Early in my career, I had a boss at AT&T Bell Labs who taught the importance of getting involved in our local communities.

He said that all of our neighbours were potential customers of AT&T and he wanted them to see that it was a good employer, and that its employees gave back to the community. Not only was community involvement the right thing to do, but he felt that it was ultimately good for the business for us to take time to get involved in activities outside of work. What we did outside of AT&T would reflect on what kind of company we worked for.

The reflection in that mirror works both ways.

I also learned a lot about the importance of diversity and inclusion in that job. We had programs to go into inner city schools to stimulate interest in math and science, to try to increase the number of young kids who might pursue those disciplines in high school and in university. The objective was to have a pool of candidate employees that were a better reflection of the markets we served. We were playing the long game.

In those days, I worked alongside doctoral physicists, graduates from music programs, geography majors, as well as the usual academic disciplines of computer science and electrical engineering. When we were building conference calling services, we ideally wanted the interface to make sense for our customers, not just the computer science people who built it.

I told you that story in order to provide background for the rest of this blog post.

Last week, I read “Women in science, engineering ‘essential'” in The Kingston Whig Standard. In the article, Heidi Ploeg, Queen’s University’s Chair for Women in Engineering, said “Engineers work on solving problems. If we don’t have a diverse set of people working on the problems, we aren’t going to ask the right questions or solve the right problems, and we’re not going to come up with the best answers.”

I agree.

And fortunately, there is a program and bursary to help enable the pursuit of training, professional development, or academic programs for women in the telecommunications field. The Women of STAC Bursary Fund awards up to $5500 to support women in telecommunications. In addition to monetary support, the bursary recipients receive an invitation to participate at the annual STAC Conference, taking place this year from March 28-30, in which they can gain valuable learning opportunities through various sessions as well as network with STAC members.

Under the STAC umbrella, there is a Women of STAC Mentorship Program, with a “goal of offering guidance, support, and personal & professional development to women in the telecommunications industry”.

Last year, I wrote about STAC, Canada’s Structure, Tower and Antenna Council. STAC represents the people who are actually building Canada’s advanced digital networks.

I hope you will join me in encouraging women to apply for the Women of STAC Bursary Fund. “If we don’t have a diverse set of people working on the problems, we aren’t going to ask the right questions or solve the right problems.”

I also hope you will take a look at participating in this year’s virtual conference in late March.

The Wireless Networking and Communications Group at University of Texas has secured the backing of some significant industry partners in launching 6G@UT, “a research center at UT Austin imagining the future of wireless connectivity at the intersection of immersive sensing and machine learning”.

According to the release,

Founding 6G@UT affiliates Samsung, AT&T, NVIDIA, Qualcomm and InterDigital will each fund at least two projects for three years at the center. Researchers from the companies will work alongside UT faculty members and students to develop wireless-specific machine learning algorithms, advanced sensing technologies, and core networking innovations that will be the backbone of 6G.

Among the initial research thrusts:

• DEEPLY EMBEDDED MACHINE LEARNING: A key novelty for 6G will be a major role for machine learning techniques at all layers in the protocol stack, from the PHY layer up to network and application layers, as well as over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, allowing unprecedented site-specific adaptability and network automation. WNCG has had a strong core of machine learning expertise since before 2010, and has a history of deep collaborations between ML and wireless faculty, unique amongst global wireless research centers.
• NEW SPECTRUM AND TOPOLOGIES: 6G will unleash both new spectrum, e.g. above 100 GHz, and novel spectrum access paradigms that go well beyond the current licensed and unlicensed duopoly. 6G will make new coverage paradigms a reality, including massive LEO satellite constellations as well as self-backhauled small cell deployments, having a profound effect on global broadband coverage.
• PERVASIVE SENSING: Pervasive sensing will feed hungry machine learning algorithms, continuously tuning and reconfiguring the network, while “sensing-as-a-service” will be offered to subscribers and applications. 6G networks will not just be communications systems, but sensing networks that serve as a platform for crowd-sourced sensing; novel wireless sensing techniques will enable delightful new ways for users to interact with devices and to monitor both the users’ physical health.
• NETWORK SLICING AND SHARING: 6G network architectures will enable new revenue streams and the sharing of network and spectrum resources for a set of diverse tenets with different requirements. Building on the emerging ORAN paradigm, 6G networks will enable unprecedented openness, customization, automation, and “softwarization”.

Canada has some significant mobile technology talent working in labs for global telecom giants, as well as 5G testbeds set up by mobile service providers in cooperation with some of our universities across the country.

As the Longhorns of 6G@UT are demonstrating, it is already time to start looking ahead to the next generation of technology.

A new report from Opensignal indicates that Canada’s mobile customers put a value on quality, and will migrate between service providers based on their mobile network experience.

The report, “Mobile experience explains why urban and rural Canadian users change mobile operators”, found that on average, users who changed their mobile carrier – termed “Leavers” – had a worse mobile experience before they switched, than they typically experienced on their original network.

