The researchers found that the digital divide remains a problem in Europe, but not due to affordability or access to technology. “The prototype of the offline European would be someone who is not young, has little or no education, lives alone in a rural area, perceives their situation as financially difficult, is somewhat socially isolated, and has doubts about the benefits of communication.”

A couple of months ago, I wrote “The new digital divide: not access, but attention”, observing that a new divide is emerging, now that access to broadband connectivity has become nearly ubiquitous.

The Telecommunications Policy paper agrees with this assessment. The paper refers to an “almost universal roll-out of networks, in particular mobile networks,” coupled with declining prices, making broadband affordable for almost everyone. Carrying a data-enabled device in our pockets enables access to the world of digital social and economic interactions. “Consequently, the digital divide no longer seems to be the major concern it was recently.”

Still, despite the authors’ observation that books and newspapers are rarely seen on public transit as people focus attention on mobile screens, the research found that more than 10% of Europeans do not have digital access.

In order to bridge the divide, we need to understand what leads to people remaining off-line.

Connecting the remaining population is not simply a matter of “build it and they will come”. As the paper demonstrates, there are factors beyond price and simple access.

Understanding the characteristics of those on the wrong side of the digital divide is key to finding solutions for connectivity and improving the road to universal connectivity.

The post On the wrong side of the digital divide appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The latest example is the absurd handling of urgent requests for modest monthly rate increases for mandatory carriage networks – files that took nearly 2 years to be processed.

CPAC-TV is the Cable Public Affairs Channel. In July 2024, the network asked the CRTC for a rate increase, to rise from $0.13 to $0.16 monthly. The thirteen cent rate had been in effect since September 1, 2018. A couple weeks ago, the CRTC finally awarded the requested increase, effective September 1, 2026, conditional on the Commission renewing CPAC’s broadcasting licence and mandatory distribution order before that date.

A week and a half later, a two cent monthly increase was granted to TV5, effective immediately.

Recall that the CRTC issued an interim non-decision last November, kicking the can down the road until it finally got around to making a determination 5 months later. In my December 1, 2025 newsletter, I wrote:

In July 2024, CPAC asked the CRTC for a $0.03 monthly rate increase. Its current $0.13 rate was set in 2018. On November 21, the CRTC decided to defer until some unspecified time in the future. A year and a half to make a non-decision. CPAC says the deferral jeopardizes its continuing operation. To their credit, Commissioners Scott and Abramson wrote a dissenting view appended to the Commission’s Decision, saying “given the pressures these exceptionally important services face today, we should decide today. Should something different be needed down the road, we can adjust down the road.”

Commissioners Scott and Abramson demonstrated business sense in their November dissent. It is noteworthy that the decisions for CPAC and TV5 each contain dissenting opinions by Commissioners Desmond, and Paquette. In the CPAC dissent, they wrote:

17. We respectfully conclude that the application by CPAC Inc. should continue to be deferred until more permanent and sustainable solutions are put in place.
18. Significant work is underway to modernize the broadcasting system in Canada. Key policy decisions will be issued in the coming months that will address the rapid changes that all industry players are experiencing.
19. While CPAC Inc. offers a service of exceptional importance, it benefits from a mandatory distribution order and a regulated fixed rate, providing some degree of financial stability in the short term. While its financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs.
20. Waiting until the broadcasting system has been modernized before processing the CPAC Inc. application will provide a more permanent and sustainable solution and will allow for the ecosystem to first be stabilized before moving forward.

I had to scratch my head with their conclusion. “While its [CPAC’s] financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs” and so, let’s kick the can down the road once again. It is unclear to me how these Commissioners think CPAC would / could keep the lights on in the meantime.

In the meantime, let’s keep in mind that CPAC’s funding is dependent on a very modest monthly fee charged to TV subscribers – who are an ever shrinking breed. CRTC figures show that TV subscriptions have fallen from 9.0 million in the second quarter of 2024 to 8.6 million in third quarter of 2025, the latest available data. That represents a drop of $750,000 per year in revenues for CPAC.

