A report was released earlier this week by Ericsson that “explores what resilience means today and how enterprises are developing strategies to circumvent the effects of future disruptive world events.”

The war on Ukraine. The COVID pandemic. Natural disasters. These occurrences raise alarms about the lack of readiness for what is to come and spark recognition that many major events, no matter their origin, tend to have ripple effects.

As an example, the report points to supply chain disruptions. Although it may only occur in certain markets, it has driven up prices for many products around the world. “Due to the interconnection of ecosystems, cascading impacts become broader than the initial cause.”

The report examines enterprise resilience, the ability to respond to a disturbance, maintain core capabilities, and return to its previous state after a disturbance, whether random, accidental or intentional.

How can an enterprise not only survive but also evolve and thrive during times of crises and disruptive changes? What is the role of technology (including digitalization, cloud, telepresence solutions and mobile connectivity such as 5G) and society in this context? How do enterprises relate to sustainability within a resilience framework? What are the differences between resilience and sustainability and why are they important?

Key findings:

1. A more disruptive future awaits
2. Enterprises are more prepared for disruptive events, enabled through digitalization and automation
3. Societal and digital support is necessary for enterprises to handle future crises.
4. Enterprises can avoid the vicious circle of decreased environmental sustainability by balancing efficiency and redundancy
5. There are five paths to resiliency that enterprises tend to follow
   • Employee-led
   • Agile and cost-efficient
   • Automation first
   • Sustainability pays off
   • Innovation through digitalization
6. It is time to rethink resilience

The report concludes by observing that none of the 5 paths is sufficient to reach a state of long-term resilience. Today’s short-term redundancy-based resilience needs to shift to a longer-term form of resilience based on efficiency and environmental sustainability and proactive business model innovation.

The report was based on quantitative data collected from 9200 interviews conducted in March and April of 2022, with respondents in 23 countries; half of the respondents were decision makers in companies and half were employees. A more disruptive future is anticipated.

Today, the topic of disruptive changes may be associated with the pandemic, military conflicts and war. Still, various other disruptive changes can affect enterprises and their employees, including cyber-attacks, energy crises, trade wars and natural disasters.

Of categories of disruptive events, respondents cited “pandemic” as having the highest impact and greatest likelihood, demonstrating what was still top of mind for the study participants in early Spring this year. I suspect natural disasters and military conflicts might rank higher if the study was repeated today.

Digitalization increases the availability of data. Yet, it also increases dependency on the connectivity and complexity of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) solutions, leading to new vulnerabilities for enterprises. This dependency is further accelerated by the increasing share of employees working remotely and using a wide range of devices. The risk of cascading larger-scale failures grows if digital system failures occur. Due to the interconnection of systems, the consequences can quickly spread internationally and impact a range of other infrastructures such as power grids and payment and security systems.

The report observes that it is impossible for businesses to prepare for all potential disruptive events.

“Certain risks will be hard to avoid, and when they occur, mitigation strategies can dampen potential damages.”

Are we starting to see services making use of white space spectrum to fill gaps in rural broadband?

As described by the Government of Canada, “White space refers to spectrum in specific frequency bands that is not being used by other licensed radio services in certain geographic areas, thus making it potentially available to support delivery of other services such as wireless broadband Internet.”

The frequency bands currently being used for white space applications are making use of spectrum that is available from repurposed TV channels. The spectrum is assigned somewhat dynamically, with the White Space radio equipment communicating with a database to administers the available spectrum.

As described by Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development:

The management of the radio frequency spectrum has traditionally been a centralized process, with the access to spectrum overseen by a regulatory body. However, as technology has progressed, methods allowing dynamic spectrum access have begun to be developed to improve spectrum efficiency. A shift way from conventional licensing approaches could lead to a more flexible, adaptive administrative environment by enabling opportunistic use of the radio frequency spectrum. Such techniques for the use of [TV White Space] have the potential to improve spectrum efficiency while facilitating the introduction of new wireless communications applications in Canada.