Opensignal found that users who switched operators had a below average mobile network experience. As might be expected, the data suggests that those users who experienced pain with their former mobile service were more likely to change their mobile service provider. On the former network, mobile users who switched were found to have spent less time on either a 3G or 4G mobile connection, and they experienced lower 4G Availability. “Canada has some of the fastest 4G download speeds globally, which benefits both urban and rural users, but these fast speeds are meaningless when users spend time either without a mobile signal or without at least being able to connect to 4G.”

The report shows that mobile users are willing to switch to get a better mobile experience, indicating they value quality. It confirms the value of investment in infrastructure, upgrading to faster speeds, extending network coverage and reach, and improving network experience. Opensignal found “mobile experience matters to subscribers and that it is a critical driver of churn in Canada.”

In an interview at the Canadian Club last week, CRTC Chair Ian Scott explained why he supports facilities-based competition as the most sustainable model for Canada. “We’re focused, as best as we can, on eliminating obstacles to the rapid deployment of the latest technology whether it be in the broadband space or in the wireless space.” While acknowledging services-based competition as a means to enter the market to discipline pricing, he said that such a business model becomes fragile as prices approach competitive levels. “So, in general, I would say facilities-based competition is more robust and sustained.”

Opensignal found that the mobile experience of Canadian customers (both urban and rural) who switch is, on average, significantly higher than in many other countries globally. It also observed that some Canadian users will have a worse mobile experience than others.

Our data shows that Canada’s Leavers had a worse mobile experience before they switched to another carrier, compared to the typical experience of users on their original network. This shows that mobile experience matters to subscribers and that it is a critical driver of churn in Canada.

If customers will switch service providers to get a better quality mobile experience, it confirms the need for continued network investment, consistent with Canadian policy favouring facilities-based competition.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

Connecting Canadians was the name of a $305M federal government program in 2014 that promised to “provide 98 percent of Canadian households in rural and remote regions of Canada with greater access to broadband Internet”.

At the time, Industry Minister James Moore said:

As we move toward Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, our government is proud to launch a new program that will connect 280,000 Canadian households to high-speed Internet. Connecting Canadians is about ensuring that Canadians, whether they live in urban centres or remote regions of the country, have access to the latest wireless technologies and high-speed networks at the most affordable prices possible.

Despite this bold statement, there really was nothing in the “new program” that did anything to ensure Canadians in urban centres would “have access to the latest wireless technologies and high-speed networks at the most affordable prices possible.”

Like federal and provincial government programs that preceded Connecting Canadians and those that have followed it, funding has been provided to extend networks to rural and remote areas. This is an important role for the federal government, but it is not enough to achieve the objective of ensuring that all Canadians have affordable access to the latest wireless technologies and high-speed networks.

Greg O’Brien wrote an important commentary yesterday on CARTT.ca, “$200 million for 5G. Still zero million for those who can’t afford any G.”

How many don’t have milk in their fridge – or don’t have a fridge, let alone a smart one? How many people who live in Canadian cities and don’t worry about parking their self-driving cars because they can’t afford one – and who will never read the news about 5G – or much of any news – because they can’t afford internet access?

And then that made us wonder why three different governments can each find $67 million to help fund something that doesn’t really need additional public help – but none of them can figure out a way to build a program to get broadband access and devices to those who can’t afford them.

I have been writing about this theme for much too long, as I describe in “An affordable broadband strategy.”

For a decade, I have suggested that an affordable broadband strategy may need more in the way of government leadership and not as much in the way of funding. We need more research to better understand the digital divide. That may merit creating and coordinating a broadband research agenda to better understand the factors that are keeping 1 in 6 Canadian households from subscribing to a broadband connection.

As I wrote last year, the March 2017 Federal budget held out promise that the government was finally starting to look at “who” needed broadband assistance, not just “where”. A year later, we have not yet seen the outcome that work.

The WEF suggests “encouraging experimentation with flexible approaches and removing regulatory or other obstacles may be an effective way forward, in addition to revising tax policies and providing direct subsidies.”

Over the past 2 years, some ‘obstacles’ have been imposed in Canada that could conflict with an environment that should encourage such experimentation, as described in “Connecting the unconnected.” for example, the World Economic Forum writes “Some have questioned zero-rated services on the belief that such services run counter to net neutrality. Others point out that some access is better than no access at all, even if users cannot choose which apps and services are ‘free’.”

Are regulatory decisions being guided by clear and transparent policy directions?

The Executive Summary of the report from The National Broadband Task Force (established in January 2001) stated “The principal mandate of the Task Force was to map out a strategy for achieving the Government of Canada’s goal of ensuring that broadband services are available to businesses and residents in every Canadian community by 2004.” The report holds up well considering it was completed more than a decade and a half ago.

I have written before that Canada is long overdue for a review of digital policy matters. Recall that the Telecom Policy Review panel called for a fresh look every 5 years. The report from the Telecom Policy Review Panel was released 5 years after the report from the National Broadband Task Force. That was 2006.

In the recent budget, I didn’t notice funding for a review panel.

Earlier this week, Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains observed “Technology is changing the way we live, work and engage with one another, and we are in a global innovation race. To prepare for the future, we must be bold, visionary and decisive.”

We also need to be inclusive. One in six Canadian households still don’t have a connected computer.

To win the ‘global innovation race’ we need to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to participate.