Where can you find trusted sources for telecom data?

I have written extensively about bad data sources such as Rewheel or Cable.co.uk. It is hard to do meaningful international price comparisons, given wide variations in quality and underlying costs. But where can Canadians go when looking for trusted sources for telecom data?

I tend to be a fan of government data. I did my graduate work in mathematical statistics at a time when Statistics Canada was one of the world’s most respected statistics agencies. It remains the most reliable source of Canadian telecom data in my books.

Statistics Canada maintains a telecommunications information portal, “Telecommunications: Connecting Canadians”, as a subset of its “Digital economy and society statistics” portal. There are also communications industry sub-indices produced each month as part of the Consumer Price Index.

The Digital economy portal has breakouts for:

• Cyber security and cybercrime;
• Digital technology and Internet use;
• E-commerce;
• Information and communications technology sector;
• Price indexes for digital economy goods and services;
• Telecommunications;
• and, Television and radio industries.

There is a lot of other information available through that portal, including the Canadian Internet Use Survey.

The Statistics Canada telecom portal also has links to the CRTC’s Communications Market Reports, which are regularly updated with financial and performance information. The CRTC’s portal generally has more current information than it publishes annually. The Commission’s 2021 annual summary was published last week, eighteen months after the end of the year represented in the report. According to the CRTC, “With its investment in new technologies, and its new streamlined data collection and validation processes now in place, the CRTC has the tools to release data not only in a timelier fashion, but also in a more transparent and accessible way. The timing of the releases of the future iterations of the Annual Highlights will benefit from these improvements.”

The CRTC’s Communications Market Reports site is also a portal, with data summaries on various sectors and access to raw data in spreadsheet form. The CRTC portal also offers a number of tableaus (such as the one below), produced in conjunction with Statistics Canada, that can be configured dynamically by the viewer.

So where do I go for reliable facts and statistics? I start with government agencies, especially data produced by Statistics Canada.

What is the secret to making broadband customers happy?

Canadians love to bash our telecom companies. There is an organization, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS), that deals with certain classes of problems. The semi-annual reports from the Commissioner provides statistics about the complaints received. The CRTC conducts “secret shopper” studies, looking for examples of “misleading or aggressive sales practices”.

It used to be that only the post office was a more despised institution, but who sends letters today? That leaves banks, airlines and the CBC as the competition for a title no one wants. Canadians love to hate our telecom service providers.

But, is anyone in Canada studying factors that contribute to actually making broadband customers happy?

There was a recent report, published by Roger Entner’s Recon Analytics, that looked at “The happiest and unhappiest broadband customers in the United States”.

One of the key questions around the happiest and unhappiest home internet counties is where they are and what the driver is behind the happiness and unhappiness. Every week, we ask our respondents a battery of questions around how satisfied they are with the service they receive. After surveying more than three hundred and thirty thousand respondents later, we have respondents from 2,368 counties out of 3,142 in the United States telling us are telling us where the happiest and unhappiest broadband customers in the United States and allows us to determine the root cause behind their experience.

Recon’s analysis of the data challenges some of the “commonly accepted truths”, such as whether technology influences happiness, or whether number of competitors is a factor. In four of the ten unhappiest counties examined, member-owned cooperatives were active.

What about making broadband customers happy? Recon Analytics found that nine out of the ten happiest counties were rural. In six of the ten happiest counties, coops are active, but not in the happiest broadband county. Is the mere presence of coops driving better service? The feedback from customers in such counties ranges from “terrific to terrible.”

The data found that Fiber or Cable coverage is also not playing a determining role.

At the end of the day, Recon found that the most important factor driving customer satisfaction was the individual performance of a provider in any given county.

Almost all the providers displayed uneven performance. The same provider that performed very well in some counties performed poorly in others. Cable providers like Comcast and Charter performed very well in some counties. Comcast’s exceptionally good performance made Mercer County, WV the happiest broadband county. Equally, its poor performance in Barnstable County, MA and Whatcom County, WA made them the second and third unhappiest broadband counties. Only AT&T Fiber performed consistently well in the ten happiest counties and was not present in the unhappiest.

Each of the providers was able to deliver service that made customers happy. And apparently, these same providers could make their customers unhappy.

Considering that the nationwide providers engage in nationwide standard pricing, the satisfaction score differences are not driven by low price, but by actual performance. Technology helps, but the key is local execution. Providers could improve their performance in markets by internally benchmarking their performance and extending best practices throughout the entire organization.

