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.

As I did with the last Policy Direction, I thought it would be interesting (and helpful) to look at how the direction changed from the draft version proposed last May until the final version issued today (February 13).

Additions since the draft are underlined; deletions are marked by strikethrough.

---

Direction

Direction and Key Objectives

Direction

1. In exercising its powers and performing its duties under the Telecommunications Act, the Commission must implement the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of that Act in accordance with this Order.

Key objectives

2. The Commission should consider how its decisions can promote competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation, in particular the extent to which they would
   1. encourage all forms of competition and investment;
   2. foster affordability and lower prices, particularly when telecommunications service providers exercise market power;
   3. ensure that affordable access to high-quality, reliable and resilient telecommunications services is available in all regions of Canada, including rural areas and Indigenous communities;
   4. enhance and protect the rights of consumers in their relationships with telecommunications service providers, including rights related to accessibility;
   5. reduce barriers to entry into the market and to competition for telecommunications service providers that are new, regional or smaller than the incumbent national service providers;
   6. enable innovation in telecommunications services, including new technologies and differentiated service offerings; and
   7. stimulate investment in research and development and in other intangible assets that support the offer and provision of telecommunications services.

Principles of Effective Regulation

Transparency, predictability and coherence

3. The Commission should ensure that its proceedings and decisions are transparent, predictable and coherent.

Efficiency and proportionality

4. The Commission should ensure that the measures that it imposes through its decisions are efficient and proportionate to their purpose.

Market monitoring, research and strategic foresight

5. The Commission should further develop strong and timely market monitoring, research and strategic foresight skills and use the results that it obtains from these activities in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties.

Decisions based on sound and recent evidence

6. The Commission should base its decisions on sound and recent evidence and should exercise its powers to obtain necessary evidence.

Timely proceedings and decisions

7. The Commission should conduct proceedings and issue decisions in a timely manner, in recognition of the need for market clarity. The Commission should consider whether adopting new processes or engaging external experts would help reach this objective.

Decisions of an economic nature

8. In making decisions of an economic nature, the Commission should balance, in addition to any other objectives the Commission considers relevant in the circumstances, the objectives of
   1. fostering competition;
   2. promoting investment in high-quality networks;
   3. improving consumer choice;
   4. supporting the provision of innovative services; and
   5. encouraging the provision of services at reasonable prices for consumers.

Considerations for Fixed Internet Competition

Regulatory framework

9. In order to foster fixed Internet competition that is sufficient to protect the interests of users, the Commission must
   1. maintain a regulatory framework mandating access to wholesale services for fixed Internet;
   2. monitor the effectiveness of the framework; and
   3. adjust the framework as necessary and in a timely manner, including by making proactive adjustments.

Aggregated wholesale high-speed access service

10. The Commission must mandate the provision of an aggregated wholesale high-speed access service – that is additional to any other types of wholesale high-speed access services that are mandated – until it determines that broad, sustainable and meaningful competition will persist even if the provision of an aggregated
    service is no longer mandated.

Variety of access speeds and costs

11. The Commission must mandate the provision of wholesale high-speed access services with a variety of speeds, including low-cost options in all regions, and should not allow in all regions, and should not allow for the discontinuance purpose of such services if this would eliminate ensuring affordable options for consumers while allowing for the modernization of networks.

Tariff setting

12. The Commission should set interim and final tariffs more expediently, including by reforming the tariff-setting process and considering external expertise or international best practices.

Equitable application of regulatory framework

13. The Commission should ensure that its regulatory framework mandating the provision of wholesale high-speed access services for fixed Internet applies equitably to carriers that are subject to the framework.

Considerations for Mobile Wireless Competition

Mobile wireless competition

14. In order to foster mobile wireless competition that is sufficient to protect the interests of users, the Commission must
    1. maintain a regulatory framework mandating access – at just and reasonable rates – to wholesale roaming services;
    2. monitor and assess the effectiveness of its approach to a mandated wholesale facilities-based mobile virtual network operator access service, considering factors such as the specific characteristics of lower-density or remote regions and how these characteristics affect the time needed to deploy wireless networks; and
    3. adjust the facilities-based approach, referred to in paragraph (b), including by extending the duration of the mandate to provide the service, if the Commission determines that it is necessary.