Television spectrum has interesting propagation characteristics since it is in relatively low frequency bands, such as 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz. This can make these frequencies attractive for rural broadband internet. Indeed, the Licensing Framework for White Spaces speaks in terms of “Remote rural broadband systems (RRBS) [that] provide wireless service in remote rural communities in Canada, using TV channels that are unallotted and unassigned.” The technical rules for remote rural broadband systems permit higher transmitter power levels than typical White Space Devices [Radio Standards Specification RSS-222 | pdf, 269KB].

Right now, there aren’t many deployments of this spectrum in Canada, perhaps because of a limited number of suppliers of the technology. To date, Canadian based firms 6Harmonics and Redline Communications are the only vendors approved by ISED.

Will more service providers find White Space technologies and the repurposed TV spectrum bands to be a viable solution for rural broadband solutions?

In a Globe and Mail article last week, Rita Trichur set out compelling arguments to remove Canada’s remaining foreign ownership restrictions that apply only to carriers that have greater than 10% of total Canadian telecommunications revenues. From a practical perspective, that definition is a euphemism for Bell, Rogers, and TELUS.

In her article (“Telus CEO says it’s time for Ottawa to relax foreign-ownership rules for large telecoms. He’s right”), Rita writes that efforts by the Canadian government to “micromanage market competition have failed.”

The article continues: “If lower prices, connectivity and innovation are the Trudeau government’s overarching goals, then the time is right for our federal legislators to finally heed Mr. Entwistle’s advice and let market forces prevail.”

As the article notes, the 2006 report of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel [pdf, 1.6 MB] and the 2008 Competition Policy Review Panel report [Compete to Win] each recommended liberalization of restrictions on foreign investment in order to boost competition.

From the Competition panel report:

Telecommunications and Broadcasting

• For several years, Canada has been reorienting its telecommunication policies to place greater reliance on market forces in recognition that competitive access to information and communications technology facilitates business productivity throughout the economy.
• Canada’s telecommunications policy was subject to an extensive review in 2005–2006 by the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, which concluded that reducing restrictions on foreign ownership would increase competitive intensity, improve industry productivity, and be more consistent with Canada’s open trade and investment policies.
• Accordingly, the Panel recommends the adoption of a two-phased liberalization of foreign ownership rules pertaining to the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. In the first phase, foreign telecommunications companies would be permitted to establish a new Canadian business or acquire an existing Canadian telecommunications company with a market share of up to 10 percent. In the second phase, liberalization of foreign ownership would be undertaken for both telecommunications and broadcasting in a way that would be competitively neutral.

As the Globe article notes, “Not only is Ottawa taking too long to move forward with the second phase of foreign-investment liberalization, but the remaining restrictions unnecessarily drive up the cost of capital for large telecoms.”

The article quotes TELUS chief Darren Entwistle saying:

When you have artificial regulation, it fetters your fluid access to international capital markets. I don’t want to do that; I want to get the cheapest money available.

When we’re blowing our brains on fibre and 5G, I want to make sure that we get money at the lowest cost possible along the way.

I have written before about the high levels of investment required to build networks in Canada. Over the summer, a government background paper acknowledged that “in Canada the share of telecommunications revenues invested in capital expenditures over time was 30-50% above the OECD average.” Canadian telecom carriers invest well in excess of $10B in capital each year.

The opinion piece in the Globe and Mail concludes saying: “Instead of more meddling in the telecom market, Ottawa should create a plan to relax the remaining foreign-investment restrictions over the next three years.”

Is it time? Will a minority Liberal government take a “free-market” page from the Conservative party’s playbook to open up Canada’s telecom market?

Recall that a couple of weeks ago, I released “A Reading List For Free Market Telecom Policy”. Are you sensing a trend?

Rosh Hashana, the two-day holiday marking the Jewish New Year, begins Sunday evening, September 25, marking the start of the year 5783.

