How should we increase the scale and scope of public participation in CRTC proceedings?

That is the subject of a public consultation launched recently by the Commission.

It is significant that it is a joint Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation (CRTC 2025-94).

The legislative framework governing telecom is different from that of broadcasting. Section 56(1) of the Telecom Act says “The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.” In Section 11.1(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, we read “The Commission may make regulations respecting expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings for the purposes of… supporting participation by persons, groups of persons or organizations representing the public interest in proceedings before the Commission under this Act”.

The Broadcasting Participation Fund was created as one of the “tangible benefits” arising from CRTC approval of the change in control of CTV in early 2011. Of the $245M in approved “tangible benefits”, $3M was designated to create an independent fund to help pay the costs of public interest groups that participate in Commission broadcasting proceedings. That independent fund became the Broadcasting Participation Fund.

It has been a confusing funding arrangement for many public interest groups and individuals. As the CRTC notes, these different mechanisms for funding public participation can be “challenging”. The Public Notice says that the Commission’s “preliminary view is that having a single application process for any Commission proceeding may be a better approach.”

I don’t disagree.

In its call for comments, the CRTC says that it plans to examine:

• creating one funding system to participate in Commission proceedings;
• funding participation through an independent third-party fund;
• making funding available to more types of organizations or parties;
• ensuring that the funding system covers appropriate costs;
• determining who should be funding participation and how much funding they should provide;
• building a system that provides funding in a timely manner;
• ensuring that funding is used in the public interest;
• supporting consultations for Indigenous groups and official language minority communities; and
• supporting participation in proceedings under the Online News Act.

I have concerns about who should be eligible for funding by the new regime.

Long time readers will recall my documentation of the CRTC failing to exercise sufficient diligence before awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars to people of questionable repute. Following my series of blog posts that brought the funding to light, a statement by then CRTC Chair Ian Scott said: “In light of the current situation, we have launched an internal review of our criteria for costs awards. Should we determine that changes are needed, we will then hold a public consultation to ensure that interested parties can share their views.”

Global News reported at the time (October, 2022), “No timeline was given for how long the CRTC’s review will take.” With the issuance of the public consultation, it appears the Commission concluded changes were indeed needed.

But, there is no mention of the CRTC’s internal review in the call for comments. It should have been there. The matter was serious enough for the Chair to issue a public statement; the Commission’s internal review should form part of the record of this proceeding.

The question of “who” should be eligible for funding should be explicitly canvassed in the list of topics to be reviewed.

The deadline to provide interventions is September 9, 2025. Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-94: Call for comments – A new approach to funding public interest participation in Commission proceedings.

A recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling exposed a legislative gap that could slow an expanded roll-out of urban 5G infrastructure.

The case (TELUS Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities) involved determining whether the CRTC was correct when the Commission said it lacks the legislative power over telecom carrier access to municipally owned infrastructure.

In the proceeding leading to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2021-130: Review of mobile wireless services, wireless carriers argued that having timely access to municipal rights of way and infrastructure are “critical to the success of 5G deployment.” Unfortunately, the CRTC determined that Sections 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act “do not provide the Commission with jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving mobile wireless transmission facilities”.

Supported by other wireless carriers, TELUS pursued appeals all the way to the Supreme Court that, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeal. However, there was a minority opinion that wrote:

The appeal should be allowed. There is disagreement with the majority that the installation of 5G small cells is outside the scope of the access regime in the Act. Properly interpreted, the term “transmission line” includes 5G small cells. This interpretation accords with the text and with the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the term “transmission line”. It is also the only interpretation that allows the Act and the Radiocommunication Act to operate together effectively, as Parliament intended, and that aligns with and respects Parliament’s desire for technological neutrality in light of rapid technological development.

The minority writes “According to the principle of technological neutrality, since 5G networks carry the exact same telecommunications and serve the exact same purpose as networks that consist of physical cables or wires, they are functionally equivalent and should be subject to the same treatment under the law.”

More than a dozen years ago, I wrote about technological neutrality in the context of a 2012 CRTC determination to treat wireless and wireline networks as peers. I have frequently written about the importance of government just getting out of the way of companies seeking to invest in infrastructure to power the digital economy.

Last week, I wrote about fixed wireless broadband as a more competitive option in the US for urban and suburban consumers, while in Canada, we see the technology primarily deployed in rural regions.

The CRTC’s lack of jurisdiction contributes to delays in small cell deployment, which ultimately reduces consumer choice.

There is clearly a legislative gap that led to this outcome. Will the new government make necessary amendments to the Telecom Act to plug the hole?

What is the future of fixed wireless broadband?

I saw two recent stories on the growth of fixed wireless (also called fixed wireless access – FWA) in the US and I thought it is a subject worth discussing on this page.

In RCR Wireless News, we read that wireless providers are dominating broadband in the US.

