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.

Various broadband funding programs (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 fixed wireless has filled many mid‑density gaps. Yet despite billions invested, 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, now 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.

Why isn’t Starlink considered to be an obvious choice to fulfill 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.

Based on publicly available coverage maps and service availability data, Starlink’s constellation covers all populated regions of Canada. The service is marketed as globally available across 150+ countries and territories, with Canada included in the active service footprint.

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. 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.

I have written extensively on issues of affordability. I think subsidies should be based on financial need, not based on geography. There are people in urban centres who need lower cost everything, and 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.”

Canada’s broadband strategy is reaching the point where the remaining unserved households are no longer an engineering challenge, but one of adoption. 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.

The challenge now is integrating LEO into regulatory and policy frameworks, to preserve private sector investment incentives, while engaging partnerships with social service agencies and training facilities to ensure no Canadian household is left offline.

The post Completing our broadband ambition appeared first on Telecom Trends.

Recall, two months ago I wrote about CRTC Vice Chair Adam Scott speaking at a Scotiabank investor conference, where

We go through proceedings to crystallize issues and identify the strategically important outcomes that our decisions need to promote. And then we take the evidence on the record and use it to form a regulatory hypothesis—that by taking a certain course, we will see a certain type of outcome.

His address stated “we understand that advancing consumer interests also means supporting investment: in high quality services, resilient networks, excellent customer service, and all the other elements required of a strong telecommunications service provider.”

When the CRTC finalized its wholesale fibre to the home rates a few weeks ago, the final lines of its media release stated: “The CRTC will also closely track industry progress in investing to connect more Canadians to high-speed Internet and other communications services. In doing so, the CRTC will follow the evidence and act quickly to adjust its approach if necessary.”

What if the evidence is already showing that the current regulatory framework isn’t supporting investment? We started seeing signs that investment was beginning to decline when the CRTC released its annual monitoring report, showing an industry-wide drop of 10% between 2022 and 2024.

In the government’s Spring Economic Update [pdf, 8.2MB], the government’s headline Sovereign Wealth Fund includes “Leading Canadian companies will help build our energy, transportation and telecommunications infrastructure and future economy.”

However, Canada’s leading telecommunications companies are announcing dramatic reductions in their plans for investment in infrastructure.

A few weeks ago, we saw further evidence when Rogers cut its capital guidance by 30% for 2026, with strong statements issued by the company Chair and by its CEO at the 2026 Annual General Meeting. CEO Tony Staffieri said:

We operate in a capital-intensive sector, a sector that requires long-term investment cycles and regulatory policy that supports them.

Yet, at every turn, we face changing regulatory decisions that undermine investment – decisions that increase costs, reduce revenue, and create market uncertainty.

Decisions that reinforce an uneven playing field, and don’t reflect smart, modern regulation that ensures companies like Rogers can compete fairly and equitably.

As we look to the next few years, we have sharpened our strategy to reflect these market realities.

Executive Chair Edward Rogers said:

companies like Rogers need a modern regulatory regime that rewards investment and ensures fair and equitable competition. The opposite is happening today. The current approach is antiquated and creates an uneven playing field. It makes it hard for companies to plan, build, and invest long term.

This is a capital-intensive business with a long horizon for a return. We do not think in terms of months, or a few years, but in the next 5,10 to 20 years.

Regulatory certainty and stability matters.

Today’s telecom markets have never been more competitive, but we have also never been more regulated.
…
Rules that penalize innovation and investment in Canada have never worked and will never work. Investment slows, jobs are lost, network quality and innovation suffer.

Rogers has since announced significant job cuts.

Bell’s first quarter 2026 results reflect reduced capital spending on Canadian telecom; the company’s guidance for 2026 forecasts a shift in capital spending toward investments in AI data centres, not in its core telecom infrastructure. As Bell CEO Mirko Bibic stated during the first quarter investor call, Bell will “focus capital investment on higher return opportunities.” He noted that capital expenditures have fallen from $5.1B in 2022 to less than $3B in 2026 and said that Canadian telecom investment will continue to decline given the current environment.

