Remote working was supposed to be part of the future of work.

As the pandemic forced many offices to transition to working from home, we asked if networks could handle the shift in online traffic. Many offices were completely closed during the first year or so following the declaration of a pandemic. It turned out that the networks performed pretty well. The future of work had arrived.

And, a lot of people got used to the idea of working from home. Hours of commuting time were eliminated, as well as savings in travel costs and parking. Some people (and some jobs) adapted well to working from home. Some people vacated expensive downtown housing and escaped to lower cost suburban and rural locations.

Others didn’t (or couldn’t) adapt as well.

Despite remote work collaboration tools, many companies found drops in productivity when staff weren’t able to meet face-to-face for problem solving. A recent article in the Globe and Mail examined “The remote work revolution that never took off”. Remote working, a prediction by those planning the future of work, is characterized as a privilege or benefit, not a right.

Employment lawyer Howard Levitt writes:

As a result of pandemic safety precautions, forced closures and stay-at-home orders, employees were permitted or required to work from their homes. Employers can order their employees back to work when those conditions end.

What if they do not? At some point, and we are getting there, employees who are working remotely will be able to take the position that remote work has become a term of their employment and that their employer can no longer order them back to work.

Can an employer force employees to return to the office? In most cases, yes. But, market conditions can play a role in that answer. For some types of work, especially professions with limited qualified candidates, employees are in a better position to dictate the terms of employment.

Some employees relocated. If remote work is an option, why not avoid the cost of living in urban areas? Still, employers can reasonably have policies to expect employees to remain in the same province, to avoid unintentionally being subjected to laws of a different jurisdiction.

In January 2022, roughly a quarter (24%) of Canadians worked exclusively from home. By December 2022, that fell to one in six (16%). “In that period, the proportion of workers with hybrid arrangements rose from 3.6 per cent to 9.6 per cent” according to Statistics Canada data collected by the Globe and Mail. “A hybrid model can be useful for time management… On office days, a worker can attend meetings, presentations and lunches, while on home days they can do work that requires deeper concentration.”

More work is required to address corporate culture in a remote work environment. How do employees develop company loyalty if they don’t regularly come into a company facility?

The CEO of Royal Bank recently said that the slow pace of employees returning to offices is impacting productivity and innovation. “I think all CEOs in every sector I talk to are struggling with the balance of attracting, retaining, developing talent, promoting talent, building culture, creating productivity, it’s tough. It’s really tough. We don’t have the final model yet.”

In the meantime, the future of the “Future of Work” is leaning toward a hybrid model. Last weekend, in the Toronto Star, David Olive wrote,

Fixating on where employees work is missing the point. The point is the long-simmering worker dissatisfaction unleashed at the end of the pandemic.
…
In ideal offices, respectful managers extend to employees the kind of autonomy they had while working from home.
…
What has been lost so far in the workplace transition is a focus on the basic questions: “Do you value your job? And does your employer value you?”

What does work look like in your company? Toward what direction are you heading?

Maybe I am the naive one for expecting delegates at national political convention to produce thoughtful policy resolutions.

Shame on me.

At the recent Liberal Party convention, there were 24 policy proposals that earned majority delegate support as an “official party policy”.

One of these, ranked tenth in priority, was entitled “Combatting Disinformation in Canada”. The policy requests “the Government explore options to hold on-line information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.” Because it directly impacts press freedoms, the media had a field day with this one. A Globe and Mail editorial called it “nothing short of dreadful and dangerous”.

The resolution passed without debate. No one stood up to challenge it. And while the Prime Minister told journalists that the government “had no intention of acting on the party’s policy”, let’s remember that this same government is pushing through a suite of legislation to control internet content, generally treating committee review of the bills with hostility.

As the Globe editorial wrote, “the resolution reflects how the Liberal base, at least, thinks that control should be increased”.

This wasn’t the only resolution that should have attracted greater review. Number 17 caught my eye, entitled “Fairer Access to Telecommunications Infrastructure”. The leadoff recital begins “Whereas a 2017 OECD report found…”. And, that may be all you need to know about that first recital.

Should we actually care what a six year old OECD report reported? A 2017 OECD report, any 2017 OECD report, is based on data from 2016 or earlier. It is 2023. If there are no newer reports that support your resolution – the first recital of your resolution – that may be an important indicator. Contradictions in that policy resolution might bring comic relief to your day. For example, the policy calls for nationalization of telecom infrastructure in part of the resolution, while seeking more international carriers in the second part. What a welcome to doing business in Canada!

I am not just picking on the Liberal Party. Three years ago, I noted that more thoughful policy would be helpful for all of the political parties. At the time, the Conservatives had produced a telecom policy paper that read more like a rough draft of a first year college term paper, a hodgepodge of random thoughts.

