On June 22, Statistics Canada released the first information from the 2020 Canada Internet Use Survey, providing a quantitative window into how “The Internet helped fill the void during the pandemic”.

A few days later, the agency released a follow-up article, “Internet use and COVID-19: How the pandemic increased the amount of time Canadians spend online,” sharing some trend analysis for online activities among various demographics.

Compared with other age groups, the trend of increased participation in online activities during the pandemic was most pronounced among younger Canadians, with over 90% of those 15 to 34 years of age indicating that they had done more activities online. Many senior citizens also engaged in more Internet-related activities during the pandemic, with more than half (54%) of Canadians 65 to 74 years of age reporting more online activities.

It was interesting to see some of the comparative analysis, looking at Canadian internet use versus similar data from the UK. In addition, the report looks at a number of factors that correlate with different levels of internet activity.

Canadians with a university degree were more likely to increase Internet-related activities during the pandemic (90%) than Canadians with some post-secondary education (75%) and high-school or less education (62%). Canadians with knowledge of both English and French were also more likely to engage in Internet-related activities more often since the start of the pandemic (83%) than those with knowledge of only English (76%) and French (50%).

The dramatically lower level of engagement in internet-related activities among unilingual francophones (compared to unilingual anglophones and bilingual Canadians) is an important data point worth further examination. What are the contributing factors? How does this impact service delivery in Quebec for communications services and digital media?

In the past (see: “Better data leads to better decisions”), I talked about Statistics Canada’s Telecommunications data portal, with its wealth of insights that contribute to a far better understanding of the state of the telecommunications industry. The agency has also developed a portal for “Digital economy and society statistics”, intended to “[bring] together data, tools and reports from across the government to provide you the latest information on digital economy and society.”

It is encouraging to see the increased focus by Statistics Canada on data gathering and analysis relevant to our digital economy, helping guide evidence-based policy-making and decision-making for business leaders and government.

In light of the pandemic, 93% of Canadians recognize scientists as being critical to our future well-being.

While nearly all (92%) Canadians agree that the world needs more people pursuing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)-related careers, 87% also agree that it is important to increase diversity and inclusion in STEM fields. At the same time, 68% of Canadians acknowledged that under-represented minority groups often don’t receive access to STEM education.

These are just a few of the Canadian findings from 3M’s annual State of Science Index. For the past 4 years, 3M has conducted its global survey, through multi-country original research. Its “data explorer” tools enable examination of every question in the survey, allowing filtering of all responses by country, age, income and more.

There is cause for optimism: 85% of Canadians are hopeful 2021 will be a better year than 2020 because of science.

However, students indicated they would be more inspired to pursue STEM if they had a better understanding of the different career opportunities in science. The research also suggested students would be more inspired to pursue a career in science if the field was positioned as a “platform to make the world better.” The overwhelming majority (93%) of Canadians agree that investments in science make the country stronger. Seven out of eight Canadians say that they wish they knew more about science.

And the past year has helped reduce skepticism in science: compared to before the pandemic, Canadians are more likely to see science as important to their everyday lives.

Decades ago, when I worked at Bell Labs in New Jersey, we would have people visit inner city schools to talk about the cool things we were working on. Increased diversity means investing years to stimulate an interest among elementary school kids in entering STEM programs in high school and university. That demands partnerships between industry and governments and all levels of education.

Are we doing enough to develop the next generation of Canada’s science leaders?

You may have seen a campaign being led by various groups saying the CRTC made a big mistake developing its wholesale internet rates. It did. And in fact, the CRTC itself agrees that its wholesale rates decision had errors. That is why it corrected its mistake in May 2021.

The Commission’s 2019 Decision would have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of owners of resale-based internet service providers, without delivering meaningful measures to advance affordability or improve internet access for Canadians. The 2019 rates determination was flawed.

That is why the federal government made it very clear that the 2019 Decision could not stand, when Cabinet said the CRTC’s rates “may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas” and the retroactive payments “must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments”.

The CRTC’s May 2021 determination to reset the wholesale rates acknowledged the August 2020 statement from Cabinet (the Governor in Council). The Commission said “The Governor in Council also determined that exercising its authority under subsection 12(1) of the Act to vary or refer back the order to the Commission for reconsideration at that time would be premature, pending a decision from the Commission with respect to the review and vary applications.”

Of course, you would never know that from TekSavvy’s filing with the Federal Court of Appeal for Leave to Appeal the May 2021 decision. Of the petition to the Governor in Council, Teksavvy simply said “the petition was denied”, as though it was summarily dismissed: “the Governor in Council declined to vary, rescind, or refer it back.” TekSavvy failed to disclose to the Court the clear statements made by Cabinet that there were real concerns about the CRTC’s 2019 rates decision.

In fact, Cabinet’s “denial” of the petition led TekSavvy to publicly proclaim (in August 2020) “In a statement, the federal Cabinet effectively directed the CRTC to increase wholesale rates — above the rates independently set by the CRTC in 2019”. The headline on the press release read “Cabinet decision means higher prices, less competition for Internet services”. So much for telling the Court that “the petition was denied”.

Last summer’s clear statement from Cabinet may seem so long ago, but it should hardly have been a surprise to see the CRTC’s reversal of its 2019 decision. ISPs like TekSavvy had already raised consumer prices last August to accommodate the wholesale rate changes. The CRTC finalized those charges. Where is the “surprise”?

Disinformation is also being disbursed through active lobbying, somehow convincing rural members of parliament that increases to wholesale rates somehow “makes the growth of competition less likely in areas that require better service and even in those areas that are currently not serviced.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. The CRTC’s May 2021 decision improves the business case for rural broadband, meaning: (1) investment has been accelerated; (2) there is a lower requirement for broadband subsidies; and as a result, more households will get better service sooner.

