Last week, MediaSmarts released “From Access to Engagement: Building a Digital Media Literacy Strategy for Canada” [pdf, 2.9MB].

The report is an output from a symposium held in February. MediaSmarts has been advocating for digital literacy for more than 15 years, since its earlier incarnation as the Media Awareness Network, and you will see references to digital literacy on this blog dating back almost as long.

A national strategy will provide experts, advocates and service providers in the digital media literacy field with a unified but flexible approach for preventing and responding to online harms through education and critical skills development. At the same time, people living in Canada will be empowered to use, understand, create and engage with digital technology and digital media, which is at the heart of active digital citizenship and innovation.

Unfortunately, Canada doesn’t have an accurate baseline to measure our digital media literacy skills, unlike some of our closest trading partners, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia. As I recently noted, digital literacy appears to be a significant inhibitor in increasing adoption of internet connectivity among vulnerable populations eligible for affordable broadband and devices. The report notes “that when it comes to digital participation, access to technology and training is crucial for historically marginalized people in Canada, including Indigenous communities, people living in poverty, newcomers and people with disabilities.”

A recent article in Policy Options by the report’s authors observed “Access alone cannot close the digital divide.”

Digital literacy is more than technological know-how. It includes various ethical, social and reflective practices essential to developing online resilience and ethical digital citizenship. We must then embed these practices in our work, learning and daily life. Approaches to digital literacy that overemphasize access, hard technological skills and risk-avoidance constrain rather than bolster user agency. The risk is that while most people do not need coaxing to use digital technology, many users become deeply immersed in online life without the necessary digital literacy skills and supports.

Let’s take a look at that last sentence. I would agree that “most people do not need coaxing to use digital technology”, but we also need to consider the challenge of digital literacy training for those who do need coaxing. While the number of folks who don’t use internet is closing, last week’s release from Statistics Canada [Full Report: pdf, 820KB] shows there is still over-representation of some groups that are getting left behind. Statistics Canada data identifies age and education among the most significant factors impacting internet skills.

We are making progress. Statistics Canada reports “Fewer Canadians are on the ‘have not’ side of the digital divide”.

From 2018 to 2020, the shares of Canadians identified as either Non-users or Basic users of the internet and digital technologies declined by almost 5 percentage points, from 23.8% to 18.9%. This represented a shift of almost 1.4 million Canadians from the ‘have-not’ to the ‘have’ side of the digital divide.

Leaders of the various low-income broadband programs (Connecting Families, Connected for Success, Internet for Good) may be able to provide valuable input to help inform the development of Canada’s national digital literacy strategy on factors influencing non-adoption of internet connectivity. As I wrote last year, “we have learned that getting people online isn’t just a matter of price.”

Of those who do not currently use the internet, a significant portion attribute their lack of online activity to issues of digital literacy and concern for cybersecurity.

Access alone cannot close the digital divide.

Canada needs to place greater emphasis on development of digital literacy among users and non-users alike.

In a post last fall (“Canada needs to be a global leader in 5G”), I wrote about a Policy Options article that said “Market forces alone will not deliver fast 5G internet to rural areas.”

Canadians need 5G. A recent paper describes at least 3 new areas of industrial change enabled by 5G: the Internet of Things (IoT) (enabling smart homes and smart cities); vehicle automation, healthcare and smart farms; and, augmented reality and virtual reality.

These innovations are important for rural and urban Canadians alike, and we have seen 5G services being made available in some rural markets already.

Over the past two years, a number of government policy announcements have helped create a climate that encourages investment by the private sector to extend the reach of advanced technologies beyond urban centres. “Canada’s future depends on connectivity” has been guiding regulatory determinations and telecom policy, balancing the objectives of expanding network coverage, delivering world-leading service quality, and affordable prices.

As I described last week, the cost of delivering rural broadband can be substantial. A recent government announcement awarded $163M in subsidies for less than 8000 households, including one project that cost more than a quarter million dollars per household.

What if there was another approach to encourage more private sector investment in rural broadband and 5G wireless?

Is that precisely what the government is looking at with the rumoured proposal to have Xplornet acquire the divested Freedom Mobile assets from the acquisition of Shaw by Rogers?