Our parliamentary committees seem broken. Is there a sufficient depth of understanding of issues to help produce more thoughtful policy?

Last week, University of Calgary economist Dr. Jeffrey Church and NERA’s Managing Director Dr. Christian Dippon penned a detailed critique of the “junk science” approach to analysis of international price comparisons, published in the Financial Post. The article is a deeper analysis, but it is worth investing time and brain-power to read.

Notably, the authors write that “The quality of network service, availability of family plans, consumer preferences, income, availability and terms of handset provision, alternatives to wireless services, costs of provision, and the institutional / regulatory / legal environment all differ across countries.” These factors are all missing from more simplistic analysis of price comparisons, leading to a flawed conclusion that higher prices in Canada are to be blamed on market competitiveness. “The FCC assessment [pdf, 2.8MB] of effective competition in wireless services contrasted starkly with the emphasis on flawed international price comparisons by the CRTC and the Competition Bureau.”

Junk science market analysis contributes to the flawed resolution passed by the Liberal party at its convention. Such policies, based on overly simplistic price analysis, can lead to increased costs for Canadian carriers, ultimately raising prices for consumers and potentially harming the business case for investment in network upgrades.

What is the best way to facilitate development of more thoughtful policy?

On July 25, just two months from now, applications and pre-auction deposits are due for Canada’s 3800 MHz spectrum auction. The list of applicants (and beneficial ownership and associated entities information) should be published by the end of July, and the finalized list of approved bidders will be released by mid-August. The auction is slated to begin October 24.

The 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz spectrum bands are often characterized as “Goldilocks spectrum”, offering a balance between capacity and coverage. The propagation characteristics of such midband spectrum allow signals to travel for miles and penetrate buildings, while transmitting significant amounts of data. Lower band spectrum provides coverage of large areas but lacks the data transmission capacity; higher band spectrum carries high capacity, but cannot provide significant coverage.

Last year, in the complementary 3500 MHz auction, Canadian carriers spent a record C$8.91B, C$2.26 per MHzPop, roughly ten times the C$0.23 bid in the UK auction for 3500 MHz spectrum and double the C$1.23 bid in the US for 3700 MHz spectrum.

The total amount of opening bids for one unencumbered block of 10 MHz across Canada would be $46.83M in the upcoming 3800 MHz spectrum auction. In the previous 3500 MHz auction, the comparable opening bid amount was slightly lower ($46.7 million).

In the wake of the record spending in the 3500 MHz auction, I wrote that spectrum scarcity and the auction structure were being blamed for driving up the costs of mobile service in Canada. A significant proportion of the 3500 MHz spectrum, up to 50 MHz, was reserved for bidding by carriers other than Bell, Rogers and TELUS.

By contrast, there will be no set-aside in the upcoming 3800 MHz spectrum auction. Instead, there will be a “cross-band spectrum cap”, limiting companies to a total of 100 MHz in combined 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz spectrum. The net effect of the cap is that 150 MHz of the total will be available for regional carriers and wireless internet service providers (WISPs).

National Bank Financial’s recent preview of the 3800 MHz spectrum auction says “We don’t think aggregate spending will reach or exceed the level of the 3500 MHz auction given more available supply and less inherent demand due to the 100 MHz cross-band limit.” The 3800 MHz auction has 250 MHz available (3650 MHz – 3900 MHz), compared to an average of 110 MHz of spectrum in the 3500 MHz auction, of which 50 MHz was set-aside for regional service providers. National Bank notes that some observers have suggested auction spending as low as $2B or as high as $11B. “We think the 3800 MHz auction could see spending in the range of $4B to $6B or perhaps even more narrowly within a zone of $4.5B to $5.5B as reflected in the medium scenario”.

An interesting factor that could impact bidding levels is whether carriers will be seeking contiguity in spectrum holdings between the 3500 MHz band and the new 3800 MHz spectrum. In many of Canada’s major cities, TELUS holds 3500 MHz spectrum licenses at the upper end of the band, which would be contiguous with the lower portions of the 3800 MHz band.

As National Bank notes,

Ideally, carriers will acquire 3800 MHz spectrum close to their 3500 MHz licences, but this isn’t a given and we’re talking about a 450 MHz range across the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands. The relevance here is that spectrum contiguity helps reduce equipment spending and allow for related power efficiencies, especially when radios work within a 200 MHz band range after which more radios and carrier aggregation are required. Bell is positioned at the low end of the 3500 MHz band, with TELUS at the high end. As such, all the Big 3, in theory, would want to acquire spectrum at the lower end of the 3800 MHz band, but TELUS, in particular, may push hardest here to capitalize on contiguity.