Revision to approach

15. The Commission should revise its approach to encourage broader service-based competition if the effectiveness of the approach in fostering mobile wireless competition is lessened due to changes in the mobile wireless market structure or circumstances of competition.

Periodic review and adjustments

16. The Commission should
    1. periodically review the effectiveness of its mobile wireless services regulatory framework in meeting its objectives and, in doing so, consider factors that could harm competition, such as coordinated conduct between carriers; and
    2. make any necessary adjustments to the framework.

Approach to Consumer Matters

Consumer rights

17. The Commission must enhance and protect the rights of consumers in telecommunications markets by
    1. strengthening the ability of the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services to better fulfill its mandate, including by
       1. increasing its operational capacity,
       2. ensuring that the perspectives of consumer and civil-society groups are better reflected in its governance,
       3. improving compliance with its rules, and
       4. increasing public awareness of its complaint-resolution process;
    2. strengthening the position of consumers in their relationships with service providers, including by
       1. taking additional measures to protect consumers from unacceptable sales practices, such as the measures identified in the Commission’s Report on Misleading or Aggressive Communications Retail Sales Practices,
       2. adjusting its consumer codes by harmonizing the provisions of the Commission’s its codes if doing so would be advantageous to consumers and providing for consumer protection measures in the event of a service outage or disruption,
       3. taking measures to promote clarity and transparency of pricing information and service plan characteristics in service providers’ marketing materials, and
       4. taking measures to ensure that consumers can promptly, affordably and easily cancel, downgrade, transfer or otherwise change their services;
    3. proactively identifying, removing and preventing barriers relating to telecommunications services, in particular for persons with disabilities; and
    4. regularly collecting, reporting publicly and making available to consumers information about relating to mobile wireless coverage and fixed Internet services, including in relation to performance and mobile coverage service quality metrics during peak periods and any other information that the Commission considers to be in the public interest, by
       1. requiring that service providers regularly test participate in the testing of the performance of their fixed Internet services, including services based on commonly used technologies in rural areas, and
       2. developing and implementing a standardized and robust approach for reporting mobile wireless coverage.

Measures Supporting Deployment and Universal Access

Universal access

18. The Commission should continue to take measures, in concert with other government measures, to support the objective of universal access to high-quality, reliable and resilient fixed Internet and mobile wireless services, including the following measures:
    1. continuing to administer a funding mechanism, making any adjustments that the Commission determines are necessary; and
    2. mandating improved access to support structures, such as telephone poles and conduits, as well as identifying and addressing other barriers to timely deployment of telecommunications networks, such as exclusionary practices and unreasonable administrative practices.

Funding mechanism

19. When the The Commission must, when it reviews its funding mechanism, it must consider whether to prioritize funding for mobile wireless services and operating costs of telecommunications networks in order to promote foster
    1. improved access to, and more affordable prices for, retail telecommunications services in underserved areas; and
    2. better coordination of public funding.

Considerations

20. In considering measures to take under For the purposes of sections 18 and 19, the Commission must take into account evolving
    1. technologies;
    2. service-performance needs; and user needs; and
    3. gaps in telecommunications network services.

Effect of Order

Effect

21. This Order is binding on the Commission beginning on the day on which it comes into force and applies in respect of matters pending before the Commission on that day.

Repeals

22. The following Orders are repealed:
    1. the Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives; and
    2. the Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives to Promote Competition, Affordability, Consumer Interests and Innovation.

It was 20 years ago that Columbia University law professor Tim Wu published his seminal “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination” [pdf, 1.4MB].

The subject of network neutrality has been part of more than 250 posts on this site, examining how regulatory authorities have dealt with the concept (or not) through the past 2 decades.

Last October, I wrote about how the UK regulator, Ofcom, was proposing a more nuanced approach to its regulations given the evolution of broadband technologies and the marketplace.

A recent article by University of South Africa professor Petrus Potgieter asks if it is time to take a break from the concept. “Twenty years of ‘network neutrality’ – time for a break? Consumers have a long-term interest in cost recovery and value sharing”.

