Government programs to provide better broadband are failing underserved markets. On this point, a number of recent releases agree.

Whether it is improving availability of higher speed, better quality, more reliable services, or improving rates of adoption among certain communities, governments in Canada at all levels are simply not delivering fast enough on their commitments to improve access to broadband services for their constituents.

Subsidy programs designed to stimulate construction in underserved areas have moved too slowly, and in some cases, the overhang of promised funding may have delayed roll-outs to areas that might have otherwise seen construction without government funding. (See: “A less than rapid response stream”.)

Social service agencies aren’t dispensing direct subsidies to allow low income households to sign up for communications services of their own choosing, leaving the development of such services to the goodwill of the private sector, which has stepped up to fill the void left by a failure of government leadership. Contrast this with the Emergency Broadband Benefit in the United States, that provides “a discount of up to $50 per month towards broadband service for eligible households”.

“Waiting to Connect”, a report [pdf, 3.8 MB] from the Council of Canadian Academies, says “Canada’s current broadband funding and consultation processes are often complex, onerous, competitive, and involve many actors, making them difficult for small, capacity-limited organizations to navigate.” This is accurate. However, it is difficult to support a conclusion that says “Broadband infrastructure can only meet long-term connectivity needs if it is scalable and sustainable, and if there is local expertise and capacity to build, operate, and maintain it.” The paper appears to argue against the efficiencies of scale, in favour of local capabilities. About a year ago, I wrote “Toward a universal broadband strategy”, that talked about the problems caused by the lack of stable funding to offset the higher ongoing operating costs associated with rural and remote telecommunications services. There is a relatively easy solution, reminiscent of the funding for high-cost serving areas that was formerly administered by the CRTC before it chose to duplicate other branches of government funding capital projects.

In another paper, from the Public Policy Forum, “Future Proof: Connecting Post-Pandemic Canada” [pdf, 1.8 MB] argues that Canada needs to be a global leader in 5G as I discussed a couple weeks ago. The paper argues for “future-proof digital connectivity infrastructure — connectivity that is scalable so it is capable of supporting data rates that far exceed needs that can be foreseen today” but also notes “It is prudent to enter a caveat that truly universal future-proof connectivity cannot be assured within specified time.” Recognizing that universal access to fibre is impractical, the paper argues for Canada to develop a strategy to be a global leader in 5G.

Two papers, both talking about connectivity, but ignoring the issue of adoption. The papers focus on the supply side, without looking at measures to increase demand among those who are not yet connected.

In part, I believe the problem is a result of a failure to apply some basic systems engineering principles, defining requirements rather than specifying solutions. In the past, I have described this as having people start with a premise that they need nails, which is a specific kind of solution, rather than defining the real requirement, that they need to put two pieces of wood together.

It is easier to define problems in terms of solutions with which we are familiar, or in terms of concrete, physical solutions. As a result, we have had people hijack the need to increase broadband adoption among low income households and advocate for municipalities to build their own fibre network. The most extreme case is the Connect TO project, overlaying municipal fibre in one of the world’s most connected cities. Look at Beaumont, Alberta, a suburb of Edmonton, that in the summer of 2020 promised to have construction underway before the end of the year. A year and a half later, all that Beaumont has done is inhibit investment by private sector service providers. At least Beaumont isn’t as far along in squandering taxpayer dollars as Olds, Alberta which is rescuing its community network from bankruptcy.

As I have written before, we need a smarter approach to community networks.

The proponents and advocates for such local community network programs aren’t ill-willed, but unfortunately, I think many of these programs suffer from a failure to examine the potential for unintended consequences emerging from their solutions.

For example, if a municipality builds its own private network to link all schools, hospitals, and other municipal public institutions, it can have the effect of significantly damaging the business case for investment in communications infrastructure in the rest of the community. When a government infrastructure subsidy program is announced, it can freeze the incentives to invest until funding is distributed. Further, it is important to recognize that a government subsidized network, or a municipally owned network, impairs the business case for a competitive network build. It enshrines a monopoly in that area and the history of government telecom monopolies is not a good one.

There is some activity on the supply-side. Rogers (Connected for Success) and TELUS (Internet for Good) have each upgraded the initial targeted programs for affordable broadband, empowering disadvantaged households to choose the services that best meet their needs. It is expected that there will soon be upgrades to the national Connecting Families program, a private sector led initiative, coordinated under a federal government umbrella.

As we approach the end of the year, we need to look back at what we have learned from more than 20 months of pandemic-induced changes to our way of working and studying, driving increased needs for improved broadband connectivity at home.

Which programs are working? Can we, or should we, do more of them? How can we accelerate service improvements?

