesale rates right, the boundary for positive business cases will shrink and more households will find themselves on the wrong side of digital divide for next generation networks.

That would be a failure in broadband regulation.