In the case of TV5, the dissenting opinion leads with “With respect for the majority, we unfortunately cannot agree with the decision to increase the per subscriber monthly wholesale rate by $0.02 for the TV5 and UNIS TV services (TV5/UNIS TV). We consider such a decision to be premature in the context of the Commission’s ongoing exercise to modernize the Canadian broadcasting regulatory framework and given the challenges currently facing the cable sector.”

There is no question that the current cross-subsidy system is unsustainable, having TV subscribers foot the bills for CPAC, TV5 and the National Public Alert System, for that matter. I have referred to these schemes as an off-the-books tax scheme.

But, until a more rational funding mechanism is in place, it makes no sense – neither business sense nor common sense – to be unresponsive to funding requirements for essential services operated by the private sector.

The post Business sense appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The committee’s report, Stolen Signal: The Costly Consequences of Copper Theft in Canada, [pdf, 700KB] lays out a stark picture. Since 2022, Canadian carriers have recorded more than 1,300 theft incidents, with Bell alone reporting over 1,650 security incidents, 88% of which involved copper. TELUS quantified the human impact: more than 200 million minutes of lost service affecting 170,000 customers, with rural communities hit hardest. Rogers reported outages spanning 10 federal ridings and affecting 35,000 Canadians in a single wave of vandalism.

The consequences are not abstract. Copper theft has shut down airport ticketing systems, blocked emergency calls, halted small‑business transactions, and left entire communities isolated for hours — sometimes days. In Grande Cache, Alberta, TELUS reported four community‑wide outages in 18 months due to copper theft. Electricity Canada described hundreds of annual incidents across the grid, including cases where thieves triggered life‑threatening injuries and traumatized utility workers.

The Senate report makes clear that copper theft is not simply a telecom problem. It is a cascading‑risk problem. Communications outages disrupt emergency services, financial systems, transportation, and health care — all sectors identified as critical infrastructure under Canada’s national strategy. The interdependencies mean a single cut cable can ripple across multiple essential services.

The committee’s recommendations call for:

• Criminal Code amendments to impose tougher penalties when theft interferes with essential infrastructure — a direction the government has already begun with Bill C‑14’s new “aggravating circumstance” for infrastructure‑related offences.
• National leadership on scrap‑metal regulation, encouraging provinces to standardize dealer rules, require transaction records, and close loopholes that allow stolen copper to be laundered through recycling centres.
• A federal task force on metal theft to coordinate law‑enforcement intelligence across jurisdictions.

Witnesses were blunt. Inconsistent provincial rules, limited traceability, and the ease of mixing stolen metal with legitimate scrap make enforcement difficult. Some pointed to U.S. models — including Florida’s 2024 legislation and federal statutes targeting energy‑facility sabotage — as examples of more assertive frameworks.

Telecom companies have already invested heavily in deterrence, installing floodlights, cameras, specialized locks, while accelerating fibre replacement. But, the report underscores what the industry has argued for years: carriers cannot secure every remote cabinet, pole line, or right‑of‑way on their own. The scale is too large, the geography too vast, and the criminal incentives too strong — especially with copper trading near US$13,000 per tonne.

The Senate committee’s work gives the issue national visibility and a policy roadmap. Copper theft is no longer a background nuisance; it is a systemic risk to Canada’s digital and economic resilience. The report’s title — Stolen Signal — is apt. Copper theft doesn’t just steal metal; it steals connectivity, safety, and trust in the infrastructure upon which Canadians rely.

Will this be another report that sits on a shelf, or will governments (at all levels) move with the urgency the evidence demands?

The post Copper theft is more than a telecom industry problem appeared first on Telecom Trends.

There have been some classics, as I wrote in 2016.

Commissioner Claire Anderson wrote a lengthy dissent last year as I documented at the time. Commissioner Bram Abramson has written a number of dissenting opinions, perhaps aspiring to challenge former Commissioner Stuart Langford’s record. The Abramson dissents frequently address important legal fine points, dealing with procedural issues and fairness.