I have long argued “Isn’t some broadband better than nothing?” Isn’t it better to get some broadband service to unserved areas rather than wait for future-proof connectivity? When some Canadians are wanting for any kind of affordable broadband, it takes a certain kind of arrogance to proclaim that 25Mbps (or 50 Mbps) just isn’t good enough.

“Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien.”

We can’t wait for a perfect, “future-proof” solution for universal broadband for all Canadians. But surely we can strive to do a lot more, a lot better, and a lot sooner.

Many of you know that in the olden days, I would frequently travel to Israel to visit family and catch up on some of the latest innovations in the world of technology.

Thanks to COVID, it has been 21 months since my last visit, but the borders have cracked open and I am in Israel again at long last.

Spring and Fall are my favourite times of year to be here. I’m not crazy about the heat of Summer, but that’s on me.

In the month leading up to Hannukah, bakeries in Israel try to out do each other with special edition donuts, known as sufganiyot, with prices for some of the fanciest approaching $10 each. Each!

Why would people line up for $10 donuts, when supermarkets sell sufganiyot for under a dollar? I’m sure there is a metaphor for telecom hidden in there… somewhere.

I’ll do some primary research over the next few weeks, trying to figure out what justifies the price of quality. I think I will start with the cassis cheesecake, please.

I know. It is a sacrifice, but inquiring minds want to know.

You’re welcome.

I’m a numbers guy. An eternity ago, I studied statistics and have a graduate degree in the subject. I helped edit a university level textbook in econometrics.

So I get somewhat frustrated when I see the misinformation from pseudo-statistical studies being circulated with viral velocity, despite flaws that should have been immediately apparent, even to those with just a modicum of numeracy.

For example, last week, an article in the National Post cited figures from Cable.co.uk claiming that for home broadband “Canadians paid $0.94 (U.S.) per megabit per month. The French paid US$0.48, the Americans US$0.20, the Swedes US$0.12.” That same study was discredited last April in a blog post by CWTA. “The questionable quality of the Cable.co.uk methodology is made crystal clear when its 2020 report is compared to its findings in 2019. For 2020, Cable.co.uk concluded that the average fixed broadband monthly cost in Canada was US$76.14 while the average monthly cost in 2019 was $34.86.”

Does anyone really believe that Canadian broadband monthly prices more than doubled between 2019 and 2020? Doesn’t this show that there just might be a problem with the methodology being used by Cable.co.uk? I wrote more detail about those issues last April in “When flawed data leads to flawed conclusions” and a year ago in “Look at the data”.

Price comparisons from Rewheel have merited dubious distinction for systemic problems, referred to as “a careless mish-mash of data points from which no reliable conclusions can be drawn.” As I wrote a year ago, critics have said “The Rewheel story is easy to understand. It is also completely wrong.”

Given the many theoretical and practical flaws and errors contained in the Rewheel study, we find it of no value when comparing prices internationally or establishing the level of competition in a country. A warning label informing readers about the lack of intellectual rigor and the misleading and incorrect nature of the Rewheel study’s results is appropriate and recommended.

For a dozen years, I have been writing about flawed studies being used to support advocacy efforts (see: “Mixing passion and scholarship” from November 2009).

As the year winds down, I will try to put together some general notes on how to read price comparison studies, and what to watch for.

Canada needs to be a global leader in 5G.

That simple statement could, and perhaps should be the focus for Minister Champagne’s digital connectivity strategy.

Every funding program, spectrum allocation, infrastructure policy, should be structured toward achievement of that objective. Easy to remember, it makes a good soundbite: Canada needs to be a global leader in 5G. What is your strategy? Canada needs to be a global leader in 5G.

However, “Market forces alone will not deliver fast 5G internet to rural areas.” That statement, an extension of a foundational truth that has underpinned government broadband incentive programs for two decades, was the title of a recent article on Policy Options. “Canada must adopt measures that ensure universal, high-quality internet access and encourage early adoption of emerging 5G wireless technologies.”

No argument from me. Current rollouts of 5G promise to have service available to at least 70% of Canada’s population by year end.

Now, the authors claim Canada’s current broadband objective, that every Canadian should have the option to subscribe to a 50 Mbps (down) / 10 Mbps (up) with an unlimited data option, is already obsolete, due to the availability of much higher speeds in urban areas. I think this assertion needs further discussion. “The objective would be to give virtually every person access to essentially the same quality of internet connectivity, whether they reside in a major city or a remote Indigenous community.” While this may be a noble objective, it strikes me as somewhat naive. Indeed, the authors themselves acknowledge that.