He observes that “[network neutrality regulation] appears to be largely an affliction of the northern hemisphere as the rugby nations of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand have absolutely no network neutrality regulation, little discussion of the topic and no discernible shortage of any online content or service. In much of Latin America, regulators have had to create exceptions for zero rating to ‘network neutrality’ regulation because of strong popular demand.”

Professor Potgieter talks about 3 phases of internet commercialization (to date).

It is worth reflecting on the differences between phase II and phase III. In phase II, the ISP delivers ad content for which the content provider charges the advertiser and which traffic is therefore not directly monetised by the ISP. However, this is nuisance traffic for the end-user and the websites carrying the advertising have an incentive not to overdo it, lest they lose ‘eyeballs’. Since the end-user pays only the ISP, the broadband provider monetises the full value of the traffic to the end-user. The fact that this traffic also has value for the content provider (and the advertiser) is of secondary importance.

We are now in phase III where the bulk of the traffic is of subscription content for which the end-user pays the content provider (for example, Netlix) directly. The ISP delivers traffic to the end-user, the value of which (to the end-user) it cannot fully capture since the end-user has already paid the content provider. Furthermore, the traffic volumes are enormous and growing at a crisp rate through (a) increased time spend in front of a networked screen and (b) steadily higher resolution/quality of content.

He argues that Phase III is characterized by relatively few, identifiable originators of traffic, making it natural for internet service providers to explore partnerships with the content providers. “The dogma of network neutrality makes both cost recovery and value sharing impossible. Although this is to the short-term benefit of content providers, it is detrimental in the medium term to the development of end-user broadband infrastructure.”

He suggests that a cost recovery debate, exemplified by the legal battle between Netflix and South Korea’s SK Broadband, might provide a catalyst for for a fresh look at restrictive net neutrality regulation.

The Potgieter article argues that network neutrality regulations ultimately harm consumers by restricting choice. Canada’s policy framework for net neutrality is among the most prescriptive and restrictive. Twenty years later, is it time to review whether the regulations are still “efficient and proportionate to their purpose”.

I ran across the DIRT Report [pdf, 4.7 MB] last week. DIRT stands for “Damage Information Reporting Tool” and it is produced by the Common Ground Alliance (CGA), an association of companies that engage in underground construction. In other words, CGA members dig up dirt.

How does this relate to telecom? Well, when CGA members are digging, they want to dig up dirt, not buried infrastructure that gets in their way, infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines, water and sewer lines, electrical wires, or telecom cables and fibre.

For years, we have been trying to teach people to “Call Before You Dig” to arrange free locate services. In Ontario, the service bureau is “Ontario One Call”. Different areas may have different points of contact, but as a matter of general practice, if you contact any local electric, phone or gas company, they will put you in touch with the single number or website to arrange for all the underground services to be marked BEFORE you start digging.

CGA has an interactive version of its DIRT report that allows easy examination of data by province or state.

The report shows that overall, about a quarter of all damage is caused by work being done without people calling first. Despite all the work to build awareness, three out of five times, it is professional excavators at fault for not calling, not home gardeners.

I looked at the report and isolated Canadian telecom. In 2021 (the latest year reported), there were 4,255 damage reports, down 240 from 2020 (4,495), and more than 10% less than 2019 (4,840). About 5% (222) were caused by the occupants. More than half (2,375) were on the customer drops, about a third (1,436) were damage to distribution facilities, and just over 1% (55) were reported damage to transmission lines. Keep in mind that damage to transmission lines can impact a far larger number of customers.

When I looked at damage to natural gas and propane lines, in Canada there were 2,197 in 2021, of which around 20% were caused by the occupants. Apparently, professional contractors dig up gas lines even when there is a risk of blowing themselves up.

Frequent readers know that I have always had a special level of respect for the people who actually build and maintain our telecom networks, doing the physical work constructing, maintaining and repairing outside plant: towers, antennas, plowing and drilling for cables and fibre, installing and climbing poles.

That is a good segue to remind you that STAC2023, the annual gathering of the Structure, Tower and Antenna Council, is coming up in just 7 weeks, March 28-29, 2023. It will be held in person this year, at the Niagara Falls Convention Centre. Each year, this event is dedicated to safety and other best practices in the communications tower industry, bringing together industry professionals from across Canada.

Have you booked your place yet?