In November, PwC released a series of reports on “The importance of 5G and the digital economy in Canada”:

• 5G, the digital economy and Canada’s global competitiveness [pdf, 1.7MB]
• The evolution of Canada’s telecom industry and the growing digital economy [pdf, 3.0MB]
• The importance of 5G and the digital economy in Western Canada [pdf, 2.1MB]

As PwC notes, the past two years of life under the cloud of the COVID-19 pandemic have accelerated several trends associated with a transition to a new economic model, such as increasing demand for digital connectivity and greater adoption of digital processes by businesses and households.

PwC promotes the need to have a healthy domestic telecommunications sector to support the deployment of 5G, saying “jurisdictions where network operators were in poorer financial health had slower deployment and adoption rates.” PwC invites readers to read the first report for a discussion on the digital economy and implications on Canada’s global competitiveness associated with delays in 5G deployment. In that report, we read how the competitive landscape is being reshaped for mobile operators by hardware, software and service providers. PwC asserts that Canadian mobile network operators (MNOs) are “sub-scale relative to multinational digital economy players, whose business models are enabled by connectivity but do not invest in network infrastructure.” Further, PwC expects technological disruptions over the coming years from Low Earth Orbit satellites providing broadband internet, and the introduction of embedded SIM (eSIM) technology that “could be used by equipment manufacturers to disintermediate telecom operators.”

The second report makes four main points:

1. The telecommunications industry is a core enabler of the digital economy;
2. Canadian MNOs are relatively small compared to international peers, suppliers and new competition;
3. Globally there is a trend of consolidation in the telecommunications industry; and,
4. Canada needs to ensure its telecommunications industry can support the needs of the digital economy

Among the highlights, PWC observes that Canadian mobile operators spend a higher proportion of their revenue on capital investments than many peer countries. For example, the capital intensity (measured as a ratio of capital expenditure to revenue) for Canadian operators averages at 18%, five percentage points (or nearly 40%) higher than operators in the US and Australia at 13%.

The third report in the series zooms in on Western Canada looking at how 5G connectivity is expected to enable new “use cases”, such as automation enabling smart mining, connected and autonomous vehicles, and automated smart farming. “5G-enabled use cases require broad ubiquitous coverage to reach businesses outside urban areas (mining, agriculture, oil & gas, etc.) and enable use cases that are reliant on continuous connectivity (e.g., autonomous vehicles).”

According to PwC, Canadian mobile operators face three significant challenges: the cost of 5G driven by capital costs required to install new equipment, densify infrastructure and the
increased operational costs required to keep up with data use; Increased competition in the digital economy including hardware, software and service providers such as Google and Amazon; and, Canada’s current lag in spectrum allocations and the complexity of regulations for accessing passive infrastructure.

To deploy 5G at pace, and overcome these challenges, Canada will require a healthy telecommunications industry that has well-capitalized MNOs capable of funding national 5G deployment. To achieve this, Canada needs a supportive regulatory framework, that should: (i) maintain an appropriate level of market incentives, drive improved customer value and investment in innovation (ii) maintain predictable and fair regulations while being flexible to accommodate the evolving needs of the digital economy and (iii) consider the significant benefits of the digital economy, the role of 5G in enabling it, and the broader competitive landscape within it.

Canada requires a healthy, well-capitalized telecommunications industry to fund deployment of our national 5G networks.

I remember speaking with a reporter at one of my conferences who told me she always makes sure she gets the story right, even if it means that she doesn’t necessarily get the story first. That often means needing to get multiple sources, which is a challenge when trying to get a scoop on a major breaking story.

The need to apply that kind of rigour has stuck with me.

I generally try to go back to primary sources to confirm statements, rather than rely on reports that cite those sources. As a result, I’m often the family fact-checker when someone wants to confirm something they saw “on the internet”.

As many of us know, a lot of times those things turn out to be false. As it turns out that you can’t even trust official government websites to always get it right.

