Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act says “No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.”

So, what does that mean?

When a complaint comes into the CRTC under this section, there is a two part test to determine if there has been a violation of this provision of the Act. As the CRTC wrote in a case we’ll look at today, “The Commission must first determine whether there is a preference or disadvantage. If it determines that there is one, it must then decide whether the preference or disadvantage is undue or unreasonable.”

Today’s story takes place in the greater Halifax area and the story began 6 years ago.

In 2016, Eastlink proposed to locate its Nova Scotia point of interconnection for third-party internet access (TPIA) at its data centre in Pennant Point, located about 30 kms from downtown Halifax. At the time, the CRTC concluded that based on the information provided at the time, there may be a disadvantage to competitors (and a corresponding preference in favour of Eastlink), but it would not be undue or unreasonable.

In 2020, City Wide filed a complaint with the CRTC, alleging that representations that had been made in 2016 about the availability of transport facilities to Pennant Point were incorrect, and that the data centre is not carrier neutral. It sought the relocation of the provincial point of interconnection to downtown Halifax. CNOC and Teksavvy generally supported City Wide’s position; Rogers and Shaw generally supported Eastlink.

The CRTC again found that the Pennant Point location “subjects City Wide to a disadvantage and provides Eastlink with a corresponding preference.” In particular, the Commission found that a lack of competitive options for transport facilities to Pennant Point, coupled with the fact “that Eastlink’s own retail operations are not similarly affected … results in Eastlink subjecting City Wide to a disadvantage and providing itself with a corresponding preference.”

However, the CRTC found that the availability of “economically feasible transport options” isn’t the only consideration for determination of a suitable point of interconnection. The CRTC found that it is reasonable for a carrier, such as Eastlink in this instance, to consider its existing network configuration and “attempt to limit the extent of any modifications needed for this configuration.”

Finally, the CRTC found that the evidence “does not support the view that transport costs have been a significant barrier to competition”. Evidence in the proceeding showed that City Wide has increased the number of customers served by Eastlink’s aggregated access service, and overall, the number of wholesale internet end-users on Eastlink’s network has grown since the approval of the point of interconnection at Pennant Point.

As such, the CRTC refused to order the relocation from Pennant Point to downtown Halifax, effectively finding that the location (and any associated advantage or preference for Eastlink) is not unreasonable.

For the past two years, my wife and I have been isolating in rural Ontario with our broadband connectivity supplied by Xplornet fixed wireless, more than adequately powering our 2 computers, 2 smart phones, and 2 HD TVs.

My experience over this period confirms my belief that wireless should continue to be a viable component of Canada’s rural broadband strategy.

Worldwide, Ericsson estimates that 70% of service providers offer fixed wireless access services. Over the next 4 years, the company expects 5G technology to reach 70 million fixed broadband connections worldwide, representing 40% of total fixed wireless connections. Ericsson believes fixed wireless connections will drive about 25% of the world’s wireless data traffic.

By year end 2020, the CRTC reports 89.5% of Canadian households had access to the target broadband service objective of an unlimited plan with 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload speeds. More than 99.5% of Canadians were covered by an LTE mobile connection. As Canada works to steadily close the broadband access gap for the remaining 10%, 5G fixed wireless is a promising technology to deliver highspeed connectivity.

Microwave backhaul is often seen as the best way to connect these rural 5G towers to the network, contributing to additional spectrum requirements.

All of this contributes to continued growth in spectrum requirements for service providers that are extending network connectivity, and such use needs to be incorporated into spectrum policy.

Keep in mind, a number of studies and reports have suggested that Canadian spectrum policy contributes to higher costs for wireless service providers. Last month, in “Improving outcomes from Canada’s spectrum policy”, I wrote “spectrum policy in Canada has seemed to singularly focus on stimulating mobile competition, without sufficient focus on other policy objectives”.

