Search Results for: incentives to invest

For the past couple years, I have frequently referred to the tension between the government’s telecom policy objectives, balancing quality, coverage and price. Think of it as a three legged stool. All three legs – Quality, Coverage, and Price – must be maintained in some form of balance to achieve stability in the marketplace.

Last September, in “Yes, it’s time to reboot Canada’s digital agenda”, I wrote that Cabinet’s determination in its review of the CRTC’s August 2019 Wholesale Internet rates was consistent with its stated policy priorities when it expressed concern “that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas.” I wrote:

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.

Cabinet was right to be concerned.

Last August, I prepared a bried tutorial on “The economics of broadband expansion”. There exists a boundary that defines the digital divide: where the total expected revenues from wholesale and retail services are unable to support traditional investment in infrastructure. On one side of the boundary, usually 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. The households on the other side of the line are candidates for government rural subsidy programs.

What happens if wholesale rates are lowered by a regulatory decision? The total expected revenues for the project logically drop and the result is that more homes end up on the wrong side of the digital divide. More homes are left having to wait for government rural broadband funding; total government funding would have to increase.

Cabinet understood this logical progression. Cabinet told the industry – and the regulator – “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.”

As we saw in the C.D. Howe communique last week, “the federal government must provide facilities-based providers will a clear and predictable regulatory framework that coherently balances vigorous price competition with incentives for ongoing investment to improve network and service quality.”

CRTC figures show that the major facilities-based carriers in Canada invest nearly $10B per year in wireline capital, contrasted with just $50M (0.5%) invested by the wholesale services based ISPs.

Simply put, extending the reach of broadband networks (the Coverage leg) requires massive levels of investment, as does the need to maintain Canada’s leadership in the Quality of our networks (Canada’s wireless and wireline networks are consistently rated among the world’s fastest). Government rural broadband funds are simply unable to replicate the investment capacity of the private sector.

The Court appeals looked at very narrow issues of law and jurisdiction, 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.

For that reason, no one should expect the Courts’ rulings to be harbingers of the outcome of the CRTC’s review of wholesale rates. The CRTC’s scope is much more broad than that undertaken by the Courts, and must carefully consider the policy considerations set out by Cabinet and the legislative framework under which it operates. The message from Cabinet was very clear: “Canada’s future depends on connectivity.”

If Canada’s future depends on connectivity, the corollary is certainly that Canada’s connectivity future depends on billions of dollars of continued private sector investment. We can expect CRTC to keep this in focus in how it makes determinations in both of the key proceedings under review at this time: wireless services and wholesale internet rates.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

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.

How do you get to argue a case at Canada’s Supreme Court? First, one must seek ‘leave to appeal’, permission to argue the case itself, by demonstrating that the case involves a ‘question of public importance’ to be settled by the Court.

If leave is granted, then the case itself gets to be heard.

Last Thursday, in separate filings by Bell and a nationwide consortium of Canada’s major cable companies, the Supreme Court received applications for leave to appeal the CRTC’s August 2019 Decision on Final rates for aggregated wholesale high-speed access services.

The Decision was appealed using all three channels legislatively set out in the Telecom Act: to Cabinet, to the Commission, and to the Court.

Cabinet issued its determination on the appeal in a highly nuanced Order in Council, stating “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”. While Cabinet did not explicitly refer the matter back to the CRTC, the Order clearly sent a signal 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… 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.”

The CRTC has not yet issued a determination on the review of its own decision.

In September, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the judicial appeal, which is giving rise to the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. The judicial appeal route can only examine questions of law or jurisdiction. In this instance, much hinges on whether the CRTC’s ruling conformed with the government’s 2006 Policy Direction.

The Policy Direction requires “the Commission, when relying on regulation, should … specify the telecommunications policy objective that is advanced by those measures and demonstrate their compliance with this Order.”

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed that the CRTC has a “statutory reasons requirement”, an obligation to include sufficient detail in its decisions to enable a reader, and a reviewing court, … to fairly understand the reasoning of the Commission”.

Beyond the rates themselves, a key element of the applications seeking leave to appeal is the question of transparency. “How must administrative tribunals satisfy their duties of transparency and accountability in considering and implementing legally binding legislative and executive policy directives… and how should a reviewing court scrutinize decisions of tribunals that do not satisfy their mandatory duty to consider and implement legally binding legislative and executive policy directives, and explain the manner in which they have done so?”

A year ago, the Supreme Court released decisions on a number of matters related to judicial reviews of administrative tribunals, in what McCarthy’s called a “Super Bowl trilogy.” Those cases clarified a number of matters including a requirement for the decisions of administrative tribunals to be held to a standard of correctness, not simply reasonableness.

A heading in one of the applications describes the current appeal, seeking a standard of transparency, as completing the work of the Court in those 2019 cases.

