The Wireless Networking and Communications Group at University of Texas has secured the backing of some significant industry partners in launching 6G@UT, “a research center at UT Austin imagining the future of wireless connectivity at the intersection of immersive sensing and machine learning”.

According to the release,

Founding 6G@UT affiliates Samsung, AT&T, NVIDIA, Qualcomm and InterDigital will each fund at least two projects for three years at the center. Researchers from the companies will work alongside UT faculty members and students to develop wireless-specific machine learning algorithms, advanced sensing technologies, and core networking innovations that will be the backbone of 6G.

Among the initial research thrusts:

• DEEPLY EMBEDDED MACHINE LEARNING: A key novelty for 6G will be a major role for machine learning techniques at all layers in the protocol stack, from the PHY layer up to network and application layers, as well as over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, allowing unprecedented site-specific adaptability and network automation. WNCG has had a strong core of machine learning expertise since before 2010, and has a history of deep collaborations between ML and wireless faculty, unique amongst global wireless research centers.
• NEW SPECTRUM AND TOPOLOGIES: 6G will unleash both new spectrum, e.g. above 100 GHz, and novel spectrum access paradigms that go well beyond the current licensed and unlicensed duopoly. 6G will make new coverage paradigms a reality, including massive LEO satellite constellations as well as self-backhauled small cell deployments, having a profound effect on global broadband coverage.
• PERVASIVE SENSING: Pervasive sensing will feed hungry machine learning algorithms, continuously tuning and reconfiguring the network, while “sensing-as-a-service” will be offered to subscribers and applications. 6G networks will not just be communications systems, but sensing networks that serve as a platform for crowd-sourced sensing; novel wireless sensing techniques will enable delightful new ways for users to interact with devices and to monitor both the users’ physical health.
• NETWORK SLICING AND SHARING: 6G network architectures will enable new revenue streams and the sharing of network and spectrum resources for a set of diverse tenets with different requirements. Building on the emerging ORAN paradigm, 6G networks will enable unprecedented openness, customization, automation, and “softwarization”.

Canada has some significant mobile technology talent working in labs for global telecom giants, as well as 5G testbeds set up by mobile service providers in cooperation with some of our universities across the country.

As the Longhorns of 6G@UT are demonstrating, it is already time to start looking ahead to the next generation of technology.

A recent article in Cartt.ca cited CCSA figures to claim “Large ISPs winning big from UBF”, suggesting that government broadband subsidy programs are skewed toward the biggest service providers in the country.

I have been following the stream of announcements and looked at the figures provided in the article and reach a different conclusion: smaller service providers appear to be getting more than double their share of rural funding program dollars.

According to the article, “Videotron, Cogeco, Bell, Telus and Rogers have been the major winners of UBF funding”, accounting for 70.8% of funds allocated so far. Keep in mind that Cogeco isn’t one of the 5 biggest telecommunications services providers in the country; Shaw is. According to the CRTC, “The five largest providers of telecommunications services (including affiliates) accounted for 87.3% of total revenues in 2019.”

Cogeco is a significant rural service provider and (according to CCSA figures) it has won 22% of the government funding. But it isn’t part of the CRTC’s “Big 5”. Dropping Cogeco from the list of major funding winners, we see that the service providers that provide 87% of Canadians services have won less than half of the funding.

In other words, service providers with just 12.7% of the revenues have been awarded 51.2% of the government funding.

That is four times their ‘fair share’. CCSA is quoted in the article saying “We’re concerned that this focus on the larger players is going to have a detrimental impact on the ability of consumers in rural areas to actually get the kind of service that they are used to getting, and that they want to get from their local provider”.

The figures don’t support a statement that there is a “focus on the larger players”. It appears to me that smaller service providers are doing well in winning government funding awards.

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.