Today’s post is intended to highlight the number of dissenting views in the CRTC decisions released so far this week.

• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-71: TV5/UNIS TV – Application to increase the mandatory per subscriber monthly wholesale rates
  “A joint dissenting opinion by Commissioners Ellen C. Desmond, K. C., and Stéphanie Paquette is attached to this decision.”
• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-74: Rogers Communications Inc.’s contributions to the Shaw Rocket Fund
  “Dissenting opinions from Commissioners Bram Abramson and Ellen C. Desmond, K.C. are attached to this decision.”
• Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025‑180‑2: Call for comments – Improving the public alerting system – Changes to procedure
  “the Commission denies, by majority decision, their request to be made a party to the proceeding”

These documents were released by the CRTC in just two days: April 22 and 23. Are these releases demonstrating an inability to reach a consensus with the Commission?

I expect to be writing more about the substance of some of these dissenting views. For now, I simply want to highlight an unusual pattern of dissent.

The post Dissent within the CRTC appeared first on Telecom Trends.

That’s a theme you have read before on these pages.

Rogers’ announcement [pdf, 167KB] of a 30% reduction in capital spending for 2026, bringing CapEx guidance to the $2.5–$2.7B range, is more than a one‑year belt‑tightening exercise. Management stated this is the new run‑rate. Capital intensity is expected to fall to roughly 12%. “We anticipate this lower level of capex spending will continue for the foreseeable future”. That is a structural shift, not a cyclical one.

The rationale is equally structural. The company pointed repeatedly to a “punitive regulatory environment” that “increasingly disincentivizes capital investments” weakening the economics of long‑term network investment. Policies enabling broad, low‑barrier access to incumbent networks — particularly the MVNO framework extending to 2030 — were cited as eroding the incentive to deploy risk capital. When wholesale access is priced below what operators view as sustainable cost recovery, the business case for marginal builds becomes harder to justify.

This level of capital spending reduction goes far beyond rhetoric. Rogers outlined three concrete drivers behind its CapEx pullback:

• Project cancellations where the economics no longer clear under current regulatory and competitive conditions.
• Capital efficiency gains, which every operator pursues but which now carry more weight in a low‑growth environment.
• Deferrals, stretching multi‑year projects over longer timelines to match slower revenue growth and lower expected returns.

The message to policymakers should now be unmistakable. Despite government statements seeking private sector investment, the current regulatory environment has created conditions that discourage it. The returns on investment simply aren’t there. So, capital will flow elsewhere — or simply not flow at all.

The competitive backdrop amplifies the issue. Rogers described Q1 as a period of “irrational” discounting, with promotional pricing in some segments falling below cost. In a market where ARPU is declining and subscriber growth is driven more by supply‑side promotions than organic demand, the payback period for network investment lengthens. When regulatory policy simultaneously compresses wholesale margins, the combined effect is a materially lower return on capital investment.

Until that equation changes, there is no reason to doubt Rogers statement that the CapEx reduction is not a deferral that will snap back next year. I recently noted a “quantitative evidence of a pull-back in telecom investment” with the 10% reductions in capital between 2022 and 2024. Rogers first quarter 2026 results confirms there is a recalibration of Canada’s investment model underway, reflecting a sector with slower revenue growth, lower ARPU expectations, and regulatory headwinds diluting the value of incremental build‑outs.

The broader implication for Canada’s telecom landscape is that policy choices have consequences, and these are now showing up directly in capital allocation decisions. A sector that once invested $12B over three years is signalling that the next three will look very different.

In his comments at the Rogers 2026 Annual General Meeting, CEO Tony Staffieri said “We operate in a capital-intensive sector, a sector that requires long-term investment cycles and regulatory policy that supports them.” For an industry built on long‑cycle infrastructure, the regulatory environment doesn’t just shape competition — it shapes the network Canadians will have a decade from now.

The capital math has changed. Unless policy shifts with it, investment will follow the new logic.

