Search Results for: affordable

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.

If I was asked to put together a list of places in Canada that needed government support for broadband infrastructure, I don’t think the City of Toronto would crack the top 1000 places. I might examine some of the suburbs in the Greater Toronto Area, to make sure those rural areas had upgraded access, but the city proper? Not a chance.

Next week, Toronto’s Executive Committee is considering an item entitled “Affordable Internet Connectivity for All – ConnectTO”. The City’s Technology Services group “is seeking City Council’s support to lead “ConnectTO”, a collaborative program that aims to centralize stewardship of municipal resources and assets to deliver the City’s goals on equity and connectivity, including creation of a City of Toronto broadband network.” A City of Toronto fibre-enabled broadband network is envisioned.

Of course, I am one hundred percent behind initiatives promoting universal affordable internet connectivity. I have been beating that drum for 13 years now, on these pages and in public discussions.

Where I tend to have problems with otherwise well intentioned proposals is in two areas: confusing access to broadband with adoption of broadband services, and confusing affordability with average prices. The 9-part report does both, and in doing so, steers City Council toward a solution for a non-existent technology problem when the focus should be on social services.

The report going to Toronto’s Executive Committee has a number of flaws. In the Report for Action by the City’s Chief Technology Officer, Technology Services Division, the Background reads:

Well-developed broadband infrastructure is essential for residents to participate in the digital economy, learn online, and to access government services. The CRTC has set minimum service levels of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps) download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed and access to unlimited data for high-speed broadband. However, research from late 2020 indicates that 39% of Torontonians surveyed did not have internet speeds that met the CRTC minimum service level. The same research indicates a majority of the 62 countries in one study offer 100 Mbps as the most frequent internet speed. More recently, there are concerns that 50 Mbps download speed and 10 Mbps upload speed is not sufficient for the more data intensive ways which Canadians are now using the internet, such as online learning, electronic business transactions, etc., especially with multiple simultaneous devices being used in the same household.

I could devote this entire blog post to explain the flaws in this one paragraph.

Many may think, “Who cares? This is just a Background paragraph. Move on.” I think that these flaws form a basis for erroneous thought that tends to permeate through the report and its 8 associated appendices. Some of the materials are wholly irrelevant, as if to provide filler, or add heft to the filed materials. But the recommendations in the report seem to flow from the erroneous background, and that makes me somewhat distrustful of the rest of the materials.

Let’s take a look at some of the problems in this paragraph. I won’t quibble with the first sentence, although it leaves out what most of us use our broadband for: entertainment (music, streaming videos, social media, etc.). But since this is a serious matter before the City executives, I guess the CTO wanted to stick to the introduction lifted verbatim from the CRTC. Unfortunately, that didn’t continue into the second sentence. The CRTC continued with “That is why we set new targets for Internet speeds. We want all Canadian homes and businesses to have access to broadband Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads.”

There is a subtle, but important difference there. The CRTC didn’t set a minimum service level. It set a target for all Canadians to be able to access those service characteristics, leaving it up to Canadians to choose whether or not they want to subscribe to that speed. The error in the second sentence is why the very next sentence is so completely misleading and flawed: “However, research from late 2020 indicates that 39% of Torontonians surveyed did not have internet speeds that met the CRTC minimum service level.”

On first read, one might think that Toronto is a broadband backwater, with nearly 40% of of the city unable to access to the CRTC’s broadband speed objectives. That simply isn’t true. Virtually every household in Toronto has access to gigabit speeds (and faster), from at least 2 competing service providers, Bell and Rogers. Many residents have access to alternative fibre-based services from companies like Beanfield Metroconnect.

An appended report from Ryerson, the research source for the data in the above highlighted paragraph, is disappointing in what I see as a lack of scientific and analytic rigour. Much of the report is based on survey data, with 80% of the 2500 responses coming from an online survey. No wonder the study found 98% of the respondents had internet access! The first 80% needed internet access just to answer the survey. The other 2% must have come from the telephone survey respondents.

The Ryerson report, Mapping Toronto’s Digital Divide, contains a number of other data mismatches that can be detected by looking carefully. I’ll highlight a couple instances, such as this paragraph:

A majority of the 62 countries in one study offer 100 Mbps as the most frequent internet speed. Such speeds allow for simultaneous and noninterruptive web browsing on multiple devices, including streaming services in 4K high resolution. While many countries around the world do not offer speeds lower than 100 Mbps, Canada continues to remain among the few internationally to continue to provide internet speeds less than 9 Mbps, alongside notably the US and UK.