As I have explained in previous years, celebrating Rosh Hashana is very different from the celebrations marking the arrival of January 1; it is a time of reflection and introspection, reviewing the past year, and looking ahead to the next.

I reflect on the past year feeling a mixed sense of professional satisfaction, having highlighted abuse of a government program that directed anti-racism funds to a purveyor of hate. There are many lessons to be learned by all of the parties involved: government leaders, bureaucrats and public-interest groups that are supposed to be our first lines of defense. It was particularly gratifying to see the support for my work openly displayed by a diverse coalition of colleagues from across the competitive spectrum. In the coming year, we will be certain to explore ways to improve processes and renew education and sensitivities on these important issues.

As it happens, through the weekend, I came across one of those motivational graphics that adorn various social media pages that seemed to resonate with me: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I hope the coming year continues to provide opportunities to speak out on things that matter. I encourage you to find your voices to join me.

As we continue to emerge from the pandemic, I am approaching the coming year with renewed optimism. I have been able to travel to visit family who are overseas, and those on the other side of the continent, as well as host visitors – selectively. The past year enabled my wife and I to spend time with our grandkids, including getting to meet our granddaughter after 15 months of knowing her only by daily video chats. I wrote about the power of virtual presence, but let me reiterate, as good a substitute as video may be, it’s nothing like the physical reality of touching, holding and hugging.

As many of you read this, I will be watching a third year of live-streamed synagogue services, not yet ready on a personal level to crowd into a sanctuary for 4 hours. Still, there is a greater feeling of optimism as we continue along a path toward normalcy. I am looking forward to a year filled with more opportunities to hold and hug all of my little ones.

May the coming year be marked by good health, by personal and professional growth, and may it be a year of peace for all of us.

A new report aims to encourage and assist the development of comprehensive training programs for the next generation of telecommunications tower technicians. According to the release, “As the demand for wireless services in Canada continues to accelerate, so grows the demand for skilled technicians trained to build and maintain the country’s telecommunications towers and other critical wireless infrastructure.”

I have written before about the Structure, Tower and Antenna Council (STAC), which represents and provides a collaborative forum for Canadian wireless communications carriers, tower owners/operators, tower and rooftop equipment engineering service suppliers, and wireless communication facilities construction and maintenance contractors.

STAC released “Training the Next Generation of Tower Technicians” to aid in the development of a standardized training curriculum for new telecommunications tower technicians. The hope is that this will aid post-secondary educational institutions and specialized training schools to train the next generation of this in-demand workforce, supporting the growing need for wireless
connectivity.

Following lengthy deliberations, including research and interviews with people involved in launching similar training in the US, STAC identified six primary areas of study for those training to become tower technicians, as well as corresponding subtopics per each subject:

• An Introduction to Telecommunications;
• Climbing and Safety;
• Measurements;
• Construction;
• Rigging; and
• Electrical and Radiofrequencies (RF) Safety.

The structure, tower and antenna industry faces unprecedented recruitment challenges regarding the supply of workers, critical to meeting a continually growing demand for wireless services. In the absence of standardized industry training, employers are hiring and training new technicians themselves. As a result, there can be disparities, not only the types of training, but the scope and quality of training provided to new employees entering the industry.

As with any specialized workforce, the lack of adequate, standardized training can potentially result in hazardous working conditions. Harmonizing training and skills requirements for those joining the industry can help ensure critical communications infrastructure will be constructed with paramount concern for worker safety and network quality. Following completion of the classroom and lab-based learning modules, STAC’s Industry Workforce Committee believes additional structured learning through the completion of workplace learning placements, such as coop programs, would be beneficial to students, allowing for experience-based learning on-site, and providing students with an opportunity to develop hands-on knowledge of the job.

STAC indicated that it is eager to assist educational institutions and training providers seeking to offer this curriculum to develop the next generation of tower technicians.

Which schools will step up?