GATNIEAU – Many broadband Internet providers say the CRTC must refrain from adopting new funding mechanisms for the deployment of high-speed networks to under-served and unserved areas of the country and let the market play it out.
In final submissions to the basic service objective (BSO) proceeding, providers are nearly unanimous in arguing that the current approach of market forces and targeted government funding is working. They say 96% of Canadians already have access to a minimum 5/1 Mbps (downstream/upstream) service and that figure will jump to 98% once the final round of Connecting Canadians funding is spent.
For Bell Canada, however, it believes the CRTC should intervene and redirect a portion of the voice subsidy money into broadband in the most rural and remote areas.
The company does say, though, the Commission should focus on the remaining 4% who currently can not get a 5/1 service. The company says, as it did during the hearing, that there is enough money – $500 million from the recent federal budget, another $500 million in private sector matching funds and $370 million from redirected voice subsidies – to complete the job.
Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications and Telus all agreed the current approach is working well and the Commission doesn’t need to intervene. Even smaller providers such as Cogeco Cable, MTS, Xplornet Communications and those represented by the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) said creating a new funding mechanism for broadband deployment isn’t needed.
They do acknowledge, though, there will be gaps in broadband networks. But rather than have the Commission try to address this, technology and government funding can do that.
“To the extent that any availability gaps do remain beyond 2017, they will be very small. The new satellites due to be launched by Telesat in 2018 will alleviate transport capacity problems, and new technologies proposed by OneWeb and Google Loon, are also expected to remedy any residual problems,” noted Telus.
Added Cogeco: “It is primarily the government’s responsibility through targeted funding initiatives to ensure that Canadians in rural and remote unserved and underserved areas have access to broadband services.”
The AAC (Affordable Access Coalition) was the big advocate for using CRTC mechanisms to fund broadband deployment as well as to deal with the affordability issue. (On this latter point, vast majority of ISPs say this is an issue for government and is outside the purview of the CRTC.) The Broadband Deployment Funding Mechanism and the Affordability Funding Mechanism aren’t radical proposals, says the coalition. Rather they leverage existing CRTC mechanisms, are reasonably priced and capped.
“They aim for a national broadband standard that is realistic, not out of reach. Canadians would support these measures; indeed, Canadians believe in universal broadband and affordable telecommunication service, will pay to support one another, and will laud the Commission for making it all possible,” argues the AAC.
Throughout the hearing, the CRTC explored the availability of transport networks as being a barrier to greater broadband availability. Axia NetMedia (best known for building the Alberta SuperNet) suggested those long-haul networks should be subsidized and then market forces will solve the local access issue.
Not so argues the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA) in its final reply. The organization notes that while transport may have been the issue in Alberta, it’s not the case in Eastern Canada and this type of one-size fits all approach doesn’t work everywhere.
“It is cost of accessing those transport facilities and the poor economics of local fibre build-out, that are the primary hurdles to extending networks to unserved Canadians who live and work in such areas,” says the CCSA.
A mandated skinny broadband package was also raised during the hearing as a potential solution. Some supported it, others didn’t. Shaw, and others, suggested the CRTC didn’t have the authority to institute such an offering. Besides, doing so would would risk future investments and the benefits to Canadians that these networks bring.
“This type of blunt regulatory intervention would put at risk future successes from the investment, innovation and choice that have stemmed from the Commission’s forbearance decisions, and have served Canadians very well,” the company says.