In my opening remarks at The 2018 Canadian Telecom Summit, I said “In my view, Canadian consumers would be better off if the Policy Direction is a guiding principle in decision making, not just a boilerplate afterthought in decision writing.”

As one of the sets of leave documents states “The unorthodox approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in its judgment upholding the Decision gives rise to pressing issues of national and public importance that go to the very heart of the modern Canadian administrative state.”

The issues raised by the proposed appeal are profoundly important. They must not be left unanswered. The stakes are too high, both for the future of the modern administrative state, and for the future of the internet in Canada.

There is no specific timetable for the Supreme Court to Act. It is quite possible, indeed quite likely, the CRTC will issue the decision on its own review prior to the Court even making a determination on whether this case raises “questions of public importance.”

In any case, it seems certain we will see less of a boilerplate affirmation of Policy Direction compliance appended to the end of CRTC Decisions.

A new study [pdf] from the GSMA looks at the expected economic benefit to Canada to be derived from the transition to fifth generation mobile technologies. The study sets out to “evaluate Canada’s readiness for 5G, assess the expected macroeconomic impacts from the introduction of the technology, and identify key barriers for the rollout of 5G in Canada to reach its full potential and drive future economic growth.”

“5G and economic growth: An assessment of GDP impacts in Canada” says that 5G will contribute US$150 billion in additional value add to the Canadian economy over the next 20 years.

To put the number in perspective, GSMA says “the additional yearly economic activity generated by 5G in Canada will be similar in size to the value add generated by the aerospace industry every year, and will be significantly larger than the GDP contribution of many other sectors in the country.”

However, GSMA warns that policymakers and the industry need to address a number of barriers in order to obtain the full macroeconomic dividends that can be brought by 5G, including a policy environment that includes the appropriate incentives to support the level of capital investment needed for these next-generation networks.

The report highlights the new spectrum, across all bands, required by 5G operators to provide widespread coverage, and to support all potential 5G use cases. GSMA observes that by the time Canada conducts its 3.5 GHz spectrum auction, 37 other countries will have already assigned that band. Further, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has recommended at least 100 MHz per operator; Canada has designated just 200 MHz in total with 50 MHz set aside for ‘new’ operators.

For more than a decade, Canada’s spectrum policy has focused on set asides to promote the growth of regional mobile operators; GSMA observes “there are clear trade-offs that the government needs to recognise when formulating spectrum policy – in particular, the likely impact this could have on network operators’ ability to invest and on the consumer experience and the economy more broadly.”

GSMA contrasts Canada’s limited spectrum release with the spectrum plans by the US (360 MHz), Japan (500 MHz) and most European markets (300–400 MHz). According to GSMA, “We estimate that bringing 5G spectrum policies in Canada in line with international best practice would deliver well in excess of a total of $30 billion in additional GDP growth for the entire period 2020–2040.”

Compared to 4G networks, 5G networks will deliver 10 to 100 times faster data rates, at signal response times up to 10 smaller. These next generation networks are also required to accommodate addressing and connectivity for the massively higher density of connected devices expected in the near future.

The complete report examines the projected benefits brought by 5G to a number of key economic sectors in Canada, including agriculture, and oil & gas. It is perhaps notable that TELUS announced the launch of TELUS Agriculture, seeking to optimize food production and contribute to a better yield of food supply. A report [pdf] conducted by Accenture for CWTA also cited agriculture as a key 5G use case.

The GDP impact projected by the Accenture report [$40B by 2026] appears to be in line with the $150B figure over 20 years in the GSMA study.

The report concludes with an emphasis on the importance of getting spectrum policy right: “Countries that make sufficient spectrum available in a timely fashion will facilitate the investments needed and deliver greater benefits to consumers, businesses and the overall economy sooner.”

As expected, broadband service is part of the government agenda laid out in this afternoon’s Speech from the Throne:

In the last six months, many more people have worked from home, done classes from the kitchen table, shopped online, and accessed government services remotely. So it has become more important than ever that all Canadians have access to the internet.

The Government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and ambitions of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet.

I noticed that the language of the speech did not talk about accelerating the release of funds (it is already too late to do that), and there was no mention of increasing the level of funding.

Instead, we heard that the government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and ambitions of the Fund.

What are these timelines and ambitions that are to be accelerated? Presumably, this means the target will be advanced from 2030 to some point in time sooner for all Canadians to have the opportunity to subscribe to a service with 50 Mbps download speeds, coupled with 10 Mbps upload speeds and unlimited data transfer.

But we aren’t hearing about any increased or accelerated funding to accomplish that.

On these pages, we have suggested that there are non-financial means to accelerate broadband expansion in certain areas. Is the government exploring how it can use non-financial incentives to encourage accelerated and increased private sector investment?