The long election campaign of 2015 has featured a myriad of daily policy announcements as the three largest political parties vie for attention and votes. From targeted tax cuts to new spending promises, political leaders have focused on education, child care, defence, the environment and more. Yet thus far largely missing from the campaign has been the most fundamental digital issue – universal, affordable broadband Internet access.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the Conservatives pointed to their spending on broadband in August when few were paying much attention, but that policy has done little to stem Canada’s steady slide in the global broadband rankings which indicate that Canadian Internet services are middling at best when compared to other developed countries. The opposition parties have said even less, failing to take advantage of consumer frustration by unveiling innovative policies that might address the issue.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have tried to address the lack of universal, affordable broadband services through targeted spending programs in rural communities that lack access. Those programs have provided some modest benefits, but have failed to ensure affordable access for all.
In fact, Canada’s goals for broadband access remain a confusing mix of policy pronouncement and regulator targets. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission 2015-2016 Priorities and Planning Report target for broadband access is 5 megabits per second download for 100 per cent of the population by the end of this year. Meanwhile, the government’s target will take many more years to complete (the target is 280,000 Canadians with new or faster access by March 2019) and it does not envision universal access.
Meanwhile, independent data leaves little doubt about the relative state of the Canadian broadband services. Last week, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, jointly created by two United Nations agencies, issued its 2015 state of broadband report. Canada ranked 16th in the world in broadband subscriptions per capita and 47th for wireless broadband subscriptions. Further, Canadians ranked below the United Kingdom, Japan, and the U.S. in percentage of Internet users, with 13 per cent still not using the Internet.
Recent data released by the OECD tells a similar tale, where Canada ranked 26th in wireless broadband subscriptions, well below the OECD average. Moreover, it has fallen outside the top 10 for fixed broadband subscriptions.
Given the state of Canadian broadband, there is a desperate need for new thinking on affordable broadband access that goes beyond funding announcements that can take years to implement.
First, the political parties should be asked where they stand on the question of whether universal access should be expanded to include broadband access. A broader definition that goes beyond telephone service would open the door to new regulatory possibilities and programs to enhance access in underserved communities.
On the policy front, there is no shortage of solutions to address the Canadian broadband digital divide. The federal government could work with municipalities to support local broadband networks or the installation of fibre connections available to any provider when annual construction projects open up roads or municipal transportation systems are upgraded. It could remove all foreign investment restrictions so that larger global players might reconsider the Canadian market or examine how the mobile virtual operators would inject new competition into the wireless broadband market.
Moreover, the parties could acknowledge that Internet access is about more than just ensuring affordable connectivity in every community in the country. Even in urban communities with access, there are still many households that find access – and the necessary computing equipment – out of their economic reach. Focusing on adoption rates alongside access is essential to bringing the remaining 13 per cent of Canadians online.
Many of those 13 per cent surely plan to vote in the October election. The party that makes access a priority for all Canadians may find that there are political benefits in addition to the economic, cultural, and educational advantages that come with universal access.
“The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission 2015-2016 Priorities and Planning Report target for broadband access is 5 megabits per second download for 100 per cent of the population…”
5Mb/s?! That’s the CRTC’s idea of today’s broadband needs?
With that kind of thinking by government, it’s no wonder we’re falling way behind the rest of the planet.
The rest of the story is classic for Canada – little to no interest.
Even with such stunningly low goals, we are still far from it? A quick trip to speedtest (I’m not plugging it, but it will open your eyes) will show how lame our internet is compared to the rest of the world. Sure, I can get faster speeds and higher bandwidth but only at insane prices. Rather than focusing on speed, pricing needs to be part of the equation.
I get that some people still have little to no access but how about setting the bar a little higher while setting the prices a lot lower.
ok, data repression is the answer. (gas reports, saudi arms deals, any science from the feds)
the CBC becomes the first tech ISP; EVERYTHING they do is copied over to csis before they even look at it.
(and corrected, probably. CSIS has a lot more to hide than who they keep hidden on welfare)
Serving the north.. (after jailing independent stations again.)
the rural areas (monsanto ads every 30 seconds)
with the latest in propaganda schedules, data mining, illegal
sat broadcasts,
sterilzed, slanted and sanitized news, programming and listening posts.
(Not a pda, a listening post.)
that is their new slogan. We listen.
with, like immigration, (and health+ ag-can+external+suplly=+ service)
several hundred NEW $100,000+ (disposible) consultants.
then it gets privatized.
pat
“affordable access to all” of arbitrary services is not a governmental function.
Broadband is now considered a necessity.
There is nothing “arbitrary” about it.
” is now considered ”
Sorry, passive voice is not persuasive.
“a necessity”
Then how are people without it getting by?
” There is nothing “arbitrary” about it.”
There exist countless “necessities” of various levels. Choosing amongst them for favoured (government-enforced) status is arbitrary.
In a world that is quickly migrating to an “online” style of interaction, being connected is absolutely necessary. I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem understanding that.
We’re fast approaching a state where even phoning or mailing is not a contact option anymore.
Job hunting without the Internet now leaves you too far behind those that use it.
Television and radio are migrating to an internet-based model.
Paper-based billing is becoming an expense.
And, social networking has become a tool of hope for those needing to level the playing field against many injustices.
(On and on.)
I don’t even know why I’m building a list of reasons. It’s not like anyone doesn’t already see them in play.
I don’t see anything “arbitrary” about mandating that everyone have broadband, or in mandating what the definition of “broadband” should be at a given place in time, as this issue didn’t start with government.