Without looking to the footnotes, one might think that the statement in the second sentence refers to the same collection of 62 countries as discussed in the first sentence. But that would be wrong. In fact, the second sentence is based on ISED’s 7 country pricing comparison. The sentence is inaccurate.

Ryerson looked at data speeds as well and the report presents results in an embarrassing and extremely misleading fashion.

The global average download speed for broadband internet as of November 2020 according to one source was 91 Mbps; while the Canadian Internet Registration Authority found the average Ontario download speed was 52 Mbps from April 2019 to March 2020.

There are multiple obvious flaws in this data. The timeframe used for the global datapoint was November, 2020, while the Ontario data is from a year earlier. In addition, the global datapoint came from Ookla’s Speedtest, while the Ontario data is from the deeply flawed CIRA speed test. There was no reason for this. Ookla’s Speedtest has Canadian specific data (156 Mbps), broken down by province (Ontario was 153 Mbps) and indeed, Toronto specific data (171 Mbps). Why wouldn’t the authors match the data source and timeframe?

It comes across as authors torquing the presentation of data to fit some kind of an agenda. Ryerson should retract the report and redo it with greater academic rigour.

Toronto does not have a problem with the availability of broadband, and there is absolutely no reason for the city to contemplate construction of fibre facilities. A number of the appendices are dedicated to maps and analysis of how to build fibre to libraries that clearly have available existing commercial services. If Toronto wants to assist with private sector digital infrastructure investment, it can facilitate access to ducts, rights of way, municipal electric poles or other support structures for fibre, and make available vertical real estate for radio antennas.

I have often written that people frequently confuse broadband adoption with broadband access. It is somewhat easier to contemplate ways to fix gaps in broadband access; it’s just an engineering problem. In urban markets, the economics have permitted multiple competing companies to build gigabit broadband infrastructure to virtually every corner of the city.

It’s a lot tougher to drive adoption. Most telecom companies separate the engineering and operations groups from the marketing and sales groups for a really good reason: these are different disciplines. One side builds and operates the network; marketing and sales develop the services that drive adoption, using the network.

While the Report for Action for the Executive Committee has lengthy discussions about broadband pricing and international comparisons, targeted subsidy programs, such as the nearly 7 year old Connected for Success program from Rogers and TELUS’ Internet for Good get only a passing mention in the Ryerson appendix, not the main document. Considering the history of Connected for Success, launched originally with Toronto Community Housing before being taken across the Rogers network, it might have deserved more significant consideration by the proponents.

Toronto, and indeed every city, has a broadband adoption challenge among certain disadvantaged sectors. As the ConnectTO agenda item Summary indicates, “access to high-speed internet is necessary for residents to equitably participate in day to day life.”

But, my concern is that this proposal veered off course with its line: “Technology Services is seeking City Council’s support to lead ‘ConnectTO'”. In November 2017, in a memo to the Economic Development Committee, Toronto’s CIO and GM of Economic Development and Culture wrote, “In Toronto nearly 100% of households have ‘access’ but this refers only to the necessary infrastructure being in place. In practice, access depends on affordability.” It is disheartening that so little progress has been made in more than three years.

This isn’t a technology issue. It requires marketing and product development. The lead should be with the agencies invested in delivering community services to disadvantaged members of the community.

Last week’s Cabinet shuffle brought a new Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry into the telecommunications policy arena, The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne. As indicated in his biography, he brings a wealth of experience at large international companies in Europe, particularly in the fields of energy, engineering, and innovation. These are great credentials for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

For telecom policy, Minister Champagne’s predecessor, Navdeep Bains, had focused on the tension between quality, coverage and price, seeking to balance the requirements for investment to support providing world-leading communications services, while ensuring affordability for all Canadians, including those in rural and remote areas. Last August, former Minister Bains succinctly summarized the policy as “Canada’s future depends on connectivity”.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity. Our government recognizes that access to affordable, high-quality high-speed Internet is a necessity for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the importance of connectivity. The investments our government is making in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote communities, are key to ensuring equitable digital access for all Canadians. Equitable access also means that it is available at fair prices that Canadians can afford.

The message from Minister Bains last summer expressed the perspective of Cabinet: “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.”

The critical importance of maintaining a balance of competing policy objectives figured prominently. Quality, coverage, and price.

In a blog post in late August (“Acting in the public interest”), I wrote about the tension between these policy objectives. I noted that Minister Bains was careful in defining “Price” as “offering service at an affordable level.” As such, it is clear that an affordable price is not necessarily the same as having the lowest price. “Acting in the public interest involves balancing priorities to achieve an optimal outcome. It isn’t all about price.”

