Search Results for: affordable

When looking at telecom services, regulators should focus on whether the market is sustainably competitive. That seems to be the message arising from merger reviews in Europe.

After years of focus on the number of carriers, regulators are taking note of the impact of hypercompetitive markets on investment. UK service providers are unable to cover their cost of capital. As a result, operators are unable to fund network upgrades. Vodafone and Three UK intend to merge. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK is moving into the next phase of its review of the merger.

In announcing its next phase, CMA said “the deal, which combines 2 of the 4 mobile network operators in the UK, could lead to mobile customers facing higher prices and reduced quality.”

The CMA’s Phase 1 investigation found that Vodafone UK and Three UK provide important alternatives for mobile customers. Both have made significant investments in their networks in recent years – which includes the rollout of 5G. Three UK is also generally the cheapest of the four mobile network operators. The CMA is concerned that combining these two businesses will reduce rivalry between mobile operators to win new customers. Competitive pressure can help to keep prices low, as well as provide an important incentive for network operators to improve their services, including by investing in network quality.

Vodafone and Three UK replied, noting “The current market structure has resulted in the quality of mobile network services in the UK lagging significantly behind other European countries. Vodafone UK and Three UK are sub-scale, unable to cover their cost of capital, and constrained in their ability to invest and compete effectively against the two market leaders.”

In February, OpenSignal reported that the UK ranked 22nd for 5G availability and download speeds when comparing to 25 European countries. The UK has the slowest download speeds in the G7. By way of comparison, I recently wrote that Canada is consistently a leader in availability and speeds.

There is a reason why EBITDA margins are necessarily higher among facilities-based telecom competitors. By definition, EBITDA measures the earnings before consideration of interest, depreciation, and amortization. Each of these are costly factors for companies with large investments in infrastructure. If the EBITDA margins are not sufficiently strong, network operators will be unable to maintain investment.

Last October, I wrote about a CRTC arbitration on MVNO access, where the Commission determination explicitly said “This decision helps to promote access to affordable telecommunications services for Canadians and to foster sustainable competition and continued investment.” At the time, I asked “To what extent does it provide clues for the way the CRTC will approach revisions to the wireline wholesale framework?” I wrote about sustainable competition two years ago, showing how the CRTC and Competition Bureau seemed to be at odds in their approaches.

A singular focus on driving lower prices fails to appropriately consider balancing competing policy objectives. In Canada, telecom policy seeks a balance between quality, coverage and price. I’d submit that the number of competitors should be a less important factor for policy makers. The more important consideration should be fostering a sustainably competitive market to deliver overall consumer benefits.

The government should be celebrating “the thrill of victory.”

Last summer, I wrote how it was time for government policy makers to declare “Mission Accomplished”. Price reductions in the mobile market were “well beyond any of the expectations that were set by Ottawa”.

While such a mission accomplished statement was likely too much to ask for, the Government’s virtual silence surrounding the significant declines in wireless service prices is counterproductive and somewhat perplexing.

Statistics Canada’s Cellular Price Index has declined by 22% in the last year and by almost 50% since 2018. While impressive, it is even more remarkable given that inflation has driven overall prices up by more than 20% since 2018.

So, when opposition parties repeatedly claim that the government has done nothing to lower prices and has failed to keep its 25% price reduction, one might think the Government would have an easy time refuting such claims. One might have even expected Minister Champagne to point out that prices for wireless services are lower than they have ever been, all under this Government’s tenure. That old “Promise made; promise kept” thing.

But, that isn’t what is happening. Having made the telecom industry its political punching bag, the Government has shown itself incapable of pulling its punches. If anything, the Government appears to regard as a weakness any kind of acknowledgment that the industry succeeded in making services more affordable for Canadians.

The failure to properly acknowledge the decline in Canadian mobile prices is a form of misinformation, perpetuating a distorted view of the industry. This leads to uninformed public discourse, and misguided policy and regulation.

In doing so, the Government has ceded the narrative to the opposition parties, who are continuing to push outdated facts and perceptions. As a result, the government comes across as being on the defensive, giving Canadians the impression that they have nothing to show for their years in office.

Let’s look at the accusation that the government has failed to meet its 25% price reduction objective.

As you may recall, in 2020 the government set an expectation that the national carriers would reduce the price of 2GB, 4Gb, and 6GB, so-called mid-range, plans by 25% within two years. As the chart below illustrates, this objective was achieved prior to the two-year deadline. Two years ago, the government boasted that the reductions “were achieved across the country three months before the target date.”

But, the good news does not stop there. As a result of vigorous competition in the mobile services marketplace, those March 2022 target price points come with substantially more data.

The government’s objective was for Canadians to get a 4G plan for $37.50 with 2GB of data. Yet, a quick survey of carrier websites shows that today there are plans from various carriers for $37.50 (or lower) offering 30GB to 50GB, including some that include 5G speeds. That represents up to a 96% reduction in the price per GB compared to the March 2022 target. This does not include some expired Boxing Day promotions that offered even more data.