As ISED moves forward with determinations from its Consultation on a Policy and Licensing Framework for Spectrum in the 3800 MHz Band (and other consultations in the future), the Government needs to ensure that it considers the impact of spectrum policy on the economics of rural broadband connectivity. Section 14 of the Consultation was entitled “Measures to support Canada’s Connectivity Strategy”, seeking comment on issues including “potential measures or conditions of license that could accelerate Canada’s Connectivity Strategy’s target of 100% of the households covered with 50/10 Mbps within the timeframe of 2030.”

Fixed wireless, with 5G technology, is a promising solution to accelerate universal access to affordable broadband connectivity in Canada. It will be important to ensure there is adequate spectrum available, at a reasonable cost, for carriers offering residential broadband applications in underserved areas.

A number of times over the past two years, I have promoted the webinar series from the International Telecommunications Society. There is a very special session coming up in a few weeks, and I encourage you to register early.

Vint Cerf, one of the leading creators of the earliest foundations of the internet, will be speaking about “The Future of the Internet”, looking at policy issues that have arisen with the growth of the internet and its new applications, and looking ahead to the future impact and implications of the online world.

The session is being hosted by TELUS and Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

The future of the internet is the future of humanity. What was once a tool, is now an inescapable part of our lives and livelihoods. It is ever more ubiquitous and complex, consistently creating challenges for which there are no easy answers. From fake news and deepfakes to privacy and data protection, the internet has created wicked problems alongside its immense potential to continue transforming humanity.

Where once the job of an internet evangelist may have been to persuade people of the value of getting online, now their job is to persuade us that the torrent of online challenges is not only surmountable, but that the answer is more connectivity, not less.

The one hour session will take place at 9:00am (Eastern) on April 12, 2022 and there is no charge. Register today!

A significant challenge faced by first responders at an emergency is maintaining connectivity in situations where there are large crowds or large groups of people accessing public wireless networks at the same time, such as during the Toronto Raptors victory celebration. In such circumstances, network congestion can impede access to first responders transmission requirements.

Traditionally, first responders built and managed their own private networks, using dedicated frequencies, with customized mobile devices, in order to take ownership of delivering reliable connectivity.

Although the Government of Canada has set aside billions of dollars worth of spectrum dedicated to the development of a public safety mobile broadband network, those valuable frequencies have been left to lay fallow for more than a decade. [See: Moving Too Slow On Public Safety Communications]

Why?

A little over 6 years ago, I wrote “Public safety in the public networks”, suggesting “a public safety broadband network, developed as a virtual application within existing public broadband networks would be even more robust, more reliable, more resilient than a private, dedicated network.”

This past weekend, I learned about Rogers First Priority Service for First Responders, “which provides a secure, prioritized data channel between emergency personnel and their organization’s office or headquarters, seamlessly connecting them to the vital information they need via their devices and emergency vehicles.”

Priority voice services have been in place for years, providing public safety personnel and government decision makers dedicated access to in emergency situations. But the times—and technology—have evolved. With more information available than ever before, first responders need a reliable way to transmit and receive vital, potentially life-saving data.

Enter First Priority Service from Rogers, which provides a secure, prioritized data channel between emergency personnel and their organization’s office or headquarters, seamlessly connecting them to the vital information they need via their devices and emergency vehicles.

As the name implies, First Priority Service prioritizes the reliable wireless network access public safety agencies need to optimize their communications and response times.

Canada’s public mobile networks have proven to be world leading in speeds, reliability and coverage, supported by billions of dollars of ongoing annual capital investment, managed and maintained by thousands of skilled professionals deployed throughout the country.

A virtual network approach is the right way to deliver public safety communications. Technology enables the robust public network to allocate a secure, prioritized channel to ensure uninterrupted connectivity for first responders, with reliability and coverage that would take tens of billions of dollars to replicate in a private network.

At the federal level, officials need to examine how they permitted such valuable spectrum to remain unused for so long. Recall, in his mandate letter this past December, the Prime Minister said to Minister Champagne, “Accelerate broadband delivery by implementing a “use it or lose it” approach to require those that have purchased rights to build broadband to meet broadband access milestones or risk losing their spectrum rights.”

There is a big swath of prime spectrum, in a band valuable for rural broadband delivery, sitting unused.