There can be a high cost associated with low prices. Israel serves as an example of what happens to quality when there is a singular focus on reducing prices, as Canadians have been warned: “Prices did fall, but so did the quality of the networks. The massive reductions to revenues caused major reductions in capital expenditures, network roll-out and expansion, market capitalizations of the participants and even the number of employees.”

The past year has highlighted the importance of investment in world-leading technologies and extending the geographic reach of Canada’s mobile and wireline broadband networks. A policy framework that encourages network investment is the best way to accelerate expansion of quality infrastructure into unserved territory. The vast majority of investment in networks – rural and urban, wireless and wireline – 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.

To the extent affordability is a concern, perhaps targeted support programs can be developed to supplement Connecting Families, without increasing the level of regulatory intervention in the market, consistent with the objectives of Canada’s telecom policy.

Will the CRTC’s review of mobile services and its determination on the application to review wholesale internet rates create a shift in the balance between quality, coverage and price? These proceedings are foundational, with the potential to cause significant shifts and disruptions in the marketplace and the investment climate.

The mandate letter for Minister Champagne appears to provide for continuity in Canada’s digital policy priorities. The letter incorporates Minister Bains’ mandate letter by reference (“In addition to the priorities set out in my mandate letters of 2019…”), and is entitled “Supplementary Mandate Letter.”

It is interesting that the matter of rural broadband appears in both letters. In the December 2019 letter, broadband is referenced as:

Work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deliver high-speed internet to 100 per cent of Canadian homes and businesses by 2030.

Thirteen months later, in a COVID environment, the new letter says:

Recognizing that all Canadians need the tools to fully participate in and benefit from the digital economy, support the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development on the continued implementation of the Universal Broadband Fund to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet. Your work should include considerations around the effective use and deployment of innovative technologies, such as low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, to connect all Canadians.

I found the removal of the 2030 deadline in the supplemental letter as interesting, and perhaps noteworthy. Similarly, the specificity of LEO technologies and “considerations around the effective use and deployment of innovative technologies” merit further consideration. Is it a signal to favour policies to drive investment in facilities?

How should we interpret silence in the supplemental letter regarding other areas of the Minister’s mandate? Is it a signal that the government is satisfied with progress made to date in areas such as reductions in mobile pricing?

How will the government encourage deployment of digital infrastructure, in urban and rural markets, while preserving the balance (and tension) between quality, coverage and price?

It’s mid-December and it’s that customary time for me to write a year-end wrap-up post.

Never before have I wanted to wrap up a year like this one.

For almost 10 years, I have entitled my year-end wrap up blog post using lyrics from Joni Mitchell’s “Circle Game”. As the year 2020 winds down, and much of the world continues to operate in a state of partial lock-down to reduce the spread of COVID-19, going “round and round and round” seems even more appropriate than ever.

In 2020, I have published around 106 blog posts (so far), up 50% over the past few years. In “A summer like no other” [Sept 2, 2020], I observed that my summer blog production (July and August) was triple the normal levels. Like many, I am spending more time in front of a computer and as most have discovered, telecommunications policy has come to be a critical issue as people work, study, shop and play at home.

The archives for this blog now include more than 2925 articles, chronicling trends and issues as far back as 1997. As I look at the analytics, I continue to find it interesting to see the search terms being used successfully to find these older, but often still relevant, pages.

We are hoping to be starting the New Year on a new web host and with a new site design. Like many of you, I’m looking toward a fresh start for 2021. Be sure to let me know what you think of the new look.

Unlike some armchair industry observers, I continue to be optimistic about the state of Canada’s telecommunications industry. A couple months ago, I celebrated 40 years working to build advanced competitive communications networks in North America. As I said at that time, I still wake up to new challenges that make it a pleasure to get to work each day.

I have found it to be particularly satisfying to see the role played by affordable and advanced communications in improving virtually everything we do. Those capabilities have never been needed more than over the past year. I am especially proud of the efforts by many Canada’s service providers to create targeted plans to close the homework gap among lower income families with school aged children.

I have said it before and it merits repeating: it has never been easier or cheaper to communicate. I can talk with my kids and video-chat with my grandchildren halfway around the world every day as though they are around the corner. For more than 9 months, I have been living and working in a rural area using a fixed wireless connection that does not meet the government’s speed targets, but I have found the service able to support multiple simultaneous HD video streams and to conduct business video chats, including hosting a variety of webinars and sessions for The Canadian Telecom Summit.

I have written a number of posts through the years calling for us to do more to develop a better understanding of those Canadians who have not yet adopted information and communications technologies. As I have written, “most government programs continue to focus on increasing “supply”, extending access to broadband. We need to ensure there are strategies to drive “demand”: increasing adoption rates among groups that could subscribe, but have not. That is a problem across all geographies, and is perhaps more pronounced in urban markets.”

