Columns

The Spectrum Surplus

Each week millions of Canadians buy lottery tickets as they "imagine the freedom" of hitting it big.  My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while the federal government may not have won the lottery, it has certainly hit the jackpot with the wireless spectrum auction that is now in its final stages. The auction was expected to yield roughly $1.5 billion for the federal treasury, yet it may now top $4 billion as the bids have far exceeded initial estimates.  That represents a huge windfall for the federal government as an extra $2.5 billion does not come around every day.

The surplus revenues do more than just conclusively rebut the claims of the big three wireless providers (Bell, Rogers, Telus) who aggressively lobbied against a "set aside" that reserved some spectrum for new entrants on the grounds that it would reduce auction revenues.  As telecom consultant Mark Goldberg noted earlier this month, the auction's success also raises the important question of what to do with the money.  

The immediate response from Ottawa is likely to be that the 2008 Federal Budget earmarked the spectrum auction proceeds to debt reduction.  However, that promise was made when $1.5 billion was expected to be on the table.  With nearly triple that amount at stake, the government could fulfill its commitment to allocate the expected revenues to debt reduction and simultaneously use the surplus proceeds for purposes more directly connected to the issues of wireless, the Internet, and communications in Canada.

At least three possibilities come immediately to mind. 
First, several important Internet legislative initiatives have languished due in part to a lack of funding.  For example, the much-delayed anti-spam bill would likely require money to support enforcement.  Similarly, the mandatory security breach disclosure legislation, which would require organizations to inform Canadians if their personal information has been put at risk, may need dollars to support public education and enforcement.  While these bills don't require billions, using a small chunk of the auction proceeds to get them off the ground would be money well spent.

Second, the government could use the money to support innovative community wireless access plans.  These plans attracted considerable attention several years ago as municipalities rushed to establish wireless Internet access in their downtown and business cores.   While some initiatives have failed, successful models have begun to emerge.  Last year, the City of Minneapolis signed on as the "anchor tenant" to provide financial stability for a privately-run wireless network that is set to blanket the city. There have been some notable Canadian experiments as well – Fredericton, New Brunswick was one of the first communities to create municipal wifi zones – but lack of funding remains a barrier.  Allocating a portion of the spectrum surplus toward encouraging municipal initiatives might allow Canadian cities to leapfrog other countries in providing ubiquitous wireless access in urban areas.

Third, a large chunk of the surplus could be allocated toward fulfilling the goal of ensuring that all Canadians enjoy access to high-speed networks. Canada's broadband global ranking has been steadily declining in recent years with one-third of Canadian communities still without high-speed access.  For those Canadians without access – whether in rural areas or on the outskirts of major cities – the Internet's potential for communication, commerce, access to knowledge, and culture remains largely unrealized. In 2001, then-Industry Minister Brian Tobin was unable to convince cabinet colleagues to commit $1 billion toward a national broadband strategy.  As Canadian plans lie dormant, others countries have seized the opportunity.  Australia recently committed A$4.7 billion toward a national broadband strategy that plans to provide 99 percent of its population with broadband access at minimum speeds that are double those offered by most Canadian providers.

Governments should always exercise caution against unwarranted new program spending, however, the spectrum surplus provides a rare opportunity to jump-start Canadian communication networks without the need for new taxes or creative accounting.

9 Comments

  1. Fourth possibility – C-61 enforcement
    Fourth possibility is to waste money on enforcing a non-enforceable bill C-61. Futile, but government wasting money is fair game.

  2. what to do with the money
    One word: MONORAIL!

  3. @tad
    How about a turn stone into gold machine??

    Now more seriously, I’d definately want to go with #3 if not debt reduction (which means more money overtime considering interest not needing to be paid, if I understand it well).
    Canada is way far behind on Internet speed. 3-5MB should be the lowest speed tier since speed like 50MB – 100MB exist elsewhere in the world (Videotron has 50MB I believe in Montreal with a ridiculous dl cap). So I guess working toward this minimum should be a good start. The country also need to own the last mile so that 3rd parties like Teksavvy doesn’t have to go through Bell for this part.

  4. David Megginson says:

    Community broadband
    Using the proceeds for small-community/rural broadband is a great idea, but it’s hard to picture something like that succeeding if it is a full-fledged government program — the people who managed to mess up a simple project like the gun registry (not to mention a few helicopter purchases) can hardly be trusted with something trickier, like nationwide broadband. How can we make sure the money gets to people who will actually do something useful with it?

  5. Necessity vs. luxury
    Interesting post. Normally I’d be all for paying down the debt. But the third option gives me pause.

    In today’s world, internet access may be on the way to becoming a necessity vs. the luxury it’s been in the past. With the access to quick communication and information, among other obvious benefits, maybe broadband internet access should be looked upon as similar to telephone access or even utility power. Maybe the government should take an interest in providing it to as many Canadians as it reasonably can. In a country as large as ours, rural Canadians can often get left behind. Looking ahead to what looks to be an increasingly networked future, widespread broadband access may be a wise investment for the country.

  6. Vincent Clement says:

    Michael, my only problem is that the majority of any surplus money will just end up in the pockets of Bell, Rogers and Telus and Canadian consumers will be left with nothing. Besides I keep reading about the infrastructure deficit. I am going to have to choose roads and bridges over broadband access for 99% of Canadians.

  7. R. Bassett Jr. says:

    For the love of Pete, please…
    Buy more military equipment with that money! Lots and lots of it. Body armor and concussion supressing helmets and suits for all the front line soldiers in Afganistan would be appropriate.

    Buy some NEW ships and recon subs for the Arctic and build a few new manned radar towers up there, before we lose it to Russia.

    Fix the bridges and rebuild the rail systems of our nation.

  8. I vote…
    Health-care.

    I’m a huge technology fiend myself, but I’d rather see it go to something that is going to really change lives, as opposed to making them more convienent.

  9. shortening distances
    Broadband internet reaching rural areas could save lives too. Today there are technologies that allow people to be diagnosed remotely as well as treated (telesurgery). Furthermore there are all other benefits such as distance learning, telework and the like. Number 3 is my choice.