Search Results for: incentives

Last week, an article in the Globe and Mail called for a reboot of Canada’s digital agenda.

On that headline point, I agree. A reboot may be needed.

As part of a typical reboot process, systems start fresh with clean data, clearing out faulty information. Some systems apply filters to improve the signal to noise ratios. As part of the reboot process, the government should ensure the information being loaded for processing passes error checks.

Unfortunately, I found a few points in the article that would fail error detection algorithms.

For example, in the second paragraph, we read:

The Liberals identified consumer telecom pricing, privacy protection and a modernized internet legal framework as priorities, but have struggled to develop an effective approach. Navdeep Bains, the Innovation, Science and Industry Minister, surprisingly backed a reversal on the affordability of communications services last month and has done little on privacy reform.

There is a little sleight of hand at work in those two sentences. Although affordability and prices are related, they are not the same and the terms should not have been used interchangeably. Indeed, recall from my post in January that a report from PwC found Canada’s telecom services to be the most affordable of all our G7 partners.

Contrary to the article’s assertion, it isn’t true that Minister Bains “backed a reversal on the affordability of communications services last month.” That simply didn’t happen.

The article is apparently referring to last month’s Order in Council responding to a petition to review the CRTC’s wholesale rates Order of August 2019. Minister Bains explicitly said “Canada’s future depends on connectivity,” and indicated that Cabinet was concerned the CRTC had not balanced the objectives in a manner consistent with the government’s priorities. Minister Bains specifically chose not to act at this time, recognizing that the CRTC was already reviewing its decision. Instead, the Minister more clearly indicated the policy of the government. That is precisely what the government is supposed to be doing.

The government’s telecom policy has never had a single-minded focus on price. As I wrote a couple weeks ago, for years now, Minister Bains has consistently spoken of 3 priorities: Quality, Coverage, and Price. Price is just one element. Last month’s Order in Council should be recognized for helping guide the regulator through the challenges of balancing the policy objectives.

Look at the language of the Order in Council:

• “the Commission… is bound… to exercise its powers and perform its duties with a view to implementing the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives and in accordance with any orders made by the Governor in Council”
• “improved consumer choice and competition, further investment in high-quality networks, innovative service offerings and reasonable prices for consumers”
• “considers that the final rates set by the decision do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the objectives of the wholesale services framework… and that they will, in some instances, undermine investment in high-quality networks.”

The Order in Council sought to clarify the need for maintaining the balance.

Indeed, the Globe article itself acknowledges that “fast internet access is a must for all Canadians”, as we have all seen over the past 6 months of being home-bound. Unfortunately, the reader of the Globe article is left without an understanding of the tension between the objectives of quality, coverage and price.

Around the world, we can see what happens when low prices constrain investment, or what I have called the “high cost of low prices”.

The message from Cabinet was clear.

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. Retroactive payments to affected wholesale clients are appropriate in principle and can foster cooperation in regulatory proceedings. However, these payments, which reflect the rates, must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments. Incentives for ongoing investment, particularly to foster enhanced connectivity for those who are unserved or underserved, are a critical objective of the overall policies governing telecommunications, including these wholesale rates.

This should not be viewed as a “reversal on the affordability of communications services.” Instead, as should be evident to most Canadians over the past 6 months, the pandemic has helped elevate awareness in the importance of Quality and Coverage, the other two legs of the Minister’s priorities. The government called for improving the balance to preserve incentives for investment, the key input to ensure Canadians have access to world leading network quality, covering urban and rural areas.

The vast majority of investment in networks – rural and urban, wireless and wireline – the overwhelming majority of capital investment in Canadian networks comes from the private sector, not government. While governments support and supplement network investment by carriers, large and small, governments do not (and generally should not) supplant private sector investment. An approach based on strategic, targeted support helps to ensure a greater reliance on market forces to achieve the objectives of Canada’s telecom policy.

As Cabinet understands, in many cases support for private sector investment does not require cash as much as it requires a policy environment that encourages investment. Cabinet more clearly understands the economics the drive network investment, as I discussed a few weeks ago in “The economics of broadband expansion”.

The Globe article also seems to be confused between judicial appeals and cabinet appeals of regulatory decisions. The article says “the government’s approach seems particularly troubling given that the Federal Court of Appeal last week upheld the CRTC decision.” In reality, this should not be troubling at all; there is no linkage between the two appeals.

In fact, the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal itself answers the concerns that the article finds “troubling”. As stated by the Court at paragraph 23:

[23] Significantly, neither section 62 nor subsection 12(1) circumscribe the types of questions that may be raised before the CRTC or the Governor in Council. This stands in contradistinction to the prescription in subsection 64(1) that limits this Court to reviewing questions of law or jurisdiction.

