In the digital age, compute is national power. As artificial intelligence shifts from software experiment to core utility, a new model is emerging: the sovereign AI factory. These domestically governed, GPU-rich facilities are vertically integrated platforms designed to train, produce, and deploy AI models at national scale—giving nations direct control over the economic, cultural, and security implications of AI.

Calling these facilities “factories” is deliberate. Unlike traditional passive data centres, they operate as active production lines for foundation models, autonomous agents, synthetic datasets, and safety frameworks—closer in strategic function to semiconductor fabs. Globally, governments are recognizing AI compute as a sovereign capability, aligning digital policy and alliances around domestic compute power and standards.

For Canada, the case is particularly strong for sovereign AI factories. While Canada possesses world-leading AI research talent, domestic compute capacity remains severely bottlenecked. This forces Canadian innovators and enterprises to rely on foreign hyperscalers, leaving pricing, availability, and regulatory oversight in foreign hands. Furthermore, sensitive datasets (such as healthcare, justice, and Indigenous knowledge, etc.) are often processed under external legal jurisdictions. A sovereign AI factory reverses this dependency, transforming Canada into a primary producer of intelligence rather than merely a consumer.

Beyond sovereign control, domestic compute accelerates productivity across manufacturing, resource management, and technology. It ensures critical data remains protected under Canadian legal safeguards while enabling secure, trusted deployments for the public sector. Crucially, it also protects cultural nuance: models trained predominantly on global English data risk erasing local context. Sovereign factories allow Canada to build systems tailored to French-language requirements, Indigenous language preservation, and distinct domestic values. Canadian identity by design, eh?

Canadian telecom operators are uniquely positioned to anchor this transition. Telecom carriers already manage the ultra-low-latency, highly secure digital backbone required to interconnect distributed compute nodes. As AI transforms network operations, spectrum management, and customer service, operators need trusted domestic environments to train and execute models safely.

Telecom policy has long promoted investment for Canadians to connect and communicate securely. It makes sense for telecom operators to extend that role to include sovereign compute capacity, as a logical next step to secure Canada’s national digital strategy.

The post Sovereign AI Factories: The New National Infrastructure appeared first on Telecom Trends.

About 3 years ago, I wrote “Regulators regulate”, saying that it was a corollary to Maslow’s Hammer: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

How else can we explain some of the recent regulatory over-reach as part of the Commission’s implementation of legislative changes to the Telecom Act?

In early July, I wrote about cancellation fees over-reach, but there is another case that I find equally troubling. From the outset, let me say that I don’t think the CRTC should be regulating the way mobile devices are sold. The CRTC regulates mobile phone sales by service providers, but not sales by the manufacturers or by independent retailers such as Amazon. Financing plans are regulated if the financing is by the service provider, but not if the financing is provided by a bank card, even though the service providers are often providing zero-per cent financing versus annual financing charges by credit cards of 18-20% or more. These imbalances on their own should raise questions.

Today’s post was stimulated by a series of letters dealing with the CRTC intervening on robbery and loss-prevention strategies for mobile service provider retail outlets.

In April of 2025, Bell wrote to the CRTC to inform the Commission that the company was experiencing an increase in crime at its stores associated with the theft of high-end mobile devices. Given that smartphone prices are now running in the thousands of dollars, Bell said that initially locking the devices and then automatically unlocking them after the first 60 days would serve as a disincentive for thieves. In November, Commission staff told Bell that the company had not made its case. “Bell has not demonstrated that the practice of locking cellphones for up to 60 days after purchase is a necessary and proportionate response in this case. Specifically, Bell has not demonstrated that this practice is effective.”

In May, TELUS filed an application for authorization of the 60-day device locking to be formally approved on a temporary and permanent basis. As it explained in its application:

Canadian mobile devices were essentially transformed into the digital equivalent of [bearer] instruments, because of the following defining traits:

• Resale Liquidity: an unlocked iPhone 17 Pro Max or Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, retailing for amounts up to $3,000 CAD,23 functions on any GSM/LTE/5G network globally the moment it leaves the store.
• Anonymity of Transfer: unlike vehicles or real estate, which require registration upon transfer, an unlocked phone requires no handshake to transfer ownership. It can be sold for cash or crypto, leaving no auditable trail.
• High Value-to-Weight Ratio: a single backpack can hold devices worth tens of thousands of dollars, making them attractive targets for theft and trafficking across borders.

