Allocating spectrum, the radio waves on which wireless technologies depend, is a multifaceted challenge for policy makers across the globe.

Each determination requires a balancing of interests: who should get to use radio frequencies; in what areas; for how long; for what purpose; under what conditions. Spectrum policy must consider consumer and corporate interests, and national economic policy.

Governments taking too much of a “hands-off” approach could lead to interference across spectrum bands, undermining valuable uses of wireless technologies; too much intervention could stifle innovation and competition by artificially raising prices, or allocating spectrum to operators with insufficient incentives or abilities to invest.

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed that New Zealand had once again decided to allocate mid-band spectrum to its 3 national mobile operators at no charge in order to help drive more rapid deployment of 5G. Two years ago, New Zealand cancelled its planned auction of 3.5GHz spectrum and simply assigned 40 MHz to Dense Air, 60 MHz to Spark, and 60 MHz to 2degrees. New Zealand’s approach stands as an interesting contrast to the multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions in so many other jurisdictions.

The International Telecommunications Society is hosting its final webinar of 2022, Driving Digital Transformation: International Comparisons of Spectrum Policy [pdf, 143KB] on November 15, 2022 at 9:30 am (Eastern).

Spectrum policy requires taking stock of international experiences to expand the pool of knowledge and identify global best practices. While no two jurisdictions are entirely alike, drawing on the global experience in the design of spectrum is critical to ensure that nations can benefit fully from their spectrum resources. Featuring four international experts, this webinar will compare international spectrum policies, including assignment mechanisms, deployment conditions, and governance frameworks. In doing so, these global experts will reveal lessons for governments and others involved in spectrum policymaking, as well as the implications for the global digital transformation.

The speakers are:

• Dr. Helaina Gaspard, co-founder and Director, Governance & Institutions, of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa. Her work centres on key actors of fiscal ecosystems, while leveraging relationships with partners such as the World Bank, the National Governors Association, the OECD and the International Budget Partnership. The IFSD recently completed a report for comparing spectrum assignment mechanisms across countries.
• Dr. Marja Matinmikko-Blue, Research Director of Infotech Oulu Institute and Director of Sustainability and Regulation of 6G Flagship at the University of Oulu. She coordinated the writing of twelve 6G White Papers that were published and led the development of the White Paper on 6G Drivers and the UN SDGs. Marja has published over 170 scientific papers.
• Dr. Petrus Potgieter, Professor in Decision Sciences at the University of South Africa and a researcher at the Institute for Technology and Network Economics. He conducts research on the impact of new technologies to the economy, policy and society. Petrus is a board member of the ITS, and editorial board member of the Journal of Telecommunications Policy.
• Ms. Janette Stewart, senior spectrum expert at Analysys Mason, with 25 years’ experience in radio engineering, wireless technologies, spectrum policy and spectrum management. Prior to 2001 she worked for the UK Radiocommunications Agency (now Ofcom). Janette’s expertise lies in mobile, wireless and broadband technologies and markets.

Registration for the webinar is free.

It has now been a little more than 2 months since the Laith Marouf affair hit Canada’s mainstream media. Although readers of this blog have known about Canadian government agencies funding hate for almost a year and a half, it was Jonathan Kay’s amplification of my social media stream that brought attention to the issue in mid-August.

In recent weeks, we have learned that the Prime Minister’s Office knew about the government funding of CMAC and Laith Marouf in mid-July, yet said nothing until the story left the Twitter-verse and made it onto the Canadian Press newswires about a month and a half later.

Why?

But there is still much that we don’t know, and it is unclear how much more we will find out.

According to the minutes of a recent Heritage Committee meeting, “the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage that were responsible for the funding of Laith Marouf [will] be invited to appear before [the Heritage 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”. The appearance will take place after the Committee’s deliberations of Bill C-18, likely late this year.

Two months ago, the Liberal Member of Parliament for Mount Royal, Anthony Housefather endorsed a thorough review.

Mr. Housefather (and a few other members of the Heritage Committee) leveraged the appearances of Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez and CRTC Chair Ian Scott before the committee in the context of the review of the Online News Bill C-18 to ask a few questions. You can find the video replay on ParlVU.

The Heritage officials will certainly be grilled at Committee, but will anyone actually be held to account for what should be embarrassing and shameful lapses in judgment? There is so much that needs to be uncovered in this affair. Canadians need to understand how the funding was awarded in the first place. How could the Minister of Diversity have been quoted in a press release with such a shameless purveyor of hate? Why was there such a lengthy period of silence following the information reaching the Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office?