Most of us would like to close the books on this year of the pandemic and many are looking forward, optimistically, to a more promising year ahead.

I am in that camp.

Last month, in his closing remarks at The 2020 Canadian Telecom Summit, Industry Minister Navdeep Bains said “I want to close by saying that these have not been easy times, but they have shown just what Canadians and our industries are made of. At no time have I been more proud of being the Minister of Industry.”

I am reminded of the exchange between characters in the 1995 film Apollo 13. Joe Spano, playing the role of NASA Director says, “This could be the worst disaster NASA’s ever experienced.” In response, Ed Harris, playing the role of Flight Director Gene Krantz replies, “With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour.”

Throughout the past year, despite difficult operational and financial hurdles, Canada’s communications industry delivered world leading services that enable most Canadians to manage their lives and livelihoods through the pandemic. One might argue that the manner in which the telecom sector responded to the challenges of the year 2020 has been the industry’s ‘finest hour’.

To paraphrase Minister Bains, let me say that at no time have I been more proud to be associated with the telecommunications professionals driving Canada’s economy toward better times.

I hope you and your families have a happy, healthy, safe and peaceful holiday season.

I look forward to engaging with you in the New Year.

How fast is fast enough for broadband?

While there is no question that, all else being equal, faster is better, a new report from ITIF – The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation – challenges the myth that universal fibre should be on the national agenda.

All else being equal, more bandwidth is better than less, and investment that drives fiber deeper into access networks is welcome. But there is no need to radically change the competitive system that continues to expand network capacity.

The problem is that all is isn’t equal. Most people living in large and medium sized urban markets in Canada have access to (and are subscribing to) broadband services with speeds that are already far in excess of Canada’s objective of 50 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. In fact, Ookla is showing Canada’s national average speed in September, 2020 was 145 Mbps down and 60 Mbps up. Unfortunately, CRTC figures show that 1 in 5 rural households couldn’t even access a 10 Mbps service.

Just last week, Barb Carra, CEO of Alberta’s digital technology agency Cybera told Cartt.ca, “A goal of 50 Mbps upload/10 Mbps download is too low. You can barely run a video meeting on a 50 Mbps connection.” In fact, 50 Mbps is about 25 times the requirements for Zoom and Skype. It is double the requirements for Netflix 4K or YouTube 4K.

It is great to aspire to have universal access to even faster internet speeds. Unfortunately, universal broadband is not commercially viable without government financial support. Those government programs have budgetary limits. CRTC Chair Ian Scott recently told the ISP Summit that its latest call for funding proposals attracted “600 applications with a combined ask of more than $1.5 billion”, far outstripping the available funding.

We should be focusing efforts – and finite levels of public funding – on raising the quality of connections for those who are the most behind. A couple years ago, I wrote in “Isn’t some broadband better than nothing?”, “When some Canadians are wanting for any kind of affordable broadband, it takes a certain kind of arrogance to proclaim that 25Mbps just isn’t good enough.” It is premature to be calling for an even more aggressive target, especially since we are just beginning to allocate funds to meet the 50/10 objective.

The ITIF report shows that the vast majority of consumers in countries that have near universal access to gigabit speeds, like Singapore and South Korea, don’t subscribe to faster speeds because lower speeds are sufficient.

ITIF observes that the question of broadband speed requirements to yield societal economic benefits has been studied for years.

Research consistently shows that, as one might expect, broadband does have a positive impact on productivity and economic growth. However, the important factor needed to achieve economic growth from broadband is in reaching a critical threshold of penetration of basic broadband that’s able to perform common functions. Regression analysis of U.S. broadband data indicates that “compared to normal-speed broadband, faster broadband did not generate greater positive effects on employment.”

ITIF warns us to be wary of broadband advocates calling for universal access to fibre. “Their goal is not gigabit networks; their goal is municipally government-owned networks. They oppose corporate broadband providers on an ideological basis.”

In the wake of last week’s announcement of Canada’s Universal Broadband Fund, ITIF’s conclusion is especially applicable to Canadian policy makers and the administrators of rural subsidy programs:

We do not need to shift to government-owned infrastructure across the country to ensure broadband continues to advance and exceed current and upcoming needs. Nor should rural subsidies stipulate fiber as a necessity. Fiber can be the most cost-effective way to build a new network, but considering the great diversity of challenges facing rural connectivity, all different access technologies—fiber, fixed-wireless, upgrading copper, and satellite—should be on the table.

Fibre is a great technology, but it is not as cost effective as other technologies in certain applications. Canada’s low population densities and challenging climate and topography should lead us to consider all of the technologies available to deliver fast broadband.