The prohibition on locking removed the only technical deterrent in the illicit device resale market.

By way of a letter, the CRTC asked the public to respond to respond for the temporary relief and suggested that the request for a permanent change be made as part of the CRTC’s public consultation on “Harmonizing the consumer protection codes”.

In its “Anticipated releases for the week of 3 to 7 August 2026”, the CRTC said it planned to issue a notice of consultation for a “Show cause and call for comments –Compliance with the prohibition on selling locked devices and other matters”. That was not released as planned.

In the meantime, Bell’s EVP and Chief Regulatory Officer had a post on LinkedIn that provided answers to some of the CRTC staff concerns from last November. Bell’s locking proposal was in response to a 500% increase in robberies and attempted robberies at its retail stores. In response, Bell “introduced a targeted safety practice: devices are automatically unlocked after 60 days and can be unlocked sooner upon request at no cost to customers.”

Since then, in-store robberies have been nearly eliminated, fraud targeting customer accounts has decreased by 80%, and thefts from warehouses and shipments have fallen by more than 35%. Most importantly, this practice is helping keep our employees, customers and communities safe.

As to the CRTC staff concern about proportionality, Bell says fewer than 1% of customers choose to switch providers within the first 60 days of acquiring a new device.

I don’t understand why the CRTC is regulating device pricing and financing at all. The CRTC doesn’t regulate hardware retailers, such as Costco, Best Buy or the Apple or Samsung stores selling the same devices. There is no regulation of credit card companies financing these same devices.

In its consultation for “Harmonizing the consumer protection codes”, the CRTC says 30% of consumers are “renting” their mobile devices with plans that allow customers to trade-in or return their device to the service provider at the end of their contract. The Consultation says “customers may not always be fully aware that they opted into a device rental plan, and that they may have to pay a balance to keep their device after their contract ends.”

Really? Isn’t this another case of regulating beyond reason? Can we treat consumers like adults? Do consumers who lease their cars not realize that they have a balance owing at the end of the lease?

I see ads for free high-end devices from US carriers, such as T-Mobile, Verizon, or AT&T, tied in to 2 or 3 year commitments on higher service plans.

I wax nostalgically. Canada used to have free phones available until the Wireless Code came around. I referred to the cost of regulation back in 2013. The increased cost of devices was seen as a short term cost in order to gain the longer term benefits of competition. An August 6 report from Scotiabank characterizes Canada’s mobile sector as a “competitive four player market”.

Right now, the way the CRTC is regulating devices has resulted in higher costs for consumers and carriers alike. Perhaps it is time for the CRTC to get out of the business of hardware regulation.

The post Regulating devices appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The promotional email caught my eye:

Human judgment is extraordinary, but it is also flawed. People are biased: our judgments can go systematically wrong in predictable ways. People are also noisy: our judgments can vary depending on mood, timing, context, pressure, or the decision-maker involved. Bias and noise can produce serious mistakes in government, business, law, health, finance, regulation, and everyday life.

AI offers a powerful response to both problems. It can identify patterns, reduce inconsistency, improve prediction, and support better decisions. For institutions trying to avoid errors, allocate resources, assess risks, serve citizens, or make complex judgments at scale, AI may become an extraordinary tool.

But AI is not an oracle. The world remains full of surprises. AI can help us know more, but it also forces us to understand what we cannot know.

This webinar will explore the practical and policy implications of that insight.

Professor Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioural Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. In 2018, he received the Holberg Prize from the government of Norway, sometimes described as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for law and the humanities. In 2020, the World Health Organization appointed him as Chair of its technical advisory group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health.

There is no charge for the webinar. Register now to reserve your place.

The post What AI can… and cannot do appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Before the Canada Day holiday, the Commission launched a consultation, “Show cause and call for comments – Compliance with the prohibition of fees that are a barrier to switching cellphone and Internet plans”.

I’ve already provided my opinion on the CRTC’s prohibition. No carrier charges activation fees that are a barrier to switching. What rational business would? Businesses are always trying to win over customers.