There are other groups that have apparently submitted bids, but it is difficult to envision how any would have a plan that could result in a sustainable business where previous incarnations of Freedom have failed. As a stand-alone business, where are the synergies to promote continued investment? As I wrote in “A Kobayashi Maru scenario”, Xplornet would be able to leverage the unused rural spectrum held by Freedom to improve the quality of broadband services it offers to its fixed wireless customers.

That would improve coverage, quality and price for hundreds of thousands of rural households, funded by private sector investment.

It is important for rural Canadians to have access to applications like smart farms, healthcare telematics, smart communities, automation.

In its review of the Rogers-Shaw transaction, will we see the government continue to maintain consistency in its policy approach to telecommunications, “balancing the competing objectives of extending the reach of networks, delivering world-leading service quality, and affordable prices”?

Last week, $163 million in Federal funding was announced to bring high-speed broadband to 7,772 households in Northern Ontario.

On average, that works out to $21,000 per household, a substantial government subsidy. But there is also additional detail provided on the various communities that is worth examining.

• $46,637,325 for 182 households in the communities of Fort Severn and Peawanuck (Weenusk)
• $12,806,675 for 3,060 households in the communities of Angling Lake, Bearskin Lake, Cat Lake, Deer Lake, Dufresne (Wapekeka), Kasabonika (Kasabonika Lake), Keeyaywin, Kingfisher Lake (Kingfisher), Kitchenuhmaykoosib (Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug), Mishkeegogamang, Muskrat Dam (Muskrat Dam Lake), North Spririt Lake, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Osnaburgh House, Poplar Hill, Sachigo Lake, Sandy Lake, Slate Falls (Slate Falls Nation), Wawakapewin, Weagamow Lake (North Caribou Lake), and Wunnummin Lake (Wunnumin).
• $62,665,952 for 689 households in the communities of Aroland, Calstock (Constance Lake), Ginoogaming First Nation, Long Lake #58 First Nation, with a component of this project also targeting the community of Wunnumin Lake First Nation
• $2,035,881 to improve access for an estimated 258 households in the communities of Armstrong and Whitesand First Nation
• $35,730,000 to improve access for an estimated 2,565 households in the communities of Conmee, Gillies, Neebing, O’Connor, Oliver Paipoonge, Shuniah and Thunder Bay
• $2,448,446 to improve access for an estimated 327 households in the communities of Frenchmen’s Head, Kejick Bay and Lac Seul First Nation
• $1,318,561 to improve access for an estimated 691 households in the community of Ignace

The first project listed (Fort Severn and Peawanuck) implies a subsidy of more than a quarter million dollars per household, the highest level of government funding that I can recall. At $256,000 per household, it is 60 times the level of per household funding calculated for the second project ($4,185 / household for Angling Lake, Bearskin Lake, Cat Lake, Deer Lake, etc.).

The third project works out to just under $91,000 per household for Aroland, Calstock, etc.

The magnitude of funding in this announcement demonstrates why these areas have not previously been able to attract private sector investment. At $100 per month per household, and zero cost of money, it would take more than 200 years to repay the shortfall. In other words, absent a substantial government subsidy, there is no possible way for a private sector service provider to make the financials work.

Government subsidies cover the shortfall in projected revenue on a project-by-project basis. Consider this to be an addendum to “The economics of broadband expansion” that I posted a couple years ago.

These projects are examples of some of the most extreme costs for serving remote communities located in challenging geographic areas. Lower population densities mean greater distances between households and frequently, there are new backbone facilities required to connect the communities.

What led the government and the proponents to choose an architecture and solution that required such a high level of subsidy? What led the government to prioritize the allocation of more than $46 million to serve less than 200 households, as opposed to other unserved areas. Recall, when the Auditor General reviewed broadband funding programs, it found that the government did not implement its broadband improvement program in a way that ensured “the maximum broadband expansion for the public money spent.”

We know that providing broadband to rural areas is expensive. It is less clear that we have an understanding of how funding priorities are being set. Are we optimizing the allocation of limited public funding?

