Figures from the CRTC show that the number of broadband subscriptions in Canada have only been growing at a rate of 3.3% per year on a base of 12 million.

Between 2018 and 2021, the number of households in Canada grew by about 440,000.

In other words, broadband subscription growth is largely attributable to growth in the total number of households (population growth and immigration) and new construction in rural and remote areas.

The overwhelming majority of households that have access to broadband already subscribe to a broadband service. Growth in the industry is fuelled by consumers choosing to subscribe to higher speed services, as can be seen in CRTC data:

In the first quarter of 2021, there were 3.6M broadband subscriptions with download speeds less than 50 Mbps, and 8.1M subscriptions over 50 Mbps, including 0.8M with speeds over 940 Mbps. In the third quarter of 2022, just a year and a half later, there were just 3.1M subscriptions with download speeds of less than 50 Mbps and 9.2M with speeds over 50 Mbps, including 1.7M with speeds over 940 Mbps.

Over an 18 month span, we saw market growth of 600,000, while nearly double than number went into service speeds of more than 50 Mbps. Half a million households migrated from slower speed services to services delivering speeds over 50 Mbps. More than a million subscribers migrated to gigabit speeds.

Consumers are choosing faster speed services as households change the way we use our connectivity, and as prices for premium connectivity have become more affordable.

Growth in the broadband market is being driven by investment in physical facilities: upgrading existing service areas to gigabit speeds, and expanding service territories.

The data demonstrates an interesting transition in the broadband marketplace as overall subscriber growth slows. I’ll take a deeper look at some implications of this market trend next week.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity; enhanced and advanced connectivity that depends on investment.

A recent study, published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science”, found that most US citizens preferred quashing harmful misinformation over protecting free speech, despite measurable differences along political lines.

The study may be informative as Canada continues down the path of developing legislation in respect of “online harms”.

The scale and urgency of the problems around content moderation became particularly apparent when Donald Trump and political allies spread false information attacking the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, culminating in a violent attack on the US Capitol. Subsequently, most major social media platforms suspended Trump’s accounts. After a sustained period of prioritizing free speech and avoiding the role of “arbiters of truth”, social media platforms appear to be rethinking their approach to governing online speech. In 2020, Meta overturned its policy of allowing Holocaust denial and removed some white supremacists groups from Facebook; Twitter implemented a similar policy soon after. During the COVID-19 pandemic, most global social media platforms took an unusually interventionist approach to false information and vowed to remove or limit COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracies — an approach which might undergo another shift soon. In October 2021, Google announced a policy forbidding advertising content on its platforms that “mak[es] claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process” or that “contradict[s] authoritative, scientific consensus on climate change”. And most recently, Pinterest introduced a new policy against false or misleading climate change information across both content and ads.

Content moderation, and terminating or suspending accounts is described by the researchers as a moral dilemma: “Should freedom of expression be upheld even at the expense of allowing dangerous misinformation to spread, or should misinformation be removed or penalized, thereby limiting free speech?”

When choosing between removing a post and allowing a post to remain online, decision-makers face a choice between two values, public safety or freedom of expression, that cannot be honored simultaneously. “These cases are moral dilemmas: situations where an agent morally ought to adopt each of two alternatives but cannot adopt both”.

The researchers examined public support for these “moral dilemmas” in a survey experiment with 2,564 respondents in the United States. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they would remove problematic social media posts and whether they would take punitive action against the accounts in the case of posts with:

1. election denial,
2. antivaccination,
3. Holocaust denial, and
4. climate change denial.

Respondents were provided with key information about the user and their post as well as the consequences of the posted misinformation.

The majority of respondents preferred deleting harmful misinformation over protecting free speech. However, respondents were more reluctant to suspend accounts than to remove posts, and were more likely to do either if the harmful consequences of the misinformation were severe, or in the case of it being a repeated offense.

Information about the person behind the account, the posting party’s partisanship, and their number of followers had little to no effect on respondents’ decisions.

Although support for content moderation of harmful misinformation was widespread, it was still a partisan issue. “Across all four scenarios, Republicans were consistently less willing than Democrats or independents to remove posts or penalize the accounts that posted them.”

The type of misinformation was also a factor: Climate change denial was removed the least (58%), whereas Holocaust denial was removed the most (71%), closely followed by election denial (69%) and antivaccination content (66%).

According to the researchers, their “results can inform the design of transparent rules for content moderation of harmful misinformation.”

