Thank you and good afternoon.

My name is Reza Rajabiun. I'm a researcher and consultant in the area of competition and telecom policy. My research explores how the design of telecommunication policies and the strategic behaviour of network providers shape the evolution of Internet connectivity that people experience within Canada and internationally.

In my consulting practice, I have served organizations such as the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure and the CRTC as a subject matter expert on broadband policy issues. I have also represented rural municipalities and consumer advocacy groups before the CRTC and have assisted communities across Canada to identify private broadband service gaps and devise strategies for improvement. I appear before you in my personal capacity as an individual. My views do not reflect those of any organizations with which I have been affiliated.

I will briefly provide some background on the underlying economic problem that motivates this deal, what I see as its weaknesses and offer some suggestions for potential amendments.

First, the basic problem that the bill is trying to address is a common one. The market convention has been to specify broadband speeds in terms of a maximum theoretical “up to x megabits per second” and to use “best effort” retail contracts. However, actual Internet speeds and reliability vary widely, and this variation negatively affects the user experience and access to vital services and applications.

Telecom regulatory authorities in other advanced economies have developed policies that aim to address the same problem as this bill does. In addition to examples from Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. discussed previously by the bill's sponsor, I note that the transparency and retail contract regulations regarding both minimum and normal or typical Internet speeds are key elements of the European Union's “Open Internet” regulations adopted back in 2015.

This bill does not go as far as the European Union regulatory framework in terms of strengthening quality commitments in standard form retail contracts. Nevertheless, what the bill proposes to do is broadly consistent with trends in other jurisdictions trying to address the same fundamental quality signalling problems in broadband service markets.

Second, in terms of regulatory history, it's relevant to note that concerns about gaps between advertised and actual speeds that certain providers deliver have come before the CRTC for at least a decade, in my recollection. The CRTC, however, has been reluctant to take on the issue. Notably, in the development of the CRTC's 2019 Internet Code, the CRTC explicitly excluded advertised speeds and service quality issues from the scope of discussions in the proceeding. The CRTC did not provide reasons for doing so.

As such, the bill will help mitigate what can be viewed as an error in developing the Internet Code a few years back. More broadly, unanimous support in the House for this bill has the potential to enhance the incentives of the CRTC to prioritize competition and consumer interests in its future policies.

Third, I would like to note that in practice, gaps between service speeds providers advertise and those they deliver depend, among other factors, on how much particular providers invest in network capacity as demand grows over time. In relatively high-income urban centres of Canada, private sector incentives to increase capacity and deliver higher speeds tend to be relatively strong. In these areas, some providers may in fact be delivering the speeds they promise, as suggested by CRTC's broadband test data.

However, where network investment incentives are relatively weak, on the edges of wireline cable and fibre networks outside of urban centres, the problem tends to be more pervasive and undermines the business case for rural fibre deployments, as expected take-up rates are reduced. In this context, the bill has the potential to promote incentives for service providers to invest in reliable high-speed broadband technologies and to make sure providers keep up with growing demand and enhance digital equity.

In summary, if implemented in an effective manner by the CRTC, the bill has the potential to achieve its stated objectives of better informing consumers and promoting competition. However, the bill does not go far enough in terms of enforcement, contractual accountability of suppliers and remedies for consumers who end up not receiving what they are paying for.

I would advise the committee to recommend additional language that makes suppliers more accountable for the quality and reliability of services they deliver to their customers, potentially via reforms to the Internet Code.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I look forward to answering questions the committee may have.

Transcript

Discussions (0)