Tensions rise over broadband fund

Remote communities vying for priority

Sluggish Internet speeds present a problem for millions of Canadians, whether they live in remote northern regions, First Nations communities or rural areas near major cities where access is taken for granted.

But tensions are rising over who should get priority access to the Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission’s $ 750- million fund to bring broadband up to speed in rural and remote regions, leaving the distribution details up to a consultation.

In submissions to the regulator late last month, the biggest industry players, local governments and public interest groups presented vastly different visions of who should get the cash and how it should be doled out.

The fund could technically apply to the approximately 6.5 million Canadian households (82 per cent) that don’t have access to the new and ambitious target download and upload speeds of 50 Mbps and 10 Mbps.

But the cash will only help a fraction of them given the high cost of broadband infrastructure.

While most agreed populations with the worst service should get first dibs on the cash, they disagreed on geographic priorities and whether to invest in backbone infrastructure or last mile service.

One top concern is whether satellite- dependent communities such as Nunavut and northern Quebec should be allocated more than 10 per cent of the fund, as originally recommended by the CRTC.

Rogers Communications Inc. suggested the CRTC steer clear of investing in areas near existing fibre facilities given the higher likelihood they will eventually be served by market forces. Governments in Alberta and Ontario, however, noted that competition hasn’t helped all rural areas hit the old targets of 5 Mpbs/1 Mpbs even if they’re within 25 kilometres of a major centre.

Rogers also argued the fund should prioritize remote communities, a view shared by northern provider SSi Micro and the governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories

“Make Canada proud of its service to Northern and remote communities and First Nations communities. Let them be the focus of this new fund,” Rogers wrote in its submission.

BCE Inc., however, agreed with the 10 per cent set aside for satellite communities. It proposed the rest of the funds be split fairly between provinces, then again between unserved and underserved communities.

Bell’s proposal had support from the National Pensioners Federation and the Public Interest Advocacy Centres — public interest groups that don’t typically side with industry.

Telus Corp. argued Bell’s proposal would be inefficient given the subjective nature of auct i on r equirements. It proposed the CRTC work with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to distribute the fund, given its existing $ 500- million budget f or broadband projects. It argued the CRTC money should go to last- mile connections efforts given the ISED fund is largely for transport facilities.

One thing the parties did agree on, however, was axing the CRTC’s proposed requirement that any project must have government funding to access the f und. They collectively agreed this would limit efficiency and unfairly turn away costeffective private projects.