The auction will be conducted at the Tier 4 level, meaning there are 172 localized service areas up for grabs. However, keep in mind that roughly 40% of Canada’s total population from the 2016 census (35,150,713) lives in just 3 of those 172 service areas: Toronto (license area 4-077) has a population of 7,030,750, representing 1 in 5 Canadians; with a population of 4,352,037, the Montreal license area (4-051) represents about twelve and a half percent of Canadians; and, Vancouver (4-152) has a population of 2,731,567 (just under 8%).

Deployment conditions for the 3 major cities are a little tighter than the requirements for the next 21 service areas, which are also more stringent than the remaining 148 Tier 4 service areas. Compliance with the deployment conditions are a requirement for any renewals. In addition, the government plans to monitor compliance with deployment conditions at various intermediate dates.

Where, at any point in the licence term, the licensee is not in compliance with its deployment conditions, ISED may invoke various compliance and enforcement measures. These measures may include warnings, administrative monetary penalties, legal action, licence amendments, suspensions, or other measures. In certain cases of non-compliance, ISED may determine that the most appropriate course of action is to revoke the licence.

The mid-band spectrum auction will be raising billions of dollars for the federal treasury, representing billions of dollars of additional investment by facilities-based service providers to enhance the quality and coverage of their wireless networks.

We’ll be watching this file over the coming months.

On June 5, the International Telecommunications Society will host its next webinar, “Ethical AI Governance: Are Companies and Governments Ready for the AI Revolution?”

The webinar is topical as many jurisdictions around the world explore legislation to control the deployment of artificial intelligence. The Government of Canada recently released “The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document” about which Barry Sookman has written.

For the past few years, I have been keeping current on issues relevant to telecommunications professions by virtual attendance at these ITS webinars. This webinar will be hosted by the Ivey Business School at Western University, and will feature international experts on AI governance, including Dr. Richard Benjamins (Chief AI & Data Strategist at Telefonica), Professor Rachel Dunscombe (chief industry advisor at the Dedalus Group), Mr. Cameron Schuler (Chief Commercialization Officer & Vice President of Industry Innovation at the Vector Institute) and Dr. Paul Timmers (research associate at the University of Oxford’s Oxford Internet Institute).

The webinar abstract reads:

Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) underscore the need for ethical and responsible AI governance to ensure humanity’s best interests. This webinar brings together four international experts to discuss key aspects of AI governance, including aligning organizational practices with authoritative guidance and addressing the complexities of responsible, ethical, and accountable AI. The speakers will explore crucial questions related to the role of governments and public policies in shaping AI’s future, driving AI adoption across industries, and maintaining transparency and accountability. This event presents a unique opportunity for government and corporate decision-makers to engage in informed discussions on AI regulation and governance, contributing to the development of a robust and ethical AI landscape.

Take an hour on June 5 at 10 am (Eastern) to learn more about Ethical AI governance. Registration is free.

I hope to see you online.

As Canada continues to push forward on its Digital Charter, I noticed an interesting thread looking at Florida’s proposed “digital bill of rights”.

Ben Sperry, of the International Center for Law & Economics, writes:

While it bills itself a “Digital Bill of Rights,” the Florida Senate Bill 262 could actually harm consumers and businesses online by substantially raising the costs of targeted advertising.

For consumers, this would mean less “free” stuff online, as publishers switch from advertising-based to subscription-based models. For businesses, it would mean having less ability to target advertisements to consumers who actually want their products, resulting in less revenue.

Unintended consequences.

In Canada, 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.

• Exhibit 1: CRTC regulations that effectively capped the amortization period for devices at 2 years. The Commission and consumer groups were warned that this would lead to higher monthly prices (how could it not?) but pressed ahead anyway. There were other options that could have permitted portability, but preserved the ability to pay for pricy smartphones over a longer period.
• Exhibit 2: CRTC banning Videotron’s Unlimited Music and Bell Mobile TV. 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”.

It is worth noting that Canada has not yet tabled draft legislation that targets online harms and hate, which has been the subject of numerous posts on these pages (such as here, here, here, here, and here).

Last month, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner lost a high profile case against Facebook parent Meta arising from the Cambridge Analytica “incident”. In its review of the Federal Court’s decision, McCarthy’s law firm writes that the dismissal is “a monumental victory for Meta”, providing “important lessons for businesses about Canadian privacy law”. The note says, “The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) strikes a balance between individual and organizational interests, and should therefore be interpreted in a flexible, pragmatic, and common-sense way. This means that courts must consider not only the individual’s privacy interests, but also the organization’s legitimate interests in collecting, using, and disclosing personal information for commercial purposes.”

As Canada moves forward with examination of its Digital Charter, it will be critical to maintain this balance of interests. Policy would be more robustly crafted if it anticipates how different actors might respond to legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Will parliamentary review of Canada’s digital bill of rights anticipate potential consumer and commercial consequences arising from the legislation?