In my view, it is long past time for first responder agencies to review their communications service strategies. Perhaps the Spectrum Branch at ISED can help accelerate that review.

---

[Update: March 24] Public Safety Canada has just posted “A Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) for Canada” [pdf, 3.2MB]

I wrote “The truth about structural separation” last May, describing the interaction between a Member of Parliament and TELUS COO Tony Geheran during a meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) that took place a year earlier.

Mr. Geheran said, “I haven’t seen [structural separation] work anywhere globally, to sustainable effect,” to which Calgary-Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel Garner replied, “It’s in the UK, right?”

Mr. Geheran responded, “But if you look at the UK, they are wholesale moaning about the quality of their infrastructure, their lack of fibre coverage. across what is a very small geography. I know. I originated from there. And quite frankly, the Canadian networks are far superior in coverage and quality and performance through COVID has demonstrated that.”

Recently, that committee adopted a report, “Affordability and Accessibility of Telecommunications Services in Canada: Encouraging Competition to (Finally) Bridge the Digital Divide” [pdf, 3.4MB], that had been released by the Committee during the previous session of Parliament. I found it interesting that the Parliamentary Committee report did not recommend studying structural separation, despite a specific call for such a strong competitive safeguard from at least one of the witnesses. However, in its more recent report examining the Rogers – Shaw transaction [pdf, 3.1MB], that same committee suggested studying the matter further:

Recommendation 1: That the Government of Canada launch nationwide consultations to examine the implementation of structural separation in the telecommunications sector between businesses that build infrastructure and those that provide services in order to ensure a level playing field that fosters network development in both cities and rural areas.

As it turns out, the CRTC has already held nationwide consultations that examined proposals such as structural separation. In 2015, as part of its review of wholesale wireline services, the CRTC examined a CNOC proposal to implement an “Equivalence of Inputs” regime, a very basic form of structural separation, “such that any wholesale service offered by an incumbent carrier to a competitor be provided at the same price, quality, terms and conditions, and timescale, using the same systems and processes that incumbent carriers’ use in their wholesale operations to supply their own retail operations”. The Commission rejected the proposal, saying it “would represent an overly intrusive regulatory measure, which would neither be efficient nor proportionate to its purpose“.

As a regulatory measure, structural separation has rarely been used in wireline broadband markets, and only where there is a single dominant network operator. To my knowledge, it has never been used in the wireless industry.

Unlike some foreign markets, in Canada there is no single network with a dominant presence. For example, in the UK, BT agreed to separate its wholesale and retail operations into separate business units after the regulator concluded that it had a natural monopoly over phone and broadband infrastructure in the UK. In other words, if you wanted phone or broadband services, you had to use the BT network.

In contrast, Canada’s wireline and wireless broadband networks are provided by multiple national and regional wireline and wireless service providers. As discussed recently in “Truthiness and Canada’s Telecom Industry”, Canada has the least concentrated broadband market in the G7 plus Australia. Upon which network would separation be imposed?

Just as proponents of mandated wholesale MVNO access have been pushing for a wholesale model that has been tried and largely abandoned elsewhere, proponents of structural separation are pushing another form of regulatory intervention that has fallen out of favour.

As described in Federal Communications Law Journal [pdf, 2.9MB], “Concerns about the potential for such disruptions [in economic efficiencies]–combined with recognition that the more extreme forms of separation potentially are irreversible-have led most regulators to back away from mandatory separation, or to view it as a “last resort,” to be used only in cases of extreme and otherwise irremediable discrimination.” The authors indicate that separation “may discourage the introduction of new networks, thereby reducing economic welfare and harming consumers.” Further, “the available evidence fails to support the proposition that mandatory separation improves market performance, but this evidence does suggest that such a policy leads to reduced levels of innovation and investment.”

Reduced levels of innovation and investment would fail to deliver the Parliamentary Committee’s stated goal of “[fostering] network development in both cities and rural areas”.

Canada needs regulatory policies that create incentives for more investment and innovation, not less.

Structural separation isn’t a solution.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.