A year ago I wrote about a CRTC decision to award more than a quarter billion dollars to the Government of Nunavut to build a 1,300-kilometre fibre connection to four remote Inuit communities in Nunavut. That Decision stated “Through its Broadband Fund, the Commission contributes to a broad effort by federal, provincial, and territorial governments to address the gap in connectivity in underserved rural, remote, and Indigenous communities across Canada.” I don’t like how the CRTC pats itself on the back as it spends other people’s money. The Decision was especially noteworthy because of a dissenting opinion filed by Commissioner Claire Anderson.

I have frequently complained about the CRTC’s off-the-books social subsidies, managing wealth redistribution on behalf of the government, without it being part of the Parliamentary budget process. There is no more egregious example than the CRTC awarding more than $270M to another level of government (the Government of Nunavut) in order to fund a fibre project for roughly 10,000 residents of Iqaluit, Kinngait, Coral Harbour (Salliq), and Kimmirut.

Since the original decision, the CRTC approved the project’s statement of work, which attracted yet another dissenting opinion from Commissioner Anderson. Under that Order, the Government of Nunavut was “required to submit quarterly progress reports and expense claims beginning no later than 26 May 2025”. I haven’t seen the first (or any) of those reports. I find the whole arrangement somewhat remarkable.

Personally, I have never been crazy about the CRTC’s Broadband Fund. When it was established in 2016, I wrote “today’s CRTC decision sets up yet another funding program. These are taking place ten years after the report of the Telecom Policy Review Panel, 16 years after the government first set its policy goal.” Five years ago, I asked if the program was fundamentally flawed in that it fails to address the higher ongoing operational costs associated with operating a network in rural and remote territories.

There have been a number of calls to review various aspects of the CRTC’s broadband funding program. In December 2022, Bell complained about how the CRTC was collecting funds and failing to disburse the money in an efficient manner. As Cartt.ca reported at the time, “Part of the reasoning is that there have been many more funding programs available since the Broadband Fund was launched and that the unused money held by the CRTC and not distributed could be used by service providers to do things like build networks.” A year after Bell’s application, the CRTC rejected it.

More recently, Rogers filed an application last month with comments due today.

when the Commission initiated its review of the Fund in March 2023, it modified the Fund’s financial schedule by deciding that TSPs would contribute $150 million per year until the Commission concluded the review. The review is still ongoing over two years later and the level of appropriate annual funding of the Broadband Fund going forward remains unclear. At present, TSPs have no knowledge of how long they will continue to make contributions to the Fund and how much these contributions may be.

At a time when capital for telecom infrastructure investment is so tight, when there is continued pressure for the major carriers to lower rates, the CRTC needs to carefully reconsider how it collects and distributes other people’s money.

A report today by Maher Yaghi of Scotia Capital suggests that Canadian wireless pricing needs to move away from data buckets. I wonder if the CRTC may be standing in their way.

“We believe it will be essential for Canadian telcos to transition away from commoditized data buckets to value based wireless offerings, a transition that US telcos have successfully done unlike in Europe where commoditization of wireless data buckets drove rate plans into the ground.”

Scotia warns that Canada’s wireless operators will need to navigate decelerating population growth and the shifting consumer consumption in order to successfully grow ARPU (average revenue per user). Scotia observes that the rate of mobile data growth has slowed, although it still remains healthy at more than 10% per year (down from 30% just a few years ago).

As these trends were seen in the US, Scotia says “In the US, the three incumbents essentially moved to an all-you-can-eat data model a couple of years ago and ever since, they have changed the narrative and purchasing habits of consumers to focus more on speeds, handset financing, perks and entertainment and away from pure data pricing.”

The pricing models of the three US incumbents are tiered based on different levels of service quality – not quantity. The plans generally have all-you-can eat voice and data buckets. Differentiation comes from what comes with it. As Scotia observes, the move from “how many Gigabytes to add features and perks serves to reduce the risk of commoditization. Moving from quantity to quality escapes the cycle of price matching between service providers as companies create their own set of attributes to are differentiate themselves.

Verizon offers pricing tiers to access their Ultra Wideband network; T-Mobile offers pricing tiers on content (Apple TV, Netflix etc) and coverage with satellite, etc. We are starting to see small moves by Canadian telcos to price based on other aspects than volume, but this is still very embryonic. TELUS has recently introduced pricing tiers geared towards premium vs regular handset financing levels (5G standard tier vs 5G+ Complete) but unfortunately, now the line is blurred between the premium and flanker brand on 5G vs 4G). Rogers is trying to move towards pricing related to quality/coverage (satellite, etc) while Bell’s pricing is not very differentiated as Crave is offered on all levels, and pricing remains very heavily influenced by data buckets.