For example, last May, in an edition of Statistics Canada’s Daily looking at “Access to the Internet in Canada, 2020”, the agency wrote:

Over two-thirds of Canadians have Internet download speeds of 50 megabits per second or more
For those respondents who knew their advertised Internet connection speed, 72% reported Internet download speeds of 50 megabits per second (Mbps) or more. An Internet download speed of 50 Mbps or more allows users to do online activities such as supporting multiple users at a time, streaming ultra-high-definition video with more than one connected device, or quickly downloading a high-definition movie. This indicator can be used by the Government of Canada to track its objective to make broadband connectivity with a download speed of 50 Mbps and an upload speed of 10 Mbps available to 95% of Canadians by 2026.

The last sentence, the government’s objective (mirroring the CRTC’s objective) is to make broadband connectivity with a download speed of 50 Mbps and an upload speed of 10 Mbps available to 95% of Canadians by 2026. However, the first part of the paragraph indicates Statistics Canada is tracking the speed of the service to which people subscribe, not the speeds to which they have access. I may have access to extremely fast speeds, but choose to subscribe to a lower speed for many different reasons. The indicator discussed in that paragraph is clearly looking at subscribed speeds, not available speeds.

We can quibble about what speeds people need for various online activities, but tracking subscribed speeds simply does not and cannot help the Government track its objective of available speeds.

This isn’t the first time that people have confused adoption with access in the government (and CRTC’s) broadband objective. I wonder if the word “access” is the cause of the misunderstanding. We want everyone to have the ability to choose a 50 Mbps connection, which some people write as “we want everyone to be able to access a 50 Mbps internet access”. Having the ability to access is the objective; having a 50 Mbps access isn’t. Statistics Canada needs to correct its website.

In another instance, also from last May, a University of Calgary student relied on political hyperbole on a government website to claim “The federal government took the lead in providing service to low-income Canadians”, when referring to low income broadband programs that were in fact created by the private sector (Rogers and TELUS). It took years of cajoling to get the government to participate, despite virtually no government funding being involved. The paper was later amended to read “Federal government participation was key in expanding service provision to low-income Canadians.” The student had relied on hyperbole from a government website that had said “Connecting Families is an initiative of the Government of Canada”. The website now refers to the “Connecting Families initiative, in partnership with Internet service providers”. The difference between government partnering, versus government leadership, was significant because of the paper’s thesis promoting increased government intervention in telecom markets.

Even the CRTC website has been known to contain the odd error. Its Communications Market Reports website has a “changelog” that tracks changes and corrections. A few weeks ago, we noticed that the reported “Average Internet Data Downloaded/Uploaded per month, per subscription” was reported as the average of the uploaded data and the downloaded data, instead of the sum of those. The Commission now reports data uploaded and downloaded separately.

I am also reminded of some popular commentators who frequently display innumeracy, perhaps cheered on by those who share their perspective, if not their propensity for propagandizing. Sometimes, their basic data may be correct but accompanied by incomplete analysis, such as we saw last week in the false equivalency posted by TekSavvy, comparing 398 lobbyist registration reports by “Big Telecom” (defined as TELUS, Rogers, Shaw, Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron), with the 32 meetings by TekSavvy and CNOC. There are many problems with this post that implies the smaller ISPs aren’t getting a fair share of face time in Ottawa.

On the other hand, one might ask why Teksavvy and CNOC, with just than 10% of the internet services market had just about as many meetings (32) as Quebecor (34), considering the latter is a diversified company, a facilities-based carrier with more than 1.8M internet connections, more than 1.5M mobile subscribers, and more than 1.4M TV subscribers, on top of a range of other media operations.

A quick look at the scope of subjects being reviewed by the lobbyists demonstrates why it was completely reasonable for 6 major conglomerates with revenues of more than $60B and more than 150,000 employees to have had more meetings than the smaller wholesale-based internet service sector. Let’s take a look at the range of subjects that are covered in the government filings. Teksavvy reported that it talks to government about Broadcasting, Consumer Issues, and Telecommunications. CNOC reported the same 3 areas of interest. Rogers’ Lobbyist filing shows that discussions cover: Arts and Culture, Broadcasting, Budget, Consumer Issues, Economic Development, Employment and Training, Government Procurement, Health, Immigration, Industry, Infrastructure, Intellectual Property, International Relations, International Trade, Justice and Law Enforcement, Labour, National Security, Privacy and Access to Information, Sports, Taxation and Finance, and oh yes, Telecommunications. Bell reports 20 subject areas; TELUS reports 19; Quebecor shows 14; Shaw has 12.

