broadband Internet access service are a minimum of 5 Mbps

l 
Context: Broadband Inclusion for All
l 
SSi history and operational focus
l 
Broadband policy objectives expressed for Canada and the North
l 
Challenges for affordable broadband in the North
l 
Broadband funding plans in other jurisdictions
l 
An already-made-in-Canada solution
l 
The way forward: empower the consumer
l 
Conclusions
l 
Appendix – Tables of National Broadband Targets
Context: Broadband
Inclusion for All
l 
In 2010, UNESCO issued the Declaration of Broadband Inclusion for All
l 
Policy priority: expand access to broadband, an essential service
“The Internet and other ICTs now constitute
critical modern resources and are a vital
prerequisite for participation in today’s growing
digital economy.”
“Recent research has shown that broadband
infrastructure and services contribute to
economic growth and promote job creation.
“Expanding access to broadband infrastructure
and services must therefore be a top policy
priority for countries around the globe.”
UNESCO / ITU Broadband Commission for Digital
Development, October 2011
SSi History and
Operational Focus
l 
Founded in Fort Providence in1965, Headquartered in Yellowknife, NWT
l 
Specialize in the design, deployment and operation of networks in remote locations
l 
Expertise gained in Northern Canada has been leveraged for opportunities in Africa,
Indonesia and the South Pacific
l 
Today SSi delivers services
to over 50 communities of
Nunavut and the NWT
l 
Continued development of
international opportunities
l 
1999 Kitikmeot Corporation, Nunavut
l 
2000 Kativik Regional Government satellite network,
Nunavik
l 
2003 Care International voice and data network, Africa
l 
2004 Skyline Wireless NLOS broadband, Yellowknife
l 
2004 Global Development Group emergency relief,
Indonesia
l 
2005 Telecom Services Kiribati broadband wireless, Kiribati
l 
2005 QINIQ satellite and broadband wireless network,
Nunavut
l 
2006 AirWare satellite and broadband wireless network,
NWT
l 
2010 Government of Nunavut Wide Area Network, Nunavut
l 
2011 Northern Space Link teleport, NOC and data centre,
Ottawa
l 
2011 “Chat Box” IP-based voice services launched in
Nunavut
l 
2011 North is opened to competition, CLEC conversion
begins
l 
2012 Major capital upgrades ($12M) to the QINIQ network
for broadband across Nunavut
l 
2012 Implementation of Anik F3 diversity / redundancy
l 
2012 “TIMS”: Technical, Installation, Maintenance & Service
training initiative launched in Nunavut
l 
2012 Equipment selection and trials for 2G, 3G and 4G
mobile services in remote communities
l 
2012 “Remote Power Unit” Prototype development started
Broadband Policy Objectives
Expressed for Canada and the North
Key to maintain in Nunavut:
•  The same broadband services
•  At the same price
•  Regardless of community size
or location
“Broadband services are actually the most critical to the smallest
communities.”
"When we encouraged the initial broadband investments […], we insisted
that every resident living in any Nunavut community – no matter how small
or remote – be able to access broadband services at the same quality and
the same price.”
Darrell Ohokannoak, Chair, NBDC
l 
Arctic Communications Infrastructure Assessment Report,
Recommendation 2, Bandwidth shortage and high cost to end user:
l 
Develop an Arctic-specific strategy with clearly defined rules, that articulates a
sustained, multi-year funding commitment for communications network
development to meet connectivity standards set by policy makers
l 
Margaret Hollis, speaking for the Government of Nunavut on October
4, 2011, before the CRTC:
l 
“We need to plan holistically and not just in these little Band-Aids of this
subsidy here and this Infrastructure Canada grant and that Industry Canada
grant and this CRTC grant. We need a coherent plan for the whole thing.”
l 
Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-291, “Obligation to serve and
other matters”:
l 
The Commission considers that the appropriate target speeds for
broadband Internet access service are a minimum of 5 Mbps download
and 1 Mbps upload. The Commission notes that, while many Canadians in
urban areas already have access to broadband Internet services at or
above these target speeds, such speeds are not currently available to
most Canadians in rural and remote areas.
l 
With respect to the date for achieving the target speeds, the Commission
considers that, based on the record of this proceeding, the end of 2015 is
appropriate.
l 
The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry, at the
Canadian Telecom Summit, Toronto, June 5, 2012:
l 
Let's not forget that Canadian telecom providers invest over $8 billion
a year to provide us with faster and more robust services.
l 
But despite these investments, there remains a gap between rural and
urban access to leading-edge broadband. Canada can do better.
l 
In order to succeed, rural Canadians need access to the same
services as urban Canadians. That's why our government invested in
Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians. This program will
bring faster Internet service to nearly 220,000 households across the
country.