Nearly 14 years ago, I disagreed with a CRTC decision that interferes with some of the differentiation that Canadian carriers attempted in the past, denying Bell’s NFL Mobile offering. The CRTC Chair at the time said “Canadians shouldn’t be forced to subscribe to a wireless service from a specific company to access their favourite content. Healthy and fair competition between service providers will promote greater choice for Canadians.” Videotron also tried differentiating with its “Musique illimitée” (“Unlimited Music”) service add-on, but the CRTC intervened finding “that Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd., and Videotron G.P. (collectively, Videotron) are acting in violation of subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act by exempting the Unlimited Music program from data charges.”

A couple years ago, I wrote “we have countless examples of overly simplistic analysis of digital issues that fail to consider the logical responses (and counter-responses) of the marketplace to new legislation and regulations.” I mentioned NFL Mobile and Musique illimitée, saying “These innovative services were competitive differentiators, offering new choices to consumers. Rather than letting the market place respond with either lower prices or competitive differentiators, the CRTC just said “no”.”

The CRTC needs to review these decisions. The nature of the industry has changed. Services have evolved. The mobile industry needs to be allowed to compete with differentiated services. Since this blog post is written during a summer heat wave, let me close by referring back to an earlier post that talks about flavours of ice cream. The regulator should allow service providers to offer consumers a wider range of differentiated flavours of service.

If you want vanilla, great. But I’ll take a scoop of Tiger Tail, thank you.

The following piece about the CRTC’s Broadband Labels proceeding appeared as an OpEd in The Hill Times on July 23 and The Wire Report on July 24.

---

Fixing what isn’t broken: Why the CRTC should rethink broadband labels

What started as a straightforward question — how best to measure and present broadband speeds to consumers — has spiraled into a regulatory exercise in search of a problem.

The CRTC’s ongoing push to mandate standardized broadband labels is a solution that’s not only unnecessary in the Canadian context, but one that has failed to deliver meaningful results elsewhere.

The Commission’s own consumer research tells a clear story: Canadians already find the information provided by their internet service providers useful and easy to understand. Consumers report being able to compare options and make informed choices based on what’s available in the market. That should be the end of the story.

But it’s not.

Instead of recognizing that the system is working well, the CRTC doubled down on the idea of creating a standardized “nutrition label” for broadband services—mirroring an approach taken in the United States. The problem? There’s no evidence the U.S. model works. On the contrary, data cited by Cogeco in its submission to the CRTC shows that only 2% of customers of its U.S.-based services even look at the broadband label. For a public policy tool that’s supposed to empower consumers, that figure should raise serious concerns.

In fact, the U.S. experience should be viewed as a cautionary tale. While standardized labels may seem appealing on paper, they haven’t improved consumer outcomes in practice. Other countries, like the UK and Australia, have opted not to mandate such labels. Rather than micromanaging how companies communicate service information, they’ve recognized that companies should have the flexibility to display product information provided it is accurate and not misleading.

The Canadian broadband landscape, while not perfect, is delivering results. Consumers are better informed than ever. Providers have every incentive to communicate clearly in a competitive marketplace where switching is relatively easy, and transparency is expected. Rather than enhancing transparency, a mandatory label risks becoming a costly distraction from the issues that matter most to consumers.

Complying with a prescriptive labelling mandate requires service providers to invest time, money, and ongoing IT system changes. These are finite resources that could be — and should be — spent on things that matter more to consumers: expanding rural coverage, boosting network speeds, and improved resiliency.

Instead, if the CRTC imposes a standard label requirement, we’re likely to see a label very few Canadians will read, developed through a lengthy regulatory process that has only a self-congratulatory press release issued by the CRTC to show for it. For the average consumer, the impact will be negligible. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost will be very real.

This isn’t to say the CRTC shouldn’t care about consumer transparency. It absolutely should. But it needs to pick its tools carefully. When the existing approach is working, when international evidence points the failure of labeling mandates, and when the cost of action outweighs the benefit, regulators should resist the urge to do something for the sake of doing something.

Canada’s telecommunications future depends not just on investment and innovation, but on smart, focused regulation. This is a moment for the CRTC to embrace pragmatism over performative policy. It should resist the temptation to fix that which isn’t broken — and acknowledge that sometimes doing nothing is the best option.

