For more than a decade, Canada’s national connectivity agenda has been defined by expansion. Billions in federal and provincial funding, paired with unprecedented private‑sector investment, pushed high‑speed broadband deeper into rural and remote communities than ever before. With the UBF now expected to sunset as Canada approaches its 98 per cent coverage target, it’s tempting to declare victory.

But, the next phase of connectivity spending will be harder, less glamorous, and far more politically neglected. Canada’s the next connectivity challenge means shifting our focus from funding broadband network expansion to figuring out how to pay to maintain those networks. At a recent conference, I expressed concern that we are not ready for the implications.

Expansion is a capital project. Maintenance is a lifecycle obligation. One is celebrated with over-sized ceremonial cheques and ribbon‑cuttings; the other is an ongoing cost centre that rarely earns political credit. Yet as climate pressures intensify and networks age, maintenance will determine whether Canada’s connectivity gains are durable or fragile.

The first challenge is resiliency. Wildfires, floods, and extreme storms are no longer rare events. Operators are reinforcing towers, burying fibre, hardening power systems, and redesigning routes to avoid single points of failure. These investments are essential, but they are also expensive — and they don’t fit neatly into the traditional “build more coverage” narrative that has dominated public policy. A kilometre of fibre washed out by a flood costs the same to replace whether the community has 50 residents or 5,000. Maintenance is indifferent to density.

The second challenge is sustainability of rural builds. Many of the last‑mile projects funded over the past five years were viable because governments subsidized the initial capital. But the long‑term operating costs — repairs, upgrades, backhaul, power, and labour — fall entirely on service providers. In low‑density areas, those costs can exceed revenue. Without a policy framework that acknowledges such lifecycle realities, Canada risks a slow erosion of service quality in precisely the communities that were hardest to connect in the first place.

A third challenge is technology refresh cycles. Fibre may be durable, but the electronics aren’t. Wireless networks require continual upgrades to remain efficient and secure. Satellite constellations evolve rapidly. The policy conversation has not yet caught up to the fact that “connected once” does not mean “connected forever.” The cost curve of maintenance is rising even as the political appetite for funding is declining.

What Canada needs now is a Connectivity Maintenance Strategy — a shift from one‑time capital injections to predictable, outcome‑based support for resiliency, lifecycle upgrades, and climate adaptation. This doesn’t mean recreating the Universal Broadband Fund. It means recognizing that connectivity is critical infrastructure, and critical infrastructure requires ongoing stewardship, especially in high cost serving areas.

For more than a century and a half, Canadian carriers have built our national telecom networks. Canada spent the last decade extending advanced networks to rural and remote regions. The challenge for the next decade will be keeping those networks standing, resilient, and modern.

Maintenance may not be headline‑grabbing, but it will define whether our connectivity achievements endure.

The post The next connectivity challenge appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Monday’s Globe and Mail reports that “The federal government is planning a series of steps that would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to roll back key decisions it has made implementing the controversial Online Streaming Act.”

For the past few years, a substantial amount of effort at the regulator has been focused on implementing the “modernization” of Canada’s Broadcasting Act driven by the Online Streaming Act.

Three years ago, I observed that the Online Streaming Act was driving the CRTC to budget a 40% increase in staff levels with a 60% higher cost. As it has for the past few years, the CRTC’s 2026-27 Departmental Plan identifies “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” at the top of its list of key priorities.

How many staff years of effort – by the Commission and by participants in these multi-year regulatory proceedings – are being squandered by this latest government policy flip-flop?

As I flipped through CRTC Departmental Plans, I noticed that the plans for the past 4 years have been signed by 4 different Cabinet Ministers responsible for the Commission:

• 2026-27: Marc Miller
• 2025-26: Steven Guilbeault
• 2024-25: Pascale St-Onge
• 2023-24: Pablo Rodriguez

The lack of stability from the policy leadership doesn’t help.

Similar observations can be made on another key file. While “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” is first on the list of key CRTC priorities, “Promoting competition and investment for Internet and cellphone services” is next. I have written extensively on the investment part of that priority.

A CRTC letter last Friday serves as an exhibit for spinning their wheels on the competition side. The CRTC file 1011-NOC2023-0056 has housed follow-up to its 2023 “Review of the wholesale high-speed access service framework”. Three years into the process, the Commission realized that it is working from stale data:

Commission staff notes that the Cable Carriers submitted their initial Phase II cost studies between June 2023 and April 2024. However, Commission staff is concerned that the costing information currently on record may no longer reflect the prospective incremental costs of providing these services. Consequently, to ensure that final rates are just and reasonable and reflect the current technological and economic environment, the Cable Carriers are directed to file new Phase II cost studies, including all associated tables, using a five-year study period starting 1 January 2026 and incorporating the most recent available data for equipment costs, labour rates, and network demand.

