The state would have declared a national disaster long ago if animal species were disappearing as quickly as opposition from American independent internet providers.
Smaller internet service providers have recently been absorbed by larger companies or completely shut down. In a regulatory hearing a year ago, the Competitive Network Operators of Canada ( CNOC ) head Paul Andersen stated that independent operators have lost almost 40 % of subscribers nationwide and almost 50 % in Ontario and Quebec since late 2020.
CNOC itself is shrinking. The business now has merely 15 members, down from 31 only three years ago. More ISPs could be forced out when the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications and Telecommunications Commission ( CRTC ) makes its most recent ruling in this ongoing regulatory battle next week.
At the heart of this drop is the CRTC’s long-running fight to control competition. It has been up for debate for almost 20 years over whether independent providers should be able to access networks created by larger telecommunication companies for a reasonable price.
Third Party Internet Access has been a process that the committee has tried to advance on numerous occasions. It has set time general exposure levels, had them appealed, tried to correct them, been forced to retreat, reconsidered them again, been told by government to take another look, and set rules for some regions that don’t apply to others—but might in the future.
Despite all this, opposition keeps shrinking, and the online marketplace is looking more like the wire TV industry—where fewer choices mean higher costs and weaker rivals.
Some argue that the solution is simple: those who invest in infrastructure—digging ditches and stringing poles to take fabric lines to homes—shouldn’t be forced to promote their sites.
In a real free market, that argument may be plausible. But Canada’s telecoms business isn’t a free market. It is a guarded, regulated business in which policy decisions frequently shift.
Often, telecoms giants complain about governmental burdens. Other times, they benefit—such as when they are allowed to pack computer, cell phone, cable, and telephone services into special packages. All parties involved in the CRTC’s relationship are playing this game.
Under this method, blocking companies from accessing sites doesn’t market competition. It creates an duopoly. At worst, it leads to a dominance.
For decades, Bell, Rogers, and Telus have insisted that fewer competitors basically benefit consumers. They argue that the number of dogs in the battle doesn’t matter—it’s the battle in the dogs that works.
They assert that a select few powerful rivals may maintain lower prices and high service standards. Perhaps they acknowledge, however, that companies need an opportunity to build facilities.
That is where things get complicated.
Local businesses like SaskTel, Eastlink, and Videotron operate under a variety of business models, which raises the question of how competition may become defined in a business where some people are government-owned while others are vertically integrated companies.
This brings us to Telus’s latest shift.
Right now, Telus—a telecoms giant in the West—is trying to enter Ontario as a “new company”. The business claims that it deserves the same treatment as separate ISPs when it requests exposure to fiber networks created by both large and small players.
This attempt to play both sides has turned into a regulatory disaster, acting as an president in some markets and seeking favorable entry as a rival in people. Multiple CRTC decisions, government appeals, legal battles, and a Telus-backed “populist” plea have merely complicated the situation.
While all of this transpires, smaller ISPs struggle to stay upright while incumbent can relax while the rest of the system is awash with regulations. They need quality. Alternatively, they get pause after delay.
Consumers deserve genuine opposition, but only if investors are aware of the stability of the regulatory environment. Right then, that security does not occur.
Next year, the CRTC will issue its latest decision. Does it eventually withstand opposition, or will it allow Canadians to choose from fewer options and pay more for it?
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an award-winning journalist, and past vice-chair of the CRTC. This professional judgment was published on Troy Media on January 31, 2025, and it has since been reprinted with permission.
Broadband Breakfast accepts remark from knowledgeable experts on the wifi industry. Please take parts to , . The opinions expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not always reflect those of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.