Advocacy groups ask CRTC for subsidies, to ‘champion’ Internet access

GATINEAU, Que. — CRTC commissioners drilled into what should constitute a need versus a want when it comes to access to broadband Internet Thursday, during the fourth day of a three-week hearing into basic telecom services. The majority of Thursday’s session was consumed by members of the Affordable Access Coalition as they faced questions from the five-person panel. The coalition is comprised of five advocacy groups: the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Canada, the National Pensioner’s Federation and the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia and The Consumers’ Association of Canada. “Generally speaking, can you tell me if there is a line between a need and want and if there is, where does that lay on the scale?” commissioner Christopher Macdonald asked. PIAC legal counsel Geoff White said the group tried to avoid taking a “paternalistic” view of the needs of those currently underserved. “We couldn’t find any evidence that in the previous universal service hearings the commission concerned itself with the content of telephone calls either. So we’re not here to talk about high-end 100 Mbps ambitions, we’re talking about what’s basic to get by,” White said. To arrive at their suggested basic speed of 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, the coalition used the “50-80” rule — if 50 per cent of all households subscribe to a service and if 80 per cent of those subscribers do so at a given speed. “It’s a benchmarking tool to give the minority of Canadians, who don’t have that access, access to the basic level that the rest of Canadians have rather than having the majority impose its values or its views on what the minority should be doing with telecommunications services,” White said. The coalition explained for the commission its two subsidy proposals. The first, a broadband deployment funding mechanism, would be funded with contributions from telecom revenues, to a maximum of $190 million per year. The funding envelope would be administered by a third party and awarded to service providers through a “minimum-subsidy auction approach,” the group said during its opening statements. The second, an affordability funding mechanism, would provide a monthly subsidy of either $10.50 or $20.50 at an “ambitious” level. The money could then be used to apply to any telecommunications service that best meets the needs of a household. Based on the CRTC’s 2015 Communications Monitoring Report, the coalition said the average households spent $147 per month on Internet and home phone services. The lowest level affordability subsidy would add $0.72 to the current $0.37 per month household contribution already in place to cover the universal phone service requirement. The upper-level subsidy would add $1.72 per month, per household. The challenge that comes with the idea is that you end up subsidizing someone else's entertainment, Macdonald said. There's no question that entertainment and video streaming dries a lot of the investment in broadband networks, White responded, but video use may not only be on services such as Google Inc.'s YouTube or Netflix Inc. "It could very well be the CBC or Health Canada videos on diabetes or palliative care," White said. "There may very well be a video component to that basic need. But we’re not advocating or seeking a standard that is the gold standard of connectivity… We’re asking about a level that lets not just one person do one application at a time, which is a very limiting use of connectivity." “Affordability should not be measured solely in economics terms,” PIAC legal counsel Alysia Lau said. “Affordability means a household has choice to meet its family’s needs and control over their household expenses — at a minimum, communications costs should not be so high that anyone is required to sacrifice other essentials.” That sacrifice was detailed by members of ACORN who testified before the panel Thursday afternoon. One woman, who said she lost her job in February, said that she had to give up purchasing fruits, vegetables and meat for her family in order to pay her monthly Internet bill. But removing Internet access wasn’t an option given she needs the service for employment searches, as do her two sons. During the coalition’s testimony, commissioners asked about Rogers Communication Inc.’s recent expansion of a $9.99-per-month Internet package for those living in rent-geared-to-income housing. Coalition members said they applauded Rogers for the move, but that it was one service provider and it was a voluntary system. Additionally, in Ontario alone there are 168,000 families on a wait list for social housing, Judy Duncan, ACORN national head organizer, said. “With that model, it would double penalize the people who can’t even get into social housing because they can’t get the $10 Internet and they can’t get the housing either. So it’s not as inclusive,” Duncan said. Requiring service providers to create low-income packages also limits how households can allocate their communications budgets, the coalition argued, adding that their subsidy model would provide some flexibility for the level and type of service a household requires. None of the CRTC commissioners are social workers and social issues are typically in the hands of the provinces, vice-chair Peter Menzies said. “It would appear that thousands of elected officials… advised by tens of thousands of social workers and childcare workers have not deemed Internet to be a basic need,” Menzies said. “And I am concerned about us deeming it that to be a basic need based on our level of expertise in those areas when they have chosen not to based on their level of expertise in those areas.” Menzies polled ACORN witnesses on what they thought would be a reasonable price for Internet, and the most felt within a $10 range would be acceptable. In February, ACORN introduced its campaign advocating for a $10 monthly Internet package for low-income households. The panel also heard that Internet and other communications services were not included in any social assistance programs. The CRTC has a social mandate, PIAC executive director John Lawford said. “Part of the reason our group got together was we see an opportunity, an opportunity for the commission to make a real advance here and it does fit within the mandate that we believe you have,” he said. In response to a question from commission chair Jean-Pierre Blais about the CRTC’s legitimacy in enacting these elements, Lawford added that Canadians were eager for action by the regulator. “In the absence of political backing for you, which you don’t have since there’s no national broadband plans, I guess you’re wondering ‘if the politicians won’t get behind us why should we stick our necks out?’ Because Canadians really want you to stick your necks out. They really do. They want their Internet and they need a champion,” Lawford said. — With reporting by Charelle Evelyn at cevelyn@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

Advocacy groups ask CRTC for subsidies, to ‘champion’ Internet access

News | April 14, 2016

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Advocacy groups ask CRTC for subsidies, to ‘champion’ Internet access

News | April 14, 2016

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us