Now, if a service provider charged a fee when you want to terminate a subscription, that could be considered a barrier to switching. But the CRTC already has rules about early termination fees.

Take a look at the CRTC’s Notice of Consultation and you will see how the CRTC is setting itself up for ridicule. The Commission asked one of the carriers if it had ceased billing customers $25 for shipping a device ordered online. A shipping charge?

A recent article by Canadian Press highlights some of the mixed-up thinking at the Commission. A CRTC executive seemed to argue for greater transparency in the prices paid by consumers, while opposing shipping fees for precisely those kinds of charges. Wouldn’t such discrete costs provide such transparency? “If you have to increase your prices so be it, but do that through the front door. Charge a price, don’t surprise consumers with price increases in the middle of the contract, don’t have these special little fees that come out of nowhere.”

Isn’t that the approach being taken by the carriers? If you want a device shipped to you, is a shipping charge unreasonable? If you lose or destroy your SIM card, who should pay for that?

In its March Regulatory Policy (that took effect June 12), the CRTC observed that recent amendments to the Telecommunications Act broadly prohibit activation and modification fees, while recognizing “that prohibiting fees related to installation services at a customer’s premises could have a negative effect on future broadband Internet rollout because those installation services represent actual, necessary, and sometimes significant costs.” The CRTC also said “fees related to optional services and products do not fall under the category of “activation or modification fees” related to the telecommunications service itself.”

So the Policy set out a new definition, stating:

Activation or modification fee

Any fee incurred as a result of activating a new retail telecommunications service plan or modifying an existing one, except for reasonable fees related to the physical installation of a telecommunications service at a customer’s premises or fees related to additional products or services the customer has explicitly chosen to purchase.

If the rules need further clarification, then the CRTC should fix its self-inflicted ambiguity. Alternatively, it would be a good time for the Commission to back down and let the marketplace work.

The post Prohibition on fees appeared first on Telecom Trends.

I was asked to prepare an Op-Ed for that supplement.

Regular readers will notice that it was largely based on a piece I published last month.

Canada’s national broadband objective is defined as having high-speed (50 Mbps down / 10 Mbps up) connectivity available to all Canadians by the year 2030. I wonder if it may be time for us to declare victory and move on to setting a new objective: increasing adoption among those who still aren’t connected.

Various broadband funding programs (such as the Universal Broadband Fund – UBF, Connect to Innovate, provincial initiatives, the CRTC’s Broadband Fund, etc.) have collectively pushed high‑speed connectivity deeper into rural and remote regions than ever before. Fibre builds now reach thousands of communities once considered uneconomic, and latest generation wireless services have filled many mid‑density gaps. Yet despite billions of dollars of investment, a stubborn last 1–2% of households remain unserved, particularly in the North and in the most sparsely populated rural pockets.

This is where Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks should be added to the broadband connectivity toolkit. Indeed, we might consider whether direct satellite-to-device is a satisfactory mobile solution for those remote communities currently lacking terrestrial-based coverage.

LEO systems operate a few hundred kilometres above Earth, far closer than traditional geostationary satellites. This enables low‑latency, high‑throughput broadband rivalling terrestrial options. Starlink, the most mature LEO provider, already offers:

• High‑speed service with typical download speeds ranging from 45–280 Mbps.
• Low latency (25–60 ms), suitable for video calls, cloud apps, and real‑time services.
• Global availability, including remote and northern regions.

Other LEO constellations are literally on the horizon. Why isn’t LEO considered to be an obvious tool to fulfil Canada’s broadband ambition? For households beyond the economic reach of fibre or microwave backhaul, LEO solutions eliminate the need for towers, rights‑of‑way, or construction seasons. A dish, a clear view of the sky, and power are enough to provide connectivity.

Based on publicly available coverage maps and service availability data, existing LEO broadband constellations cover all populated regions of Canada.

Where availability issues arise, they are typically due to temporary local capacity constraints, obstructions due to trees, terrain, or building orientation, or weather‑related installation challenges. These are all easily solvable problems, at a cost far less than the $10-20,000 (and more) per household being spent for terrestrial solutions in some communities. Four years ago, the government contributed more than $46.6 million to connect 182 households in northern Ontario, more than $250,000 per household for broadband in an area where houses sell for less than that.

