Search Results for: affordable

Yesterday, the CRTC released a report by EKOS Research.

EKOS Research Associates conducted two types of public opinion research on telecommunication services in Canada and prepared a report for the CRTC. The first part of the report presents results gathered through a questionnaire that was completed by more than 30,000 Canadians. Between January 14 and February 29, 2016, close to 29,000 individuals completed the questionnaire. EKOS also administered the questionnaire with a separate sample group of over 1,600 Canadians representative of the population as a whole.

As EKOS acknowledges in the report, the “open” version of the consultation was completed by 28,794 individuals who “were self-selected and therefore do not comprise a random sample”. As a result, “the survey is not considered to be representative of the Canadian population and no margin of error can be applied to the results.”

The headline that CBC ran with said “Home internet is essential, but too pricey, CRTC survey suggests: Only a third of Canadians are satisfied with internet prices, while half are dissatisfied”. I’ve said before that I tend to question a survey that finds that anyone is satisfied with the price of anything. I’d like to see prices lower for electricity, gas, sushi, kosher food, tomatoes, milk, butter, taxes, cars and oh yeah, I would like lower internet prices, too.

But that isn’t what I picked up on. I noticed that despite kvetching about dissatisfaction with the price, the CBC article said all but 2% of the survey respondents – for the “representative” portion of the survey – subscribe to home internet.

That was a source of concern to me. The CRTC’s 2015 Communications Monitoring Report showed a take-up of 82% of households, but the EKOS “representative” study was reported showing a 98% take-up. At the time of the Monitoring Report, nearly 1 in 5 Canadian households didn’t subscribe to internet service, but only 1 in 50 members of the “representative” survey were Canadians without home internet. One would think the digital divide was solved if you read the EKOS report. [editor’s note: The EKOS study also has a category of “Home Phone Only” of 4% that needs to be added to the 2% “No Home Internet” figure reported by CBC. This would be consistent with adoption levels at various points of the report showing 91.4% – 95.6% adoption of internet. This would imply that well over a million new households went online in a 14 month period. That is not consistent with the public data reported by the 5 biggest internet services providers in Canada: Bell, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS and Videotron].

This survey was commissioned in January to help inform the CRTC’s “evidence-based proceeding on basic telecommunications services.” One of the key issues being reviewed in the hearing is “ensur[ing] that Canadians continue to have the ability to participate in the digital economy”. The Notice of Consultation states “the Commission will ask Canadians to provide their opinions on the telecommunications services they consider necessary to participate meaningfully in the digital economy today and in the future.”

How do we explain the CRTC publishing a study that missed speaking to Canadians who don’t have home internet?

The CRTC’s press release for the public opinion report quotes the Chair saying “Access to basic telecommunications services is crucial for Canadians to actively participate in the digital economy. Since the launch of this consultation, we have been researching and analyzing the vast amount of information submitted. Canadians have risen to the occasion and have been participating in great numbers.”

Unfortunately, the CRTC’s research and analysis appears to have missed talking to the Canadian households in the greatest need of being heard.

---

[Editor’s note: Clarification was sought from the CRTC in advance of publication of this post; the CRTC did not return our calls.

We stand by our criticism of the EKOS report commissioned by the CRTC to add to the record of the Basic Services proceeding. The report authors are not scheduled to appear to testify and therefore, the flaws in the report would not otherwise be subjected to testing. Although the survey was supplemented by focus groups attracting people from remote communities, the report failed to provide a voice to the majority of Canadians who are not subscribing to internet services.

From the outset, I have written that “Affordable broadband isn’t just a rural issue“. As I wrote at the time, before we answer the question about “where” the CRTC should be acting, perhaps we need to have a more clear understanding of “who” needs help and “why”. The EKOS report failed to provide that clarity.]

As we prepare for the CRTC’s Review of basic telecommunications services, it is remarkable to see the number of communities that are scheduled to speak. Ninety different groups will be heard over 14 hearing days, from April 11-28.

A couple months ago, I wrote “Should broadband be part of basic service” that tries to summarize the core issues being reviewed. As I wrote at that time:

As my frequent readers know, I am not a fan of subsidies based on geography rather than financial need. I have stated before that the CRTC should have started by looking at “who” doesn’t subscribe to broadband, not perpetuating and potentially extending the system of telecommunications subsidies based on “where” you are located, regardless of your ability to pay.

Many of the parties are from rural and remote communities, seeking subsidies for broadband infrastructure expansion within their territories. But, I have also written that “Affordable broadband isn’t just a rural issue.”

