As governments increase intervention in internet content and services, I wonder if sufficient regulatory humility being applied.

A recent New York Times article noted, “As companies like Google and Facebook grew into giants in the early 21st century, regulators chose largely not to interfere in the still-young market for online services.” The concern was that regulatory intervention could restrict the development of innovative applications and new business models.

What has changed?

Many internet public intellectuals have long advocated for a free and open internet, which many interpreted as supporting a hands-off approach by governments. However, one of my first blog posts, way back in March 2006, looked at an article by Tom Evslin, in saying that he was another voice on “a lonely quest to try to partially tame the anarchy of the internet.a lonely quest to try to partially tame the anarchy of the internet.”

If the Internet is a law-free zone:

1. Governments can do whatever they want there including spying and blocking. It’s naïve and illogical to think that governments are governed by law in a free fire zone when no one else is.
2. Monopolies can do whatever they want including blocking competing services.
3. Malicious people are free to attack not only other sites but the structure of the Internet itself including its routers and domain name servers.
4. Threats, libel, and fraud gain immunity from investigation and prosecution by being carried out on the Internet.
5. The Internet becomes a river in which any conspirator can wade to avoid the bloodhounds of law enforcement.
6. There are no laws PROTECTING privacy in a law-free zone.
7. SPAM is as legitimate as any other activity.

The past decade and a half changed the way we look at the internet. We are more willing to have law enforcement in the digital world. As I have expressed before, my concern has been how we tailor new laws and how we define new standards of acceptable online behaviour.

We have laws developed for the analog world and a body of jurisprudence in their application. We have witnessed the failures of anti-spam and do not call legislation. Those laws curtailed activities by legitimate businesses but we continue to get nuisance calls and loads of unwanted emails. To an extent, instead of regulatory processes, we apply technology to suppress what the legislation was supposed to curtail. We target spam and malicious software with software in the networks and on our devices. Telecom networks are trying to target nuisance calls with technology.

Still, I wonder if the legislation suffers from over-reach. At the 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, then FCC Chair Ajit Pai spoke about the need for regulatory humility:

In short, America’s approach to broadband policy will be practical, not ideological. We’ll embrace what works, and dispense with what doesn’t. That means removing barriers to innovation and investment, instead of creating new ones. That means taking targeted action to address real problems in the marketplace, instead of imposing broad preemptive regulations. And that means respecting principles of economics, physics and law, and acting with humility as we regulate one of the most dynamic marketplaces history has ever known. This vision will unleash the massive investments that the digital world demands.

Every regulation, every piece of legislation risks creating harmful unintended consequences. Some regulations can serve as disincentives for investment, slowing down necessary expansion and upgrades to network infrastructure.

These days, it seems Canada’s Parliament never misses an opportunity to wade into some form of telecom regulation. Parliament crafted laws about somewhat trivial issues, apparently believing it can do better than the specialized independent regulator. As a result, there is legislation on the books mandating paper invoices in a digital world. Why isn’t that part of a regulator’s discretion?

A private member’s bill mandates service transparency that is already part of the the Minister’s policy direction. Recall, I recently wrote about risks arising from online harms legislation in various countries.

Politicians looking to score points with intervention in the digital marketplace should carefully reflect on whether new laws are actually needed. What problems are we trying to fix?

A little more regulatory humility goes a long way to minimize unintended consequences.

Affordability of telecom services is a major theme in the CRTC’s review of telecommunications in the far north. The far north is one of the only areas where broadband service is price regulated, and prices in many areas are substantially higher in the north than consumers typically pay in urban areas. Of course, prices for virtually everything are substantially higher in the north.

For more than 15 years, I have been writing about the relationship between income and the adoption of computers and broadband, observing as early as 2008 that the rate of adoption of broadband are as much an issue of getting computers into households as it is an issue of affordability of telecom services.

Economists typically define affordability as the ability of individuals or households to purchase or access goods, services, or resources without undue financial burden or hardship. Various measures of affordability relate costs to a personal (or household) income, expenses, and financial situation.