Maybe, just maybe, this helps to show the fallacy of Teksavvy’s false equivalency.

All of this is to say that information provided on websites – even government websites – should be viewed with a grain of salt.

It’s important to question and even challenge sources.

Other than the information on this website, of course.

The mandate letters for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General each contain a section calling for the Ministers “to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host”.

It is worth examining the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, issued by the UK House of Lords and House of Commons in mid-December [pdf, 2.0 MB].

The UK report opens powerfully:

Self-regulation of online services has failed. Whilst the online world has revolutionised our lives and created many benefits, underlying systems designed to service business models based on data harvesting and microtargeted advertising shape the way we experience it. Algorithms, invisible to the public, decide what we see, hear and experience. For some service providers this means valuing the engagement of users at all costs, regardless of what holds their attention. This can result in amplifying the false over the true, the extreme over the considered, and the harmful over the benign.

The human cost can be counted in mass murder in Myanmar, in intensive care beds full of unvaccinated Covid-19 patients, in insurrection at the US Capitol, and in teenagers sent down rabbit holes of content promoting self-harm, eating disorders and suicide. This has happened because for too long the major online service providers have been allowed to regard themselves as neutral platforms which are not responsible for the content that is created and shared by their users. Yet it is these algorithms which have enabled behaviours which would be challenged by the law in the physical world to thrive on the internet. If we do nothing these problems will only get worse. Our children will pay the heaviest price. That is why the driving force behind the Online Safety Bill is the belief that these companies must be held liable for the systems they have created to make money for themselves.

At 193 pages, it is a lengthy but worthwhile read. The report includes 127 recommendations for the draft legislation over 25 pages in the report.

Having been involved in a number of projects and committees with the late human rights lawyer Alan Borovoy, I am sympathetic to his view that “We should not censor those making racist statements but censure them.” Professor Daniel Lyons of Boston College writes “Traditionally, the solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.” He expresses concern that attempting to control the flow of information online, like other attempts to craft digital legislation, can lead to unintended consequences.

Big Tech’s critics are correct that platforms can be misused to disseminate socially undesirable content online. But the remedy is to address the source of the problem — harmful users and the social conditions that make their messages attractive to others.

Still, it is difficult to reconcile how we can accept content in a digital stream which would be unacceptable in print, or as the UK paper writes, enabling “behaviours which would be challenged by the law in the physical world to thrive on the internet.”

Following its consultation process, those crafting new laws need to maintain a careful balance. Perhaps those involved in drafting Canada’s legislation should consider some of the UK recommendations in their initial draft.

“If we do nothing these problems will only get worse. Our children will pay the heaviest price.”

Are there policy and legislative changes that can help accelerate investment in next generation broadband networks?

Yes, according to a new report released last week by the CD Howe Institute. “Building Bridges for 5G: How to Overcome the Infrastructure Barriers to Deployment of Canada’s Next-Generation Broadband Networks” [pdf, 650KB] says, “The rollout of 5G requires expanded carrier access to the passive infrastructure”, from rooftops to bus stops and rights of way, that supports wireline and wireless telecommunications network facilities. “Canada’s regulatory framework needs an update to support timely and cost-effective deployment of these next-generation networks.”

The report was authored by Leslie Milton, Jay Kerr-Wilson, and Paul Burbank, all lawyers at Faskens with extensive experience in communications and competition law.

According to the report’s authors, the current regime for carrier access to passive infrastructure “is in need of serious amendment.”