The post Regulation, returns, and capital investment appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The Wireless Code is a mandatory code of conduct setting out rights for consumers of retail mobile wireless voice and data services, and defining obligations for providers of such services.

For more than a dozen years, the Wireless Code has served as the CRTC’s primary consumer‑protection framework for mobile services. However, it was created in a different era — before unlimited plans were common, before international roaming plans were widely available, before 5G, before eSIMs, before device financing innovations became the norm, and before wireless competition intensified across nearly every region of the country. Yet despite the pace of change in the marketplace, the Code itself has barely evolved, having last been tweaked nearly 9 years ago.

That wouldn’t be a problem if the Code were still aligned with how Canadians actually buy and use wireless services. But increasingly, it isn’t.

There were a number of populist-driven consumer measures ordered by Parliament in the 2024 Budget, as I described in a post last month. That legislation gave rise to a “trilogy” of CRTC Notices of Consultation: 2024-293 (Enhancing customer notification); 2024-294 (Removing barriers to switching plans); and, 2024-295 (Enhancing self-service mechanisms).

We now have device financing structures that didn’t exist when the Code was drafted, developed to provide relief from high monthly payments driven by regulated 24-month limit to amortize the cost of devices selling for thousands of dollars. We have multi‑line family plans, data‑sharing pools, and promotional pricing models that don’t map neatly onto the Code’s original assumptions. We have eSIM‑based switching that should make mobility easier, but is often slowed by legacy processes. We have a marketplace where competition is driving prices down, but the regulatory framework hasn’t kept pace with how consumers interact with their service providers.

At the same time, the CRTC’s own processes have slowed to the point where even minor clarifications can take months or years. As I’ve written before, regulatory delay has become a structural issue. When the regulator takes years to update rules that govern a sector evolving in real time, the result is predictable: uncertainty for carriers, confusion for consumers, and a framework that gradually loses relevance.

The Wireless Code is showing its age. Complaints to the CCTS increasingly involve issues the Code never contemplated — device financing disputes, promotional plan expiries, eSIM transfers, the complexities of multi‑line accounts. These are becoming the mainstream of today’s wireless market.

A holistic review is overdue.

A modern Wireless Code should reflect how Canadians actually use and shop for wireless services today, not how they used them in 2013. It should provide clarity for consumers and predictability for services providers. And, it should be developed through a process that is timely, evidence‑based, and focused on outcomes.

This isn’t about adding or deleting rules. It may mean simplifying or clarifying existing ones. But the starting point has to be a recognition that the marketplace has changed — dramatically — and the Code has not.

The CRTC needs to ensure its flagship consumer framework remains fit for purpose. That requires a full review of the Wireless Code, grounded in data, informed by actual consumer behaviour, and conducted with a sense of urgency that has been missing.

Canada’s wireless market has evolved. The rules governing it should too.

The post Revisiting the Wireless Code appeared first on Telecom Trends.

I have been a long-time supporter of these webinars to keep up with new trends and issues arising from emerging technology.

The future of space is being shaped by innovators and regulators. The commercial space industry is experiencing unprecedented growth with Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) constellations enabling breakthrough applications. Satellite-based data centers with AI services are on the horizon; direct-to-cellular networks, and earth stations in motion, are expanding what is possible beyond earth.

Laws and regulations governing commercial activities in space have evolved significantly, with today’s regulatory landscape reflecting both established principles and emerging frameworks designed to support these new technologies. From debris management to liability standards to jurisdictional questions, the rules governing space are more relevant than ever and raise fundamental questions:

• How should space law evolve to support innovation while maintaining safety?
• How should regulators address emerging technologies and business models that existing frameworks weren’t designed to accommodate?
• How do we launch one million satellites into earth’s orbit? What are the consequences?

Professor Rob Frieden of Penn State University will discuss how regulations can support next-generation LEO/MEO applications, sharing insights into the rapid evolution of the commercial space sector. The session will explore international and domestic policies shaping space law and examine how emerging frameworks are enabling today’s most exciting developments.