A new report by New Street Research indicates that fixed wireless additions will comprise close to 100% of residential broadband additions in 2025, with this percentage only slipping modestly in subsequent years. This is not so new, as Leichtman Research has reported that fixed wireless comprised 104% of broadband net adds in 2023, up from 90% in 2022, as seen in this March 2024 Light Reading report. These figures are based on publicly available numbers from wireless carriers, top cablecos, and top telcos.

There was also a story in Light Reading, talking about the growth of fixed wireless as a “major dynamic for the mobile industry”. For US tower owners, FWA is seen as a driver of increased demand for vertical infrastructure.

Despite fibre having superior technical characteristics, fixed wireless broadband has been winning customers over, even in urban areas where fibre and cable options are available. Why would wireless win out when competing against faster, technologically superior options?

One of the quoted analysts, Roger Entner of Recon Analytics, credits customer service factors as indicated by better net promoter scores, pricing, and simple disconnection processes. The author of the RCR piece says there is no linear relationship between speed and customer satisfaction. Consumers may have found that speeds sufficient to handle multiple simultaneous video streams are sufficient. “Having a car that can travel 500 MPH will do little to improve travel times, as law enforcement is not likely to be amused by such speeds.”

In 2020, I wrote “Broadband: how fast is fast enough?”. I followed up with “How fast is fast enough for broadband?” in 2023. Each of those articles talked about whether universal fibre should be on the national agenda.

Fixed wireless is being deployed in Canada primarily as a rural broadband solution. There are numerous smaller wireless internet service providers (WISPs)operating in rural communities and most of the mobile wireless carriers have residential wireless options. So far, I haven’t seen as much FWA being offered as an urban or suburban residential broadband alternative in Canada to the extent seen in the US.

I can think of a number of factors. What are your thoughts?

Next Tuesday (May 13), there will be a free one-hour webinar hosted by the International Telecommunications Society looking at Shared Infrastructure, Shared Future: Competition and Connectivity in the Next Generation of Networks.

As frequent readers know, I have been a supporter of the continuing education and professional development offered by ITS. Next week’s session is the fourth in the 2025 series. The keynote speaker is Dr Pantelis Koutroumpis (Oxford University, UK). Panelists are Dr Sven Heitzler (Deutsche Telekom) and Mr Danny Kotlowitz (Telstra).

From the webinar website:

---

The future of telecom won’t be built by spectrum alone—it will be built on steel, fiber, and shared infrastructure.

In the early days of mobile, every carrier built and owned their own towers. Today, we’re in the middle of a global shift: telecom operators are selling off physical assets, TowerCos are rising, and passive sharing has given way to active integration.

This evolution is not just financial—it’s strategic. As 5G, Open RAN, and densified edge networks take hold, infrastructure sharing has become more feasible and attractive, offering a path to faster deployment, lower costs, and more efficient capital allocation. Rather than duplicating physical assets, operators can redirect investment toward innovation, network quality, and service improvements.

Globally, the rise of TowerCos and shared infrastructure reflects a clear trend: over the past two decades, markets have embraced infrastructure separation to enable faster time to market, greater coverage, and more competitive offerings, especially in hard-to-reach and cost-sensitive regions.

This session will explore why this model has taken root—and what it means for policymakers today. Among the questions we’ll examine:

• How has infrastructure sharing contributed to competition, innovation, and affordability in global markets?
• What market conditions and policy frameworks have supported its success?
• How can public and private actors align incentives to ensure that infrastructure evolution supports long-term consumer benefit?

The webinar will open with a keynote from Dr. Pantelis Koutroumpis, Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Technological and Economic Change at the University of Oxford and one of the world’s leading experts on telecommunications economics and infrastructure policy. He will set the stage with insights from cutting-edge academic research and global practice.

He’ll be joined by two distinguished discussants: Dr. Sven Heitzler, Senior Manager of Spectrum Policy & Projects at Deutsche Telekom, and Mr. Danny Kotlowitz, a senior legal and regulatory advisor at Telstra with over 30 years of experience in infrastructure sharing and network strategy.

This webinar is designed for regulators, policymakers, economists, telecom strategists, and infrastructure investors navigating the future of digital connectivity.

As telecom infrastructure moves from asset to platform, understanding how, where, and why networks are shared may be one of the defining policy challenges of the decade.

---

There is a LinkedIn article on a related subject by Stephen Schmidt of TELUS. See: Building Together: Innovation, Investment, and the Next Era of Telecom.

Shared Infrastructure, Shared Future. I hope to see you online at the event next week.

I’m looking forward to forward looking from Canada’s newly elected minority government. It may be important to focus on the minority nature of the government.

In the interest of self-preservation, perhaps the minority Liberal government will continue to liberally embrace policies from the Conservative playbook. We saw some of that in Prime Minister Carney’s appropriation of such key Conservative plans for carbon tax relief and capital gains inclusion.

Unfortunately, I had trouble finding much forward looking in either of the Liberal or Conservative electoral platforms.