Whether or not it’s the kind of more kind of micro rules that are coming out, wireless that you refer to, or the bigger kind of more policy oriented fundamental rules like fiber access, put all those together, and clearly it’s having an impact on investment in the industry.
…
If you just look at the capital investments over that short period of time in our industry on an annual basis, there’s literally multiple billions of dollars of annual CapEx that are no longer being invested.

Last week, 2026 investor guidance pointed to a 10% forecasted reduction in capital spending by TELUS.

Together, we have seen capital investment reduced by more than $3B annually. Yes, annually.

Prime Minister Carney recently announced an investment summit. “At a time of unprecedented trade disruption, our bold mission to unlock $1 trillion in new capital will create growth, good jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.”

Commenting on the current regulatory environment, in February, Scotiabank asked, “wouldn’t it make more sense for incumbents to materially reduce capex”? A few weeks ago, when the CRTC issued its decision setting final rates for fibre-to-the-premises, various financial analysts assessed the impact of the rates when compared to the interim rates. Bank of America Global Research wrote, “More concerning is the recent steps the CRTC is taking to force changes in fees the providers can charge. The CRTC is adept at finding new areas to dictate how the providers can operate in the market.”

When he addressed the Scotia investor conference, CRTC Vice Chair Scott said “A good regulator, like a good builder, will adjust to conditions on the ground. We will need to, and are in fact required to, actively gather the evidence that will inform us as we go.”

It is worth repeating what I stated a few weeks ago: The regulatory environment doesn’t just shape competition — it shapes the network Canadians will have a decade from now.

The conditions on the ground are showing that the regulatory framework is failing to support investment, let alone incentivize investment. The CRTC typically moves at speeds that could be described as a somewhat glacial velocity (the final wholesale fibre rates decision followed a decade of CRTC processes).

The editorial in yesterday’s Globe and Mail called for “Ottawa to remove the obstacles that currently deter companies from investing in this country.”

When will the CRTC take a fresh look at how its regulatory hypothesis is impacting capital investment?

The post CRTC’s regulatory hypothesis is failing appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The researchers found that the digital divide remains a problem in Europe, but not due to affordability or access to technology. “The prototype of the offline European would be someone who is not young, has little or no education, lives alone in a rural area, perceives their situation as financially difficult, is somewhat socially isolated, and has doubts about the benefits of communication.”

A couple of months ago, I wrote “The new digital divide: not access, but attention”, observing that a new divide is emerging, now that access to broadband connectivity has become nearly ubiquitous.

The Telecommunications Policy paper agrees with this assessment. The paper refers to an “almost universal roll-out of networks, in particular mobile networks,” coupled with declining prices, making broadband affordable for almost everyone. Carrying a data-enabled device in our pockets enables access to the world of digital social and economic interactions. “Consequently, the digital divide no longer seems to be the major concern it was recently.”

Still, despite the authors’ observation that books and newspapers are rarely seen on public transit as people focus attention on mobile screens, the research found that more than 10% of Europeans do not have digital access.

In order to bridge the divide, we need to understand what leads to people remaining off-line.

Connecting the remaining population is not simply a matter of “build it and they will come”. As the paper demonstrates, there are factors beyond price and simple access.

Understanding the characteristics of those on the wrong side of the digital divide is key to finding solutions for connectivity and improving the road to universal connectivity.

The post On the wrong side of the digital divide appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The latest example is the absurd handling of urgent requests for modest monthly rate increases for mandatory carriage networks – files that took nearly 2 years to be processed.

CPAC-TV is the Cable Public Affairs Channel. In July 2024, the network asked the CRTC for a rate increase, to rise from $0.13 to $0.16 monthly. The thirteen cent rate had been in effect since September 1, 2018. A couple weeks ago, the CRTC finally awarded the requested increase, effective September 1, 2026, conditional on the Commission renewing CPAC’s broadcasting licence and mandatory distribution order before that date.

A week and a half later, a two cent monthly increase was granted to TV5, effective immediately.

Recall that the CRTC issued an interim non-decision last November, kicking the can down the road until it finally got around to making a determination 5 months later. In my December 1, 2025 newsletter, I wrote:

In July 2024, CPAC asked the CRTC for a $0.03 monthly rate increase. Its current $0.13 rate was set in 2018. On November 21, the CRTC decided to defer until some unspecified time in the future. A year and a half to make a non-decision. CPAC says the deferral jeopardizes its continuing operation. To their credit, Commissioners Scott and Abramson wrote a dissenting view appended to the Commission’s Decision, saying “given the pressures these exceptionally important services face today, we should decide today. Should something different be needed down the road, we can adjust down the road.”