This issue arose because the Public voiced how they were being exploited, and how the providers are refusing to expand, despite being given significant subsidies that should have helped fix both problems.
There’s nothing “arbitrary” about public demand.
“There’s nothing “arbitrary” about public demand.”
The question is not whether being online is titillating or useful or whatever. The point is why this type of service would have to be mandated, funded, and/or supplied by the federal government.
“The question is not whether being online is titillating or useful or whatever. The point is why this type of service would have to be mandated, funded, and/or supplied by the federal government.”
There’s so much wrong in just those 2 sentences, I have to accept you’re either clue-resistant, or being deliberately so.
But, for the benefit of those struggling to understand the strawman you’ve unfortunately constructed…
The question is not one of “titillating, useful or whatever”, but one of necessity, and that one was answered already. You’re just being intentionally disingenuous on that one.
And who said anything about the federal government supplying the services? The mandates proposed have everything to do with ensuring the providers either grow with the demand (as they’ve failed to do, despite subsidies, by the way), or allow competition to do that for us.
“but one of necessity”
That putative degree of necessity included in “whatever”. (Your having made an example of the Necessity of Social Media Activism hinders your case.)
“The mandates proposed have everything to do with ensuring the providers either grow with the demand”
So in other words, forcing people who live in dense areas to subsidize those who choose not to. (Mandating that a company do such an unprofitable buildout is not substantially different from taxing the masses and paying the latter via governmental powers.)
“or allow competition to do that for us.”
Hey, I’m all aboard with eliminating statutory restrictions to competition… but somehow all the yak about “adoption rates” and OECD inter-country speed contests makes me think you’d be unsatisfied if competitive pressures were insufficient to get Canada back in the all-important Top Ten. Because that too is “necessary”.
I get the idea you work for a provider.
Your obsession with 2 common strawman arguments is the kind of thing you’d expect from a Bell or Rogers propagandist…
1) “…forcing people who live in dense areas to subsidize those who choose not to.”
Your implication that people who don’t live in “dense areas” are somehow not entitled to be connected is curious, at best.
Providers are still selling to these people, and making all sorts of promises. And, these people are also part of the tax base that has been supplying subsidies for something that’s not being delivered.
2) “Mandating that a company do such an unprofitable buildout…”
The present incumbent providers were already given a lot of subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives to build out in a number of ways, and somehow just ended up pocketing the money. That needs to be addressed.
In addition, these companies have been enjoying a well-known duopoly, enabling them to overcharge for everything, over a long period of time. Their profits are currently through the roof.
They’re literally milking everything they possibly can from a intentionally-neglected infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure that created their wealth in the first place was erected with PUBLIC money.
As for the “Top Ten” thing, that is only a measure of what value other countries are putting on broadband. And, it’s actually telling when you look at what kind of service places like Japan or even Malaysia(!) are enjoying for a lot less money.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with mandating a LEVEL of broadband service. Many other countries are already putting a minimum speed into the “definition” of “modern broadband needs”. The average figure being discussed is 25Mb/s, though there’s a few “3rd World” countries that actually give higher than that already.
Yet, in “dense areas” of Canada, you pay through the nose for speeds that are barely enough to sustain a HD television stream, where a minimum 5Mb/s is required.
Personally, I’d be “satisfied” to see a goal of 10Mb/s set for all. Considering what the average Canadian user and taxpayer has done for these providers, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable demand to make of them. And, since they haven’t been demonstrating the desire to give more than a bare minimum of service, while enjoying the high prices they’ve been charging and thumbing their noses at their customers, it’s time to put in some mandates.
“Your implication that people who don’t live in “dense areas” are somehow not entitled to be connected is curious, at best.”
No one is “entitled” to be connected. What kind of ridiculous way of thinking is that?
“The present incumbent providers were already given a lot of subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives to build out in a number of ways, ”
Well, arrange to cut the subsidies and statutory protections, as I’ve already agreed. (Tax cuts are a separate matter – the more the merrier.)
“Personally, I’d be “satisfied” to see a goal of 10Mb/s set for all. … it’s time to put in some mandates.”
Well isn’t that nice for you. In a free country, you should govern your own affairs and stay out of other people’s.
Internet should be regarded as infrastructure. Hence I believe it should be provided by the government in rural areas or elsewhere without adequate service, akin to rural electrification.
-Rural internet is a farce in this country.
-I can pay bell 105$ a month for 20GB, which represents an absurd profit margin for what I am getting.
-Additionally the high profit margin on wireless service encourages bell to not extend wired service anymore.
-I have satellite, which is effectively useless during peak times, or during inclement weather, also has a low data cap.
-Dial-up is no longer a viable option.
-Xplorenet (My provider) is already getting massive subsidies from the government to provide rural service, and it’s just a joke.
-(Although this doesn’t apply to me) Rural areas tend to have lower incomes, making the services increasing affordable.
-I’m a 5 min walk from a subdivision, so it’s not like I’m am way off in the boonies (I’m in Fort Erie).
This message is rather unorganized, but my points still stand.
@Ben B
“Internet should be regarded as infrastructure. Hence I believe it should be provided by the government in rural areas or elsewhere without adequate service […] I can pay bell 105$ a month for 20GB”
In other words, you can get decent broadband, you are just too cheap to pay for it, and wish taxpayers to foot the bills for your lifestyle choices.
Fail.
Thanks in favor of sharing such a pleasant opinion, article is nice, thats
why i have read it entirely