There will be an interactive Q&A session following the talk.

Coincidentally, at the FCC’s April Open Meeting, also scheduled for April 30, there is an agenda item for Space Spectrum Sharing. According to Scotiabank, this “could provide LEO operators with benefits to better serve rural and edge-of-footprint suburban areas.”

Register now for this one-hour session, to explore the high-stakes legal landscape of space — where the next frontier isn’t just technological but regulatory.

The post Satellites and space regulation appeared first on Telecom Trends.

I thought the 39-page Statement by the UK regulator deserved a more serious look, especially in view of a sharp contrast with Canada’s regulatory posture, as set out in its 2024 Telecom Regulatory Policy: “Competition in Canada’s Internet service markets.”

Like the UK and many countries, Canada has set a political objective to extend high-speed broadband service to rural and remote regions. Of course, what the UK considers rural and remote is very different from the challenges faced by Canadian carriers. Officially, Canada defines rural as “areas [that] have populations of less than 1,000, or fewer than 400 people per square kilometre.” Roughly 20% of Canadians live in rural Canada. The UK government defines areas as rural if they fall outside of settlements with more than 10,000 resident population. In Canada’s Far North, we have a population density of just 0.02 per square kilometre. Although the definitions differ, roughly 20% of the population of the UK and Canada live in rural areas.

By the end of 2024, the CRTC shows 90.6% of Canadian households had access to gigabit broadband; Ofcom shows 87% of UK premises by mid-year 2025.

In their policy documents, there are similar opening statements by Canada’s CRTC and the UK regulator, Ofcom:

• CRTC: “the Commission is working to increase competition while ensuring continued investments in high-quality networks.”
• Ofcom: “Our regulation is designed to promote competition and investment in high quality gigabit-capable networks – bringing faster, better broadband to people across the UK.”

The UK’s approach, as laid out in Ofcom’s statement, is an endorsement of facilities‑based competition, with regulations mandating access to passive infrastructure (eg. ducts and poles). Canada used to operate under the premise that facilities-based competition is the most sustainable form; in recent years the CRTC decided to experiment with a hybrid approach, seeking to ensure its wholesale framework “provides equitable regulatory treatment” (as it describes in TRP 2024-180). The divergence is more than just philosophical; it is producing different market structures, and different investment incentives. Canada’s ‘top-down’ regulated wholesale-access policy is applied on wireline and wireless, in sharp contrast to the market-led approach in many other jurisdictions.

In its Policy determination, the CRTC said “Consumers have fewer choices when buying Internet services: in recent years, competition has been declining. By the end of 2022, independent ISPs served significantly fewer customers than they did at the start of 2020. At the same time, several of the largest independent ISPs have been purchased by incumbents.”

This formed part of the rationale for the CRTC’s shift. But there are some strange disconnects in the Commission’s logic. “These facts suggest that the Commission’s prior regulatory approach, which prioritized facilities-based competition, has not brought about sustainable competition that delivers more choice and more affordable services to Canadians, nor has it resulted in universal access to higher-speed Internet services.”

There were two different concepts there. On the first, I would actually argue that there had been greater competitive intensity today among the facilities-based service providers, as evidenced by levels of investment, lower prices, and marketplace rivalry. The fact that independent ISPs – those depending on wholesale access – hold a diminishing share of the market should have been expected as a confirmation that facilities-based service providers were always seen as the most sustainable.

What did the Commission think was meant by sustainable competition? The level of competition should never have been measured by the number of competitors.

As to the second concept (universal access to higher-speed Internet services), coverage cannot be extended by way of wholesale access. Extending coverage requires construction of new facilities, which would seem to imply the need to focus on promoting investment.

The CRTC noted that it had received evidence that “demonstrated how [a decision to mandate wholesale access] could decrease network upgrades and prevent future network deployment. The Commission recognizes that regulatory measures that reduce the incumbents’ revenues can challenge the business case for the incumbents to deploy networks.”