These new studies need to be filed by September 3.

Once again, I think we need to ask how many cycles have been burned – the CRTC staff and industry participants – by working with the cost studies now ruled to be out of date. What does this mean for the entire wholesale framework?

The 2026-27 Departmental Plan indicates total expenses for the CRTC are forecasted to be $123.6M, up roughly 50% from the $81.6M from the 2022-23 Plan, with staff levels growing from 547 to 740 over that same period.

There is a real cost to running the engine and spinning those wheels. Sometimes, I just shake my head and wonder how much tread is left on these old tires.

The post Spinning their wheels appeared first on Telecom Trends.

When my phone rings, most of the time my device shows it is “Likely Spam”. In such cases, if the call actually connects, I end up talking to an overseas call centre telling me their air-duct cleaning crews are in my neighbourhood and can offer me a special rate. Or, people claiming to be calling from the “promotions department” of [insert name of phone company], offering deals too good to be true. Or, it is a recording from scammers claiming they are my credit card company (or Amazon) flagging potential fraudulent transactions – ironic, right?

And then there are the emails that get past my spam filters. Somehow, I got added to a US-based medical professional mailing list and I have been receiving all kinds of messages targeting a doctor in the Phoenix area. (As an aside, I wonder if the doctor in Phoenix is receiving telecom newsletters.) That medical mailing list is being sold to pharmaceutical companies, training companies, real estate firms, auto dealers, and anyone else who wants to reach doctors in Arizona. Most of the time, I click unsubscribe and that ends it – but just for one company.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an invitation to a webinar about some new treatments for drug-resistant bacteria. As fascinating as new antibiotics might be, my evenings are tied up. (I just don’t want to miss watching the Stanley Cup playoffs.) Most significantly, there was no ‘unsubscribe’ button. The sender was from a company with a market capitalization measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, this was not your classic spam.

In Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) lingo, this was an unsolicited commercial electronic message sent by a company with pretty deep pockets. They should know better. Even in the US, there are rules known as CAN-SPAM that cover these kinds of things.

And like I said, I’ve gotten kind of tired of spam. So, I decided to stop ignoring it. I dealt with the source directly. This is a real company, with revenues that are approximately double the entire Canadian telecom sector. I figure they have an army of lawyers who would not want some renegade salesperson to be harming the company brand.

I called their Canadian customer service line and reached a supervisor who was actually quite sympathetic. From her, I learned the name of the Canadian head of legal, and from the corporate website, I found the name of the global chief legal officer. The company uses a standardized email address scheme which enabled me to send my official complaint in writing.

I had an immediate automated response from the customer service email address with a case number. I heard back from the Canadian legal office within a couple of hours, letting me know that the team appreciated the importance and was investigating. Within a week, I heard from the US-based corporate chief privacy officer, who identified the steps taken to remove my address from various company distribution lists. The company was still working to identify the third-party source that originally provided my information. A few days later, I was updated with the name of the list provider and provided with assurances that my information was removed from their databases.

A review of my past posts about CASL will show you that I was never a fan of the legislation. I continue to think that it has done more harm to legitimate business communications while doing little to reduce harmful and fraudulent spam. Twenty years ago, I wrote how people can take matters into their own hands.

So I did.

No regulatory submission. No fines were issued. I was fed up with the medical / pharma spam, so I dealt with it. At least those annoying health care related emails will slow down, even if not fully come to a stop.

Now, I wonder if I say “yes” to getting my ducts cleaned, could I get those calls to stop for a couple years?

The post Tired of spam appeared first on Telecom Trends.

In a new paper [pdf, 364 KB], the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) argues that US communications markets are more dynamic and competitive than legacy regulatory frameworks assume. The submission urges the FCC to modernize its analytical approach, emphasizing technological convergence, cross‑platform substitutability, and the centrality of investment incentives in broadband and video markets.

ICLE’s core thesis is that traditional market silos — fixed broadband, mobile, satellite, and video — no longer reflect how consumers behave or how firms compete. Households now switch fluidly among cable, fiber, fixed wireless access (FWA), mobile broadband, and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite. This substitutability constrains pricing power even in markets that appear concentrated on paper. The rise of FWA is a prime example: T‑Mobile’s Home Internet service has grown to millions of subscribers, directly pressuring cable operators and accelerating churn. Cable’s counter‑move — bundling MVNO‑based mobile services — illustrates how formerly distinct markets now operate as a competitive continuum.

