Ottawa Pressed to Overturn Controversial CRTC Internet Access Ruling

Critics warn policy favors telecom giants, risks crushing Canada’s small ISPs and rural broadband efforts

A quiet but high-stakes internet policy fight is heating up in Canada—and the clock is ticking. The federal government has until August 13 to undo a controversial decision by the country’s telecom regulator that, critics say, could strangle local internet competition and roll back progress on rural connectivity.

At the heart of the storm? A Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruling that opens the door for the country’s biggest telecom players—Rogers, Bell and Telus—to piggyback on each other’s networks and those built by smaller, independent providers.

Opponents say it’s a disaster in the making for competition. And they’re asking Ottawa to step in before the damage is done.

What the new CRTC policy actually does

It sounds like a technical regulatory shift. But for internet service providers across Canada—especially the small and regional ones—it could mean life or death.

The CRTC’s new policy mandates wholesale access across existing fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks, including not just the infrastructure of Canada’s “Big Three” telecom companies, but also that of smaller independent ISPs.

Here’s the twist: that access goes both ways. In theory, it’s meant to spur broader connectivity. In practice, it could do the opposite.

Smaller ISPs—often the only providers willing to build in underserved areas—would now be forced to share their expensive, hard-earned infrastructure with giant incumbents that had previously ignored those communities.

One paragraph, but a lot of consequences.

Critics say the policy threatens innovation and rural access

Nathan Simington, a former commissioner at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is one of the most vocal critics. In a sharply worded op-ed for The Globe and Mail, he warned that Canada risks gutting its own internet ecosystem with what he calls a “well-meaning but backwards” policy.

He’s not alone. Independent ISPs and regional broadband groups have been sounding the alarm since the CRTC first announced the change.

Their main points?

• Disincentivizing local investment: Why would small ISPs build fibre lines if the giants can just ride their networks later?

• Harming rural development: Areas that only got connected because of regional ISPs might now be abandoned or ignored.

• Favoring dominant players: Rogers, Bell, and Telus already have huge advantages; giving them access to rivals’ infrastructure just widens the gap.

As one Quebec-based ISP executive put it: “We risk becoming contractors for our competitors.”

The political calculus: will Ottawa act?

All eyes are now on Ottawa. The federal cabinet has the authority to overturn CRTC decisions—but the window to do so is tight.

The question is, will they? And if so, what message would that send?

So far, the federal government has stayed quiet. Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne has previously expressed support for competition and affordability in telecom, but hasn’t made clear whether he plans to act before the August 13 deadline.

Behind closed doors, pressure is mounting.

A growing coalition of ISPs, tech advocates, consumer watchdogs, and even former telecom regulators are urging the cabinet to reverse the decision before it’s too late.

Here’s a quick snapshot of the forces at play:

Where the U.S. and Europe stand on similar battles

To add more fuel to the fire, Simington pointed to global precedent—namely the U.S. and European Union.

“In the U.S., we never allow dominant incumbents to gain regulatory access to smaller competitors’ networks. It goes against the basic principles of fair competition,” he said.

Europe has its own complex telecom landscape, but regulators there typically shield smaller broadband developers from such blanket wholesale mandates. The idea is to reward risk-takers, not penalize them.

In short: letting the big fish feed off the little ones? Not exactly standard practice.

And in Canada, where the telecom market is already one of the most concentrated among G7 nations, the stakes are even higher.

One line says a lot: You can’t build a competitive future by kneecapping the very people who are building it.

For rural users, the decision hits especially hard

Let’s not forget the human side of this.

In rural Saskatchewan, Northern Ontario, and parts of the Maritimes, internet access has only improved because smaller ISPs chose to invest where Bell and Rogers wouldn’t.

Now, those same areas could see their local providers squeezed out—ironically, by the very companies that once ignored them.

One rural customer near Prince Albert said, “We finally got decent fibre three years ago. If our provider disappears, I’m not holding my breath that Bell’s gonna step in.”

And that’s the broader fear: that the CRTC’s policy, while maybe rooted in cost efficiency, could lead to a pullback in rural infrastructure building. Why build when your competitors can just rent it later?

That’s not hypothetical. It’s happening.

• At least four regional ISPs have announced they’re reviewing expansion plans.

• Two smaller providers in Atlantic Canada have paused rural deployments.

• Industry analysts say the policy “casts a chill” over capital investment in small and midsize telecom firms.

It’s a mess, and there’s no sugarcoating it.