LEO solutions provide full national orbital coverage and can close the final connectivity gap quickly, affordably, and sustainably. One might say that we have walked the last mile of last mile connectivity.

Using LEO, we could (but shouldn’t) provide a permanent subsidy to equalize the prices paid by rural subscribers to those being paid in urban centres. We need to think carefully about subsidies for rural broadband broadband expansion. Subsidies should be based on financial need, not based on geography. There are people in urban centres who need lower cost everything, just as there are people in rural and remote communities who do not need financial aid. For example, a little over a year ago, I observed “Median household incomes in the north are considerably higher than in the rest of Canada.”

With technology now offering a reasonable option for broadband connectivity Canada’s broadband strategy needs to focus on getting the remaining unserved households to get online. This is no longer an engineering challenge that can be solved with money, but one of understanding the factors that inhibit increased adoption in both rural and urban settings.

Programs such as Internet for Good from TELUS, and Connected for Success from Rogers, and the national Connecting Families initiative have made broadband even more affordable for many disadvantaged households, fully funded by Canada’s telecommunications industry. But, we have also learned that there are issues beyond affordability inhibiting some people from connecting.

Integrating LEO into regulatory and policy frameworks, while preserving private sector investment incentives, will allow us to declare victory in meeting Canada’s national broadband objective. It is time to engage partnerships between service providers, government social service agencies, and training facilities to drive adoption, ensuring no Canadian household is left offline.

The post Declaring victory on our broadband objective appeared first on Telecom Trends.

For more than a decade, Canada’s national connectivity agenda has been defined by expansion. Billions in federal and provincial funding, paired with unprecedented private‑sector investment, pushed high‑speed broadband deeper into rural and remote communities than ever before. With the UBF now expected to sunset as Canada approaches its 98 per cent coverage target, it’s tempting to declare victory.

But, the next phase of connectivity spending will be harder, less glamorous, and far more politically neglected. Canada’s the next connectivity challenge means shifting our focus from funding broadband network expansion to figuring out how to pay to maintain those networks. At a recent conference, I expressed concern that we are not ready for the implications.

Expansion is a capital project. Maintenance is a lifecycle obligation. One is celebrated with over-sized ceremonial cheques and ribbon‑cuttings; the other is an ongoing cost centre that rarely earns political credit. Yet as climate pressures intensify and networks age, maintenance will determine whether Canada’s connectivity gains are durable or fragile.

The first challenge is resiliency. Wildfires, floods, and extreme storms are no longer rare events. Operators are reinforcing towers, burying fibre, hardening power systems, and redesigning routes to avoid single points of failure. These investments are essential, but they are also expensive — and they don’t fit neatly into the traditional “build more coverage” narrative that has dominated public policy. A kilometre of fibre washed out by a flood costs the same to replace whether the community has 50 residents or 5,000. Maintenance is indifferent to density.

The second challenge is sustainability of rural builds. Many of the last‑mile projects funded over the past five years were viable because governments subsidized the initial capital. But the long‑term operating costs — repairs, upgrades, backhaul, power, and labour — fall entirely on service providers. In low‑density areas, those costs can exceed revenue. Without a policy framework that acknowledges such lifecycle realities, Canada risks a slow erosion of service quality in precisely the communities that were hardest to connect in the first place.

A third challenge is technology refresh cycles. Fibre may be durable, but the electronics aren’t. Wireless networks require continual upgrades to remain efficient and secure. Satellite constellations evolve rapidly. The policy conversation has not yet caught up to the fact that “connected once” does not mean “connected forever.” The cost curve of maintenance is rising even as the political appetite for funding is declining.

What Canada needs now is a Connectivity Maintenance Strategy — a shift from one‑time capital injections to predictable, outcome‑based support for resiliency, lifecycle upgrades, and climate adaptation. This doesn’t mean recreating the Universal Broadband Fund. It means recognizing that connectivity is critical infrastructure, and critical infrastructure requires ongoing stewardship, especially in high cost serving areas.

For more than a century and a half, Canadian carriers have built our national telecom networks. Canada spent the last decade extending advanced networks to rural and remote regions. The challenge for the next decade will be keeping those networks standing, resilient, and modern.