Commissioners Scott and Abramson demonstrated business sense in their November dissent. It is noteworthy that the decisions for CPAC and TV5 each contain dissenting opinions by Commissioners Desmond, and Paquette. In the CPAC dissent, they wrote:

17. We respectfully conclude that the application by CPAC Inc. should continue to be deferred until more permanent and sustainable solutions are put in place.
18. Significant work is underway to modernize the broadcasting system in Canada. Key policy decisions will be issued in the coming months that will address the rapid changes that all industry players are experiencing.
19. While CPAC Inc. offers a service of exceptional importance, it benefits from a mandatory distribution order and a regulated fixed rate, providing some degree of financial stability in the short term. While its financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs.
20. Waiting until the broadcasting system has been modernized before processing the CPAC Inc. application will provide a more permanent and sustainable solution and will allow for the ecosystem to first be stabilized before moving forward.

I had to scratch my head with their conclusion. “While its [CPAC’s] financial situation is urgent, so too is the case for many other industry players, including BDUs” and so, let’s kick the can down the road once again. It is unclear to me how these Commissioners think CPAC would / could keep the lights on in the meantime.

In the meantime, let’s keep in mind that CPAC’s funding is dependent on a very modest monthly fee charged to TV subscribers – who are an ever shrinking breed. CRTC figures show that TV subscriptions have fallen from 9.0 million in the second quarter of 2024 to 8.6 million in third quarter of 2025, the latest available data. That represents a drop of $750,000 per year in revenues for CPAC.

In the case of TV5, the dissenting opinion leads with “With respect for the majority, we unfortunately cannot agree with the decision to increase the per subscriber monthly wholesale rate by $0.02 for the TV5 and UNIS TV services (TV5/UNIS TV). We consider such a decision to be premature in the context of the Commission’s ongoing exercise to modernize the Canadian broadcasting regulatory framework and given the challenges currently facing the cable sector.”

There is no question that the current cross-subsidy system is unsustainable, having TV subscribers foot the bills for CPAC, TV5 and the National Public Alert System, for that matter. I have referred to these schemes as an off-the-books tax scheme.

But, until a more rational funding mechanism is in place, it makes no sense – neither business sense nor common sense – to be unresponsive to funding requirements for essential services operated by the private sector.

The post Business sense appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The committee’s report, Stolen Signal: The Costly Consequences of Copper Theft in Canada, [pdf, 700KB] lays out a stark picture. Since 2022, Canadian carriers have recorded more than 1,300 theft incidents, with Bell alone reporting over 1,650 security incidents, 88% of which involved copper. TELUS quantified the human impact: more than 200 million minutes of lost service affecting 170,000 customers, with rural communities hit hardest. Rogers reported outages spanning 10 federal ridings and affecting 35,000 Canadians in a single wave of vandalism.

The consequences are not abstract. Copper theft has shut down airport ticketing systems, blocked emergency calls, halted small‑business transactions, and left entire communities isolated for hours — sometimes days. In Grande Cache, Alberta, TELUS reported four community‑wide outages in 18 months due to copper theft. Electricity Canada described hundreds of annual incidents across the grid, including cases where thieves triggered life‑threatening injuries and traumatized utility workers.

The Senate report makes clear that copper theft is not simply a telecom problem. It is a cascading‑risk problem. Communications outages disrupt emergency services, financial systems, transportation, and health care — all sectors identified as critical infrastructure under Canada’s national strategy. The interdependencies mean a single cut cable can ripple across multiple essential services.

The committee’s recommendations call for:

• Criminal Code amendments to impose tougher penalties when theft interferes with essential infrastructure — a direction the government has already begun with Bill C‑14’s new “aggravating circumstance” for infrastructure‑related offences.
• National leadership on scrap‑metal regulation, encouraging provinces to standardize dealer rules, require transaction records, and close loopholes that allow stolen copper to be laundered through recycling centres.
• A federal task force on metal theft to coordinate law‑enforcement intelligence across jurisdictions.