The ITU’s Broadband Commission released a report, “The State of Broadband Advocacy Targets” [pdf, 6.1MB] as part of its State of Broadband 2025 report series. The report recognizes that “communication services providers and operators have enabled, and helped deliver, years of reasonably consistent economic growth across different countries and economies.”

as gaps in access narrow, the digital divide is taking on new forms. Digital technologies are expanding in scope, scale and influence. Policy-making and regulation have moved on from questions of basic access to telecommunications and Internet to recognize different types of digital divides, such as age and/or gender digital divides, and their implications for access to education, healthcare, e-government services, employment opportunities and participation in the digital economy.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the Broadband Commission report found strong progress in affordability, with targets having been achieved at the global level. As a result, policy-making is evolving to include new and emerging topics such as digital transformation and AI.

The State of Broadband Advocacy Targets report is intended to inform policy-makers on progress towards the Broadband Commission’s goals. It emphasizes a need to leverage the benefits of digital technologies, mitigating potential risks, while aspiring for equitable access to digital opportunities.

The report also presents an overview of broad industry trends, as well as case studies for the advocacy targets to illustrate how broad trends are playing out in practice. It briefly looks at how different initiatives, policies, platforms and programmes help make a difference in people’s lives through broadband connectivity and services.

The advocacy targets:

• Advocacy Target 1: Make broadband policy universal
• Advocacy Target 2: Make broadband more affordable
• Advocacy Target 3: Get everyone online
• Advocacy Target 4: Promote Digital skills development
• Advocacy Target 5: Increase use of digital financial services
• Advocacy Target 6: Get MSMEs online
• Advocacy Target 7: Bridge the gender digital divide

How is Canadian broadband policy evolving to recognize advances made in Canada’s competitive landscape?

TELUS recently released its second annual AI report [pdf, 15.3MB] and among its key findings, the research shows that AI trust is “fundamental to the social license required to unlock AI’s full potential to do good”.

Pam Snively (Chief Data & Trust Officer, TELUS) said, “While Canadians are actively embracing AI in their daily lives, they’re telling us that trust must be earned through meaningful human oversight, robust safeguards, and transparent practices. It is trust that will determine how far and how fast we can go.”

The TELUS study canvassed views from 5667 members of Leger’s online panel between mid-December, 2024 and mid-January 2025. It reports Canadians recognize the potential for AI to drive social impact and productivity, but are concerned about the consequences of AI, if left unchecked, especially absent human intervention. The report says confidence in AI decision making doubles when human supervision is present, especially in “high stakes” areas such as healthcare.

The report speaks about “Responsible AI”, while noting that despite widespread use of AI is, 91% of respondents expressed concern about its impact on Canadian society, implying a recognition of AI’s potential as a powerful tool, but also as a risk:

AI has the potential to drive meaningful positive impact and productivity, transforming the way we work, live, and learn in the world. But this potential comes with risk. Issues like misinformation, bias, societal disruption, and data security make it clear: the responsible development of AI is crucial to the technology’s evolution as a tool to drive amazing outcomes.

I’ll note that TELUS has been involved in projects such as Trust by Design for at least 5 years, dating back to when the company described three core principles for its use of customer data: accountability; ethical use; and, transparency.

Last year, Harvard Business Review had an article by Bhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business at The Fletcher School (Tufts University), about persistent risks associated with AI trust. “For instance, radiologists hesitate to embrace AI when the black box nature of the technology prevents a clear understanding of how the algorithm makes decisions”.

The HBR article suggests that the AI trust gap will be permanent, “even as we get better in reducing the risks.”

This has three major implications. First, no matter how far we get in improving AI’s performance, AI’s adopters — users at home and in businesses, decision-makers in organizations, policymakers — must traverse a persistent trust gap. Second, companies need to invest in understanding the risks most responsible for the trust gap affecting their applications’ adoption and work to mitigate those risks. And third, pairing humans with AI will be the most essential risk-management tool, which means we shall always have a need for humans to steer us through the gap — and the humans need to be trained appropriately.

At last month’s meeting of the G7, the leaders issued a statement on “AI for Prosperity”. The statement calls for “[driving] innovation and adoption of secure, responsible, and trustworthy AI that benefits people, mitigates negative externalities, and promotes our national security.” The term “trust” shows up 13 times in the brief document, with the final section entitled “Unlock AI opportunity through trust-building”.

Writing about “AI Slop,” Josh Gans, from the Rotman School at University of Toronto warns “disinformation drives out information in the sense that people do not trust anything to be informative at all. That is, you can’t inform any people any of the time.”

Trust in AI systems will have to be earned. We need to ensure there is an appropriate level of AI literacy among lay people, to help build sufficient understanding of AI’s challenges and opportunities. Consumers and businesses alike need to be aware of the risks that come alongside powerful capabilities.