ICLE argues that the FCC’s competition assessments must reflect these cross‑technology dynamics. Market definitions built around legacy service categories risk overstating market power and understating the competitive discipline imposed by emerging substitutes.

While convergence increases competitive pressure, ICLE stresses that it does not change the underlying economics of broadband deployment. High fixed and sunk costs, long payback periods, and economies of scale mean that only a limited number of facilities‑based providers can operate sustainably in most markets. Policies aimed at maximizing the number of competitors may therefore undermine the investment needed for next‑generation networks.

ICLE warns that fragmentation — especially in markets with modest density — can reduce per‑firm revenues below sustainable levels, deterring fiber upgrades, 6G deployment, and rural expansion. The organization argues that the FCC should prioritize sustainable competition: lowering deployment costs, streamlining permitting, and ensuring merger policy accounts for investment benefits, not just static concentration metrics.

In video, ICLE contends that broadcast ownership rules and retransmission‑consent frameworks no longer match market realities. Broadcasters now compete with national streaming platforms unconstrained by ownership caps, yet broadcasters remain subject to legacy restrictions rooted in spectrum scarcity—an economic rationale ICLE argues is obsolete.

Retransmission consent, originally designed to counter cable bottlenecks, now creates bargaining asymmetries that can inflate fees and distort negotiations. ICLE recommends comprehensive reform: either phasing out retransmission consent entirely or pairing ownership deregulation with safeguards that reduce blackout risks and limit fee escalation.

ICLE wants the FCC to modernize its analytical framework when assessing competition to reflect converged markets, cross‑platform competition, and the investment‑driven economics of broadband. Interventions by regulators should avoid distorting markets that are already delivering lower prices, improved quality, and greater choice. The role of the regulator is to promote predictable, investment‑supportive policy. “The agency’s guiding principle should be to reduce regulatory distortions, preserve investment incentives, and allow competition — not legacy silos — to discipline communications markets.”

There is much in the ICLE’s paper that is relevant for Canadians. It is worth a look.

The post Assessing competition in telecommunications appeared first on Telecom Trends.

A new report from PwC [pdf, 2.6 MB] lands at this important moment for Canada’s telecommunications sector. The report warns that Canada’s digital ambitions are resting on infrastructure that is increasingly taken for granted, and the conditions required to sustain investment are eroding.

The data-filled report tells a compelling story. Since 2021, Canadian operators have invested roughly $59 billion in networks, enabling faster speeds, broader coverage, and meaningful affordability gains for consumers. Wireless CPI has fallen 45.5% since 2020, and wireline CPI is down slightly over the same period. It is an extraordinary contrast to rising costs in shelter, food, and transportation. Canadians are paying less while getting more, making telecommunications services a rare bright spot in an otherwise inflationary environment.

These outcomes didn’t happen by accident. They were funded by some of the highest capital intensities in the world. Between 2021 and 2024, Canadian telecoms invested an average of 18% of revenue back into their networks — higher than peers in the US, UK, and Australia. The report shows that investment delivered near‑universal access to 50/10 Mbps broadband, gigabit availability to 90% of households, and a 410% increase in average mobile data usage since 2017.

But, despite the sector’s performance, the investment trend is now moving in the wrong direction. The PwC report confirms capital expenditure trends I discussed a couple of weeks ago. Annual capex has fallen from $12.5 billion in 2022 to $10.9 billion in 2025, a decline driven by moderating telecom revenue growth, rising regulatory costs, and a policy environment that increasingly prioritizes short‑term affordability optics over long‑term infrastructure resilience.

The report highlights a striking figure: in 2024, operators paid $2.5 billion in government and regulatory costs — an amount equal to 58% of their combined net income. Layer on top of that more than $30 billion spent on spectrum over the past decade (including some of the highest mid‑band 5G prices in the world), and the investment squeeze becomes even more obvious. Every dollar directed to taxes, fees, and spectrum is a dollar not available for rural builds, network hardening, or next‑generation upgrades.

This matters because telecommunications is no longer just a consumer service. It is the enabling layer for Canada’s economy, public safety, and digital sovereignty. The report catalogues the sector’s expanding role: supporting emergency services, powering digital supply chains, enabling remote work, and underpinning AI adoption across industries. In 2025, telecom contributed $86 billion to GDP and supported 611,000 jobs across the economy. These spillovers depend directly on sustained capital investment.

The disconnect is growing. Writing about the PwC report, TD Securities said, “The regulatory environment has already caused a reduction in privately funded infrastructure investments, which could have helped Canada’s economy and competitiveness in the future.”