The Court is limited to ruling only on “questions of law or jurisdiction” while there are no limits on the scope of issues that may be raised in appeals to Cabinet (the “Governor in Council”) or the CRTC. So, it is completely consistent for a Court to find no fault with questions of law or jurisdiction, but have Cabinet to take issue with a CRTC decision on the basis of matters of policy.

There are valid concerns raised about delays in launching new broadband funding programs and we have unfortunately squandered 3 months of prime broadband construction season in failing to implement what I described as “An easy way to increase rural broadband speeds”.

Looking forward, we need serious discussions on the role of government in implementing the recommendations of the Broadcast and Telecom Legislative Review and updates to other areas impacting the digital economy.

But we need to make sure that when the government does its reboot, it carefully examines the data being input for processing. Much of it needs error-checking.

What does it mean to act in the public interest for telecommunications?

Does it mean working to get Canadians universal access to the fastest internet speeds? The lowest prices? The greatest coverage? All of the above?

There are few people who would say they oppose lower prices, faster speeds or improving coverage. In his remarks opening The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit, Minister Bains said:

our government understands that Canadians want three things from their telecom services.

• Quality. Is the service fast enough to do what I want it to do?
• Coverage. Is the service available where I want it to be?
• and lastly, Price. Is this service affordable?

These three areas are clearly where providers need to compete and that’s why our Government is doing our part to promote competition and investment. The goal is very clear. We want to improve quality, coverage and price for all Canadians.

There is a tension that ties these together. Quality and coverage each require capital investment, which in the Canadian context is measured in billions of dollars each year. Canada has achieved world leading quality scores for our mobile and fixed line networks. The overwhelming majority of Canadians have access to the latest generation of wireless technology, delivering the fastest speeds in the world.

The Minister carefully defined “Price” as offering service at an affordable level. An affordable price is not necessarily the same as the lowest price. PwC recently looked at Canada’s mobile affordability and described its analytic process in concluding “Canadian mobile services top G7 affordability ranking”:

To provide a holistic view of wireless affordability in Canada, this report examined a number of aspects related to the overall affordability of consumer wireless in Canada, including:

1. The changing pattern of household expenditures, as wireless data use is enabling a different delivery of products and services – including the substitution of select historic spend categories by wireless.
2. The assessment of wireless affordability in Canada, as measured by recognized affordability metrics.
3. The affordability of wireless services for Canadians in proportion to their income relative to other jurisdictions.

As I concluded at the time, “We need to focus on strategies to drive “demand”: increasing adoption rates among groups that could subscribe, but have not. That is a problem across all geographies, and perhaps more pronounced in urban markets. That should start with developing a greater understanding of those individuals and households on the wrong side of the digital divide.” Last week, I wrote more about “Using evidence to solve the digital divide.”

The third leg, coverage, is a real challenge. Many countries define regions as “rural” in terms of population densities that Canada considers to be “suburban”. Not only are there remarkably low population densities in some areas, but some of these are in extremely harsh geographies or so far north to be difficult for equatorial geostationary orbit satellites to “see”. Other underserved areas are close to high quality networks but located just beyond the economic reach of existing service providers. These households are perhaps the most frustrated, and understandably so.

In some cases, it means direct subsidy to offset the uneconomic costs associated with building to an area. Government subsidy programs only amount to a fraction of the level of investment required to extend coverage to unserved and underserved areas. The balance comes from the private sector.

The challenge is how do we create the right environment to incent investment. In some cases, there can be policy incentives, ranging from simplifying approval processes, making available government owned (or government controlled) passive infrastructure, or changing regulatory disincentives. It is important to understand that the current regulatory and financial conditions do not support the business case for extending service to other regions. To incent investment, there has to be an increase in top line revenue or a reduction in costs. Some of these levers are within the control of regulators and policy makers.

Acting in the public interest involves balancing priorities to achieve an optimal outcome. It isn’t all about price. As a nation, we can use targeted subsidies, or programs like Connecting Families to aid with affordability.

It takes a certain level of intellectual maturity to understand that reaching an optimal balance of Quality, Coverage, and Price is a challenge in the Canadian environment. There are trade-offs and prioritization required, especially in these difficult economic times with extraordinary and shift demands for connectivity.

Ultimately, the responsibility for determining the policy priorities rests with the government. Given the response to the pandemic, it is understandable that the federal Cabinet decided Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

How does this shift the equilibrium between Quality, Coverage, and Price?

Ok kids. Gather around. Today’s lesson is engineering economics. How do you put together a business case for expanding broadband into a previously unserved area?

Putting together a business case is an important life skill. You can apply these kinds of studies to personal purchase decisions, or putting together a business case to launch a new service or discontinue an old one. And most importantly, it will help you understand better how to analyse discussions about rural broadband.

Let’s look at a business plan to expand broadband service into a certain area. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll start with an assumption that there are sufficient investment funds available to fund all the construction into unserved areas, subject to a condition that the investor is able to get a certain return on their investment.