Why is the CRTC Chair the singular target of corporate-sponsored venomous online attacks, OpEds, and social media campaigns?

Former CRTC Vice-chair and Acting Chair Michel Arpin reacted, saying: “The decision was unanimous, no dissent by a group of 9 members. A fair number of these members have a telecom background particularly the two vice chairs who are long time civil servants having spent a major part of their career in telecommunications. So stop accusing Ian Scott.”

Take a minute to unpack that statement. The CRTC’s May 2021 Decision, reversing the 2019 rates, was issued with no dissenting opinions. At the end of the day, under CRTC rules, the Chair only has one vote. So the May Decision represents the decision of the Commission, not just the Chair.

A comment on this blog last week from a former Director General at Industry Canada said:

Calling for the firing of the Chair because one is not happy with a decision is totally inappropriate. What is the point of having an independent regulator if that regulator could be fired whenever a disaffected party could convince the government to do so? Who would ever take the position of Chair with that spectre hanging over them? This would terribly influence decision-making in the worst possible way. Calling for the firing of the Chair does great insult to carefully crafted institutional arrangements and reflects badly on those who make such a call. As you mention there are more than adequate established means of seeking redress if one believes the regulator has erred. Populism has no place in the administration of fair regulation.

As I wrote last week, if you don’t agree with a CRTC decision, there are 3 channels of appeal available; a coup d’état is not one of them.

Populism has no place in the administration of fair regulation.

Writing in the Toronto Star recently about CBC’s decision to suspend comments for a month, Navneet Alang said “the social media era has upended some of our most cherished ideas around speech — and that guaranteeing someone a platform for their feedback isn’t just unnecessary, it’s actively harmful.”

His article includes themes that I have covered a number of times in the past, in such posts as “The fourth degree”, in which I reminded readers that comments are moderated on this platform.

Alang wrote:

At its ideal, the comment section under a story can correct mistakes, challenge assumptions, and give voice to what was not depicted or described.

That does indeed happen on Facebook sometimes, even today. But what you also get in those same comment boxes are wild conspiracy theories, baseless ravings, misogyny, racism, and other forms of hatred, both subtle and outright, and more. It is in short a toxic stew, one in which the beneficial aspects of comments come with considerable costs.

Uncivil discourse isn’t just found in comments sections of news articles. Recently, a Canadian university professor cancelled his Twitter account after he was called out for writing a number of antisemitic posts, although he was rewarded with a $2.5M grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which apparently doesn’t care about unsocial behaviour by its recipients.

Last week, I observed that the discourse following the CRTC’s review of its error-filled 2019 wholesale rates decision has been over-the-top with inappropriate personal attacks, especially from anonymous accounts on Twitter. Since then, it seems to be getting worse, as these (often anonymous) commentators descend into old fashioned muck-raking which perversely accelerates the impression in the public’s mind that the CRTC lacks authority, integrity, and independence.

When such comments get amplified by official corporate blogs and Twitter accounts calling for the government to fire the Chair of the Commission, this serves to undermine the very concept of due process under the law. In Canada, if you don’t agree with a CRTC decision, there are 3 channels of appeal available; a coup d’état is not one of them.

Former CRTC vice-chair Michel Arpin wrote a reply to one of the attacks on the current CRTC chair, saying:

The decision was unanimous, no dissent by a group of 9 members. A fair number of these members have a telecom background particularly the two vice chairs who are long time civil servants having spent a major part of their career in telecommunications. So stop accusing Ian Scott.

As I wrote in April,

Confronted with inconvenient facts, apparently some people feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than preserving the obscurity they so richly deserve.

I’m not offering a solution; I’m just finding there is some catharsis in venting.

Your comments are welcome.

When the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) reversed its own ill-conceived 2019 wholesale rates decision last month, the term “invest” shows up 56 times. “The Commission’s long-term objective in the wholesale HSA service market is to encourage competition and, in particular, facilities-based competition.”

And, when the federal Cabinet looked at that 2019 decision, it was also concerned about investment, warning:

On the basis of its review, the Governor in Council considers that the rates do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the policy objectives of the wholesale services framework and is concerned that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas.

Cabinet chose not to explicitly overturn the 2019 decision, saying “Given that the CRTC is already reviewing its decision, it is unnecessary to refer the decision back to the CRTC for reconsideration at this time.” But the message was clear in its August 2020 press release: “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”.

So, it should not have been a surprise that the Commission has continued nearly 30 years of support for facilities-based competition.

Since that May decision, there has been a steady stream of substantial investments announcements in major telecom infrastructure, for example:

• Bell: Bell’s biggest-ever network acceleration plan gets bigger with additional investment now up to $1.7 billion over the next 2 years;
• Rogers: When staying connected mattered most, Rogers enabled and enhanced connectivity to more than 1,000 communities across Canada, faster than at any time in company history;
• TELUS: TELUS unleashes Canada’s fastest Internet speeds and invests $2 billion to expand its fibre optic network in Calgary;
• SaskTel: SaskTel doubling its investment to bring advanced fibre optic broadband infrastructure to rural communities across Saskatchewan;
• among many, many more.

In its May 27, 2021 determination to vary its 2019 wholesale rates, the CRTC said “that making the interim rates final would further incent and foster investments and facilities-based competition.” Over the past month, Canada’s major facilities-based carriers have accelerated capital plans like never before.

The system is working.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity, and investment in connectivity is well underway.