Two months ago, I wrote “Increasingly Stringent Regulatory Measures”, describing how the CRTC was indirectly exercising authority over the owners of an apartment building in Saint John, New Brunswick, in order to ensure residents would have a choice of communications service providers. Although the CRTC has regulations that impact decisions made by building owners, Such firms are not really directly regulated by the Commission. In that particular case, the CRTC threatened to tighten the screws on other communications companies who are providing service within the particular building.

• Within 15 days following the date of this decision, Bell Canada and any other LEC or carrier ISP already in Telegraph Square will not be permitted to provide services to any new resident of Telegraph Square and will not be permitted to provide services to a current resident that is not an existing customer of the applicable service provider.
• Within 30 days following the date of this decision, any LEC or carrier ISP present in Telegraph Square will not be permitted to modify or upgrade the services being provided to a current resident.
• Within 45 days following the date of this decision, the Commission will explore all regulatory options available to it, including issuing an order under section 42 of the Act and issuing a decision which could result in all LECs and carrier ISPs present in Telegraph Square not being permitted to provide any services to the residents.

A new case has arisen in downtown Toronto. In this particular instance, Rogers has provided services to some residents of the building at 70 Yorkville since 1984, but has not been able to gain access to the building to service customers for the past 18 months, despite repeated requests, because the building manager says there is no access agreement in place. Rogers says that it has tried to negotiate an agreement but the property manager refuses to answer.

In the meantime, Rogers says that its inability to access its equipment means service is continuing to degrade for its 10 customers in that building as well as for commercial and residential customers in adjacent buildings.

The CRTC has sent a letter to 36 different telecommunications service providers to try to determine if any of them are providing services to tenants in the building.

My brother once told me that in his first litigation class in law school, the professor said that when people come into the office and say “it isn’t the money, its the principle of the thing”, a good lawyer will recognize that it really is about the money.

The CRTC’s rules require building owners to provide access to communications service providers on reasonable terms and conditions, in order to be able to install, maintain and repair their equipment and services.

Will the CRTC apply similar indirect tools such as the increasingly stringent measures used in February? Do these 2 recent cases indicate an emerging trend among property owners and managers?

As Canada’s expert advisory group on online safety prepares to take the “next step in developing legislation to address harmful online content”, former US President Obama delivered an address at Stanford University that is relevant for those deliberations.

Obama was the keynote speaker at a symposium on April 21, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm”.

Among highlights in the 1-hour address, the former president referred to a weakening of democratic institutions around the world, attributed to “the profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and consume information.”

For more and more of us, search and social media platforms aren’t just our window into the internet. They serve as our primary source of news and information. No one tells us that the window is blurry, subject to unseen distortions, and subtle manipulations. All we see is a constant feed of content where useful, factual information, and happy diversions (and cat videos) flow alongside lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, white supremacist racist cracks, misogynist screeds. Over time, we lose our capacity to distinguish between fact, opinion, and wholesale fiction. Or maybe we just stop caring.

“Like all advances in technology, this progress has had unintended consequences… in this case, we see that our new information ecosystem is turbo-charging some of humanity’s worst impulses.”

Obama said tech platforms need to accept their “unique role” in how information is consumed, referencing business models that, by design, encourage inflammatory and polarizing content to increase engagement. He said “the veil of anonymity that platforms provide their users” contribute to difficulties in determining the quality of information being consumed.

His speech also touched on the decline of traditional sources of information that maintain “the highest standards of journalistic integrity,” talking about more and more ad revenue [flowing] to the platforms that disseminate the news, rather than that money going to the newsrooms that report it”.

Obama endorsed the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, that would require social media companies to share certain data and permit vetting by independent researchers.

He supports reforms Section 230 of the Communications Act, a law that shields platforms from legal liability for content posted on their sites.

According to Obama, “Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better? That is the choice.”

An opposing viewpoint can be found in a post by Dr. Mark Jamison, director of the Public Utility Research Center at University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business. “The answer to bad information isn’t a greater information gatekeeper role for government, but more voices.”

“Obama is wrong that government regulation of what people see would promote democracy or, more specifically, promote freedom. Such controls have done the opposite throughout history and would this time, too.”