The Government of Canada just gave Darren Entwhistle of Telus enormous incentive not to serve rural and remote areas. It is raising wholesale prices across the country to enhance "the phone companies' ability to invest in building high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas."

Entwhistle is one of the sharpest CEOs in telecom. He'd be a fool to invest more than the minimum in rural areas That way, the government will continue to give the company boons like this. 

Where will the money go? 

In May 2019, TELUS announced its intention to target ongoing semi-annual dividend increases, with the annual increase in the range of 7 to 10 per cent from 2020 through to the end of 2022. This announcement further extends TELUS’ multi-year dividend growth program originally announced in May 2011 and extended for three additional years in each of May 2013 and May 2016. This program provides investors with ongoing clarity with respect to TELUS’ dividend growth model.

My experience is that 2/3rds of improved cashflow goes to shareholders, not investment. That will almost certainly be true here, Telecom worldwide is a slow growth business due to cost per bit falling more than demand increases. If raising dividends is a priority, that's where the money will go.

Telcos worldwide are holding back on rural coverage in order to get subsidies and government boons like this. 

Canada has long had superior networks in the cities and terrible rural coverage.

Response by the Government of Canada to petitions concerning CRTC wholesale Internet rates Français

NEWS PROVIDED BY

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Aug 15, 2020, 09:00 ET

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

OTTAWA, ON, Aug. 15, 2020 /CNW/ - Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, made the following statement today:

"Canada's future depends on connectivity. Our government recognizes that access to affordable, high-quality high-speed Internet is a necessity for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the importance of connectivity. The investments our government is making in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote communities, are key to ensuring equitable digital access for all Canadians. Equitable access also means that it is available at fair prices that Canadians can afford.

"In June 2019, our government directed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to consider how its decisions can promote competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation. In particular, the CRTC was asked to consider the extent to which these decisions can encourage all forms of competition and investment. Balancing these objectives and improving consumer choice, while furthering investment in high-quality networks, have been the long-standing goals of the regulatory framework for access to wholesale Internet services.

"In August 2019, the CRTC set new wholesale rates to be paid by competitor Internet service providers that access the high-speed networks of cable and telephone companies. These companies petitioned the Governor in Council, asking it to overturn the decision or refer it back to the CRTC for reconsideration. They argued that the rates are too low and significantly undermine their ability to invest in building high-quality networks.

"The Governor in Council has carefully considered the petitions and the submissions from all parties, as part of the public consultations.

"On the basis of its review, the Governor in Council considers that the rates do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the policy objectives of the wholesale services framework and is concerned that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas. Retroactive payments to affected wholesale clients are appropriate in principle and can foster cooperation in regulatory proceedings. However, these payments, which reflect the rates, must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments. Incentives for ongoing investment, particularly to foster enhanced connectivity for those who are unserved or underserved, are a critical objective of the overall policies governing telecommunications, including these wholesale rates. Given that the CRTC is already reviewing its decision, it is unnecessary to refer the decision back to the CRTC for reconsideration at this time.

"Our government has made significant investments to support the building of Internet infrastructure in rural and remote areas so these communities can succeed in the digital age. We are committed to increasing higher speed broadband coverage and supporting competition, choice and the availability of services for Canadian consumers and business users.

"Wholesale broadband is a proven regulatory tool for enabling retail competition in the Internet service market. Setting the wholesale rates correctly is critical to ensuring these competitive options for Canadians while maintaining continued investment in high-quality networks and expanded access for Canadians in rural and remote areas.

"Our government is working hard to make sure that all Canadians have the access to high-speed Internet. We encourage all parties to cooperate in the CRTC's ongoing review of the rates decision to support a timely conclusion that will provide more certainty for all involved parties.

"We will continue to monitor the CRTC proceedings closely to ensure our frameworks have the right incentives for investment and competitive choice, while preserving our policy flexibility for the forthcoming CRTC decision to ensure these important objectives are met."

Associated links

Order in Council responding to petitions to the Governor in Council concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288

Follow Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada on Twitter: @ISED_CA

SOURCE Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

For further information: John Power, Press Secretary, Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, 343-550-1456, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Media Relations, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 343-291-1777, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related Links

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/home

The world needs a good news source on Internet and telecom policy. I hope to create one. Catch a mistake? Email me please.  Dave Burstein

Latest

Professor Noam's "Many Internets" http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a "network of networks," not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It's easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an "Internet" that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn't perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn't prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html . More from Noam http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS
It's actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the "government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions ... This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa." RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that's rhetoric. Russia doesn't need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets" are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences.  The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China's consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, "a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet." I think that's highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT."
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. "Britain's top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs "could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables." Much more http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board http://bit.ly/CEOPromises
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy.  Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
"The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world," I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi's statements,http://bit.ly/CEOPromises

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling http://bit.ly/SorryPai
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies' capex - two/thirds of the total - went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That's as close to "proving" that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors http://bit.ly/SorryPai

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More http://bit.ly/VintTim
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn't listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing "is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create." My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. ... The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order ... More, including the full list, http://bit.ly/VintTim