Witnesses were blunt. Inconsistent provincial rules, limited traceability, and the ease of mixing stolen metal with legitimate scrap make enforcement difficult. Some pointed to U.S. models — including Florida’s 2024 legislation and federal statutes targeting energy‑facility sabotage — as examples of more assertive frameworks.

Telecom companies have already invested heavily in deterrence, installing floodlights, cameras, specialized locks, while accelerating fibre replacement. But, the report underscores what the industry has argued for years: carriers cannot secure every remote cabinet, pole line, or right‑of‑way on their own. The scale is too large, the geography too vast, and the criminal incentives too strong — especially with copper trading near US$13,000 per tonne.

The Senate committee’s work gives the issue national visibility and a policy roadmap. Copper theft is no longer a background nuisance; it is a systemic risk to Canada’s digital and economic resilience. The report’s title — Stolen Signal — is apt. Copper theft doesn’t just steal metal; it steals connectivity, safety, and trust in the infrastructure upon which Canadians rely.

Will this be another report that sits on a shelf, or will governments (at all levels) move with the urgency the evidence demands?

The post Copper theft is more than a telecom industry problem appeared first on Telecom Trends.

There have been some classics, as I wrote in 2016.

Commissioner Claire Anderson wrote a lengthy dissent last year as I documented at the time. Commissioner Bram Abramson has written a number of dissenting opinions, perhaps aspiring to challenge former Commissioner Stuart Langford’s record. The Abramson dissents frequently address important legal fine points, dealing with procedural issues and fairness.

Today’s post is intended to highlight the number of dissenting views in the CRTC decisions released so far this week.

• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-71: TV5/UNIS TV – Application to increase the mandatory per subscriber monthly wholesale rates
  “A joint dissenting opinion by Commissioners Ellen C. Desmond, K. C., and Stéphanie Paquette is attached to this decision.”
• Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-74: Rogers Communications Inc.’s contributions to the Shaw Rocket Fund
  “Dissenting opinions from Commissioners Bram Abramson and Ellen C. Desmond, K.C. are attached to this decision.”
• Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025‑180‑2: Call for comments – Improving the public alerting system – Changes to procedure
  “the Commission denies, by majority decision, their request to be made a party to the proceeding”

These documents were released by the CRTC in just two days: April 22 and 23. Are these releases demonstrating an inability to reach a consensus with the Commission?

I expect to be writing more about the substance of some of these dissenting views. For now, I simply want to highlight an unusual pattern of dissent.

The post Dissent within the CRTC appeared first on Telecom Trends.

That’s a theme you have read before on these pages.

Rogers’ announcement [pdf, 167KB] of a 30% reduction in capital spending for 2026, bringing CapEx guidance to the $2.5–$2.7B range, is more than a one‑year belt‑tightening exercise. Management stated this is the new run‑rate. Capital intensity is expected to fall to roughly 12%. “We anticipate this lower level of capex spending will continue for the foreseeable future”. That is a structural shift, not a cyclical one.

The rationale is equally structural. The company pointed repeatedly to a “punitive regulatory environment” that “increasingly disincentivizes capital investments” weakening the economics of long‑term network investment. Policies enabling broad, low‑barrier access to incumbent networks — particularly the MVNO framework extending to 2030 — were cited as eroding the incentive to deploy risk capital. When wholesale access is priced below what operators view as sustainable cost recovery, the business case for marginal builds becomes harder to justify.

This level of capital spending reduction goes far beyond rhetoric. Rogers outlined three concrete drivers behind its CapEx pullback:

• Project cancellations where the economics no longer clear under current regulatory and competitive conditions.
• Capital efficiency gains, which every operator pursues but which now carry more weight in a low‑growth environment.
• Deferrals, stretching multi‑year projects over longer timelines to match slower revenue growth and lower expected returns.

The message to policymakers should now be unmistakable. Despite government statements seeking private sector investment, the current regulatory environment has created conditions that discourage it. The returns on investment simply aren’t there. So, capital will flow elsewhere — or simply not flow at all.