Challenges for Broadband
in the North
l 
100% of Nunavummiut have access to broadband (2012 definition)
l 
Through investments by SSi and under the Broadband Canada program,
significant upgrades to QINIQ consumer service plans in Nunavut tripled
usage caps and increased download speeds by up to four times
l 
But Broadband Canada funding runs out in 2016: long-term and sustainable
plans are needed to deliver quality and affordable broadband into the future
l 
And the clock is ticking is not simply for Nunavut, but all of the North
SLIDE # 15
l 
Higher costs for:
l 
l 
l 
l 
l 
Shipping
Construction
Access (limited flights, small aircraft)
Backbone Connectivity
Power Costs ($0.50 – $2.00 /kWh)
l 
SSi carries out significant R&D to develop solutions for remote
diagnostics and repairs to address challenges of distance and
climate
l 
Broadband is vital for Northern economic and educational
development
l 
Collaboration between government and the private sector must
continue
l 
If allowed to purchase Astral, Bell offered to pay itself $40
million to deploy broadband wireless access infrastructure
across the North (to compete with others)
l 
This would supposedly allow “access to the extensive ondemand offerings that can only be accessed online”
l 
But broadband access is widely available - the real issue
is the very high cost of bandwidth transport in the North
(satellite and fibre)
l 
Example: anyone with an Internet connection can
purchase for $2.99 a single 45-minute episode of MadMen
using Apple’s iTunes
l 
For a Northwestel DSL customer in Iqaluit, this could cost
up to $37.50 more because of Internet usage charges to
download the programming
l 
So… simply not affordable nor sustainable
Broadband Funding Plans
From Other Jurisdictions
l 
OECD, “Universal Service Policies in the Context of National Broadband
Plans”, 2012:
l 
The economic and social objectives that served as the original foundation for
universal service in telecommunications remain valid today but acquire a new
dimension with the expansion of high capacity networks and the evolution of
social needs.
l 
Economic incentives are insufficient to extend broadband networks and their
services beyond a certain point, but there are broader economic and social
justifications that support the provision of telecommunication services for all at a
certain level. […]
l 
In the end, the ever-present question will be how best to economically expand
broadband coverage and use, to the greatest practical extent, with the minimum
distortion on competition, as opposed to imposing a particular policy instrument.
l 
“We are taking a new approach to delivering connectivity in rural and hard to
reach areas that the market will not provide for.
l 
“Where local authorities have superfast broadband as a development priority,
BDUK will work with them to source an upgrade to the data transport
infrastructure. This will be the foundation for the Government’s £530m
investment commitment over the lifetime of this Parliament.
l 
“Networks can then be extended over time to provide enhanced access to
broadband for individual premises in a variety of ways.
l 
“For example, an operator’s cabinet can be equipped to support the splicing of
fibre builds into the access network. Interfaces can be made available such
that wireless networks or indeed community managed femtocells can be
added to the network.”
1.10 Réduire la fracture numérique en Outre-mer
l 
Le développement économique et sociétal de l’Outre-mer passe entre autres
par la réduction de la fracture numérique. Les technologies de l’information et
de la communication sont essentielles pour développer l’attractivité et la
compétitivité de ces territoires.
l 
Cependant, si en Métropole près de 50 % des foyers sont abonnés au haut
débit, seuls 5 à 20 % des foyers d’Outre-mer en bénéficient avec des tarifs
bien plus élevés. De même, l’Outre-mer ne profite pas encore des dernières
technologies, par exemple la téléphonie mobile de 3e génération.
l 
L’insularité Outre-mer rend encore plus critique la mise à disposition
d’infrastructures et de services performants pour les entreprises
(développement et attractivité économique) et les particuliers.
1.10 Réduire la fracture numérique en Outre-mer
l 
L’amélioration des mesures de défiscalisation pour les câbles sous-marin doit
permettre de développer les accès haut débit Outre-mer, notamment à
Mayotte, à Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, à Wallis et Futuna ainsi qu’en Polynésie.
l 
En Guyane et à la Réunion, la mise en place d’un second câble sous-marin
doit permettre de développer les ressources pour satisfaire la montée en débit
de ces territoires et les nouveaux besoins, tout en assurant une baisse des
prix pour le consommateur.
Action n°29 : Développer l’accès Internet à haut débit Outre-mer. Les
conditions de défiscalisation des investissements dans les câbles sousmarins seront modifiées afin de rendre éligible l’ensemble du coût des
projets, notamment en dehors des eaux territoriales.
l 
In late 2011, the FCC in the United States ordered a major "rejig" of the
Universal Service fund (their equivalent of Canada's National Contribution
Fund),
l 
Support under the new “Broadband Mobility Fund” shifted support from local
wireline telephony to broadband wireless
l 
Phase I of the new FCC approach was completed in early October 2012
l 
“Negative auctions” were used to determine winners of support for one-time
capital upgrades to allow remote area access to broadband wireless
l 
A second phase of the Mobility Fund will provide funding for ongoing
operational support.