Over the past 5 years, we have had to deal with a number of hospitals in the Toronto area. There have been clear differences in our levels of “customer satisfaction”. Fortunately, living here in Canada, it has nothing to do with pricing. It has nothing to do with outcomes or the quality of healthcare provided. But, there are clear differences in the way staff interact with patients and their families. Let’s phrase it as the way the health services providers deal with their customers. In two of the hospitals, there has been palpable caring and empathy exhibited toward us from virtually every staff member. We feel it from the parking garage attendants selling long term passes, from the information desk clerks, in addition to what we experience from the medical care teams. In one of the other hospitals, patients and the public are made to feel like we are getting in the way. As though the staff are upset that patients interfere with what would otherwise be a great place to work.

How do executives instill a culture that encourages caring and empathy? Regardless of the business, whether running a hospital or a division of a phone company, how do your workers approach customer service? How do all of your employees (even those who aren’t in customer facing jobs) represent the company in a positive way within their communities? In a remote work environment, how do you establish such a corporate culture?

It seems it isn’t the technology that makes the difference in making broadband customers happy. I think it comes down to people and the culture engendered in the workplace.

Is enough work being done to understand and quantify the impact of rural broadband investment in Canada?

There were a couple of interesting studies published in recent issues of Telecom Policy. In the May edition, I read “Evaluating the impact of broadband access and internet use in a small underserved rural community” [pdf, 4.1MB], looking at the impact of broadband in an under-served community in north-western Missouri.

The Missouri research had two primary findings:

1. changes in using the internet for employment, education, and health could not be directly attributed to the internet intervention, and
2. the internet intervention was associated with benefits stemming from the ability to use multiple devices at once.

The Missouri study is especially interesting because it examined improving service in underserved rather than unserved communities.

The other paper is from the July, 2023 issue: “Economic growth and broadband access: The European urban-rural digital divide” [pdf, 2.1MB]. Conclusions from the European study found the benefits aren’t limited to densely populated urban areas. It found economic growth across all regions, highlighting a need for rural broadband investment to close the urban-rural digital divide. “These results potentially indicate the presence of infant rural industries and technologies which rely on high-speed and high-quality broadband infrastructure to sustainably mature, aligning with the emergence of innovations in smart farming technologies and reassuring its importance in the future.” Not surprisingly, the European study observed private investments focus on providing faster connection rates in urban areas, supporting the use of public-private initiatives for rural broadband.

We know that there are broader benefits of broadband adoption, as I discussed in a blog post a couple weeks ago.

I started the year with a post looking at a policy agenda for the year ahead.

Over the summer, I’d like to put together a research agenda for telecom focused academic studies in Canada. What would you want to see on that list?

Canada’s policy environment is leading to the wrong climate for investment.

That is one of the key take-aways from a recent survey of leading business leaders published by the Globe and Mail. The survey [pdf, 5.2MB] included chief executives from a wide range of companies and business sectors, representing businesses with annual revenues ranging from $10M to more than $10B. Two thirds of the respondents represented companies with annual revenues over $1B.

The survey’s headline highlights nine out of ten participating CEOs in Canada see cybersecurity as a threat for their business; 70% say it’s a major threat. Still, Canada being on the wrong track for investment is one of the 4 key findings. “Over six in ten participating CEOs in Canada see Canada as being on the wrong track when it comes to being a place for businesses to invest (62%). When asked the reason for their views, participating CEOs most often said taxes and high costs (22%), poor leadership, regulators, and red tape or lack of clarity (22%), and incentives for business being weaker than other countries which does not create appealing environment for investment (17%).”

Further, when asked an open ended question “What are the biggest threats, if any, when it comes to your company conducting business in Canada in 2023”, 38% replied poor policy / regulation. It was the number one threat identified, by a nine point margin.

The regulatory and policy impact on the climate for investment is a key theme in the CRTC’s review of mandated wholesale access to fibre facilities. In its notice of consultation, the CRTC appears to trivialize the risk to further fibre investment by carriers, since fibre access networks “now cover most of their serving territories”. That stands in stark contrast to a recent statement by Bell Canada’s CEO that “There are still 4-5 million locations within our footprint without access to fibre.”

The regulator should know that broadband expansion business cases are examined on a project-by-project basis. After all, the CRTC administers its own subsidy fund to top up the shortfall in a limited number of rural broadband expansion projects. Policy makers must recognize that existing fibre is somewhat irrelevant to the millions of Canadian households that currently don’t have fibre access.

The economics associated with fibre expansion projects should be pretty simple to understand. I have written about broadband business cases numerous times. The incremental cashflows over time have to offset the upfront and ongoing costs associated with the project. If there is a shortfall, the project doesn’t get approved. If the economics don’t work, the private sector won’t invest in the project.

Cutting investment and cutting jobs aren’t threats; these are logical (and predictable) consequences of regulatory and government policy.

