I saw a recent Deloitte Insights paper that merits highlighting on this page. “Beyond good intentions, Navigating the ethical dilemmas facing the technology industry“ promotes the idea that a more holistic approach can help companies deal with major ethical dilemmas, enabling them to “differentiate, preserve their reputations, and better prepare for and protect the future.”

The article identifies five issues as examples of the dilemmas the tech industry needs to navigate:

• Data usage: How companies collect, use, and protect data
• Environmental sustainability: Energy use, supply chains efficiency, manufacturing waste, and water use in semiconductor fabrication
• Trustworthy AI: How Artificial Intelligence systems benefit society and avoid bias, fairness, and transparency
• Threats to truth: The use of disinformation, misinformation, deepfakes, and the weaponizing of data to attack, manipulate, and influence for personal gain, or to sow chaos
• Physical and mental health: How the technology industry can impact the physical and mental well-being of customers who use its products and services

Deloitte offers five key moves to help to apply a holistic approach across the ethical dilemmas.

1. Integrate across the business life cycle
2. Invest in specialized ethics talent
3. Build and train from the top, the bottom, and across
4. Be as predictive and extensive as possible
5. Collaborate with partners and competitors to improve the entire industry

Read the article. Listen (and subscribe) to Deloitte’s Solving for Tech Ethics podcast series.

I’d be interested in your comments.

Hanukkah, the 8-day festival of lights, began last night.

I find it interesting that so many different cultures and religions have holidays at this time of year with celebrations that include candles and light.

For ancient civilizations, some of these traditions must have been a kind of response to shorter days and longer nights as we approach the winter solstice.

Shining light is a way to bring comfort, making it easier to see more of what is around us. Intellectually, I think it is better to be provided with a broader range of perspectives to help inform decision-making.

Alexandra Posadzki had an interview with Melinda Rogers-Hixon in last weekend’s Globe and Mail that opened with:

Ted Rogers, the founder of Rogers Communications Inc., used to encourage his children to debate issues related to the family business over dinner.

But there was a twist: Partway through, both parties would have to switch sides and argue the opposite position. The exercise was intended to teach them how to understand the other person’s perspective, as well as to challenge their own assumptions, he explained.

Playing devil’s advocate; doing a ‘red team’ analysis to anticipate how a competitor might respond. I sometimes wonder if there is enough of this going on these days.

I wonder if polarized opinions are perhaps catalyzed by news agents on social media that deliver stories that align with and reinforce our current perspectives, rather than challenging our own assumptions.

I subscribe to a newspaper that aggravates the hell out of me, precisely to help me appreciate perspectives that I wouldn’t otherwise understand.

As we head into this season of festivals of light, I hope more people will consider Ted’s way of illuminating issues.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably seasoned internet user, with a pretty long history of using technology to empower working from home. After all, thirty-five years ago, I had a dedicated 56kbps line connected to my Bell Labs issued, AT&T UNIX PC for remote work access. Before then, I had a Northern Telecom Displayphone for connectivity to almost nothing useful.

Today’s virtual presence capabilities are truly remarkable, but it is only in the last couple weeks that I have been able to fully appreciate the power of video calling as a relatively meaningful substitute for physical contact.

We had grandchildren born during the COVID-19 lockdowns, in distant locations. We have daily video chats with apps like WhatsApp or FaceTime that have let us see the babies and their slightly older siblings. Only recently were we able to travel to meet the not-so-new members of the family.

Our 15 month-old woke up from her nap to find grandparents reaching for her. We are grandparents who, up until then, she only knew from a small screen, but she was willing to be held by those familiar faces with comforting voices.

I’m sure developmental psychologists will conduct in-depth studies of the impact of virtual connectivity on familial bonding. My singular data point shows that there was a surprising level of recognition, despite 15 months of missing tactile and olfactory sensory contact.

Still, as good a substitute as video may be, it’s nothing like the physical reality of touching, holding and hugging.

I even missed the smells of a 15 month old, but suspect this is an area that is ripe for innovation.

When novices plays chess, they move pieces in the moment, simply capturing the immediate advantage without anticipating the impacts and potential responses of their opponent. In the mini-series Queen’s Gambit, we follow the fictional chess prodigy Beth Harmon (played by Anya Taylor-Joy) as she learns to look ahead, anticipating consequences of her moves in preparing her strategies.

Of course, frequent readers will know that it takes little effort for me to find a telecom metaphor embedded in championship chess. A number of times in the past I have made reference to chess in examining telecom policy issues. Simplistic analysis often fails to look beyond the immediate effect of a policy, like a novice chess player quickly capturing a piece without considering the consequences.

For example, when we auction spectrum to maximize revenues, we fail to consider the impact on consumer prices. Carriers will bid on the spectrum to the point that the business case can no longer support any higher amounts, but there is clearly a consequence that arises from higher costs. This was a recurring theme at The Canadian Telecom Summit last week.