“Results such as those presented here can contribute to the process of establishing transparent and consistent rules for content moderation that are generally accepted by the public.”

Canada needs to invest in digital skills development, at all levels, for all ages, for all Canadians.

Easily said, and it might even make a good political slogan, but how do we get there, and why should we?

Let’s start with why the government should invest in programs that extend digital outreach to all sectors of society, with special focus on marginalized communities.

In today’s digital economy, digital skills are crucial for individuals to participate fully in the workforce and compete in the job market. Employers increasingly require workers who are comfortable with, if not proficient in, technology, data analysis, and digital communication. Digital skills are also needed to provide all members of society with equal access to information and opportunities. Without basic digital skills, certain individuals and communities may be left behind, facing difficulties accessing essential services, such as healthcare and government services.

Since digital skills enable individuals to take advantage of new technologies and to develop innovative solutions to problems, upgrading the skills of a disadvantaged community can help bring greater diversity to the marketplace, encouraging the creation of new businesses and jobs, and contributing to economic growth.

Finally, digital skills can improve quality of life by enabling individuals to access information, communicate with others, and participate in online communities. Digital skills can also help people manage their health and well-being, and make informed decisions about their finances and other important aspects of their lives.

There are many areas of the economy that seem to be crying out for improved efficiencies through a digital transition. When your pharmacy tells you that they are waiting for your doctor’s office to reply to their fax, don’t you feel like you entered a time warp and should be wearing a paisley shirt and bell bottoms? That is just the tip of the iceberg in possible digital-driven productivity improvements. As provinces and the federal government do battle over which politician will get credit for allocating taxpayer dollars to improve healthcare, almost all of us who have operated a modern era business can see opportunities to spend healthcare dollars smarter, using basic digital technologies.

But we would also need the stakeholders to buy in: Pharmacies, doctors, patients. There would be different learning curves for each group, and each member of each group.

Most logically, one would work with professional associations to reach the pharmacists and doctors. Develop focus groups to understand needs, let the associations interact with their members, reconvene, adjust the training, adjust the system interfaces, and test again. Keep that iterative cycle going as the systems evolve.

Perhaps there are lessons that we can apply from such an approach when we are looking at how to increase outreach for digital skills development to those Canadians who have not yet gotten connected.

We have learned from the various affordable broadband programs that low monthly fees simply aren’t enough to get many low income households online. We still need to help those households learn how to benefit, how to access the savings programs, how to get basic computer skills, where to go for help, and basic levels of online safety.

I have written before that we need to consider different approaches to affordable telecom service for vulnerable Canadians.

A recent podcast on Light Reading talked about the Benefits Data Trust, a nonprofit that helps people access more than $80 billion in unclaimed federal benefits in the United States. According to its CEO, Trooper Sanders,

Benefits Data Trust was founded in 2005, to both help people who are eligible for benefits, get screened, and help them apply for those benefits. And then also do what we can, working with public servants all across the country to improve these programs so that really, people can get the help they need with efficiency and dignity, and move on with their lives and make things better.
…
So imagine someone who has faced extraordinary difficulty navigating the SNAP program, or what used to be called food stamps, to buy a bag of groceries, or if you’re a mom, and you know, the rules that have you, dragging your child to a government office to physically prove that you are a parent, just to get a bit of help to buy some groceries to make sure that they are well fed. Imagine if that is your daily existence. And now you have a new program coming along around broadband, which is important, but it’s not the same as food, it’s not the same as as being able to go to the doctor… It’s important, but imagine that you live that type of busy life while you’re struggling to make ends meet and just get it through the day, you can imagine how applying for something like the affordable connectivity program would get squeezed out.

And that’s why it’s really important to make the eligibility and application process as easy as possible, to allow those, like benefits data trust, who can help people, make sure that those who can help, can do it. And it’s done in an ethical and responsible way. And then also, you know, to really make sure that we think about more broadly, how do we make our benefits system work efficiently and with dignity, so that it’s just the normal course of business that people can get the help, that we’ve, again, already gone through the hard political work of creating these programs. So why would we leave people without, just because of inefficiencies and indignities in the system?

There are a variety of digital connectivity programs and service available in different parts of the country, offered by telecommunications companies, and nonprofit agencies such as Computers for Success. In the US, the Benefits Data Trust sorts through the programs; how can we help those people who are eligible for benefits in Canada get screened, and actually apply? How can we help them understand the value of these benefits, in manner that respects their dignity?