When last produced, Statistics Canada showed that more than a quarter of households in Montreal had no internet use from home; the same was true for 1 in six households in Toronto and Vancouver; 1 in 5 in Regina.

Providing subsidies to rural and remote communities will require funding through increased telecommunications costs for other users. What evidence do we have that Canadians will be willing to pay more in order to subsidize others?

A subsidy for some homes has to come from other rate payers. Will the groups that come to the CRTC with their hands out provide evidence of how big a “broadband tax” Canadians are willing to pay?

When so many Canadians are looking for lower communications services prices, how will they respond to a regulatory imposed price increase?

The City of Ottawa plans to vote on a resolution supporting the CRTC in an Federal Cabinet appeal over wholesale access to fibre optic facilities. The motion, put forward by former CRTC staffer Jeff Leiper, contradicts the position of Mayor Jim Watson, who submitted a letter supporting Bell Canada’s appeal.

WHEREAS in July 2015 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled that large cable and telecom providers would have to make their new fiber-optic infrastructure available to smaller competitors; and

WHEREAS the decision made by the CRTC aims to promote competition and affordable internet for Canadians including those residents living in the City of Ottawa; and

WHEREAS in the fall of 2015 a request was filed with the Governor in-Council to review and vary the Commission’s decision; and

WHEREAS a final decision has not yet been made by the Federal Government with regards to this request to review and vary so the City of Ottawa still has an opportunity to share its position; and

WHEREAS other major municipalities, such as Calgary, have expressed their support for the CRTC decision and where the City of Toronto recently carried a similar motion requesting council support competitive and affordable internet prices.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa support the CRTC’s decision to require the sharing of fiber-optic networks between large and small competitors; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the outcome of this motion be shared with the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure to ensure the City’s position is known as recommendations are prepared.

A few weeks ago, the City of Toronto passed a similar motion, designed to contradict the position of its Mayor, John Tory.

On the surface, one might think that these are big cities that should have no concerns about whether major phone companies and cable companies will invest in upgrades to broadband infrastructure, providing fibre-based internet access to all of the residents.

That may be true in Toronto, where the city itself has a population of more than 2.6 million people living in an area of 630 square kilometers. Toronto is the core of a census metropolitan area (CMA) with about 5.5 million people. The density of Toronto makes it quite likely that fibre optic facilities will quickly be available to all its residents. Indeed, there are a large number of residents who have access to fibre that was built independently by companies other than their incumbent cable company or phone company.

But at just under 900,000, the city of Ottawa has just a third of the population of Toronto, living in 2,778 square kilometers, a geography more than 4 times the size of Toronto. Ottawa has much less than 8% of Toronto’s population density, thanks in part to annexations and amalgamations about 15 years ago that led to about 75% of the Ottawa CMA’s population (1.2M) being within the city’s own boundaries, whereas the City of Toronto represents less than half of the population of its CMA.

These numbers can help one appreciate that there is a lot of Ottawa that is quite rural, quite different from the urban core that houses all the picturesque scenes that show up in typical post cards of our nation’s capital.

Jeff Leiper represents the Kitchissippi Ward, located just west of downtown Ottawa. It is quite urban, especially compared to many of the other wards in the City.

It is important to note that there are parts of Ottawa that are so rural that conventional wireline broadband services are not available. When we speak of the impact on the engineering economic studies created by regulated wholesale access, there can be no doubt that substantial parts of the city of Ottawa will fail the business case for building fibre optic facilities.

When Mayor Watson wrote to Cabinet, he expressed concerns for all of his residents, recognizing the sprawling nature of his city, saying:

Bell has stated publicly that it plans to invest $20 billion through to 2020, with one objective being to bring fibre-to-the-home service to millions of homes and businesses in communities large and small. My understanding is that the recent CRTC decision would impact their planned investments, leading to significant delays in the deployment of this technology.

These investments would have been greatly welcome by our residents and the business community, given their positive impact on the quality of service as well as their potential for job creation in our city. Unfortunately, I fear that our local economy and the residents of Ottawa – as well as those of other smaller cities, towns and rural areas – will be impacted negatively by these delays in deployment.

Mayor Tory expressed concerns for the extended greater Toronto area,

Bell’s $1 billion fibre build-out in Toronto, and other investments that are poised to follow, will provide the modern communications infrastructure needed to generate economic opportunity across the board from mature industries like financial services, to small business and entrepreneurs, to our research clusters, to public institutions like hospitals and universities.