So, the CRTC set up a 5-year “head start” provision as an incentive for telephone companies to extend the reach of their fibre networks. “While the Commission notes that its rate-setting process is designed to be compensatory, it considers that a five-year head start would provide additional incentive for the incumbents to invest in areas where they have not yet built FTTP by giving them an opportunity to more rapidly recoup their initial investments.” At the same time, the CRTC excused cable companies from the obligation to wholesale its fibre, since it only has about 5% of homes with fibre to the premises (as contrasted with 60% of telephone companies).

As it turns out, that 5-year head start isn’t proving to be enough of an incentive. Over the past couple of months, I have written frequently [such as here and here] that capital expenditures are down, measurably down, with carriers pointing blame at the CRTC framework. The Commission’s own monitoring report shows annual drops in capital spending in 2023 and 2024 since levels peaked in 2022. Public company reports are pointing to nearly 10% lower capex in 2025, and projections to fall another 15% lower in 2026.

That should be no surprise to the Commission. The CRTC was warned, as it acknowledged in the Policy determination at ¶34: “The incumbents submitted that a Commission decision to mandate aggregated HSA is likely to reduce investment in high-speed networks.”

Investment impacts quality and coverage – factors that are important for consumers. Contrast sharply falling investment in Canada with Ookla’s latest report on the US market, “Aggressive U.S. Broadband Expansion in 2H2025 Narrows Digital Divide”. “The U.S. broadband landscape underwent a big shift in the latter half of 2025. Thanks to record-breaking new fiber builds, the aggressive expansion of SpaceX’s Starlink, and the growth in fixed wireless access (FWA), broadband availability achieved some new milestones.”

The Commission’s decision to exempt cable companies from mandated fibre wholesale due to low share might also serve as a disincentive for cable companies to invest in fibre. In the Policy, the CRTC said that it was excusing cable from mandated fibre wholesale because the cable companies had such a low percentage of premises with fibre: “by the end of 2022, the cable carriers’ FTTP reached just 5% of the homes they pass nationally, compared to over 60% for the ILECs… Mandating the cable carriers to provide aggregated FTTP services would be costly to implement relative to the benefits it may bring to Canadians. It may also result in a loss of cable carriers investment.”

The Commission warned, “A significant increase in the percentage of homes passed by the cable carriers’ FTTP may prompt a Commission review of whether the cable carriers should begin providing aggregated FTTP services.” This was very strange wording in my view – effectively threatening increased regulation if the cable companies invest too much in fibre.

In his speech at the Scotiabank TMT Investor Conference, CRTC Vice Chair Adam Scott described the Commission’s decision-making process as “we take the evidence on the record and use it to form a regulatory hypothesis — that by taking a certain course, we will see a certain type of outcome.”

In the case of capital investment levels arising from its fibre wholesale policy, the CRTC is clearly not seeing its anticipated outcome. How should the Commission respond?

I noticed an interesting phrasing in the Ofcom document with respect to capital expenditures: “We also recognised that the long-term nature of network investments requires regulatory stability and therefore set expectations about future regulation to 2031 and beyond.”

No one wants to see a return to Canada’s Calvinball approach to regulation. “The only permanent rule in Calvinball is that you can’t play it the same way twice.”

If we want to create appropriate incentives for private sector investment in telecom, we can’t keep changing the rules. But first, we need rules that actually encourage investment.

The post Promoting investment appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Let’s face it. Canada’s telecommunications landscape is at a pivotal moment. Questions around slower industry growth, investment, resiliency, and policy direction have never been more central to our national conversation. That’s why the upcoming Connecting Canada event, taking place May 20, 2026, at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, is especially timely for industry leaders, policymakers, and anyone invested in the future of our connected nation.

This free event is presented in collaboration with the Canadian Telecommunications Association and the GSMA, Connecting Canada will be bringing together voices from across the sector to examine the performance, pressures, and priorities for Canada’s telecommunications sector.