There are various ways to measure affordability, depending on the context. Some common methods include:

• Income-based affordability: This approach measures affordability by comparing individual (or household) income to the cost of a particular good or service. For example, a common measure is the “housing cost-to-income ratio,” calculating the proportion of household income spent on housing costs such as rent or mortgage payments.
• Expense-based affordability: This approach measures affordability by considering overall expenses for an individual (or household) in relation to income. It takes into account not only the cost of a particular good or service, but also other expenses such as transportation, utilities, food, and healthcare.
• Relative affordability: This approach compares the affordability of a good or service across different groups or locations. For example, economists may compare the affordability of housing in different cities or countries by looking at factors such as median incomes, housing prices, and cost of living indices.
• Subjective affordability: This approach takes into account perceptions of affordability. It may involve surveying individuals or conducting qualitative research to understand their subjective experiences and perceptions of affordability, including their ability to meet their basic needs, maintain a certain standard of living, or achieve their financial goals.

Affordability is a complex and multifaceted concept that varies depending on the context and the goods or services being considered. Economists may use one or a combination of these approaches to assess affordability in different situations. Policy makers must rely on such measures to inform policy decisions related to income redistribution, social welfare programs, or market regulations, especially as the CRTC considers acting as an agent to provide social welfare subsidies for telecom services in the north.

In a 2015 report [pdf, 2.1MB], the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said “We suggest that communications services are “affordable” where, as a guideline, they make up about 4% to 6% of a household’s income.” In 2017, PIAC found that low income households considered home internet to be equally important as health care.

At the hearing on telecom services in the Far North, NWTel announced that it will be joining Connecting Families, an industry-led program to bring affordable broadband services to the most disadvantaged households. Connecting Families provides 50 Mbps (down) / 10 Mbps (up) speed service for just $20 a month to families receiving the maximum Canada Child Benefit or low-income seniors receiving the maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement. There is also a 10/1 service available for just $10 per month.

Too many people confuse affordability with the overall desire to lower prices across the board. We all want lower prices for everything. The best approach for affordability of telecom services is to target help to those who need it most, with programs like Connecting Families.

A recent study by UK regulator Ofcom found that half of those eligible were unaware of “social tariffs” that could reduce household broadband rates by about £200 per year for millions of households.

Savings opportunities for eligible Canadian families are even greater than in the UK. But, the industry, including service providers, policy makers and the regulator, may need to develop partnerships with trusted community groups and social service agencies to understand (and overcome) the reasons why some households are not adopting broadband, even at deeply discounted pricing, with services priced well below costs.

It isn’t enough to make affordable broadband service available to targeted communities. Collectively, we need to make sure people actually get online.

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association announced it is rebranding itself, dropping the ‘wireless’ qualifier, explicitly expanding its scope to include wireline communications. Its new Twitter tagline reads “Dedicated to building a better future for Canadians through connectivity”.

Welcome to the Canadian Telecommunications Association, a new name reflecting the organization’s broadened role. The Association promotes the “importance of both wireless and wireline telecommunications to Canada’s economic growth and social development, and the crucial role of ongoing investments by facilities-based service providers in delivering world-class internet and mobile-wireless services to Canadians.”

The rebranding represents the latest chapter in a nearly 50-year history for the organization. In many ways, the evolution of the Association’s name and branding over the decades reflects the changing nature of telecommunications in Canada. The association says it will continue to do more than advocate on behalf of its industry members. It facilitates industry-wide initiatives such as the Mobile Giving Foundation Canada, Canadian Common Short Codes, STAC and wirelessaccessibility.ca.

Technology evolution and consumer demands tend to blur lines between the capabilities and use of wired and wireless telecommunications. Many policy priorities overlap between wireline and wireless carriers.

“We remain dedicated to building a better future for Canadians through both wireline and wireless connectivity.”

Consumers want faster, more reliable internet connections, driven by streaming video and other bandwidth-intensive applications. So, service providers invest billions of dollars each year to expand and upgrade access and transport networks.

Canadian Telecommunications Association CEO Robert Ghiz said: “Our members are committed to ensuring that Canadians continue to enjoy world-class telecommunications services that are the cornerstone of Canada’s digital economy and an important contributor to the social fabric of our country. For this to happen, Canada must maintain a regulatory environment that incentivizes the high-level of private sector investment needed to connect all Canadians and build the next generation of connectivity infrastructure and services.”