Based on that constraint – a positive return on investment, the engineering department should be able to define an area that qualifies for construction. Their calculations would be based on a variety of assumptions: Capital cost of equipment and construction; annual operating expenses including maintenance; retail market share (and thereby retail revenue); wholesale market share (and wholesale revenue); taxes, etc.

All these numbers go into a spreadsheet and the engineer can keep adding more homes to the construction plan as long as the business case continues to be positive.

At some point in the exercise, the next incremental home has a negative impact on the business plan. The engineer can then draw a line on a map delineating a boundary.

That boundary effectively defines the digital divide: where the economics are unable to support traditional investment in infrastructure. On one side of the boundary, the more urban side, the private sector can line up investors willing to support broadband expansion.

On the other side of the boundary, the more rural side, a different approach is required. These households are candidates for government rural subsidy programs.

But let’s go back and look at the ‘urban’ side of the boundary line. That boundary is defined as precisely where the business case goes from positive to negative. Homes on the boundary effectively have a net present value (NPV) of revenues less costs of zero.

What happens if the revenue assumption changes? If revenues somehow increase, the boundary gets pushed outward. More homes (on the ‘rural’ side of the boundary) would potentially now have a positive business case. On the other hand, if revenues somehow decreased, the boundary gets pushed in the other direction and the business case is no longer positive for as many homes.

When the CRTC sets wholesale rates, it is implicitly setting the wholesale revenues for our mythical engineer’s business case calculations. The CRTC doesn’t impact the capital costs, they don’t change the retail rates, or even the market share assumptions. But, the regulated wholesale rates are what drives the wholesale revenue line in the business case. Drop the rates, wholesale revenues go down and total revenues for that area go down.

When the facilities-based carriers warn that changes to wholesale rates impact the incentives to invest in rural broadband, this is what they are talking about. These aren’t threats; it’s just basic economics.

The Federal Cabinet understood these principles of economic studies.

Now you do, too.

Is costing more of a subjective art, or is it an objective science?

A recent opinion piece by former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies in the Financial Post says “It [The CRTC] has a cost accounting process that is supposed to be objective and provide certainty for an industry on which, as COVID-19 has made starkly clear, Canadians and their economy depend.”

If it was only that simple.

Costing is at the centre of the appeals of last August’s Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288, “Final rates for aggregated wholesale high-speed access services”. In response to an appeal, a little over a week ago, the Federal Cabinet declined to act but said it believed the CRTC erred and set rates too low, impacting the incentives to invest.

The Menzies opinion piece says “The CRTC has the power to stand its ground based on the evidence before it. It should do so.” The implication in the OpEd is that costing is an objective mechanical process; just input a bunch of numbers into a template and out should pop the costs and the resultant wholesale rates.

In reality, there are a lot of subjective decisions required in telecom costing exercises.

The CRTC Order was complex, following a lengthy consultation. The Order itself was divided into 4 broad sections, labelled by the CRTC as “Issues”, and each Issue contained numerous individual determinations, each impacting the resultant costs and wholesale rates:

1. Costing issues common to all wholesale HSA service providers
• Annual capital unit cost change assumption
• Bell Canada’s, Bell MTS’s, and RCCI’s unrecovered costs
• Working fill factors
2. Costing issues specific to the cable carriers
• Coaxial facility costs
• Segmentation facilities – segmentation fibre, optical nodes, and CCAPs
• Segmentation fibre facilities: Access versus usage
• Cable carriers’ proposed growth rates for annual peak period upstream traffic
• RCCI’s and Videotron’s transport fibre facility costs
• RCCI’s project development costs
3. Costing issues specific to the ILECs
• Labour costs per DSLAM port
• Bell Canada’s explicit costing approach
• Attribution factors to be applied to DSLAM equipment, umbilical fibre, and Ethernet port costs
• Bell Canada’s productivity enhancements costs
• Umbilical fibre costs: Access versus usage
• Bell Canada’s FTTN bonded access installation rate
• Bell Canada’s project development costs for aggregated FTTN access rates
• TCI’s financial parameters
• SaskTel’s VDSL Access service charge
• SaskTel’s VDSL interface monthly charge
• SaskTel’s other charges
4. Other issues
• Markup
• Effective date of the final aggregated wholesale HSA service rates
• Computation errors
• Subsequent tariff applications

As can be seen, the CRTC Order actually consists of 24 decisions, each one having an impact on the rates charged to ISPs reselling carrier access services, and impacting carrier revenues.

From some of the section headers, it should be obvious that not all of these were purely objective, mechanical determinations. There is analysis required and judgment calls made in each of these sections.