If I had been given the opportunity to speak before the Heritage Committee, these would be my opening remarks:

Let me start with a few statements that are important to have on the record.

I am a Canadian. I am proudly Jewish. And, I am unapologetically a Zionist, supporting the indigeneity of a Jewish state of Israel in its ancestral land.

Professionally, I focus on telecommunications policy. I have enjoyed a reasonably accomplished career over the past 42 years.

I tend to follow a number of Parliamentary Committee meetings and most CRTC proceedings as part of my work, often “live-tweeting”. Some of you may be familiar with my online presence.

That was how I first intersected with Laith Marouf. In 2016, I made a comment on Twitter about Community TV during a CRTC proceeding; his replies were less than cordial. And that was what put him onto my radar screen.

But it was his harsh responses to my tweets about his appearance at the CBC licensing hearing in January 2021 that were most surprising. So, I started taking screenshots and I have a collection of about 100 tweets of his that I thought should be archived.

Some, in my view, crossed the line set out in Twitter’s terms of service, so I reported them. In mid-2021, Twitter suspended his account <@LaithMarouf>. In violation of the terms of his suspension, he created a new account, fooling Twitter’s sophisticated algorithms by simply inserting an underscore between his first and last name <@Laith_Marouf>.

In July of 2021, I started writing on my blog about Mr. Marouf accessing a CRTC Telecom cost award in May of last year. Despite this, the CRTC awarded a further $15,000 in October of 2021. While some apologists like to distinguish between funding awards to CMAC the organization, versus Mr. Marouf the individual, the CRTC receives detailed cost sheets from each consultant and the Commission clearly knew that the overwhelming majority of the funds were awarded to Mr. Marouf personally. The CRTC also chose to award Mr. Marouf at a rate of $225 per hour, rather than its standard internal consulting rate of $470 per day. And the CRTC bypassed its own procedures, not accepting interventions when it reviewed CMAC’s applications for costs.

CMAC received more than half a million dollars between 2016 and 2021 from the Broadcast Participation Fund, which was created by the CRTC in 2012 to make up for a shortcoming in the Broadcast Act that doesn’t include funding public interest groups’ participation in regulatory proceedings in the same way as provided for by the Telecom Act.

All of this preceded the revelation that Heritage Canada’s Anti-Racism Action Program engaged CMAC. When I learned of this in mid-April of this year, I wrote a blog post and tweeted links to that, tagging the official Heritage twitter handle, Minister Rodriguez, and MPs on both sides of the House. This was in advance of the first of 6 scheduled workshops. I also immediately notified a Jewish advocacy organization that informed me that it would reach out to its contacts at Heritage right away.

In July, when Mr. Marouf retweeted someone else’s tweet that included what I perceived to be a threat for an armed attack, I notified law enforcement, as well as a retired senior law enforcement officer and the Honorable Member for Mount Royal, Anthony Housefather, with whom I had engaged during some INDU meetings. At the same time, I asked Mr. Housefather to look into the Anti-Racism funding of CMAC and I provided considerable background material.

He replied to me on July 19 that he had informed Minister Hussen’s office. “The Minister is looking into it and will get back to me”. I followed up a few weeks later and was told on August 12, “I have gotten no good answer yet”. On August 16, “I have escalated this and finally got this moving at the highest level. Should have a resolution shortly”

By August 11, Jonathan Kay had already picked up on the story and moved the issue into the mainstream with his Twitter following of 68,000 (I had just over 5,000 at the time).

And here we are.

MPs on both sides of the House were notified in advance, including members from this Committee. Most did nothing until coverage of the story became too embarrassing to ignore. I don’t want this to be a partisan issue, although I do want to see some real accountability for the disbursement of public funds to this organization, and to this person.

The Honourable Member for Don Valley West recently posted a video on YouTube with a powerful message. He told us how he became sensitized to antisemitism when his father told him to apologize to friends of his for remarks he didn’t make. Mr. Oliphant was told by his father, “It doesn’t matter. You overheard it, and you didn’t counter it.”

Honourable members: too many people in Ottawa knew about this funding and didn’t act on the information. And didn’t speak out. Did nothing to counter it.

And that is why we are here today.