There are seven key recommendations in the report:

• Recommendation 1: Amend the Telecommunications Act to make it explicit that carriers’ “qualified right of access” – that is, the right of carriers under the Act to access rights-of-way and other places for the construction, operation and maintenance of a transmission line – and the jurisdiction of the CRTC over such access encompass both wireline and wireless transmission facilities.
• Recommendation 2: Amend the Telecommunications Act to make it explicit that carriers’ qualified right of access and the CRTC’s jurisdiction over such access encompass all publicly owned land and railway rights-of-way, bridges and crossings.
• Recommendation 3: Amend the Telecommunications Act to make it explicit that the CRTC has jurisdiction to establish terms and conditions of carrier access to all publicly owned structures capable of supporting wireline and wireless transmission facilities, including municipal street furniture, as well as poles and conduit owned by provincial and municipal electric utilities and other utilities.
• Recommendation 4: Amend the Telecommunications Act to give the CRTC authority to establish generally applicable baseline standards for carrier access to rights-of-way, public places, and supporting infrastructure under its jurisdiction and to permit interested parties to seek a waiver of the standard terms on a case-by-case basis.
• Recommendation 5: Amend the Telecommunications Act to give the CRTC explicit authority to establish baseline federal standards for carrier access to multi-tenant buildings and to land under development for multi-tenant residential or commercial use that apply in the absence of substantially similar provincial regulation.
• Recommendation 6: Amend the Telecommunications Act to oblige the CRTC and parties to conduct dispute resolution proceedings quickly and efficiently in order to avoid delays and added expenses in obtaining approvals to build new facilities.
• Recommendation 7: Consult on amendments to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s antenna-siting procedures to address small cell deployment and delays in antenna siting.

Some of these echo themes that I have discussed previously on these pages, including the discussion I had last week in “Building broadband better”.

Although Canada’s regulatory regime established exclusive federal jurisdiction for the regulation of telecommunications, there are “a number of amendments to the Telecommunications Act and ISED policy that would address the material gaps and mitigate the unnecessary uncertainty caused by the current legislative and regulatory framework”.

For example, the CRTC lacks authority to address access to railway rights-of-way, bridges and crossings, and the Commission has only been able to use indirect access to regulate competitive access to multi-tenant buildings and subdivisions. The CRTC determined that wireless facilities are not covered by the carrier access rights in the Telecommunications Act, and courts have held that the CRTC does not regulate access to electric utilities’ poles and conduits.

In addition, the approval processes for antenna sites can be painfully slow for service providers seeking to improve the quality of service to an area.

Governments at all levels are investing billions of dollars to accelerate investment in broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. As we see in the CD Howe report, some significant impediments to investment can be fixed with legislative modernization, ensuring carriers are able to secure timely and affordable access to rights-of-way and passive infrastructure for the deployment of next generation wireline and wireless network facilities.

It’s an important read.

This year, Bell Let’s Talk Day – the world’s biggest conversation about mental health – is taking place on January 26.

Bell’s commitment to support mental health is especially meaningful to me. Back in 2010, when Bell first announced its plans to support mental health initiatives, I wrote a post “Talking about unmentionables.” In that post, I observed that “I grew up on the grounds of a children’s psychiatric research institute in London, Ontario, the son of a child psychiatrist.” In a way, mental health is the family business. My father is a psychiatrist and two of my siblings are clinical psychologists. So you can understand why I am taking a little time to promote the day.

It’s pretty easy for everyone to show support, even if you aren’t a Bell customer, by using the “BellLetsTalk” hashtag on social media. Every call or text by Bell customers adds even more to Bell’s support of Canadian mental health programs.

On Bell Let’s Talk Day, Bell donates 5 cents to Canadian mental health programs for every applicable text, local or long distance call, tweet or TikTok video using #BellLetsTalk, every Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube view of the Bell Let’s Talk Day video, and every use of the Bell Let’s Talk Facebook frame or Snapchat lens.

Over the past 11 years, there have been 1.3 billion messages of support, generating $121,373,806.75 in total Bell funding. #BellLetsTalk has become the most-used Canadian hashtag of all time.

I support Bell Let’s Talk initiative without reservation, and I encourage you to do so as well.

Keep being there for your friends and colleagues, keep listening to them, and on January 26, click to Tweet a message with #BellLetsTalk .