Bram Abramson to the CanWISP Annual Conference

Markham, Ontario
March 31, 2026

Bram Abramson, Commissioner for Ontario
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Check against delivery

Introduction

Good morning, everyone. I want to start off with some introductions, as I’m not here alone. With me from the CRTC are Matthew Tosaj from our research, economics and industry relations team; Philippe Nadeau, from dispute resolution, who some of you have had a chance to meet for mediation or arbitration; Justin Ngan, a geomatics and mapping specialist from our broadband team; Luke Smith, from the consumer & social policy team responsible for initiatives like the Internet and Wireless Codes and relations with the CCTS; and Lynn McDaniel from our registration and Data Collection System team.

This year we have worked with CanWISP to set up a space where you have the chance to speak to us, or get some advice on how various rules work. Please drop by, especially if you have a specific question that doesn’t belong in the Q&A, following my talk today. Matt, Philippe, Justin, Luke, and Lynn will be taking turns to hear you and respond.

Second, thank you for bringing it a little closer to home for me this year, on the unceded traditional territory of Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Anishnabeg, Seneca, Chippewa and the Mississaugas of the Credit. The Commission has been engaged in activities like creating an Indigenous-specific stream of the Broadband Fund. Following meetings and sessions with many Indigenous governments, service providers, and organizations, we have now launched the formal consultation on how to ensure that stream better meets the needs of Indigenous applicants, including how to tailor reporting requirements for Indigenous recipients.

Reconciliation matters to us, and I hope we’re getting better at it each year as a distinct and important part of what we do. I thank those on whose territories we’re gathered, and pay respect to their Elders.

And third, a final thanks for inviting me to speak once again at your annual conference among so many familiar faces. Your conference every year is a chance to come together and discuss the day-to-day reality of being an independent service provider who is often closer to your customers than anyone else in the room. The challenges you face. The opportunities to be seized. This is a room where lived operational reality and policymakers are all in the same room together.

Modernizing Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure

The CRTC is an independent agency. We are a communications regulator. We work alongside other government entities like Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), which regulates spectrum. But we are at arm’s length from government. We are guided by the policies that Parliament set out for us in the Telecommunications Act, and by the directions that Cabinet issues us from time to time.

Our framework has sought to unleash competition that benefits end-users. As we do so, the ground continues to shift. Sometimes it can be hard to tell just how much the ground has really shifted. We can be too focused on the smudges on the glass in front of us, and miss what’s happening on the other side of the window.

Right now, it’s not hard to tell. The pivot point is obvious.

In parts of your footprints you compete with large incumbent telephone and cable companies that bundle mobile with fixed connectivity.

In most of your footprints you’ve become used to competing with a low-earth orbit system virtually everywhere. Soon, it is expected, with more than one such system. Mobile devices whose release versions increasingly incorporate native support for these non-terrestrial network as a third “leg,” alongside the cellular and WiFi connectivity that they already support, are steadily rolling out.

You are competing with large competitors and new entrants who, like you, operate in an environment where any barriers to foreign ownership were wiped away for all but the largest players years ago.

So, increasingly, you are rarely the only option. Instead, you are the local option. You are headquartered in the same country, often in the same province, often in a nearby community. You speak your customers’ language. You bump into them at the grocery store. You have organic, built-in barometers for how your service is faring and what and where you need to tweak.

But the ground on which you do that is continuing to shift. Traditionally, the telecommunications system we steward has been based on copper lines, running a Public Switched Telephone Network, terrestrially, to fixed endpoints. Many of you have built Internet access business alongside that system. Many of you offer voice-over-IP-based services that interconnect with it at strategic points.

The CRTC has been receiving applications asking us to reexamine every part of that system. It’s not just swapping out copper for fibre. It’s about a system with broadband and the Internet Protocol at its core. What is the future of the Public Switched Telephone Network? What elements remain required? What ought to be mandated, and on which providers? Should incumbent local exchange carriers remain carriers of last resort? How do we ensure every home continues to have connectivity? Does every home need a landline, or the ability to subscribe to one? It’s one thing to note how far these services have advanced in the market, and how copper landlines continue to retreat. It’s another thing to reorient the system entirely. That’s what we’re being asked to do.

We’re not the first. Some might argue we’re late to the party. Countries across Europe, for instance, have been actively engaged in copper turndown, with an eye towards clear expectations, standards, and timelines. With it, they have been thinking about what the future of the PSTN is and what elements are still needed. So are we.

These are significant shifts. And, whenever there are significant shifts, those in this room have to be thinking about how they will be impacted, or – more proactively – about how they can shape the direction of those shifts to maximize opportunity.

You will have seen that we have been busy with regulatory workstreams on a range of fronts.

This includes a number of consumer protection rulemaking proceedings, including self-service mechanisms for customers, notifying customers of outages and of contract renewal dates, and how consumers are made aware of the CCTS.