Just as we might work with professional associations to reach out to doctors and pharmacists, can we look to associations, community centres, and agencies to help proselytize, winning over those who have not yet been convinced of the benefits of digital connectivity? Perhaps there is a model to be found with Connected Canadians, a non-profit organization helping older adults develop digital literacy skills.

Is there a need and an opportunity to create a Canadian version of the Benefits Data Trust?

Can we start by agreeing that Canada needs to invest in digital skills development, at all levels, for all ages, for all Canadians?

In late January, I noted that we have been waiting for months for Canada’s Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC) to follow-up on its October resolution: “That the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage that were responsible for the funding of Laith Marouf be invited to appear before committee regarding the federal funding provided to the Community Media Advocacy Centre by the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department officials’ handling of the situation”.

That day of reckoning finally took place on Monday (February 13). You can watch the entire 90-minute meeting on ParlVU. Using my November 1 blog post as a basis (What I Would Say At Heritage Committee), I submitted a brief to members of the Committee which had been distributed to them a few months ago. It is available on the CHPC website.

Michael Geist wrote a piece that I commend to you: “Apologies Without Accountability: Canadian Heritage Committee Seeks Answers on Government Funding an Anti-Semite”. Marie Woolf continued her strong coverage of the Laith Marouf affair in the Globe and Mail in a story headlined “Ottawa hires debt collectors to get grant back from Laith Marouf employer”.

To those who are critical of the government hiring outside debt-collectors, I observed on Twitter that the point isn’t to get money into the government treasury; it is to get the government money out of the hands of antisemites.

Yesterday, I put together a 6-part Twitter thread capturing some of my thoughts.

I have reproduced them here, with some concluding thoughts at the end.

Just before Monday’s CHPC meeting, the Globe and Mail broke the news that “Laith Marouf once barred from re-entering Canada, interviewed by CSIS”. That raises the question of how a foreign national that was barred from entering Canada in 2009 was able to obtain Canadian citizenship. I suppose that is a question for a different Parliamentary Committee to review at another time. I doubt that Canadians will emerge satisfied from that inquiry, if it ever takes place.

More than 6 months have passed since the Minister was advised of the issue by a sitting member of his own party; nearly a year has passed since the grant was awarded with the Minister appearing in a joint press release with Laith Marouf. Yet, not a single person has been held to account for failures by our government – indeed, these are failures by the very department that is charged with responsibility for developing and implementing an Anti Racism Strategy.

Was it ineptitude or indifference that motivated the inaction by officials at the senior-most levels of the Canadian Government when confronted with evidence of antisemitism by a recipient of Heritage Canada Anti Racism funding? There was inexcusable lethargy in the response that remains unexplained. A number of commentators have observed that antisemitism seems to be treated differently from other forms of hate. “Slander, insult and actual hate against Jews gets a pass — until some truly extreme example calls attention to it. Try referencing any ‘marginalized’ group as ‘bags of feces’ and see how long any journalist, politician or ordinary citizen would last.”

As I wrote on Twitter, “I’m disappointed. I’m angry. And more than anything, I’m sad this is the state of affairs in Canada.”

A press release from Sasktel caught my eye last week: “SaskTel and South Saskatchewan Ready partner to bring infiNET service to four communities in Southern Saskatchewan”.

I receive a lot of similar press releases, but this one stood out because of the funding mechanism. “Through the Community Participation Program, communities provide a portion of the funds required to cover the capital costs to bring SaskTel services to their residents.”

This wasn’t a federal or provincially funded broadband program. A collection of communities got together and approached Sasktel, to provide the portion of the funds required to cover the capital shortfall for the business case to upgrade the facilities serving their residents.

There are other community models that I have seen, but in many cases, the coalition acts more as a lobbying agency, trying to accelerate broadband funding allocations from more senior levels of government. In the worst cases, the agency inserts another layer of bureaucracy into the process.

I must admit that sometimes, when I read statements like “To remain competitive and grow, businesses need high-speed connectivity,” I wonder why the government is funding the broadband expansion, and not the businesses that will be benefiting from that investment. I suppose that businesses can be even more competitive if they can get someone else to cover their costs.

In no way am I diminishing the need for federal and provincial government funding programs for rural broadband. I have been critical of some of the overlap, and there is an opacity associated with the criteria for how priorities are set for project selection, some of which can appear to be political opportunism.

As such, I liked seeing the novel approach of South Saskatchewan Ready, with communities taking economic development matters into their own hands, secured by a capable communications service provider as partner.

I’ll be writing about some other community-based activities later this week.