Canada is one of the most geographically challenging – and therefore among the most capital-intensive – markets in the world for building and operating telecommunications networks. The telecom sector continues to face scrutiny on prices, competitive dynamics, and gaps in rural connectivity. But, meaningful progress needs more than a simple recitation of all-too-familiar talking points.

What we need is a fact-based dialogue, acknowledging there are necessary compromises inherent in policy decision-making, reconciling public expectations with economic realities, in order to deliver world-class infrastructure.

Connecting Canada provides a forum for such an informed and constructive conversation.

The conference promises a thoughtful exploration of:

• The state of Canadian telecommunications industry – from financial fundamentals to looking at the sector through a global lens
• Canada’s connectivity reality check – the realities of connectivity, including coverage gaps, adoption challenges, priority setting, and new technologies
• Network resiliency – realistic approaches to risk reduction and lessons learned
• Beyond retail: the telecom sector’s role in driving productivity and innovation across industries, and its growing strategic importance underpinning Canada’s national security, economic resilience, and sovereignty
• Canada’s 6G Future
• Protecting Canadians from fraud and scams
• The future of telecom

These aren’t just abstract debates. There are real tensions and trade-offs associated with these issues shaping the sector today. As the event’s organizers note, the aim is to move beyond headlines and assumptions toward an evidence-based dialogue grounded in the operational realities of the industry.

Connecting Canada coincides with the 6G Global Summit, being held at the same venue the following two days. While registration is separate, it reinforces that Ottawa will be a hub for global and domestic telecom policy conversations throughout the week. Together these two events highlight the growing interplay between national policy and international technology roadmaps. Discussions at Connecting Canada will set the stage for broader conversations about spectrum, standards, and next generation networks.

If your work touches telecommunications, whether from an industry, policy, regulatory, academic, or technology perspective, this event is worth your time. The agenda promises thoughtful keynotes, candid panel conversations, and a welcome emphasis on grounding policy in real-world data and operational experience. You can learn more or register for the event here.

The post Connecting Canada forum appeared first on Telecom Trends.

To me, the frequent internal website failures should be embarrassing for the regulatory body chosen by Parliament to manage and oversee so much of Canada’s digital world. I count at least 13 days of planned and unplanned outages since mid-August of 2025:

• Scheduled: August 22-24, 2025
• Scheduled: September 20-21, 2025
• Scheduled: October 3-5, 2025
• Unplanned: November 5, 2025
• Unplanned: December 10, 2025
• and now, unplanned: April 4-6, 2026

That is barely 1 nine performance, 95% uptime, in a world where we target non-stop resilience.

Last November, I wrote “Network resilience in competitive telecom markets”, acknowledging that all networks will fail at some point.

Improving network resilience helps ameliorate the situation when a failure condition exists.

Increasingly complex network architectures, coupled with more extreme environmental conditions, will lead to the potential for more network failure events, with even greater impact.

How do service providers build more resilient networks? How does the industry collectively create a more resilient national infrastructure? What is the role of government regulatory authorities, policy makers, and emergency preparedness organizations?

Last September, the CRTC issued a decision requiring reporting of service disruptions by telecom service providers. Seeing the duration of the CRTC website failure on a holiday weekend, I have to wonder if anyone at the CRTC would read or respond to a telecom carrier failure outide normal business hours.

My November blog post talked about two consultations that were launched that same day:

1. “Development of a regulatory policy on measures to improve the resiliency of telecommunications networks and the reliability of telecommunications services” [TNC CRTC 2025-226]; and
2. “Consumer protections in the event of a service outage or disruption” [TNC CRTC 2025-227].

I made a number of comments about the value of a more consultative approach to improve network resilience, exploring how the Commission can contribute to the proactive planning and coordination across all branches of government. Indeed, the Commission could benefit from learning how to get the CRTC website to be more resilient.

Update (April 7, 7:45am): The CRTC website just came back online after nearly 75 hours.

The post If the CRTC website fell down in a forest… appeared first on Telecom Trends.