In an earlier part of my consulting career, I would frequently fly into Washington, DC on little commuter planes known as Beechcraft 1900. (Remember the good old days, when we could freely travel between countries?)

There were 19 seats on those planes, 9 on one side, 10 on the other. It was a twin engine turbo prop plane and I would joke that it pretty much followed the highways on its way back and forth between Toronto and DC. Truth be told, I was never really happy about flying in a plane that would have the pilot move people around in order to balance the load. I prefer to fly in aircraft that can handle us ‘fuller figure’ fellows moving around a little without it causing some self-induced turbulence, if you understand what I am saying.

Sometimes, there just isn’t an alternative. The pilot relies on people being anchored in certain seats and handles the plane accordingly.

I told you that story to talk about the importance of anchors in the design of broadband networks in remote and rural communities. In some areas, the economics of broadband service is tied to the presence of ‘anchor institutions’, such as schools, civic offices, medical facilities and libraries.

Indeed, in last week’s CRTC announcement of 5 projects awarded under its Broadband Fund, the Commission noted that 26 anchor institutions would be connected.

As most people realize, the broadband requirements for an institution are usually more substantial than those for an average residential user. Faster speeds, higher capacity and usually an increased ability to pay for those differences. The term “anchor” is appropriate for these clients because they can provide economic stability, a key determinant for the economic viability of offering service in some areas. In the absence of those anchor clients, a larger subsidy might be required.

These are important considerations to keep in mind when you hear some folks advocate for municipalities to connect anchor institutions to a separate municipal network. Pulling anchor clients off the market can have the effect of reducing the economic incentives or viability for a service provider to upgrade facilities in an area. Municipal governments need to consider more than their own corporate broadband requirements and understand how their buying power can influence the quality of services that can be offered to the entire community.

A counter-intuitive approach, perhaps even offering a premium to usual retail rates, may serve the community’s interests even more, accelerating private sector investments and reducing the requirements for federal funding.

Those anchor institutions can provide the economic stability necessary to make a broadband business case go positive.

Toronto City Council just approved the plan for ConnectTO on Friday and it is already a failure, having lost sight of its mission before it even got started.

In presenting its plan for “Affordable Internet Connectivity for All”, the proponents for ConnectTO lined up representatives from ACORN Canada, a community union of low and moderate income people, who passionately argued “The programs need to be put in place now, not tomorrow. Now.”

The plan approved by Toronto’s City Council won’t do a thing now, tomorrow, next month or even this summer. It isn’t even clear that it will deliver on ACORN’s needs when it is launched sometime late this year or in 2022. Or ever for that matter.

The problem is that Toronto is trying to fit a technology solution into a problem that isn’t technical.

During the council meeting this past Friday, Councillor James Pasternak asked a direct question: “A few years ago many of our neighbourhoods that were torn up by Bell Canada, maybe Rogers as well. Are we targeting neighbourhoods that were excluded from those private sector fibre optic investments?”

If you watch the video, you will see Toronto’s Chief Technology Officer, Lawrence Eta, seeming somewhat evasive in providing a direct answer. It should have been an easy answer, something along the lines of, “Councillor Pasternak, Toronto is blessed with having some of the world’s fastest internet speeds and virtually every residential address in the city has access to multiple broadband service providers.” The city was told that by a 2017 study: “CRTC-defined broadband speeds are technically available to all households in Toronto.”

The issue with connectivity isn’t a lack of fibre or wireless or cabling. The city of Toronto has lots of accessible connectivity.

Like many urban centres, the issue that leads to a digital connectivity gap is one of adoption, not access. Building networks won’t fix adoption. To fix adoption we have to have a better understanding of the factors that keep certain communities from getting online.

We know it isn’t just a matter of price. Toronto actually learned that from a report cited in support for its plan. That report told the City that of those without an internet connection, only “half are not connected due to the cost.” The report also told them vulnerable communities needed more access to computers and mobile devices. Unfortunately, the report surveyed such a small sample of people without an internet connection that many other factors were missed, or unreported, such as building trust, getting training in basic skills, understanding the value of being online, and developing more advanced digital literacy, among many more.

These factors were not addressed. Toronto’s plan won’t deliver a solution for ACORN members who wanted a program in place now. Not tomorrow. Now.

For more than a decade, a number of people and companies have been looking at the challenges and trying to develop a number of solutions for the urban digital divide. Such groups should be engaged before Toronto continues down the current path. It was notable to see my skepticism echoed by commentators as feeling “like magical thinking” in Christine Dobby’s story in the Toronto Star. The Star article cites the community network in Olds, Alberta, but doesn’t mention that the lowest price service offered there costs $90 per month. The municipality is also trying to get its $14 million loan repaid. Community networks may be effective in filling in gaps in connectivity, but that is not Toronto’s problem.

Not only am I concerned that ConnectTO isn’t the right answer; it isn’t clear to me that Toronto has even started asking the right questions.

I’ve had my website (mhgoldberg.com) for nearly 25 years and this blog site is about to celebrate its 15th anniversary.

It was time for a bit of a refresher, including improvements to readability on mobile devices. When I started consulting, there was no such thing as a mobile web and I just had never taken the time to do an update. For that, I apologize to you, my readers.

So, welcome to the new look. I hope you will keep coming back. A new look, but I’ll still be sharing my perspectives on trends in telecommunications through a Canadian lens. I’m proud to be listed in the top telecom blogs in the world and having been recognized by itWorld Canada: “No one does a better job of exploring, interpreting or criticizing telecommunications policy in Canada. Period.”

Thank you for your patience putting up with the old website. I’ll try not to let it go another 25 years before the next refresh.

Take a look around the new blog layout and my main webpage and let me know what you think of the changes.