Policymakers continue to treat telecom as a utility to be cost‑controlled, while simultaneously expecting the sector to function as critical infrastructure — resilient to extreme weather, secure against cyber threats, and capable of supporting data‑intensive national priorities. The Senate’s recent warning on copper theft, the rollout of NG9‑1‑1, and the federal focus on supply chain resilience, underscore how essential networks have become. But, essential infrastructure cannot be maintained on shrinking investment.

The PwC report also highlights the implications for rural and Indigenous connectivity. While progress to date has been meaningful — 50/10 access on First Nations reserves has risen from 39% to 66% since 2020 — gaps remain substantial. Closing them requires capital, and capital requires a stable, predictable investment environment. Without it, the pace of progress will slow.

If investment continues to decline, Canada risks compounding its already weak productivity performance.

Canada’s digital future depends on reversing an investment decline already underway. That will require a regulatory and fiscal framework that recognizes telecommunications as critical infrastructure, not merely a consumer product. Policy makers must ensure the networks upon which Canadians rely remain robust, resilient, and ready for the demands of the next decade.

The PwC report is a reminder that strong outcomes we enjoy today do not guarantee strong outcomes tomorrow. Sustaining Canada’s digital advantage will require policy choices that support and encourage — not undermine — the investment engine driving a 21st century economy.

The post Telecom investment is slipping appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Various broadband funding programs (Universal Broadband Fund – UBF, Connect to Innovate, provincial initiatives, the CRTC’s Broadband Fund, etc.) have collectively pushed high‑speed connectivity deeper into rural and remote regions than ever before. Fibre builds now reach thousands of communities once considered uneconomic, and fixed wireless has filled many mid‑density gaps. Yet despite billions invested, a stubborn last 1–2% of households remain unserved, particularly in the North and in the most sparsely populated rural pockets.

This is where Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks should be added to the broadband connectivity toolkit. Indeed, we might consider whether direct satellite-to-device is a satisfactory mobile solution for those remote communities currently lacking terrestrial-based coverage.

LEO systems operate a few hundred kilometres above Earth, far closer than traditional geostationary satellites. This enables low‑latency, high‑throughput broadband rivalling terrestrial options. Starlink, the most mature LEO provider, now offers:

• High‑speed service with typical download speeds ranging from 45–280 Mbps.
• Low latency (25–60 ms), suitable for video calls, cloud apps, and real‑time services.
• Global availability, including remote and northern regions.

Why isn’t Starlink considered to be an obvious choice to fulfill Canada’s broadband ambition? For households beyond the economic reach of fibre or microwave backhaul, LEO solutions eliminate the need for towers, rights‑of‑way, or construction seasons. A dish, a clear view of the sky, and power are enough.

Based on publicly available coverage maps and service availability data, Starlink’s constellation covers all populated regions of Canada. The service is marketed as globally available across 150+ countries and territories, with Canada included in the active service footprint.

Where availability issues arise, they are typically due to temporary local capacity constraints, obstructions due to trees, terrain, or building orientation, or weather‑related installation challenges. These are all easily solvable problems, at a cost far less than the $10-20,000 (and more) per household being spent for terrestrial solutions in some communities. Using LEO, we could (but shouldn’t) provide a permanent subsidy to equalize the prices paid by rural subscribers to those being paid in urban centres.

We need to think carefully about subsidies for rural broadband broadband expansion.

I have written extensively on issues of affordability. I think subsidies should be based on financial need, not based on geography. There are people in urban centres who need lower cost everything, and people in rural and remote communities who do not need financial aid. For example, a little over a year ago, I observed “Median household incomes in the north are considerably higher than in the rest of Canada.”

Canada’s broadband strategy is reaching the point where the remaining unserved households are no longer an engineering challenge, but one of adoption. LEO solutions provide full national orbital coverage and can close the final connectivity gap quickly, affordably, and sustainably. One might say that we have walked the last mile of last mile connectivity.

The challenge now is integrating LEO into regulatory and policy frameworks, to preserve private sector investment incentives, while engaging partnerships with social service agencies and training facilities to ensure no Canadian household is left offline.

The post Completing our broadband ambition appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Recall, two months ago I wrote about CRTC Vice Chair Adam Scott speaking at a Scotiabank investor conference, where

We go through proceedings to crystallize issues and identify the strategically important outcomes that our decisions need to promote. And then 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.

His address stated “we understand that advancing consumer interests also means supporting investment: in high quality services, resilient networks, excellent customer service, and all the other elements required of a strong telecommunications service provider.”