Maintenance may not be headline‑grabbing, but it will define whether our connectivity achievements endure.

The post The next connectivity challenge appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Monday’s Globe and Mail reports that “The federal government is planning a series of steps that would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to roll back key decisions it has made implementing the controversial Online Streaming Act.”

For the past few years, a substantial amount of effort at the regulator has been focused on implementing the “modernization” of Canada’s Broadcasting Act driven by the Online Streaming Act.

Three years ago, I observed that the Online Streaming Act was driving the CRTC to budget a 40% increase in staff levels with a 60% higher cost. As it has for the past few years, the CRTC’s 2026-27 Departmental Plan identifies “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” at the top of its list of key priorities.

How many staff years of effort – by the Commission and by participants in these multi-year regulatory proceedings – are being squandered by this latest government policy flip-flop?

As I flipped through CRTC Departmental Plans, I noticed that the plans for the past 4 years have been signed by 4 different Cabinet Ministers responsible for the Commission:

• 2026-27: Marc Miller
• 2025-26: Steven Guilbeault
• 2024-25: Pascale St-Onge
• 2023-24: Pablo Rodriguez

The lack of stability from the policy leadership doesn’t help.

Similar observations can be made on another key file. While “Modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework” is first on the list of key CRTC priorities, “Promoting competition and investment for Internet and cellphone services” is next. I have written extensively on the investment part of that priority.

A CRTC letter last Friday serves as an exhibit for spinning their wheels on the competition side. The CRTC file 1011-NOC2023-0056 has housed follow-up to its 2023 “Review of the wholesale high-speed access service framework”. Three years into the process, the Commission realized that it is working from stale data:

Commission staff notes that the Cable Carriers submitted their initial Phase II cost studies between June 2023 and April 2024. However, Commission staff is concerned that the costing information currently on record may no longer reflect the prospective incremental costs of providing these services. Consequently, to ensure that final rates are just and reasonable and reflect the current technological and economic environment, the Cable Carriers are directed to file new Phase II cost studies, including all associated tables, using a five-year study period starting 1 January 2026 and incorporating the most recent available data for equipment costs, labour rates, and network demand.

These new studies need to be filed by September 3.

Once again, I think we need to ask how many cycles have been burned – the CRTC staff and industry participants – by working with the cost studies now ruled to be out of date. What does this mean for the entire wholesale framework?

The 2026-27 Departmental Plan indicates total expenses for the CRTC are forecasted to be $123.6M, up roughly 50% from the $81.6M from the 2022-23 Plan, with staff levels growing from 547 to 740 over that same period.

There is a real cost to running the engine and spinning those wheels. Sometimes, I just shake my head and wonder how much tread is left on these old tires.

The post Spinning their wheels appeared first on Telecom Trends.

When my phone rings, most of the time my device shows it is “Likely Spam”. In such cases, if the call actually connects, I end up talking to an overseas call centre telling me their air-duct cleaning crews are in my neighbourhood and can offer me a special rate. Or, people claiming to be calling from the “promotions department” of [insert name of phone company], offering deals too good to be true. Or, it is a recording from scammers claiming they are my credit card company (or Amazon) flagging potential fraudulent transactions – ironic, right?

And then there are the emails that get past my spam filters. Somehow, I got added to a US-based medical professional mailing list and I have been receiving all kinds of messages targeting a doctor in the Phoenix area. (As an aside, I wonder if the doctor in Phoenix is receiving telecom newsletters.) That medical mailing list is being sold to pharmaceutical companies, training companies, real estate firms, auto dealers, and anyone else who wants to reach doctors in Arizona. Most of the time, I click unsubscribe and that ends it – but just for one company.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an invitation to a webinar about some new treatments for drug-resistant bacteria. As fascinating as new antibiotics might be, my evenings are tied up. (I just don’t want to miss watching the Stanley Cup playoffs.) Most significantly, there was no ‘unsubscribe’ button. The sender was from a company with a market capitalization measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, this was not your classic spam.

In Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) lingo, this was an unsolicited commercial electronic message sent by a company with pretty deep pockets. They should know better. Even in the US, there are rules known as CAN-SPAM that cover these kinds of things.

