Adam Scott to the Scotiabank TMT Conference

Toronto, Ontario
March 3, 2026

Adam Scott, Vice-Chairperson, Telecommunications
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Check against delivery

Thank you, Maher, for putting together another great event.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat peoples. I thank them and pay respect to their Elders.

When I was here last year, I was really struck by the candor of the speakers. It’s fascinating and helpful to hear directly about service providers' strategic objectives, competitive advantages, and forward priorities. It’s a very different dynamic than the kind of sharp tactical positioning that occurs in CRTC proceedings. It really is good to get out of the Ottawa bubble sometimes.

So, I am looking forward to this event. I want to hear about objectives for the year ahead — innovations, opportunities, and expansion plans. Because those objectives align with all the things we would want to see in a dynamic telecommunications marketplace.

Promoting a dynamic telecommunications marketplace

When I say a dynamic marketplace, I mean one where companies make big bets in new technology — like LEO and 5G fixed wireless — to differentiate their offers and bring new value to consumers.

One where providers take risks with bold commercial strategies — like expanding to new territories and new market segments — that shake up the competitive landscape.

One where businesses take a hard look at how they operate — like their ownership of towers and transport — and find innovative new ways to manage their balance sheets.

That type of dynamism is of course challenging because it involves risk and uncertainty. But it can also lead to great rewards — both for telecom companies and for the Canadians that benefit from new, and improved services.

In that spirit, I want to talk about how the CRTC is working to promote that dynamism.

I will say right off the top that, the CRTC is unapologetically pro-consumer. Now let me explain what I mean by that. We are working in pursuit of greater affordability for Canadians. That may, at times, make it seem like we are at cross-purposes with service providers and investors. But 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. Being pro-consumer does not mean being anti-industry.

Consumers are of course focused on affordability and access. But they have other needs as well, such as reliable services when there’s an emergency, like a fire or a flood. They also need plans and devices that meet their needs, because they depend on them for work, education, health care, and their families’ well-being.

Addressing those needs requires a broader lens than a singular focus on low prices. The breadth of those needs underscores the difficult balance that we need to achieve in setting regulatory policy.

Finding that balance means we need to follow the evidence. We need to hear candidly from a wide range of stakeholders, including providers, experts and consumers. And then we need to find a way to reconcile sometimes disparate views into a cohesive regulatory policy.

When I think about that process, I keep coming back to the concept of a regulatory hypothesis.

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.

Promoting competition, affordability and investment through MVNO access

Let me give you an example from mobile wireless.

For years now, government and consumers have had a shared vision of increased competitive intensity in the mobile market segment.

So, as Government policy continued to advance competition through spectrum licensing measures, the CRTC held its proceeding to consider a new MVNO framework to increase competition in mobile services. Those consultations gathered many perspectives. We heard about the effects that full MVNO could have on network investment in the context of 5G deployment. We heard about the impacts that high wireless bills had on consumers’ ability to manage their household budgets. And we heard expert evidence from the Competition Bureau which noted that when a fourth player was able to build out a community, competition was more vigorous, leading to better consumer outcomes.

All of that evidence led us to a regulatory hypothesis that, by enabling new players, with spectrum licenses as the key to market entry, we would see more competition and lower prices for consumers. And we could do that while also preserving incentives for providers to innovate and invest in their own networks.

Hypotheses, though, are only valid when they survive trial by evidence. Thankfully, in the mobile industry, we are seeing lots of evidence that validates our regulatory hypothesis.

Using Statscan data, we see mobile prices falling more than 30% between 2021—when the CRTC published its MVNO decision—and the end of 2025. Over that same period, general consumer prices increased by more than 15%. The half of the hypothesis focussed on more choice and greater affordability for consumers seems to be proving true. And, beyond pricing, we are seeing fairly widespread and impressive progress on 5G deployment, even though we know a good amount of densification and expansion still needs to happen.

We are proud of the results that we have accomplished together for Canadians. We still need to see more build outs by MVNOs to validate the second half of the hypothesis, that the framework we have in place can incentivise network investment alongside improved choice and lower rates.