It will be up to Heritage Committee to ask officials why all of the money was paid up front, before services were rendered, and without so much as a web search to investigate the person receiving the money.

Perhaps the Committee will ask whether my blog posts or Tweets from July 2021 or April 2022 were part of the department’s news scan, or the Minister’s office news scan, and why there was no action taken by the army of communications and social media people who work for the Department.

The Committee might want to ask what screening was performed before the Minister was quoted in that press release with Laith Marouf saying, “Our government is proud to contribute to the initiative”.

Will there be any further investigation asking why there was more than a month of silence after the Minister’s and the Prime Minister’s offices were made aware of the situation? Surely it didn’t take more than a month for some communications person to compose a statement. I just keep thinking of that “actions speak louder…” thing, and I’d suggest the inactions of so many created a deafening roar.

Frankly, I’ve had enough of “bended-knee” apologies for past wrong doings. We don’t need another statement expressing regret for the lack of judgment in engaging with CMAC for anti-racism programming. We don’t need to see tweets from the Minister that he convened an antisemitism roundtable. Proclaiming “Online hate and violence doesn’t stay online” comes across as somewhat trite, when a government anti-racism action program sent more than $100,000 to someone who generates hate and calls for violence online.

As Michael Geist recently wrote, The House of Commons Committee Process is Broken. “The reality is probably that unless Ministers prioritize accountability and MPs show some independence, nothing will change.”

What questions would you want asked? [You can leave your comments here.]

A new report released yesterday by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) shows that Canada’s telecommunications sector directly contributes close to $75 Billion to Canada’s economy, supporting more than 650,000 jobs.

The study [pdf, 662 KB] also shows that Canadian telecom network operators outpaced their international peers in capital investments, investing $12.3 billion in infrastructure and $8.9 billion in new spectrum licences in 2021.

In releasing the PwC report, “Canada’s post COVID-19 recovery: The impact of the telecom sector in 2021 and beyond”, CWTA President and CEO Robert Ghiz said,

Canada’s telecommunications sector has played a crucial role in maintaining economic and social activity since the beginning of the pandemic, and by investing in critical network infrastructure at levels that exceed that of international peers, the telecom sector will be a key contributor to Canada’s post-COVID economic recovery. These investments are vital to maintaining Canada’s status as a world leader in telecommunications and meeting Canada’s innovation and economic growth objectives.

The report shows that capital intensity in the Canadian telecom sector represents 19% of revenues, significantly higher than the 14% average level of investment found in peer economies in the G7 plus Australia.

Measured on a per subscriber basis, Canada’s telecom sector invested $168 in capital per subscriber, nearly double the $87 per subscriber average among the G7 plus Australia.

CWTA indicates those investments are delivering positive outcomes for Canadians:

• As of the end of 2020, 99.7% mobile wireless network coverage where Canadians live and conduct business and along major transportation roads, and sector is on track to deliver 100% coverage by 2026;
• Based on a quality index that considers speed, availability and video experience, Canada ranks above G7 peers and Australia;
• Canada’s national operators ranked as Global High Performers for 5G Reach by Opensignal, with only South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia having as many network operators with as high a ranking;
• Wireline internet access to 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps are available to 87% and 76% of homes in Canada compared to 76% and 51% of homes in EU countries;
• The number of rural households with access to 50/10 Mbps internet speeds with unlimited data has risen by 46% between 2017-2020 (54.4% vs 37.2%), while rural access to 50 Mbps+ download speed increased by 90% over the same period (74.6% vs 39.2%);
• Continued sector investment in 2021, directly and through partnerships with government, are further closing the rural/urban divide.

The report concludes:

The telecom sector plays a significant role in Canada’s economy contributing almost $75 billion in GDP output and supporting over 650K jobs in 2021. The sector played a critical part of the economic and social recovery post COVID-19, supporting economic growth as well as underpinning Canada’s innovation ecosystem. Looking forward, the Canadian telecom sector will continue to contribute significantly to Canadian GDP and jobs, as well as impact revenues across industries—notably through the deployment of 5G.

The telecom sector’s ongoing investments in critical network infrastructure, including 5G and spectrum will provide increased coverage, high-quality networks across Canada and support the growth of the digital economy. The Canadian telecom sector has an important role to play in the advancement of technology, notably supporting the deployment of climate technology that is required for Canada to meet future sustainability targets, such as the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The telecom sector continues to contribute to prosperity and innovation in Canada, connecting Canadians across the country through provision of high-quality wireline and wireless networks.