These investments extend beyond Toronto’s borders as well and are key to our ability to sell the Greater Toronto region as a premier place to locate and expand business, and the important work we are doing building the Toronto-Waterloo innovation corridor.

Anyone who actually understands the principles of engineering economics will recognize that mandated wholesale access changes the business case for building fibre. Those changes will impact deployment.

The resolution in front of Ottawa city council aims “to promote competition and affordable internet”. It fails to even consider the impact on investment and innovation and the potential to deny fibre optic deployment for many Ottawa homes and businesses.

I suspect that the business case will remain positive for Kitchissippi and Somerset wards, and a few other of the more densely populated areas of Ottawa. But other Ottawa Councillors will need to consider whether the residents of their own ward will be left behind as a result of the distortions to the business case for fibre.

When Ottawa city council votes today, will Councillors consider all of the households in the city’s expansive border, those who are rural and those in the urban core, all of whom pay taxes to their city?

---

[Update: February 24, 12:45pm] Ottawa City Council voted 17-7 to defeat the resolution

Repeat the lie often enough and people start to believe it is true. However, a new analysis of open data by the World Bank should again call into question the tired, mistaken claims that “Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world”, a statement that appeared over the weekend in a CBC News article (that was remarkably endorsed by the CRTC in a rare Saturday morning tweet).

The World Bank analysis looks at mobile service costs in 173 countries measured in US dollars; measured in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP); and, measured as a percentage of income.

Measured as a percentage of income, Canada’s mobile services ranks in the most affordable quintile – among the lowest 20%. The study shows Canadians spend just 0.68% of income to run mobile phones, ahead of the US (0.80%), Japan (0.87%), Belgium (0.88%), Netherlands (0.98%) and France (1.11%).

Measured in US dollars, Canadian monthly mobile prices aren’t even in the top 10 most expensive countries:

1. Netherlands
2. Ireland
3. France
4. Spain
5. Switzerland
6. United States
   …
15. Canada

In terms of PPP, Canada isn’t even in the top 30. The United States ranks 18th; France is 23rd; Japan is 31st; Canada is way down the list at 64th.

The open data analysis, by Tariq Khokhar (Data Scientist & Global Data Editor at The World Bank) points to a recently published World Bank report: Digital Dividends [pdf]. That report contains interesting data and analysis that may be informative for the CRTC’s upcoming review of basic services hearing.

Will this report put to rest the old canard that “Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world” for wireless services? I doubt it. But, there is now an additional piece of ammunition with which to take aim at propagandists who continue to repeat the lie.

In the upcoming CRTC “Review of basic telecommunications services” hearing, most of the attention will be focused on the question of adding broadband to definition of “basic service”.

As I have written before, from the outset, the CRTC has framed its review from the perspective of geography, seeking to “gather information from the industry to better understand which telecommunications services are being offered across Canada and whether any areas in Canada are underserved or unserved.”

In seeking public comments on solutions, we continue to see the terminology of a geographic bias. “What action, if any, should the Commission take where Canadians do not have access…” and “What action, if any, should the Commission take in cases where its target speeds will not be achieved…”

Such approaches, a bizarre artifact of the earliest monopoly telephone era, have created a bias in government spending programs and regulatory cross-subsidies that see urban consumers, regardless of financial means, pay more for telecom services in order to subsidize rural users, regardless of financial need.

The Toronto Star writes “Anti-poverty advocates call for affordable Internet“. The article describes how ACORN, will be putting a human dimension before the Commission. [ACORN will be represented as part of a group called the Affordable Access Coalition, represented by PIAC.]

ACORN has released a study, “Internet for All: Internet Use and Accessibility for Low-Income Canadians” that calls for:

• $10/month product for high speed (15 megabits/second or equivalent to high speed in area);
• Families and individuals below the Low Income Measure as eligible to qualify;
• Subsidized computers for qualifying families and individuals.

As the Toronto Star article indicates, Rogers has a $10 high speed internet product available to the 58,000 households in Toronto Community Housing, and in cooperation with Compugen and Microsoft, the group offers a $150 computer.

I have been writing for too long that broadband affordability is not a geographic issue. Five years ago, I estimated that as many as 2 million households in Canada lacked a computer. Canada’s 3 biggest cities had more than 600,000 households with no computer.

When the CRTC examines the question of broadband as a basic service, it needs to ensure that any measures it takes recognize the question of urban affordability for low income households. It would be a mistake, and counterproductive, to increase the cost of service in urban centres to subsidize rural and remote regions without first considering affordability and means.