Improving competition for home Internet plans

On the other side of the industry, in home Internet markets, we’ve also taken steps to encourage a more dynamic, competitive future.

We started our high-speed Internet proceeding at a challenging time for many in the industry. Incumbents were deep in the process of making generational fibre and DOCSIS upgrades to bring faster, better services to market. But, alongside those investments, many independent competitors were struggling and a number were selling off their businesses. That meant that, while service quality was improving, the number of households taking service from the incumbent cableco or the incumbent telco, was at an all time high. Most geographic markets were very much two-player markets.

A big cause of that situation was that a previous regulatory hypothesis proved to be incorrect. The disaggregated model of wholesale access did not provide competitors with a viable path to compete. And the lack of uptake was clear and compelling.

I don’t want to minimize the level of competition that a cableco versus a telco can create. Particularly as they engage in a dynamic contest of technological leapfrogging.

But for decades, the CRTC has recognized that the home internet marketplace works better when that competition is further catalyzed by service-based competitors. Unlike mobile wireless, we aren’t likely to see an additional high-speed wired network built into the majority of Canadian homes. So, wholesale access allows new companies to come in and fight for ways to innovate and bring new vitality to the competitive process.

That was the context for our Internet competition proceeding. We set out to refresh our regulatory hypothesis in a way that preserved facilities-based competition, while also giving competitors a viable path into the marketplace.

Finding the way forward required a diligent survey of the facts, evidence, and expert opinion. And we had no shortage of input: more than 300 interventions, significant expert testimony, and a week-long public hearing.

During our deliberations, we advanced a couple of hypotheses. First, and pretty straightforwardly, we hypothesised that as consumers continued to migrate towards higher speeds, it would be important for competitors to have a more workable form of wholesale access to fibre.

To be clear: wholesale access to fibre is not a gift to third party providers. Rates will be based on real underlying costs, meaning that it’s far from a guaranteed path to success. But it’s an opportunity to carve out a value proposition that consumers find compelling and maintain competitive pressure on the incumbents.

Second, one of the really striking things was that — unlike mobile wireless — larger Internet providers tended to stick to their own regions of the country. So, another regulatory hypothesis in the Internet competition file evolved. If having a large, experienced, well-financed, fourth player can have a major positive impact on consumer pricing in mobile, the regulatory hypothesis became that having additional large, experienced, well-financed competitors in the home Internet market could have similar benefits.

Consider the alternative. We’ve already experienced a world in which incumbents stay within their traditional footprints. That was the status quo for decades, and you would be hard pressed to convince me that competition is stronger when the heavyweights don’t fight one another. As we worked through our public proceeding and evidence grew that at least some large players might now be willing to compete outside of their traditional territories, how odd would it have been for the CRTC to block that form of competition?  Rivalrous behaviour between Canada’s largest providers is good news for the competitive process and, ultimately, consumers. That’s the hypothesis.

Last time I was here, there was a lot more uncertainty about wholesale Internet. But it seems more clear now that Cabinet will not force us to change horses before the race has even started. We’ll get to see how our horse runs.

And just like mobile, our regulatory hypothesis will ultimately be judged by the evidence. We are working to keep a close eye on how competition and investment evolve. And we are prepared to adjust if the evidence points us in that direction.

Those of you in the industry have already responded to our first set of requests for information on the Internet plans you are putting in front of consumers, the investments you are making, and the state of competition across the country. We will be using it to see what’s working and what isn’t. That’s how we will objectively judge the impact of our decision, and whether any adjustment is necessary.

I will say that the evidence so far is preliminary but encouraging. We are seeing large ISPs move outside their traditional serving territories to bring new competitive dynamism. In total, these large ISPs are offering, or have announced plans to offer service, to about 8.5 million addressable homes just in the four largest provinces. And, in our view, that’s a much better set-up to drive additional competitive intensity for home Internet.