The report reaffirms the importance of continued long-term investment by the telecom sector, consistent with the government’s policy that Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

The UK telecom regulator, Ofcom, has proposed to revise its guidance on how ‘net neutrality’ rules should apply, indicating that a more nuanced approach may be appropriate given the evolution of broadband technologies and the marketplace.

Since the current rules were put in place in 2016, there have been significant developments in the online world – including a surge in demand for capacity, the emergence of several large content providers such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and evolving technology including the rollout of 5G. So Ofcom has carried out this review to ensure net neutrality continues to serve everyone’s interests.

Ofcom indicated that “the [current] net neutrality rules constrain the activities of the ISPs, [and] may be seen as restricting their ability to innovate, develop new services and manage their networks.” The regulator considered that this could lead to poor consumer outcomes, “including consumers not benefiting from new services as quickly as they should, or at all. These potential downsides might become more pronounced in the future, as people’s use of online services expands, traffic increases, and more demands are placed on networks.”

The consultation document [pdf, 1.5MB] is 139 pages long, plus an additional 62-page set of annexes [pdf, 917KB].

Ofcom is proposing:

• most zero-rating offers will be allowed;
• ISPs have flexibility to offer retail packages with different levels of quality;
• ISPs can use traffic management measures to manage networks;
• ISPs have more scope to develop specialised services, such as network slicing;
• Ofcom will not prioritise enforcement action where there is clear public benefit, in relation to:
  • the prioritisation and zero-rating of all communications with the emergency services;
  • traffic management of internet services provided on transport;
  • the use of parental controls and other content filters involving the blocking of traffic; and
  • blocking access to fraudulent or scam content.

Ofcom has also proposed additional reporting from ISPs to allow monitoring the effects of the increased flexibility being provided.

Ofcom is also seeking comment on providing greater flexibility for ISPs in certain areas that could generate positive consumer outcomes, but are not permitted under the current legislation, including: allowing zero-rated content to be accessed after a customer’s data allowance has been exhausted; allowing retail offers which guarantee different quality levels for traffic associated with specific content; and allowing greater flexibility to apply traffic management to specific content to address congestion.

Finally, Ofcom has provided views on “the possibility of allowing ISPs to charge content providers for carrying traffic that might lead to more efficient use of networks.”

We acknowledge that in principle there could be benefits to a charging regime, particularly in improving the incentives on CAPs to deliver traffic efficiently. However, we also recognise the difficulties that designing an effective scheme raises, the risks and uncertainty such a change could create, and the unclear impact on consumers. A charging regime would be a significant step and we have not yet seen sufficient evidence that such an approach would support our objectives at this time. We also consider our other proposals provide flexibility that should help mitigate several issues identified by ISPs.

Comments are due January 13, 2023. Ofcom says that it expects to issue its decision and revised guidance by Autumn 2023.

“We want to make sure that as technology evolves and more of our lives move online, net neutrality continues to support innovation, investment and growth, by both content providers and ISPs. Getting this balance right will improve consumers’ experiences online, including through innovative new services and increased choice.”

I have written a number of times about Australia’s multi-billion dollar broadband boondoggle, more formally known as the National Broadband Network (NBN).

NBN was established in 2009 to design, build and operate a wholesale broadband access network for Australia. To date, the government of Australia has poured more than AU$50B into the project (approximately C$45B), including nearly AU$20B in government debt that is supposed to be replaced by private debt by 2024.

Last week, we learned that the Australian government is pouring another AU$2.4B into the company over the next 4 years, to enable another 1.5M homes and businesses to have access to fibre to the node (FTTN). According to Light Reading, “That includes 660,000 premises in rural Australia and means around 10 million homes and businesses across Australia will have access to top download speeds of around 1 Gbit/s by late 2025”.

There was an interesting data point in the Light Reading story:

More than 8.5 million Australian homes and businesses were connected to the NBN at 30 June 2022, with another 3.6 million ready to connect.

However, just 18% of NBN customers were on wholesale plans offering download speeds of 100 Mbit/s or above.

How does that compare to Canada, where networks are competitively built, owned, operated and financed, by the private sector, without structural separation?

According to the latest figures from the CRTC, of 12.2M broadband connections in Canada, 7M have speeds of 100 Mbps or higher (57%), which is more than 3 times the proportion in Australia.