I’m not one to rely on what was promised in election platforms. Let’s face it, people will tend to say things during the heat of an electoral battle and then “wiggle” to adapt as the situation merits or unfolds. At least that is what a certain communications industry entrepreneur used to say.

What can we expect in the way of telecom policy over the next few years? It’s worth noting that TD Securities wrote a note last week with a title of “We See No Reason for a New Government to Focus on Telecom Regulation”.

Leveraging proprietary TD credit card data, plus widely available StatsCan information, we show that inflation in telecom costs for consumers is not a problem that should cause any concern for either political party that wins the Federal election on April 28. Canadian consumers already benefit from healthy competition and declining prices for equivalent wireless and internet services.

TD’s analysis of credit card data over the years 2022 through 2024 found that telecom spending has remained a constant 2.4% of total consumer spending in each of those years. TD said “In short, we have a robust competitive environment in the Canadian telecom industry, and we believe this leaves minimal risk that any new government will want to spend much time and effort on adjusting telecom policy to lower prices further.”

How would that analysis factor into a Conservative plan to “Launch an oligopoly review of key federally-regulated sectors to increase competition and lower costs for Canadians.” TD stated “To be clear, complimenting the telecom industry is rarely a popular political strategy; so some pre-election verbiage about standing up to help consumers should always be expected.” So, now that we are past the electioneering, can we expect more rational, informed approach to the telecom sector?

The Liberal platform really didn’t say much about telecom, beyond a plan to spend $1.5B this year and another $1.0B next year to “Invest in digital infrastructure for the economy of tomorrow.”

We will catalyze the construction and development of AI infrastructure including data storage facilities, computing capacity, high speed, safe and reliable communication networks, and digital supply chain solutions to improve efficiency and reduce costs for Canadians. This will include improving rural broadband and reliable cell service that connects communities.

The plan shows no spending beyond these first two years, even though the CRTC and the government share a 2030 target for finishing the job. I suspect this one to cost more and take longer than planned.

The Conservative plan talked about “Supporting remote-area internet connectivity so every Canadian has reliable access to news”, but there is no specific funding indicated for this initiative. Interestingly, the item appears under a heading of support for media freedom. That same heading includes “Introducing a Freedom of Speech Act to repeal Liberal censorship laws and restore Canadian news on Meta and other platforms.” This could result in significant shifts in CRTC headcounts and activities if the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act are repealed. At the same time, the Conservative platform called for its own version of the failed Online Harms Act, with “new laws for AI deepfakes of intimate images, modernized laws against online harassment, and stronger child protection online.” So, it looks like there would be support for some version of a new online harms bill.

What about other telecom or digital economy issues? The Liberal platform has a section on building the economy of the future, which focuses on investments in Artificial Intelligence, including $100M annually for an AI adoption tax credit for small and medium sized businesses.

Last summer, I wrote “Will Artificial Intelligence harm ‘real’ intelligence?” I have no doubt that there are some small and medium sized businesses that can benefit from investing in AI tools for their businesses. I suspect that many are looking forward and doing so without targeted government incentives. If so, we might question whether an AI adoption tax credit will accomplish much. I got nervous reading the platform promising to throw money toward AI, such as for data centres. To me, it came across as being bedazzled by the latest shiny object. I noticed that the Conservative plan called for chopping $2.275B from funding for Artificial Intelligence Initiatives.

I am interested in the Liberal’s promise of digital transformation in government.

Establishing a dedicated Office of Digital Transformation at the centre of government to proactively identify, implement, and scale technology solutions and eliminate duplicative and redundant red tape. This will enhance public service delivery for all Canadians and reduce barriers for businesses to operate in Canada, which will grow our economy. This is about fundamentally transforming how Canadians interact with their government, ensuring timely, accessible, and high-quality services that meet Canadians’ needs.

Enabling the Office of Digital Transformation to centralize innovative procurement and take a whole-of-government approach to service delivery improvement. This could mean using AI to address government service backlogs and improve service delivery times, so that Canadians get better services, faster.

However, the platform did not identify any funding for this new office. Will this department improve the ways we interact with government? Government departments like CRA still ask for faxes. Pharmacies still communicate with doctors by fax. As an aside, someone needs to help me understand why a doctor at a major hospital needs to write a barely legible prescription on a piece of paper that still must be presented to a pharmacy, even though the pharmacy has already received an image of the script using its app.

As I noted last week, the Conservatives proposed a crackdown on senior scams, with plans for fines of up to $5M for telecoms failing to implement the latest fraud detection / prevention technology. While this might have been a well intentioned plan, last week’s post explained why this may not be as effective as desired. Hopefully, constructive dialog among all stakeholders – government, telecoms, bankers, law enforcement, social services, and others – will lead to a better approach.

Not sure you can call me an optimist – I tend to be too grumpy for that title – but, I will continue to be looking forward.

Hopefully, the government will take that TD report to heart. I agree with TD. I see no reason for Canada’s new government to focus on telecom regulation.