This week, we have seen stories about such consequences at TELUS and at Bell.

Will CRTC’s continued intervention in the marketplace drive an increased requirement for government funding for fibre in areas that would have otherwise had a business case for private sector investment?

Providing telecommunications in the Far North is a significant challenge. The population density is 0.03 people per square kilometre (0.02 in Nunavut), less than two orders of magnitude lower than the population of Canada as whole. Canada is already among the world’s least densely populated countries.

Adding to the engineering challenges are the vast distances to be covered, a harsh climate, and challenging geography. With less than 120,000 people, the Far North represents just 0.3% of Canada’s population across nearly 40% of Canada’s land mass. Indeed, on its own, the Far North would rank as the world’s seventh largest country (smaller than Australia but larger than India).

Upgrading telecommunications in the Far North isn’t easy, but it could deliver significant positive changes for Territorial residents. Telecommunications services can be a vehicle to digitally shrink distances.

As I mentioned in April, the CRTC has been studying the state of telecommunications in the Far North. The Commission conducted a week long public hearing in Whitehorse in April to canvass views. Final comments on the proceeding were supposed to be submitted last Friday (June 9). However, on May 24, the CRTC suspended the proceeding, saying:

The Commission is committed to consulting a diversity of voices and perspectives on the issues raised in this proceeding. The Commission intends to take additional steps in this regard, while recognizing the importance of a timely decision.

Last week, TELUS filed an interesting proposal in the form of a procedural request. In its letter, TELUS made two recommendations to enhance the process:

• addition of a reply phase; and,
• the appointment of an inquiry officer “to engage directly with interested parties in Nunavut.”

The suggestion of including a reply phase is not that unusual. Given the nature of the proceeding, it likely should have been part of the CRTC’s original public notice. As TELUS noted, “Reply is commonly part of a major proceeding as it allows parties to challenge the veracity of any conclusions made in final submissions and to correct the record regarding any mischaracterizations of information already submitted.”

The appointment of an Inquiry Officer is a less frequently used power of the CRTC. Under the Telecom Act,

70 (1) The Commission may appoint any person to inquire into and report to the Commission on any matter
      (a) pending before the Commission or within the Commission’s jurisdiction under this Act or any special Act; or
      (b) on which the Commission is required to report under section 14.

In 2014, the CRTC appointed Commissioner Candace Molnar to be an Inquiry Officer to explore the Canadian marketplace for satellite services used on a wholesale basis. In 2012, Commissioner Tim Denton was appointed to be an Inquiry Officer to examine issues related to 9-1-1 evolution. Before that, we have to look back 40 years to see that the CRTC appointed a senior staff member to be an Inquiry Officer to examine Phase III costing.

TELUS notes in its letter that the CRTC has considerable discretion in who could be appointed.

In appointing an inquiry officer, the Commission is not limited to Commissioners and staff member, but may designate any person it deems to be suitably qualified. To address the particular issues in Nunavut, the inquiry officer could, for example, be from the Far North or very familiar with the circumstances, cultures and languages of Nunavut. Such an individual could engage with the people of Nunavut with a granularity and cultural sensitivity not possible in a regulatory hearing, but consistent with the Commission’s intentions toward Indigenous engagement as espoused in the Notice. Without the structure associated with a full hearing, an inquiry officer could converse directly with individuals in their homes or communities and the report could be completed comparatively quickly.

The purpose of the CRTC consultation is stated as “want[ing] to hear from you on what actions it should take to improve telecommunications services in communities in the Far North.” While the Commission sought comments using a “new online engagement platform”, without reliable internet access, how would most residents of Nunavut access it?

The people of Nunavut are the among most remote and the most dependent on satellite-based communications. For most residents, internet-based communications is slower and more expensive than similar services delivered to the majority of Canadians. Although the CRTC held its public hearing in the North, travel from Nunavut to Whitehorse is impractical for most. Participating via internet would not have been an option; isn’t that precisely why this consultation is being undertaken? Notably, the Government of Nunavut did not participate in the proceeding.

The CRTC itself noted that it “is committed to consulting a diversity of voices and perspectives on the issues raised in this proceeding”. The idea proposed by TELUS, to appoint an Inquiry Officer to collect evidence, would appear to be a solution to bridge the information gap, sensitive to the cultural diversity and geographical challenges that may have inhibited participation by Canada’s most remote citizens.

Until the state of telecommunications in the Far North is improved, it is imprudent to rely on conventional procedures to canvass local perspectives. Solving the challenges of upgrading telecommunications in the Far North will require unconventional engineering and regulatory approaches.

So isn’t this an appropriate occasion to use one of the more unconventional powers of the CRTC – appointing an Inquiry Officer?