And like I said, I’ve gotten kind of tired of spam. So, I decided to stop ignoring it. I dealt with the source directly. This is a real company, with revenues that are approximately double the entire Canadian telecom sector. I figure they have an army of lawyers who would not want some renegade salesperson to be harming the company brand.

I called their Canadian customer service line and reached a supervisor who was actually quite sympathetic. From her, I learned the name of the Canadian head of legal, and from the corporate website, I found the name of the global chief legal officer. The company uses a standardized email address scheme which enabled me to send my official complaint in writing.

I had an immediate automated response from the customer service email address with a case number. I heard back from the Canadian legal office within a couple of hours, letting me know that the team appreciated the importance and was investigating. Within a week, I heard from the US-based corporate chief privacy officer, who identified the steps taken to remove my address from various company distribution lists. The company was still working to identify the third-party source that originally provided my information. A few days later, I was updated with the name of the list provider and provided with assurances that my information was removed from their databases.

A review of my past posts about CASL will show you that I was never a fan of the legislation. I continue to think that it has done more harm to legitimate business communications while doing little to reduce harmful and fraudulent spam. Twenty years ago, I wrote how people can take matters into their own hands.

So I did.

No regulatory submission. No fines were issued. I was fed up with the medical / pharma spam, so I dealt with it. At least those annoying health care related emails will slow down, even if not fully come to a stop.

Now, I wonder if I say “yes” to getting my ducts cleaned, could I get those calls to stop for a couple years?

The post Tired of spam appeared first on Telecom Trends.

In a new paper [pdf, 364 KB], the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) argues that US communications markets are more dynamic and competitive than legacy regulatory frameworks assume. The submission urges the FCC to modernize its analytical approach, emphasizing technological convergence, cross‑platform substitutability, and the centrality of investment incentives in broadband and video markets.

ICLE’s core thesis is that traditional market silos — fixed broadband, mobile, satellite, and video — no longer reflect how consumers behave or how firms compete. Households now switch fluidly among cable, fiber, fixed wireless access (FWA), mobile broadband, and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite. This substitutability constrains pricing power even in markets that appear concentrated on paper. The rise of FWA is a prime example: T‑Mobile’s Home Internet service has grown to millions of subscribers, directly pressuring cable operators and accelerating churn. Cable’s counter‑move — bundling MVNO‑based mobile services — illustrates how formerly distinct markets now operate as a competitive continuum.

ICLE argues that the FCC’s competition assessments must reflect these cross‑technology dynamics. Market definitions built around legacy service categories risk overstating market power and understating the competitive discipline imposed by emerging substitutes.

While convergence increases competitive pressure, ICLE stresses that it does not change the underlying economics of broadband deployment. High fixed and sunk costs, long payback periods, and economies of scale mean that only a limited number of facilities‑based providers can operate sustainably in most markets. Policies aimed at maximizing the number of competitors may therefore undermine the investment needed for next‑generation networks.

ICLE warns that fragmentation — especially in markets with modest density — can reduce per‑firm revenues below sustainable levels, deterring fiber upgrades, 6G deployment, and rural expansion. The organization argues that the FCC should prioritize sustainable competition: lowering deployment costs, streamlining permitting, and ensuring merger policy accounts for investment benefits, not just static concentration metrics.

In video, ICLE contends that broadcast ownership rules and retransmission‑consent frameworks no longer match market realities. Broadcasters now compete with national streaming platforms unconstrained by ownership caps, yet broadcasters remain subject to legacy restrictions rooted in spectrum scarcity—an economic rationale ICLE argues is obsolete.

Retransmission consent, originally designed to counter cable bottlenecks, now creates bargaining asymmetries that can inflate fees and distort negotiations. ICLE recommends comprehensive reform: either phasing out retransmission consent entirely or pairing ownership deregulation with safeguards that reduce blackout risks and limit fee escalation.

ICLE wants the FCC to modernize its analytical framework when assessing competition to reflect converged markets, cross‑platform competition, and the investment‑driven economics of broadband. Interventions by regulators should avoid distorting markets that are already delivering lower prices, improved quality, and greater choice. The role of the regulator is to promote predictable, investment‑supportive policy. “The agency’s guiding principle should be to reduce regulatory distortions, preserve investment incentives, and allow competition — not legacy silos — to discipline communications markets.”