Some critics have looked at the Rogers – Shaw transaction and immediately conclude that any contraction in the number of entities participating in the market results in a lessening of competition. Keep in mind that Shaw has indicated that the company is unwilling to continue to invest at the levels required to upgrade the capabilities and reach of its network. As a result, there are many Shaw wireline customers (such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan and parts of BC and Alberta) that are outside the reach of the Shaw mobile network and there are Rogers mobile customers in Western Canada unable to bundle services with residential wireline. It is widely expected that Shaw’s wireline network will provide Rogers with local infrastructure to accelerate the roll-out of competitive 5G services in all of Western Canada.

As Rogers SVP of Regulatory Affairs told The Canadian Telecom Summit last week, there are no places that Rogers wireline business competes with Shaw wireline. Even on the wireless business, it isn’t clear that combining Rogers and Shaw will result in a lessening of competitive intensity in every geographic market. For example, in BC, the combined Rogers and Shaw would have about 40% market share, similar to that of TELUS (according to NBI Michael Sone Associates). Bell would have roughly half their share. What would one expect in terms of competitive intensity in the BC market as a result? In Alberta, TELUS has roughly half the mobile market. A combined Rogers and Shaw would have about 30% and Bell would have about 20%. Again, couldn’t this result in an increase in competitive intensity?

The communications sector in Canada is a $75B business and there is a $26B transaction being reviewed by the CRTC, with a week of oral hearings starting today. The transaction will also need approvals from the Competition Bureau and the Federal Government (ISED).

Just as I have said that we need to explore policies for the digital economy with the thinking of a chess master, the same depth of analysis needs to be applied in considering spectrum policy and the impact of the Rogers – Shaw transaction.

“I’ll be frank: we got that initial decision wrong.”

It isn’t often that a government official uses clear language to acknowledge mistakes, but this is precisely how CRTC Chair Ian Scott addressed the elephant in the room when speaking at The 2021 Canadian Telecom Summit earlier this week. I think it is worthwhile including a lengthy excerpt directly from the text of his speech.

Another matter that has attracted a great deal of attention and commentary is our decision that set the final wholesale rates for aggregated high-speed broadband access services. Obviously, and as you know by now, we reversed course on implementing the rates we set in 2019. Rates, I will add, that were never implemented in the marketplace.

I’ll be frank: we got that initial decision wrong.

There were unquestionably errors in the initial decision. We are not infallible, and we could not ignore those errors once they were properly identified. We have always said we will review any decision if a party submits an application. Legislators anticipated that the CRTC may sometimes make mistakes or base its decisions on an incomplete record, and for that reason included the review and vary provision in the Telecommunications Act.

When a party submits an application asking us to review a decision, we address the issues in question seriously, fairly and in an independent manner. Because no one benefits from uncertainty in the market.

The work we at the CRTC do is not always popular or easily understood, especially when it comes to the costing of wholesale services. We recognize that. But I will say that in the process of reaching a decision—be it on rates for high-speed access services or any other matter you care to name—the process we follow is always based on sound administrative-law principles. We build a public record, our expert Commission staff analyze the evidence and Commissioners – all of whom share equal voting rights – make decisions. And we do all of this with the public interest foremost in mind.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of this high-speed access decision, some remain focused on perceived winners and losers. We, however, have moved on. The industry continues to evolve and move forward, and we’re looking at far bigger and frankly, much more productive things. Our focus is on the multitude of threads—the multitude of proceedings before us, if you prefer—that we are currently weaving together to create a policy framework that fosters more competition in the marketplace in order to reduce prices for consumers.

Those threads include more than our mobile wireless and high-speed access decisions. They also include our ongoing work in developing our high-speed access framework across Canada, including in the North, as well as a variety of issues relating to detailed technical and policy matters.

We’re looking at these matters, and others, with a goal of building a comprehensive regulatory approach that supports sustainable competition and balances the various perspectives of all stakeholders. Regulatory certainty, after all, is important to everyone. It’s important to consumers, who want better services at lower rates; to competitors, who want to explore opportunities to serve new markets; and to incumbents, who want the capacity to invest in, and expand, their services. That’s why we are focused on getting it right.

A few minutes earlier, the Chair had said “Although aspects of both of our mobile wireless and high-speed access service decisions are being appealed to Cabinet and the courts, the Commission is convinced of the validity of our approach. Both are helping to lay the foundation for the continued growth of smaller service providers and new entrants into the market. Both are helping to support sustainable competition that will ultimately lower what Canadians pay for their telecom services. And both are helping to build confidence in the marketplace.”

The appeals can work their way through the system. The reality is that the federal government has consistently affirmed and reaffirmed its support for sustainable, facilities-based competition, providing appropriate incentives for investment to upgrade networks and extend the reach into unserved and underserved communities.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.