The $45 price point has a similar result:

Let’s be really clear. The promise of a 25% reduction in mobile prices promise was not only met, but carriers have exceeded the government’s expectations – by far.

But, you’d probably only know that by reading it here.

We will soon be entering a federal election cycle. The current government will have to defend its record on a host of issues, including telecom policy.

By perpetuating outdated and unfounded perceptions that Canadians pay “too much” for wireless services, the Government is painting its policy initiatives (and election promises) as failures, even though the facts say otherwise. When the previous government was in office, it cost over $80 for a plan with 2GB of mobile data. Today Canadians can get as much as 75GB for $45. This should be a good news story – the thrill of victory.

By failing to highlight these obvious truths, the government is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And, it is suffering the resultant agony.

Just how fast is fast enough for broadband?

I last wrote about this 3 years ago, challenging the myth that universal fibre should be on the national agenda.

A couple of weeks ago, the FCC launched an inquiry [pdf, 155KB] to examine that question. The FCC intends to look at “universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband”. The FCC Chair, Jessica Rosenworcel says the intent is to update the US broadband standard (currently 25Mbps down, 3Mbps up) to 100/20 and set a long-term goal for gigabit speeds.

The FCC Chair said that the 25/3 standard “is not only outdated, it masks the extent to which lowincome neighborhoods and rural communities are being left offline and left behind.”

However, FCC data shows that 94% of US households had 100 Mbps access available by the end of 2021. According to Eric Fruits of the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), “If the FCC wants to increase the number of households with 100/20 Mbps speeds, it should recognize that much of the gap is driven by lower rates of adoption, rather than a lack of access to higher speeds.”

That is a familiar refrain for my readers. “The problem of increased broadband adoption can’t be fixed directly by throwing money at it, but we need to undertake more serious research into those factors that stand in the way of people subscribing to broadband.”

A September brief from ICLE was entitled “Finding Marginal Improvements for the ‘Good Enough’ Affordable Connectivity Program”. ICLE found that “about two-thirds of households without at-home internet have access, but don’t subscribe. The brief argues that, for households without a broadband subscription, their smartphone internet service may provide a superior “bang for the buck” relative to fixed broadband.”

Just as mobile devices have become a substitute for wireline home phones, we need to examine the extent to which smartphones and mobile services are substitutes for home internet connections.

In 2021, Pew Research found that 19% of respondents said the most important reason for not having broadband at home is that their smartphone does everything they need to do online. That study found that 15% of US adults are “smartphone-only” internet users – that is, they have a smartphone, but do not have a home broadband connection.

What is the best approach for encouraging continued broadband investment?

Do regulators need to raise targets? CRTC data shows that more two thirds of Canadian broadband subscriptions were already at speeds of 100 Mbps or higher, well above Canada’s broadband objective. Ninety percent of households had access to 100 Mbps service by year end 2021; more than three quarters of Canadians had access to gigabit speeds.

When there is demand for higher speeds, doesn’t this demonstrate companies will make the necessary investments? As I have said many times before, the future can be brighter for Canadian innovation and investment if the government would try harder to get out of the way.

A report from PwC Canada takes a new look at the state of telecom affordability in Canada.

According to “Understanding the affordability of wireless and wireline services in Canada” [26-page pdf, 7.7MB] focuses on assessing three elements of Canadian telecommunications affordability:

1. Canadian economics statistics, including telecommunications expenditure, inflation, and changing incomes.
2. The assessment of wireless and wireline affordability in Canada, including assessing the changing prices of wireless and wireline services over time relative to increases in data consumption and changing patterns of data usage.
3. The affordability of wireless and wireline services for Canadians against consumption and income metrics relative to global jurisdictions.

What did PwC find?

• Canadians have been impacted by inflation, with inflation in 2021 and 2022 surpassing the rate of income growth. Prior to 2021, incomes were growing faster than inflation for every quintile except the highest.
• Between 2017 and 2021, cellular services was the second largest CPI drop among the only 13 deflationary goods and services in the CPI bucket, falling at a CAGR of 8.1%. Driven by the decrease in cellular service CPI, communications was also a deflationary service, with communications CPI falling by 16% from 2017 to 2022.
• Affordability increased for all quintiles when assessing the cost of entry-level wireless and wireline plans against adjusted disposable incomes. Notably, for the lowest income quintile, the affordability of entry-level wireline plans improved by 11% between 2017 and 2021, while wireless affordability improved by 39%.
• The price per gigabyte of wireless and wireline data fell by over a 19% CAGR in Canada from 2017 to 2021. This is attributed to increases in data consumption significantly outpacing changes in prices, with data consumption growing at CAGRs of 24% for wireless and 28% for wireline. Among selected international peers, Canada has the second-lowest cost per gigabyte of wireline data.
• The affordability of wireless and wireline services in Canada is on par with peer countries. As the CPI of Canadian communications has dropped, it has brought the price of services in line with international peers as a percentage of income, indicating relative affordability.
• Together, the Canadian market and international analyses demonstrate that facilities-based competition in Canada is able to maintain a healthy telecommunications industry while delivering on network coverage, quality, and affordability

Earlier this year, I wrote, “Affordability is a complex and multifaceted concept that varies depending on the context and the goods or services being considered.”