There is much in the ICLE’s paper that is relevant for Canadians. It is worth a look.

The post Assessing competition in telecommunications appeared first on Telecom Trends.

A new report from PwC [pdf, 2.6 MB] lands at this important moment for Canada’s telecommunications sector. The report warns that Canada’s digital ambitions are resting on infrastructure that is increasingly taken for granted, and the conditions required to sustain investment are eroding.

The data-filled report tells a compelling story. Since 2021, Canadian operators have invested roughly $59 billion in networks, enabling faster speeds, broader coverage, and meaningful affordability gains for consumers. Wireless CPI has fallen 45.5% since 2020, and wireline CPI is down slightly over the same period. It is an extraordinary contrast to rising costs in shelter, food, and transportation. Canadians are paying less while getting more, making telecommunications services a rare bright spot in an otherwise inflationary environment.

These outcomes didn’t happen by accident. They were funded by some of the highest capital intensities in the world. Between 2021 and 2024, Canadian telecoms invested an average of 18% of revenue back into their networks — higher than peers in the US, UK, and Australia. The report shows that investment delivered near‑universal access to 50/10 Mbps broadband, gigabit availability to 90% of households, and a 410% increase in average mobile data usage since 2017.

But, despite the sector’s performance, the investment trend is now moving in the wrong direction. The PwC report confirms capital expenditure trends I discussed a couple of weeks ago. Annual capex has fallen from $12.5 billion in 2022 to $10.9 billion in 2025, a decline driven by moderating telecom revenue growth, rising regulatory costs, and a policy environment that increasingly prioritizes short‑term affordability optics over long‑term infrastructure resilience.

The report highlights a striking figure: in 2024, operators paid $2.5 billion in government and regulatory costs — an amount equal to 58% of their combined net income. Layer on top of that more than $30 billion spent on spectrum over the past decade (including some of the highest mid‑band 5G prices in the world), and the investment squeeze becomes even more obvious. Every dollar directed to taxes, fees, and spectrum is a dollar not available for rural builds, network hardening, or next‑generation upgrades.

This matters because telecommunications is no longer just a consumer service. It is the enabling layer for Canada’s economy, public safety, and digital sovereignty. The report catalogues the sector’s expanding role: supporting emergency services, powering digital supply chains, enabling remote work, and underpinning AI adoption across industries. In 2025, telecom contributed $86 billion to GDP and supported 611,000 jobs across the economy. These spillovers depend directly on sustained capital investment.

The disconnect is growing. Writing about the PwC report, TD Securities said, “The regulatory environment has already caused a reduction in privately funded infrastructure investments, which could have helped Canada’s economy and competitiveness in the future.”

Policymakers continue to treat telecom as a utility to be cost‑controlled, while simultaneously expecting the sector to function as critical infrastructure — resilient to extreme weather, secure against cyber threats, and capable of supporting data‑intensive national priorities. The Senate’s recent warning on copper theft, the rollout of NG9‑1‑1, and the federal focus on supply chain resilience, underscore how essential networks have become. But, essential infrastructure cannot be maintained on shrinking investment.

The PwC report also highlights the implications for rural and Indigenous connectivity. While progress to date has been meaningful — 50/10 access on First Nations reserves has risen from 39% to 66% since 2020 — gaps remain substantial. Closing them requires capital, and capital requires a stable, predictable investment environment. Without it, the pace of progress will slow.

If investment continues to decline, Canada risks compounding its already weak productivity performance.

Canada’s digital future depends on reversing an investment decline already underway. That will require a regulatory and fiscal framework that recognizes telecommunications as critical infrastructure, not merely a consumer product. Policy makers must ensure the networks upon which Canadians rely remain robust, resilient, and ready for the demands of the next decade.

The PwC report is a reminder that strong outcomes we enjoy today do not guarantee strong outcomes tomorrow. Sustaining Canada’s digital advantage will require policy choices that support and encourage — not undermine — the investment engine driving a 21st century economy.

The post Telecom investment is slipping appeared first on Telecom Trends.