We also have a proceeding on outage reporting, which has come to a decision, and another on network resiliency and reliability. How should ISPs work towards always-on service availability? Design resilient networks to withstand disruptions? Implement robust network operation processes? Support each other during times of need?

In all of these, one of the questions on the table is always: to which service providers should obligations like these apply? Should all obligations apply to all telcos? Is there a size threshold below which that doesn’t make sense? Does the answer change when small telcos actively compete with large telcos, as opposed to being the only choice available in the marketplace?

In thinking about these questions, one of the concepts I’ve found it useful to go back to is what industrial economists call “minimum efficient scale.” The idea is that when you load on more and more regulation obligations, you’re ratcheting up minimum efficient scale. In other words, you’re raising entry barriers, and limiting the number of players able to minimize costs in a way that lets them stick around and continue to offer a local option.

That is one of the lenses I am trying to apply to thinking about if the juice is worth the squeeze. It is also an area where hearing from smaller and independent telcos continues to be fundamental. We can best make that kind of decision when we have tangible evidence on the record as to what ratcheting up minimum efficient scale means for the competition that serves consumers, what the impact is on consumers when we do or don’t apply those rules to all providers, and why. To put it differently: the difference between not intervening in one of our proceedings at all, and putting in something brief but illustrative of your realities, is far greater than the difference between putting something in that’s brief or that’s lengthy and detailed.

Reducing regulatory burden

All that said, our goal is obviously not to increase regulatory burden. On the contrary. A red tape reduction wind is blowing through governments and their independent agencies. It is one I welcome.

In September, we published a Red Tape Reduction Progress Report on our streamlining orientations. We are mindful of recurring obligations to which you are subject and finding places where we can pare that down. For example, for those who provide voice services, we temporarily suspended the semi-annual report on spoofed and digital nuisance calls in December, and we are trying to find a lightweight solution to carry forward. The Broadband Fund application process also requires less information than before.

The idea is to strike the right balance between necessary oversight and minimizing your administrative work – and to make that part of the way we work going forward.  

Promoting competition and access to affordable telecommunications service

Part of striking that balance is making it easier to build and maintain networks.

Last year, I discussed our work to make access to telecommunications poles for competitors easier and more efficient. We had just made a decision on final tariffs for these poles. Well, a couple months after that, we made a further decision clarifying that telecom pole access includes wireless network equipment too.

At the same time, we continue to approve projects through the Broadband Fund, by which we redistribute a proportion of industry revenues towards new builds in underserved areas. Our program is small compared to some other funds. So far, we have awarded just over $770 million, across 320 communities in Canada. But that smaller scale also trickles down into the kinds of projects we fund. Of 68 projects, 40 – more than half – have gone to independent providers and, in rare cases, government applicants. The other 28 (41%) have gone to large incumbents. All but one of the projects funded have been below $100 million. All but five have been below $25 million. 55, or 81%, have been below $10 million. 21, or 31%, have been below $1 million.

So far that has taken place through three rounds of calls and applications. A fourth call for applications for the Broadband Fund is coming soon. If you are interested in applying, it is time to get ready. In the meantime, we are here for questions.

Ongoing proceedings

Finally, I have spoken about some of our ongoing and upcoming proceedings. But one I want to draw special attention to is an upcoming proceeding on combining four of our consumers codes – the Internet (Access) Code, the Wireless Code, the Television Service Provider Code, and the Deposit and Disconnection Code that currently applies to landlines.

All of these codes were put in place to require consumer-friendly practices on the part of service providers, and to do so in a way that keeps customers informed of the rights and responsibilities in their contracts. For instance, if they are signing on for a special deal, how long that deal lasts, and how much they will actually have to pay as they look out over the lifetime of their contracts.

As I am sure you are well aware, the lines between service providers and services are increasingly blurred. Many providers now bundle these services in ways that make it advantageous for the customer to pay for multiple services from the same provider.

In this environment, we’re not convinced it makes sense to have multiple codes applying to different aspects of what is in many cases the same relationship. Nor are we convinced it’s easy for consumers to keep track of what rights they have in respect of what service. So we have plans to consolidate and simplify those codes into a single, clear and cohesive code to the benefit of both service providers and consumers.

The details and timing of that proceeding will be announced later this spring. But rest assured that questions like service provider size, systemic importance, and minimum efficient scale will all be in scope. Stay tuned for an announcement on those consultations, and work with your teams and industry associations to determine the best way to get involved and ensure that your situations and what you have learned about your customers are on the record.

Conclusion

Being at a pivot point puts everyone in this room at a key strategic moment. The reason the CRTC attends events like these is that we want to work together on the new and pressing issues that will require us to choose a direction, and will allow you to get involved in shaping your future.

Thank you for taking the time to attend this session. While I cannot speak directly to matters currently before us, I am happy to take any questions you may have.