The competitive backdrop amplifies the issue. Rogers described Q1 as a period of “irrational” discounting, with promotional pricing in some segments falling below cost. In a market where ARPU is declining and subscriber growth is driven more by supply‑side promotions than organic demand, the payback period for network investment lengthens. When regulatory policy simultaneously compresses wholesale margins, the combined effect is a materially lower return on capital investment.

Until that equation changes, there is no reason to doubt Rogers statement that the CapEx reduction is not a deferral that will snap back next year. I recently noted a “quantitative evidence of a pull-back in telecom investment” with the 10% reductions in capital between 2022 and 2024. Rogers first quarter 2026 results confirms there is a recalibration of Canada’s investment model underway, reflecting a sector with slower revenue growth, lower ARPU expectations, and regulatory headwinds diluting the value of incremental build‑outs.

The broader implication for Canada’s telecom landscape is that policy choices have consequences, and these are now showing up directly in capital allocation decisions. A sector that once invested $12B over three years is signalling that the next three will look very different.

In his comments at the Rogers 2026 Annual General Meeting, CEO Tony Staffieri said “We operate in a capital-intensive sector, a sector that requires long-term investment cycles and regulatory policy that supports them.” For an industry built on long‑cycle infrastructure, the regulatory environment doesn’t just shape competition — it shapes the network Canadians will have a decade from now.

The capital math has changed. Unless policy shifts with it, investment will follow the new logic.

The post Regulation, returns, and capital investment appeared first on Telecom Trends.

The Wireless Code is a mandatory code of conduct setting out rights for consumers of retail mobile wireless voice and data services, and defining obligations for providers of such services.

For more than a dozen years, the Wireless Code has served as the CRTC’s primary consumer‑protection framework for mobile services. However, it was created in a different era — before unlimited plans were common, before international roaming plans were widely available, before 5G, before eSIMs, before device financing innovations became the norm, and before wireless competition intensified across nearly every region of the country. Yet despite the pace of change in the marketplace, the Code itself has barely evolved, having last been tweaked nearly 9 years ago.

That wouldn’t be a problem if the Code were still aligned with how Canadians actually buy and use wireless services. But increasingly, it isn’t.

There were a number of populist-driven consumer measures ordered by Parliament in the 2024 Budget, as I described in a post last month. That legislation gave rise to a “trilogy” of CRTC Notices of Consultation: 2024-293 (Enhancing customer notification); 2024-294 (Removing barriers to switching plans); and, 2024-295 (Enhancing self-service mechanisms).

We now have device financing structures that didn’t exist when the Code was drafted, developed to provide relief from high monthly payments driven by regulated 24-month limit to amortize the cost of devices selling for thousands of dollars. We have multi‑line family plans, data‑sharing pools, and promotional pricing models that don’t map neatly onto the Code’s original assumptions. We have eSIM‑based switching that should make mobility easier, but is often slowed by legacy processes. We have a marketplace where competition is driving prices down, but the regulatory framework hasn’t kept pace with how consumers interact with their service providers.

At the same time, the CRTC’s own processes have slowed to the point where even minor clarifications can take months or years. As I’ve written before, regulatory delay has become a structural issue. When the regulator takes years to update rules that govern a sector evolving in real time, the result is predictable: uncertainty for carriers, confusion for consumers, and a framework that gradually loses relevance.

The Wireless Code is showing its age. Complaints to the CCTS increasingly involve issues the Code never contemplated — device financing disputes, promotional plan expiries, eSIM transfers, the complexities of multi‑line accounts. These are becoming the mainstream of today’s wireless market.

A holistic review is overdue.

A modern Wireless Code should reflect how Canadians actually use and shop for wireless services today, not how they used them in 2013. It should provide clarity for consumers and predictability for services providers. And, it should be developed through a process that is timely, evidence‑based, and focused on outcomes.

This isn’t about adding or deleting rules. It may mean simplifying or clarifying existing ones. But the starting point has to be a recognition that the marketplace has changed — dramatically — and the Code has not.

The CRTC needs to ensure its flagship consumer framework remains fit for purpose. That requires a full review of the Wireless Code, grounded in data, informed by actual consumer behaviour, and conducted with a sense of urgency that has been missing.

Canada’s wireless market has evolved. The rules governing it should too.

The post Revisiting the Wireless Code appeared first on Telecom Trends.