When the CRTC finalized its wholesale fibre to the home rates a few weeks ago, the final lines of its media release stated: “The CRTC will also closely track industry progress in investing to connect more Canadians to high-speed Internet and other communications services. In doing so, the CRTC will follow the evidence and act quickly to adjust its approach if necessary.”

What if the evidence is already showing that the current regulatory framework isn’t supporting investment? We started seeing signs that investment was beginning to decline when the CRTC released its annual monitoring report, showing an industry-wide drop of 10% between 2022 and 2024.

In the government’s Spring Economic Update [pdf, 8.2MB], the government’s headline Sovereign Wealth Fund includes “Leading Canadian companies will help build our energy, transportation and telecommunications infrastructure and future economy.”

However, Canada’s leading telecommunications companies are announcing dramatic reductions in their plans for investment in infrastructure.

A few weeks ago, we saw further evidence when Rogers cut its capital guidance by 30% for 2026, with strong statements issued by the company Chair and by its CEO at the 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.

Yet, at every turn, we face changing regulatory decisions that undermine investment – decisions that increase costs, reduce revenue, and create market uncertainty.

Decisions that reinforce an uneven playing field, and don’t reflect smart, modern regulation that ensures companies like Rogers can compete fairly and equitably.

As we look to the next few years, we have sharpened our strategy to reflect these market realities.

Executive Chair Edward Rogers said:

companies like Rogers need a modern regulatory regime that rewards investment and ensures fair and equitable competition. The opposite is happening today. The current approach is antiquated and creates an uneven playing field. It makes it hard for companies to plan, build, and invest long term.

This is a capital-intensive business with a long horizon for a return. We do not think in terms of months, or a few years, but in the next 5,10 to 20 years.

Regulatory certainty and stability matters.

Today’s telecom markets have never been more competitive, but we have also never been more regulated.
…
Rules that penalize innovation and investment in Canada have never worked and will never work. Investment slows, jobs are lost, network quality and innovation suffer.

Rogers has since announced significant job cuts.

Bell’s first quarter 2026 results reflect reduced capital spending on Canadian telecom; the company’s guidance for 2026 forecasts a shift in capital spending toward investments in AI data centres, not in its core telecom infrastructure. As Bell CEO Mirko Bibic stated during the first quarter investor call, Bell will “focus capital investment on higher return opportunities.” He noted that capital expenditures have fallen from $5.1B in 2022 to less than $3B in 2026 and said that Canadian telecom investment will continue to decline given the current environment.

Whether or not it’s the kind of more kind of micro rules that are coming out, wireless that you refer to, or the bigger kind of more policy oriented fundamental rules like fiber access, put all those together, and clearly it’s having an impact on investment in the industry.
…
If you just look at the capital investments over that short period of time in our industry on an annual basis, there’s literally multiple billions of dollars of annual CapEx that are no longer being invested.

Last week, 2026 investor guidance pointed to a 10% forecasted reduction in capital spending by TELUS.

Together, we have seen capital investment reduced by more than $3B annually. Yes, annually.

Prime Minister Carney recently announced an investment summit. “At a time of unprecedented trade disruption, our bold mission to unlock $1 trillion in new capital will create growth, good jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.”

Commenting on the current regulatory environment, in February, Scotiabank asked, “wouldn’t it make more sense for incumbents to materially reduce capex”? A few weeks ago, when the CRTC issued its decision setting final rates for fibre-to-the-premises, various financial analysts assessed the impact of the rates when compared to the interim rates. Bank of America Global Research wrote, “More concerning is the recent steps the CRTC is taking to force changes in fees the providers can charge. The CRTC is adept at finding new areas to dictate how the providers can operate in the market.”

When he addressed the Scotia investor conference, CRTC Vice Chair Scott said “A good regulator, like a good builder, will adjust to conditions on the ground. We will need to, and are in fact required to, actively gather the evidence that will inform us as we go.”

It is worth repeating what I stated a few weeks ago: The regulatory environment doesn’t just shape competition — it shapes the network Canadians will have a decade from now.

The conditions on the ground are showing that the regulatory framework is failing to support investment, let alone incentivize investment. The CRTC typically moves at speeds that could be described as a somewhat glacial velocity (the final wholesale fibre rates decision followed a decade of CRTC processes).

The editorial in yesterday’s Globe and Mail called for “Ottawa to remove the obstacles that currently deter companies from investing in this country.”

When will the CRTC take a fresh look at how its regulatory hypothesis is impacting capital investment?

The post CRTC’s regulatory hypothesis is failing appeared first on Telecom Trends.

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.