To subscribe to the blog and receive regular updates, enter your email address:

Earlier this week, Statistics Canada launched a new portal for data about Canada’s telecommunications sector, with a wealth of insights that should contribute to a far better understanding of the state of the industry by regulators and policy makers.

The portal currently highlights a few interesting datapoints, such as:

• Consumer prices for cellular services decreased by just under 15% in December 2020 compared to December 2019
• Capital investment by the wired and wireless telecom sector was just under $10B in 2018
• In 2018, over half of Canadians used their smartphones for e-banking, 44% for online shopping, and a third for streaming
• In 2019, 105,000 people worked in telecommunications, earning an average of about $66,000 for a total payroll of just under $7B

It is great to see Canada’s official government statistical agency invest additional resources into helping us improve our understanding of the underpinnings of the digital economy. Frequent readers will recognize that I have frequently written about the need for more data (such as here, here, here, here, and here).

In the past, I have asked “How is Canada supposed to be engaged in evidence-based policy making when there is so little information being gathered about who is online, how Canadians are using the internet and perhaps most importantly, who isn’t online yet and why not?”

What else would you want to see?

Better data leads to better quality decision making by regulators and policy makers. Statistics Canada new telecommunications portal is a welcome contribution to inform a fact-based discussion of issues.

“The programs need to be put in place now, not tomorrow. Now.”

That was the broadband affordability message from Bob Murphy, Chair of the Weston Chapter of ACORN Canada, in a deputation to Toronto’s Executive Committee last Wednesday evening.

ACORN members represent those people for whom the term “affordability” is serious. Bob Murphy delivered a heartfelt message. “When I talk about affordability, we bounce that word around at all committees… When I am speaking here about affordability, I’m talking about affordability for low income…Internet is more important now because of COVID… I have to spend money for internet before I spend money for food. This is not just an issue with me; it’s an issue with many Ontario Disability recipients. We have too many low income circumstances that have to prioritize internet before food. Internet before food. Can anybody here, sitting on this long day, imagine yourselves having to decide ‘Shall I pay for Internet or shall I have food and nutrition.'”

That speaker’s deputation resonated with me. How could it not? There is an immediate need. “These programs need to be put in place now, not tomorrow. Now.” But, despite the City calling its project “Affordable Internet Connectivity for All – ConnectTO”, a city owned fibre program fails to serve the level of urgency that was clearly stated.

No matter how much broadband prices fall, there will always be an affordability issue for many vulnerable Canadians. Canadians who have to choose between paying for internet or paying for food.

That is what affordability means.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we have seen the term “affordable broadband” hijacked and applied to alternate agendas, such as those ISPs seeking to bypass wholesale broadband access with taxpayers footing the bill for capital investment.

Now, I have no doubt that people want to pay less for their telecommunications services. I want to pay less for my telecommunications services, just as I want to pay less for my kosher meat, my dairy products, my property taxes. I want to pay less for everything. There are some things that I simply can’t afford. There are cuts of meat that I don’t buy unless they are on sale. I drive an 11 year old Hyundai.

But I don’t have to choose between paying for my internet and putting a nutritious meal on the table. I eat mac and cheese when I want to, not because I have to. The overwhelming majority of Canadians can afford their broadband service. I think it is important to differentiate between those who gripe about their monthly bills (it is part of our national birthright) and those who can’t afford a device, let alone the service to connect it online.

At the City of Toronto Executive Committee meeting, Bianca Wylie spoke about what she called applying a product management approach, and what I call systems engineering, defining requirements. She recounted an experience in an earlier job: “I used to be part of a company that built software. And one day when we were working on the software I asked if something was possible. My colleague told me to reorganize my question. They told me to say what I wanted, rather than asking what was possible. This is called requirement writing. Define the things you want then build them.”

Nearly 12 years ago, I wrote “A systems engineering approach to broadband”, saying “Most people define problems in terms of solutions. Many people say that they need nails when what they really need is to hold two pieces of wood together. The difference between defining problems in terms of requirements versus preordaining a solution.”

There are some well intentioned folks who likely believe they are helping with development of an affordable broadband solution, by endorsing a municipal fibre network, but that solution misses a key product requirement. The ACORN members at the meeting were pretty clear. They demanded, not requested, $10 per month broadband, immediately. “These programs need to be put in place now, not tomorrow, now when we have our families that rely on the internet every day.”

ACORN representatives told Toronto that the organization has been working on affordable broadband since 2016. As followers of this blog are aware, many of us have been working on this issue since 2008. Indeed, in partnership with Toronto Community Housing, Rogers launched Connected for Success in 2013, years before ACORN started thinking about the issue. Connected for Success offers residents of Toronto Community Housing 25/5 broadband service with no overage charges for just $10. And it’s been available for some time and is available now. Not tomorrow, but now.

In the years that carriers like Rogers (with Connected for Success) and TELUS (with Internet for Good) have been offering broadband to disadvantaged households, we have learned a lot about the challenges of driving broadband adoption in disadvantaged communities. People don’t just need an affordable connection. They need devices. They need digital literacy training. They need to learn about online safety. They need to build trust. These are issues that need the involvement of social service agencies.

As I wrote a little over a week ago, there were serious flaws in the study used to support Toronto establishing a city owned fibre network. Toronto is no broadband backwater. It is one of the most connected cities in the world. It is simply not true that 40% of Torontonians do not have broadband service that meets the CRTC objective.

Toronto doesn’t need a city-owned fibre network. The city will not be adding any connectivity to any place that doesn’t already have gigabit service available.

Not one.

As currently proposed, ConnectTO is bound to be a billion dollar broadband boondoggle.

But most importantly, the ConnectTO plan fails to meet the most fundamental requirement: the need to provide service now.

Not tomorrow. Now.