FTTH may not be feasible for roughly 5 per cent of households – about 700,000 to 800,000 homes. Therefore, future-proofing the hardest to reach populations will depend on a combination of fixed wireless access (using 5G technology) and the emerging generation of globe-spanning low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, such as Telesat’s Lightspeed and SpaceX’s Starlink, to provide access where FTTH is not possible.

So let’s not get hung up on the specifics of what technology delivers “essentially the same quality of internet connectivity.” I tend to subscribe to the view that there are compromises necessitated by geographic considerations that preclude equivalent connectivity in remote areas compared to the services available in major centres. However, as Jagger and Richards wrote,

You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find
You get what you need.

Fixed wireless and low-earth-orbit satellites are great technologies, providing broadband connectivity that meets and exceeds the current aspirational objective set by the CRTC and the government for universal access. The services offered by these technologies meet and exceed the needs of most Canadians.

The Policy Options article expands on a Public Policy Forum discussion (and paper [pdf, 1.8 MB]), “Future Proof: Connecting Post-Pandemic Canada”, that contains two recommendations:

1. Canada commit to universal provision of future-proof digital connectivity infrastructure—connectivity that is scalable, so it can support data rates that far exceed the needs that can be foreseen today.
2. Canada implement a national strategy to be among the global leaders in 5G with action by government to remove roadblocks on both the supply and demand sides.

While I might quibble over the phrasing of the first recommendation, I can fully endorse the second.

The paper says there are three areas for focus to encourage leadership in 5G connectivity: Network rollout; Spectrum allocation; and, Access to structures (poles, buildings, and trenches) and passive infrastructure.

Universal access to fibre to the home simply isn’t possible in a country as vast as Canada, with harsh winters that regularly disrupt aerial cables and topography like the granite of the Canadian Shield that makes buried cabling oppressively expensive. However, the paper suggests we use 5G technology connected by fibre and LEO umbilicals.

There is a powerful synergy between 5G provision and future-proof Internet access. This is because the extension throughout the country of fibre and LEO constellations such as Telesat’s provides the backhaul capacity needed by 5G networks, while 5Gpowered fixed wireless can provide future-proof Internet connectivity in many places where fibre cannot reach. The functionality of wired and wireless connectivity is converging, with 5G as a major step towards providing the equivalent of fibre through the air.

There are strong comments in the paper, not so subtly calling for significant changes to Canada’s spectrum policy.

Canada should allocate spectrum for 5G more nearly in step with the U.S. than is currently the case. In addition, the design of the 5G spectrum allocation process must take into account requirements to make the best use of 5G technology—e.g. by providing contiguous blocks of spectrum to support the highest speed. Spectrum policy should balance the objective to promote competition with the need to maintain the incentive to invest in new technology for which market returns are uncertain at the outset.

To be a global leader in 5G, Canada needs to develop such a strategy, and then must take the steps to implement that strategy across all agencies. “Set clear objectives. Align activities with the achievement of those objectives. Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.”

And that brings us back to the question: Will Minister Champagne make 5G leadership a central theme of his approach to digital connectivity?

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic period, I have taken advantage of continuing education opportunities from the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), and I have promoted many of its sessions on this blog. ITS serves as “a global platform for industry, policy makers and regulators to create a 360-degree view of an issue from the perspective of different regions and jurisdictions.”

I want to highlight another webinar coming up in just over 3 weeks (November 22, at 8 am Eastern). It is especially timely as the new government in Canada prepares to reintroduce legislation to regulate “Big Tech” and internet content.

The role of digital platforms and how to regulate them has become the new frontier for regulators and policy maker around the world. There is a tension between competition, choice, and consumer protection on the one hand, and innovation, investment incentives and entrepreneurial freedom on the other.

“Digital Policies – an East-West Perspective” will discuss approaches to digital platform regulation in the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea, and Japan. This webinar will highlight the most important aspects of this topic:

• Alexandre de Streel, academic co-director of CERRE and professor at Namur University, will present a European perspective;
• Seongcheol Kim, Director and professor at the School of Media and Communication, Korea University, Seoul, will share insights into the discussion in South Korea;
• Seiji Ninomiya, Director General of the Telecommunications Bureau at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), Tokyo, will present Japan’s approach; and
• Michael H. Ryan, Principal at MHRyan Law (London), will provide insights on how digital policy compares in North America and Europe.

The session will be moderated by Georg Serentschy, a past chair of BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications.

Michael Ryan is a familiar name to the Canadian regulatory scene, having literally written the book on Canadian telecommunications law. It is certain to be an interesting session, of relevance to Canadians who are watching for the government’s digital legislation.

Registration is free.