Is sustained investment in telecommunications infrastructure essential to building a stronger, more productive economy in Canada?

That is one of the conclusions of a newly released PwC report commissioned by the Canadian Telecommunications Association. The Executive Summary of “Enabling Canada’s Economic Independence and Global Competitiveness Through Telecommunications” [pdf, 905KB] opens with:

Driven by substantial investments in network infrastructure, the telecommunications sector is a key enabler of the Canadian economy and instrumental in addressing Canada’s productivity challenge and building a stronger Canada. As geo-political challenges evolve, Canada faces mounting pressure on its economic independence and national security. By promoting sustained investment by telecoms in expansion and enhancement of network infrastructure, Canada should strategically leverage the telecommunications sector to safeguard Canada’s economic independence, and global competitiveness.

You have read my views many times on these pages, advocating for the government to maintain incentives for investment in digital infrastructure to power the next generation economy. PwC’s report helps quantify outcomes from such policies, while stating that ensuring the investment capacity of the telecommunications sector is a strategic imperative to maintain Canada’s economic independence.

PwC estimates the Canadian telecommunications sector contributed $87.3B in direct GDP, supported 661,000 jobs across various industries in 2024. Nearly two thirds of the direct GDP contribution arises from the increase in telecom connections. This drives improved productivity and business enablement across the entire economy. Between 2020 and 2024, PwC found that mobile connections grew at a compounded aggregate growth rate (CAGR) of 5%, while fixed internet connections grew at a rate of 2%. During that period, mobile service prices fell by more than 50%.

The report argues that we aren’t just talking about investments for faster, cheaper mobile internet connectivity; it’s a matter of “safeguarding national sovereignty, supporting secure digital commerce, and ensuring that Canadian businesses can compete globally through the adoption of the latest digital innovations that will improve productivity.”

As the report shows, Canada’s telecom companies, with a capital intensity ratio of 18%, face higher capital costs than global peers, such as the US, with a capital intensity of 14%, or Australia, at just 10%. Slowing revenue growth across the industry and an increasingly challenging regulatory environment are challenging the ability to make the investments needed to keep pace with demand.

Canada is grappling with a long-standing productivity challenge, as labour productivity has grown just 1% over the past eight years. The telecom sector, by contrast, has seen 12.4% productivity growth since 2017, thanks to its role in enabling smarter, more efficient operations across the economy.

PwC says “Canada’s ability to increase productivity and build a stronger, more competitive and resilient economy depends on expanding and continuing to enhance Canada’s high-quality telecommunications infrastructure.” According to the Canadian Telecommunications Association (CTA):

To secure Canada’s economic future, policymakers must treat telecommunications as a national strategic priority. This means creating a regulatory environment that encourages long-term investment, identifying regulations that are no longer necessary or whose costs outweigh the benefits, and recognizing telecom as a foundational enabler of productivity and national sovereignty.

In his address at The 2025 Canadian Telecom Summit, CTA president Robert Ghiz said “telecommunications is more than just a provider of consumer connectivity. It is more than phones and data plans. It is economic infrastructure — as vital to Canada as roads, railways, and ports.”

I couldn’t agree more. Strategically thinking, sustained investment in telecom infrastructure must be viewed as a foundational step toward building a stronger, more productive economy.

I’ve come to believe that the CRTC needs Solomon’s wisdom to solve the issue of mandated fibre wholesale: cut the baby in half.

Captain Kirk followed a similar approach to solve the Kobayashi Maru – change the rules of the game.

Let’s summarize where we are. In 2023, the CRTC issued a “temporary” decision mandating wholesale access to fibre. Bell appealed that decision to Cabinet and to the CRTC. In November of 2024, Cabinet urged the CRTC to work speedily to complete its review. As Cartt.ca reported at the time:

“The Governor in Council has concerns about the viability of small and regional Internet service providers,” Wednesday’s order said, adding it has “concerns about future and ongoing investments in broadband infrastructure and services in Ontario and Quebec, including in rural, remote and Indigenous communities, and concerns that those investments could, if they are unprofitable, lead to a decline in quality and consumer choice in the retail Internet services market.”

In February 2025, CRTC issued its reconsideration, brushing aside Cabinet’s recommendation, and confirmed Bell, Rogers and TELUS could access mandated wholesale fibre in those regions where those companies don’t operate their own facilities.

TELUS wants to be able to access fibre at CRTC mandated wholesale rates in regions away from its home base. With the ability to leverage mandated resale, TELUS would be able to offer a powerful full home bundle in areas that it was only offering mobile. That would greatly expand TELUS’s market opportunity.

Bell, Rogers, and most of the rest of the industry (including independent ISPs) don’t want the CRTC to allow that. In Bell’s case, it is likely because TELUS has more opportunities in Eastern Canada (Bell’s home turf) than Bell would enjoy in the West (TELUS’s primary operating area). For Rogers, since it acquired Shaw there are very few areas in which it does not already have some level of incumbency, so it clearly has more to lose than opportunities to benefit from access to mandated resale.

The smaller players for whom mandated wholesale was originally intended are upset that they have to compete against a more powerful brand like TELUS, in addition to Bell and Rogers.

To me, the argument for restricting TELUS from access to mandated wholesale rates for fibre comes down to “we want some new sources of competition, but we don’t expect them to be as successful competing as TELUS might be.”

This makes no sense, mainly because TELUS has succeeded in demonstrating the flawed logic that led the CRTC to mandate wholesale rates in the first place. Are we seeking to drive more competition, or are we satisfied with a little bit of arbitrage on the fringes? That shouldn’t be a question that tests Solomon’s wisdom.

Reductio ad absurdum is a concept in logic that corresponds to the mathematical “proof by contradiction”. If mandated wholesale access to fibre makes sense, then there can be no reasonable justification to restrict any service provider from access to those facilities. Are we saying that a service provider can only access those facilities until they reach a certain size? Until they start to build their own facilities? Why would we permit Videotron access, but not TELUS? For that matter, Teksavvy has fibre facilities in southwestern Ontario. Should Teksavvy be restricted?

The problem is most likely rooted in the regulated rates associated with the service. Rate setting is an impossible task in today’s complex environment. The regulator is almost certain to get the rates wrong – whether too high or too low. Too high, and competitors can’t be competitive; too low and the incentive to invest in new facilities is lost, and shareholders are penalized for having taken the risk to build fibre facilities in the first place. Bell’s recent press release says that the CRTC’s decision – as it stands today – “undermines the business case for further investment in new network builds, jeopardizing billions of dollars that companies are ready to invest to expand high-speed Internet for Canadians.”

Perhaps the solution is to remove the mandate; let service providers negotiate access at rates that make sense for both parties.

Does the CRTC require Solomon’s wisdom to answer the question of incumbent access to wholesale fibre? Perhaps it needs to be willing to revisit the question of whether wholesale fibre should be mandated in the first place.

Change the rules. King Solomon and Captain Kirk would both be proud.

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?