Telcos double down on assertion that CRTC needs to forgo further broadband fund collections

As the CRTC’s review of its broadband fund continues, many telcos and other stakeholders are struggling to agree on how it can best be improved. In a collection of replies posted last Thursday, disagreements emerged regarding the fund’s scope, affordability, and Indigenous reconciliation. The proceeding, launched in March, sought feedback on how the CRTC can improve the Broadband Fund. Initial comments were posted in July, with many agreeing the Fund needs to be better managed, citing long approval wait times and a surplus of unallocated funds. Telcos including Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp., Cogeco Inc., and Xplore Inc. agreed with BCE Inc.’s assertion that the current surplus of money in the fund is unacceptable, criticizing the CRTC for collecting $375 million and only disbursing $46 million by 2022. They urged the commission to reduce contribution requirements and agreed with Bell’s proposal to forgo any further collections until the surplus is spent. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) reiterated its suggestions for advancing Indigenous reconciliation through the fund, supporting an Indigenous-specific funding stream and encouraging proactive consultation between the commission and Indigenous Peoples. It agreed with the First Mile Connectivity Consortium (FMCC), the government of the Northwest Territories, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun (FNNND), and the City of Calgary that the CRTC’s current approach to Indigenous engagement is insufficient, “and could be much more involved.” “If the commission is serious about improving Indigenous access to funding, meaningful consultation should predicate all aspects of broadband fund administration, including eligibility and selection criteria,” wrote PIAC. FNNND and FMCC doubled-down on their previous complaints that the process of this consultation is not consistent with Canada’s obligations to consult with Indigenous peoples. They noted that despite the CRTC’s emphasis on the importance of Indigenous voices in this proceeding, the fact that there were only five Indigenous intervenors demonstrates a significant problem. The two intervenors spearheaded calls to develop a “CRTC Indigenous Engagement Office” and a “CRTC Broadband Fund Administrator,” as a way to bring Indigenous representation into the commission and address its vague understanding of its responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples. Along with PIAC, they also questioned Bell’s assertion that consultation with Indigenous groups is not necessary before a project is approved, and that the absence of a letter of support should not “hold up the advancement of a proposal.” “This effectively derogates the intention of the ‘duty to consult’ and is problematic with respect to substantive engagement with Indigenous rights holders,” wrote FMCC, “discussing a project after the fact with communities undermines and goes against the original purpose or intention of the ‘duty to consult.’” The City of Calgary and the Alberta Rural Connectivity Coalition (ARCC) supported putting a portion of the broadband fund towards subsidizing internet affordability for low-income households. They commended PIAC and FMCC for making similar recommendations and highlighting the problems with Canada’s own Connecting Families initiative, which also aims to help eligible people access low-cost internet services. According to the four intervenors, the initiative is flawed because ISP enrollment is voluntary, meaning many choose not to do it, and eligibility requirements are strict. Calgary called for sweeping changes to the Connecting Families program, in order to make it similar to the United States’ Lifeline program, which it argued is more effective. These include funding from the broadband fund, expanding eligibility requirements to automatically include those already receiving other government subsidies, and allowing households to choose the ISP which best matches their needs. “Programmes to alleviate income inequality should remain in the purview of provincial and federal governments, rather than the telecommunications industry,” wrote Cogeco, in agreement with Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Eastlink. They all opposed affordability subsidies like those suggested by PIAC, arguing “demand-side constraints” like household income are the Treasury’s purview, and would take away from the fund’s purpose of financing infrastructure projects. Expanding the scope of the broadband fund to include operational costs was a divisive issue. “Given the multitude of broadband connectivity funding programs available, the areas that remain unserved or underserved are likely not viable business cases simply with capital funding alone,” wrote Eastlink, with Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp., PIAC, and Quebecor Inc.’s support. Bell, Telus, Rogers, and Cogeco had varying degrees of opposition. While Telus was outright opposed to operational funding, Cogeco supported restricting the fund to support satellite operational costs. Bell was a bit more lenient, saying the commission should only fund: satellite transponder costs; wireless projects intended to serve major transportation roads; wireless projects meant to serve communities that have no wireless services by any TSP; and eligible resiliency projects. Rogers was critical of those who supported operational funding, arguing that none of them demonstrated that the fund was “the most appropriate mechanism to solve the problem.” One example it gave was Eastlink’s suggestion to use it to support pole attachment fees. “The fact is that pole attachment fees are too high. Paying these fees from the fund merely shifts the issue from one payor to another without solving a nation-wide problem that has plagued the industry for years,” Rogers wrote. – Reporting by Phalen Tynes-MacDonald at pcreed@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca.

Telcos double down on assertion that CRTC needs to forgo further broadband fund collections

News | September 25, 2023

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

Telcos double down on assertion that CRTC needs to forgo further broadband fund collections

News | September 25, 2023

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

CRTC responding to industry concerns, commissioner tells BC telecoms

CRTC approves Rogers wireless project to boost connectivity in northern B.C.

CRTC announces funds for Nunavut and rejects Bell’s bid to amend Broadband Fund contributions

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us