For example, let’s look at some of the discussion in the “Markup” section. The CRTC introduced the section saying “Markups have varied over time depending on a number of factors, including whether the wholesale service is essential and whether there may be additional risk to network investment if the wholesale service is mandated.” The Commission acknowledged the subjectivity of setting the markup rate, saying “in setting rates, it balances the need to ensure that network providers are reasonably compensated for their costs with the need to ensure that markups are not so high as to significantly impede competitors from providing competitive alternatives in the marketplace.”

Reading such discussions in the CRTC Order helps challenge the assertion that the CRTC “has a cost accounting process that is supposed to be objective”.

In fact, there is a lot of subjectivity applied, resulting in the potential for a wide margin of error. That potential for error in any regulatory process is one of the reasons that our system includes three avenues to appeal a determination to another authority: to the regulator; to the Courts; and, to Cabinet.

As we heard from one of those avenues a little over a week ago, “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.”

These are reasonable concerns for Canada’s Cabinet to have expressed. The need to focus on “investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas” has become more acute over the past 6 months.

In considering its own review of the August 2019 Order, the CRTC can certainly “stand its ground based on the evidence before it”. However, the Commission first needs to reassure itself that it balanced the competing Policy priorities when it made subjective determinations.

The CRTC just may find that a fresh look shines a light on a margin of error in some of those judgment calls.

---

This article appears on National Newswatch.

“Canada’s future depends on connectivity.” Those were the opening words in the statement issued by Innovation, Science and Industry Minister Navdeep Bains in discussing Cabinet’s decision not to formally intervene in last summer’s wholesale internet Order by the CRTC. While declining to take action, Cabinet sent a clear message that it expects significant changes to those rates in the pending outcome of the Commission’s own review of the Order.

The CRTC’s Order was issued August 15, 2019. Under Section 12(1) the Telecom Act, subsequent to a ‘petition’, “within one year after a decision by the Commission”, Cabinet (the Governor in Council) could “vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the Commission”.

Exactly one year later, Cabinet decided not to take any of those actions, at this time.

The statement from Minister Bains explicitly acknowledges that the original CRTC Order got the rates wrong and says that the Commission did not strike the appropriate balance between the competing objectives of the Telecom Act, failing to apply sufficient weight to Section 7(b): “to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada”. Cabinet recognized that wholesale rates got set so low that carriers were unable to continue expanding their networks into unserved and under-served regions.

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. Retroactive payments to affected wholesale clients are appropriate in principle and can foster cooperation in regulatory proceedings. However, these payments, which reflect the rates, must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments. Incentives for ongoing investment, particularly to foster enhanced connectivity for those who are unserved or underserved, are a critical objective of the overall policies governing telecommunications, including these wholesale rates. 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.

With such strong views about the CRTC’s Order, some may ask why Cabinet didn’t exercise its power to formally “refer it back to the Commission.”

The better question is “Why would it bother referring it back to the CRTC?” All that would do is cause a delay.

The CRTC already has its own review of the Decision underway. That process began last November and submissions have already been received. Had Cabinet chosen to exercise its option to “refer it back to the Commission”, the resultant process might have to start over.

By setting forth a statement outlining its expectations for the Commission’s own review process, Cabinet is expediting the process that will ultimately release wholesale rates that balance the competing objectives. Although it declined to act, Cabinet is sending a signal to the Commission for what could trigger a subsequent review of the CRTC’s reconsideration proceeding.

[The CRTC’s Order was also the subject of a judicial process that was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal this past June. The Court imposed a stay of the Order, saying “the implementation of the CRTC Order that could result in a permanent market distortion which would be difficult to remedy posteriori.”]

A little over a week ago, I wrote that there are “other regulatory or policy levers that don’t require direct subsidies to improve the business cases for rural expansion”. In today’s release, we see Cabinet pulling a powerful policy lever that will significantly improve the business case for network investment including rural expansion.

Sometimes, the best decision is choosing not to make a decision at all.

A few months ago, in “A key to recovery? Communications leadership”, I wrote “Set clear objectives; Align activities with the achievement of those objectives; Stop doing things that are contrary to the objectives.”

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

That is a strong statement, around which we can build objectives.

Last month, in “The COVID wild card”, I wrote about the supplementary comments filed in the CRTC’s mobile services review. “The importance of maintaining incentives for investment figures prominently in the final comments submitted last week.” On the subject of mandated resale of mobile services, I noted that Bell wrote “It would be particularly destructive now, during a period of unprecedented economic turmoil brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and at a time when large investments of private capital are required to support rapidly expanding usage, the roll-out of 5G, and the continued extension of access to underserved rural and remote communities.”

With the ability to declare victory on falling prices for mobile services, the government is rightly turning its focus on maintaining incentives for investment in advanced facilities and expansion in unserved and under-served markets. What implications can we extract from today’s Cabinet release that may guide the outcome of the CRTC’s review of mobile services?

After all, Canada’s future depends on connectivity.