By Denis Carmel
GATINEAU – On May 15, the CRTC sent a request for information to parties involved in its wireless policy review asking: Does the ongoing situation with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic change the views you have previously put forward on any of the issues being examined in this proceeding? Explain why or why not with supporting rationale and evidence, as necessary.”
We expected few minds to have changed and the responses filed on May 29, were almost unanimous. We’re paraphrasing here, but the answers are: “The current crisis reinforces what we’ve been saying.” The anti mobile virtual network operators crowd says the pandemic shows we need to stick with facilities-based carriers and those in favour of MVNOs say the pandemic shows more than ever how much we need new wireless operators.
Most re-argued the same points they’ve made repeatedly.
So what was the purpose of this exercise? Did the Commission, anticipating appeals of their decision, wanted to ensure that the bases were covered and that there was no relevant information that could be put on the record? Possibly.
Only the Competition Bureau adjusted its stance somewhat, saying more time may be needed. “The CRTC may wish to provide regional carriers with additional flexibility in light of the changing circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, the CRTC may wish to provide regional carriers with additional flexibility by extending the mandated MVNO access period. However, the MVNO access period should be clearly defined upfront to provide regulatory certainty and so that MVNOs can be held to their commitments. The CRTC can assess the MVNO access policy during its next wireless review, at which time the CRTC will benefit from more information on the degree to which the policy is used.”
The Internet Society of Canada also offered the following info that is novel, even if it could be deemed out of scope: “For example, Telus has openly been sharing customer location data with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Telus claims this data is ‘strongly de-identified and aggregated network mobility data’, however, many studies have shown that anonymized data sets can be easily de-anonymized and individual end-users identified.”
ISCC reaffirms the belief that carriers must be required to be clear, simple, and concise in bringing any data sharing arraignments to the attention of consumers and provide an explicit opt-in rather than opt-out model of consent for the sharing of any data with a third party, even if that data is “de-identified” or “aggregated.”
“… (W)e recommend the Commission update the wireless code on an expedited basis to require providers to disclose in plain English to consumers how their data and location data is being utilized, which parties it is being shared with, and require that carriers provide explicit opt-in rather than opt-out consent for the sharing of this data.”
Otherwise it was mostly the standard rhetoric.
For example: “SaskTel believes that, until the pandemic is over, the Commission should not make any changes to the regulatory environment in which Canada’s crucial communications networks operate. We note that Minister Bains indicated that he will be reviewing the wireless environment in two years anyway. Given this, and the current pandemic, the Commission should make no changes at the current time.”
From Distributel: “The pandemic, which is undoubtedly having a significant impact on day-to-day life in Canada today, is nonetheless ultimately temporary in nature, and will ultimately pass. Without minimizing the impacts the pandemic is currently having on Canadians, Distributel believes that setting policy based on the current extraordinary situation would not be appropriate.”
Bell Mobility offers a gloomy picture. “For example, global technology research organization OMDIA contemplates a scenario in which ‘the virus lingers well into the summer and triggers a global economic recession, prompting many service providers to freeze their 5G rollouts and cut their capex to preserve free cash flow’.”
“And it is not just 5G that is at risk. Building rural broadband is important to us and to policymakers and legislators at all levels of government. Unfortunately, rural broadband projects typically have marginal business cases and are most affected by the financial impact of regulation and an economic downturn,” said Bell.
PIAC offered some negative anecdotes. “The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has set up Wi-Fi hotspots in all of its school parking lots. Students are being told they can head to a school parking lot to access Wi-Fi.
“This is egregious. Sitting in the back seat of a car with a laptop is not an environment that is conducive to effective learning. This advice also assumes students have a car to reach these parking lots and a parent with time to drive them there. And what about children in rural communities where Wi-Fi hotspots are not even an option? What about children with disabilities that cannot physically or cognitively learn from the car seat? This is a scandal, not a solution?” asks PIAC.
Cogeco, for its part, has had enough and cannot take it anymore. “The open-ended delays in the current process are not helpful for Cogeco as we are ready to provide customers in underserved areas with a viable wireless mobile service option, and are ready to start our facilities investments that will benefit Canadians in the delivery of critical wireless services in many of those markets,” its submission reads.
Others mentioned their admirable contributions during the pandemic. “Rogers’ 1–800 calls are up 300%. We augmented our 1–800 lines for the federal government support programs in record time, significantly increasing capacity to 40,000 simultaneous calls. In total, nearly 500 additional DS1s were activated in 22 days—a task that, in normal circumstances, would have taken at least 18 months to complete. Canadians are relying on Rogers, our connectivity and our resilient networks.”
Parties may request disclosure of any information designated as confidential in these RFI responses no later than 5 June 2020. Replies to requests for disclosure may be filed no later than 12 June 2020.