An already-made-in-Canada
solution
l 
Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, Local Competition
l 
In this Decision, the Commission establishes a contribution mechanism that
balances the objective of fostering effective competition with the equally
important objective of ensuring that, to the greatest extent possible, residence
customers, including those in higher cost areas, have access to services that
reflect the benefits of competition.
l 
The Commission agrees with the positions of most parties that there should
be a portable contribution approach, in which all LECs would have access to
sources of subsidy and in which contribution would be provided to any LEC
that serves a subsidized subscriber.
l 
The Commission is of the view that providing access to subsidy sources will
substantially reduce barriers to entry by CLECs into high cost areas, thereby
ensuring that the benefits of competition are made available as widely as
possible.
l 
CRTC TRP 2011-291, Obligation to serve and other matters
l 
The basic service objective includes dial-up access to low-speed Internet at
local rates.
l 
While dial-up access was the norm when the basic service objective was
created, broadband speeds have become the prevalent means of accessing
the Internet.
l 
In Canada, the rollout of broadband Internet access has been successful
through a combination of market forces, targeted funding, and public- private
partnerships at all levels of government. However, service gaps remain in
rural and remote areas for broadband Internet access.
l 
[…] Accordingly, the Commission will not require broadband Internet access to
be provided as part of any basic service objective.
l 
CRTC TRP 2011-291: Obligation to serve and other matters
l 
On the funding of broadband:
l 
l 
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that it would not be
appropriate at this time to establish a funding mechanism to subsidize the
deployment of broadband Internet access services. The Commission will
review the matter of funding mechanisms should market gaps persist.
On portable subsidies:
l 
The Commission considers that subsidies should be available only to those
carriers that have an obligation to serve all customers in a given HCSA and
that meet the basic service objective.
l 
The Commission concludes that subsidies will not be available to CLECs,
in either the large or small ILECs’ territories, effective 1 June 2011.
l  To
quote the English Beat:
“WHA’ PPEN?”
The Way Forward:
Broadband is Essential,
Empower the Consumer
“The home phone is becoming a bit of a way of the past.”
- Paul Flaherty, Northwestel CEO, October 22, 2012
l 
Today, Northwestel receives an exclusive $20.5 million per year from the
National Contribution Fund to subsidize “the home phone” of the past
l 
We propose that the CRTC’s National Contribution Fund be reworked effectively brought into the 21st century - to include support for broadband
in remote areas
l 
Policies must empower the consumer, not an incumbent monopoly, to
determine the best technology choice and service provider
l 
And the forum to refine and implement the policies is upon us: the CRTC’s
upcoming holistic review into the regulatory framework for the North
l 
As it has done in the past, the CRTC should empower the consumer and
implement a system of "portable contribution" for broadband service in high
cost areas
l 
In any given high cost community or region, a dollar amount of contribution to
support the cost of broadband will be established (by the CRTC, by Industry
Canada, by negative auction – TBD)
l 
The consumer can then choose to receive broadband service from any
eligible broadband provider, who will receive the contribution amount to
reduce the consumer’s broadband bill
l 
Southern Canada already has the Canadian Portable Contribution
Consortium, set up in 1997 to allow for portable contribution subsidies for local
voice service.
l 
Expanding the functioning of the Consortium to include broadband service can
be readily done
l 
From CRTC TNC CRTC 2010-43, Obligation to serve and other
matters, Prepared On Behalf of The Consumer Groups, April 26, 2010
l 
Although access to [High Speed Internet] service would be included in the
updated definition of basic service, HSI service would be a separate and
unbundled service offering […].
l 
That is, customers would have the right to choose to subscribe to basic
telephone service as currently defined and separately to subscribe to HSI
service.
l 
They could choose either one of those service on its own, or both,
corresponding to the choice available to customers is competitively- served
market with access to HSI service at this time.”
l 
2016 is coming.
l 
Canada must set a policy priority for there to be broadband service parity
among Northern communities, with minimum standards to assure affordability
and service quality
l 
The policy requires a commitment to a holistic and long-term funding plan,
one which does not constrain the benefits of competition
l 
The good news: the CRTC’s upcoming holistic review of the regulatory
framework for the North is the forum to address and resolve the means to
ensure broadband inclusion for all
l 
And there is and already-made-in-Canada solution: the CRTC’s portable
contribution mechanism, expanded to cover broadband in high cost areas
l 
And remember: broadband is essential. Empower the consumer!
OECD (2011), “National Broadband Plans”
OECD (2011), “National Broadband Plans”
OECD (2011), “National Broadband Plans”