The report looks at telecom affordability across various income quintiles, but it did not explicitly include a discussion of targeted affordable services such as the industry-led Connecting Families initiative. It is worth noting that Rogers recently introduced its Connected for Success 5G Wireless Program, promised as a benefit of the Shaw acquisition, and it has rolled out its broadband Connected for Success to the former Shaw footprint. TELUS offers Mobility for Good, among other targeted services, as I have described.

The PwC report lays out a fact-based narrative on telecom affordability in Canada, and paints a very different picture from the conventional wisdom.

This decision helps to promote access to affordable telecommunications services for Canadians and to foster sustainable competition and continued investment.

That was how the CRTC summarized its decision last night on final offer arbitration between Bell Mobility and Quebecor for wholesale mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) access rates.

The decision was notable for a few reasons:

• A focus on creating and maintaining incentives for investment;
• Fostering “sustainable competition”, which has historically been CRTC and Competition Bureau language for “facilities-based competition”;
• Clarifying that the wholesale framework is not intended to guarantee profitability for wholesale-based service providers;
• The CRTC explicitly discounted the usefulness of comparisons to European rates;
• Recognition that average network costs don’t support investment in suburban and rural infrastructure.

The Bell – Quebecor decision should be read in the context of a similar arbitration between Rogers and Quebecor released by the CRTC nearly two months ago. In the earlier instance, the CRTC required Rogers to offer a wholesale service at rates acknowledged to be below Rogers’ costs. The CRTC said Rogers’ shortfall could be made up “through other telecommunications services”. The Rogers decision has been appealed to the courts because of the precedent-setting nature of wholesale rates being set below costs.

This week, the CRTC selected Bell Mobility’s offer.

The Commission clearly accepted the concern that wholesale rates impact the incentives for investment by both parties.

49. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that Bell Mobility has raised a valid concern regarding the long-term impact of artificially low wholesale rates on the policy objective of fostering network investments, which is particularly relevant in suburban and rural areas. While lower retail prices backed by lower wholesale rates are desirable, as discussed earlier, these different interests must be balanced with the wholesale MVNO access provider’s incentives for continued network investment. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that Bell Mobility’s offer best strikes the balance of maintaining both parties’ incentives to invest.

The CRTC said “the MVNO access framework is not intended to guarantee a risk-free profit margin for [Quebecor’s] MVNO operations, and QMI’s ability to compete should not be assessed by looking at only the profitability of specific plans, but rather by looking at all of the wireless plans it offers.” While the CRTC wants to see lower-priced plans, it also needed to consider the potential negative consequences of lower rates on sustainable competition, and incentives for investment.

The Commission referred to the controversial cross subsidization aspect of the Rogers – Quebecor arbitration decision in this Bell – Quebecor determination, saying “that it does not necessarily have to ensure that costs are recouped over the short term for a rate to be considered just and reasonable, fair compensation for the wholesale MVNO access provider is still an important consideration in evaluating offers”.

Quebecor had asked the CRTC to compare Canadian wholesale rates to those found in Europe. The CRTC clearly stated European wholesale roaming rate structures “have very limited comparative value given the different contexts in which European and Canadian carriers operate, resulting in different cost structures.” Many Canadians have fixated on international comparisons that have such “limited comparative value” precisely because of the “different contexts in which European and Canadian carriers operate”. It was somewhat encouraging to see the CRTC explicitly discount such comparisons.

Finally, the CRTC seems to have given weight to the argument that wholesale-based service providers have uneconomic arbitrage opportunities when average rates are applied for urban, rural and suburban traffic. Such rate structures create incentives to build urban facilities but create a disincentive for investment in suburban and rural areas. “Bell Mobility submitted that, on average, a rural cell site costs more to build, while serving less data volume, than an urban one, resulting in higher costs per GB.” As Scotiabank observed in a research note this morning, Quebecor’s favourable MVNO deal with Rogers will result in Bell’s network being used only in areas where Rogers isn’t as strong. This would result in a disproportionate level of wholesale traffic running on rural and suburban while leading to disincentives for either party to invest.

Fostering sustainable competition and continued incentives for investment are clear themes of this wholesale wireless rate decision. To what extent does it provide clues for the way the CRTC will approach revisions to the wireline wholesale framework?