“Canada’s future depends of connectivity” is a phrase that has appeared many times on these pages since it was used by former ISED Minister Navdeep Bains in August 2020.

The rebranding recognizes that connectivity can be delivered over wireline and wireless facilities, building digital infrastructure for a new era.

Canada’s innovation-based economy depends on connectivity – connectivity delivered by the investments made by members of the Canadian Telecommunications Association.

In what may be considered a premature exclamation, the CRTC chair issued a statement on the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) having received Royal Assent. (The Globe and Mail has an excellent summary of the bill.

The Media Policy blog had talks about ambiguity as “the fuel source for the never-ending flame of controversy” surrounding the legislation.

So, in some ways, it was smart for the CRTC to try to introduce some calm reassurance by issuing a statement about next steps.

The CRTC will establish a modernized regulatory framework where all players contribute equitably. The broadcasting system will ensure that online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content. Creators will have opportunities to tell their stories and Canadians will have access to a greater variety and diversity of content. The CRTC has no intention to regulate creators of user-generated content and their content.

Hold on.

That last sentence may be premature.

As Media Policy notes, “It’s been well established that social media users — ranging from major movie studios to individual YouTubers— won’t be directly regulated as businesses, only YouTube will be. But their programs might be if they are sufficiently ‘commercial,’ a line drawing exercise delegated to the CRTC.”

There are going to be consultations and the CRTC should be making determinations based on evidence. So, was it premature for the CRTC Chair to say the Commission “has no intention to regulate creators of user-generated content and their content“?

For that matter, how will we define a “creator of user-generated content”? How do we define content that is user-generated? At some point, does user-generated content become successful enough to be considered a commercial venture? At what point did the 4 brothers (Harry, Albert, Samuel, and Jack) transition to become Warner Brothers Entertainment? (As an aside, Jack Warner was born in London Ontario). What about that Saint John, NB scrap dealer, Lou Mayer, who turned his mind toward entertainment and co-founded MGM?

There is much ambiguity to be resolved by the CRTC in order to give effect to the Online Streaming Act. We need confidence that there won’t be political interference impacting the independence of Canada’s telecommunications regulator.

Let’s ensure that premature exclamations don’t prejudice the ultimate evidence-based determinations by the CRTC.

Will government regulations addressing online harms make it less safe to be online?

That is what the heads of a number of messaging apps have told the UK government. A recent article on Telecoms.com reports that executives from WhatsApp, Signal, Viber, Element, OPTF, Threema, and Wire have signed an open letter calling on the UK to rethink its Online Harms bill (that I have discussed previously).

“The UK Government must urgently rethink the Bill, revising it to encourage companies to offer more privacy and security to its residents, not less.”

The companies warned that as “currently drafted, the Bill could break end-to-end encryption, opening the door to routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal messages of friends, family members, employees, executives, journalists, human rights activists and even politicians themselves, which would fundamentally undermine everyone’s ability to communicate securely.”

Writing about various states’ legislative bills aimed at protecting your from harms on social media, Ben Sperry of the International Center for Law & Economics opined, “It’s understandable that legislators would seek solutions to address the perceived harm that social-media usage may cause, especially for teen girls. But where these proposals go wrong is in substituting lawmakers’ own preferences for the decisions of parents and teens on how and when to best use social media.” Sperry says the predictable result would be for social media platforms to invest more in excluding teens from their platforms altogether, rather than investing in creating safe spaces for them to connect and learn online. “This may even be the goal of some legislators, but it’s not beneficial to teens, parents, or society in long run.”

Similar to what we have seen with digital legislation in Canada, the UK’s review of the Online Harms bill has been deeply polarizing. The author of the Telecoms.com article is pretty clear about his views on the legislation. “Given the degree of technological and ethical illiteracy shown in the drafting of this bill and its passage through the House of Commons, there seems little hope that the Lords will understand what’s at stake. But we’d be delighted to be proved wrong and cross our fingers that the Bill is returned to the government with lots of red ink on it.”