I’ll add that, throughout our evidence-gathering process, we need to hear directly from you. We are going to follow the evidence, so let that be an invitation for all of you to be forthcoming and candid about what you’re seeing.

Empowering consumers in the telecommunications marketplace

Of course, I can’t mention data without bringing up one piece that I’m obsessed with: the spread between what Canadians are paying, versus what they could be paying if they subscribed to the best available price in the market.

Some of that might just be a timing issue where customers need contracts to come up for renewal before they move into better-priced offers.

But some of it is a consumer empowerment issue. When you’re the Vice Chair of Telecom, people love to tell you how much they pay for their services. And generally, they end by saying that they should be paying less. Often what’s going through my mind when I hear those stories is YES! you should be paying less, and you could be paying less. The market framework is working; the deals are out there — but Canadians need to be empowered to take advantage of them.

Parliament recognized in its most recent amendments to the Telecommunications Act that consumers are too often facing significant fees, unhelpful frictions, and not enough information when they try to switch their plan. And we, as the regulator, are now actioning those amendments through several ongoing proceedings.

Some might ask whether this consumer agenda is really necessary. But we consider consumer empowerment to be fundamental to the competitive process. If a price falls in the forest, but nobody is around to hear it, does it make a difference?

So, we are working now to put more information and more power in the hands of consumers. Our goal is to make sure that all Canadians can access the plans they need, and that service providers’ innovation and competitive drive can be rewarded by an enthusiastic consumer response.

I know — especially in this room — that not everyone agrees with our paths forward. The MVNO framework and the HSA framework are not what the large network operators wanted. Would they have preferred a world with no wholesale competition? Of course.  So how does the industry move forward?

I would start by saying that we have heard you loud and clear on the challenges you are facing as an industry. We know that market maturity and reduced levels of immigration are lowering organic growth in the industry. We know that interest rates and debt loads are challenging your finances and ability to invest. And we recognize that competition is a grizzly business and it is unlikely that everyone emerges unscathed.

The road ahead

Going forward, we expect to see tough competition. We expect to see aggressive pricing in pursuit of market share. Responsive customer care to reduce churn. And innovation in value-added services — whether it is satellite to cell, bundled wireless, or some other value-driving advancement that you are working on right now.

We are willing to do our part to help. We are working to cut red tape, speed up decision-making, try innovative new approaches, and go where the evidence takes us.

But now that our framework regulations are in place, how do we, as a regulator, advance consumer interests and a dynamic industry? I don’t think we get there by doing non-stop fundamental rethinks of competitive frameworks.

We have advanced regulatory hypotheses that now serve as blueprints for the future. The architect’s job is done, and the plans have been handed over to the builder. Might we need to adjust as we go? Sure, that’s normal, prudent, and expected. 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.

But we don’t intend to modify things unless and until there is evidence to indicate that it’s necessary. So, the next step is to build. And, for that reason, we are focused on making this year a year of relative stability on the regulatory side. Because we know that predictability and regulatory certainty are necessary precursors to the exact type of forward planning and priority setting that I started off today talking about.

We will be building on that certainty by finalizing implementation of our key frameworks. For fibre wholesale, we’ll be issuing final rates very soon. We’ll also be taking an active hand in quickly and effectively resolving any competitive disputes during implementation. And, in respect of MVNO: we’ll continue to watch build outs; we’ll track commercially negotiated deals; we’ll settle disputes via final offer arbitration if necessary; and we’ll duly consider applications put before us, all to ensure the ongoing success of the regime. Finally, we will soon be releasing the details of new consumer empowerment tools, consistent with the revised legislation and the evidence of our proceedings.

But how will you be building? That’s what I’m looking forward to hearing over the rest of the day. How will you seize the new opportunities brought about by new technologies and updated regulatory blueprints? How will your experience line up against our regulatory hypotheses with new, value-driving innovations in 2026 and onward? And how are we collectively going to find the balance needed to promote a dynamic industry for the benefit of Canadians? I can’t wait to hear about it today, and I can’t wait to see it grow over the course of the year.