In Washington this week, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a critical move to accelerate broadband deployment, cutting red tape and embracing infrastructure collaboration to get high-speed internet to more Americans faster. On the same day, Canada’s telecom regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), moved in the opposite direction, defending a policy regime that major network builders call economically destructive and out of touch with modern infrastructure needs.
The contrast could not be clearer, or more concerning for Canadians.
The FCC’s Bold Pro-Build Move
The FCC’s announcement on Thursday was not just bureaucratic tinkering. It was a meaningful step to clear regulatory roadblocks that have hampered broadband expansion across America. By modernizing the rules around utility pole attachments, a key choke point for broadband rollout, the FCC is enabling telecom companies to build out their networks faster and with less costly delay. 
Pole access may seem mundane, but it’s essential infrastructure. Every delay or dispute over who can attach what to which pole slows down broadband delivery. America’s new rules give clear timelines, establish a consistent framework, and create incentives for cooperation between companies. The FCC even raised the prospect of extending these rules to include light poles, an aggressive step to maximize deployment options.
In other words, the U.S. is acting like a country that’s serious about economic growth, innovation, and delivering digital infrastructure at scale. The FCC is not getting bogged down in legacy fights over market share; it’s focused on outcomes, deployment, access, and investment.
CRTC: Protecting Yesterday’s Competition
Contrast that with the CRTC’s position in Canada.
On the same day as the FCC announcement, the CRTC doubled down on its decision to impose wholesale access rules that require fibre builders like Rogers and Bell to sell access to their infrastructure at regulated rates. The CRTC insists this creates “competition” by allowing smaller internet providers to lease capacity and resell it to consumers.
But Canada’s largest infrastructure investors are warning that this decision does the opposite, it deters new investment. Rogers, in a rare and strongly worded public statement, said the CRTC’s move “runs counter to the federal government’s own agenda to drive real competition, encourage network investment, and expand connectivity.” The company warned that billions in planned investment are now at risk, particularly in rural and remote communities where capital-intensive expansion is most needed.
Bell echoed the concern, launching a national campaign calling on the federal government to reverse the policy. According to Bell, the new regime rewards companies that don’t invest and penalizes those who do, creating a disincentive to build or upgrade networks.
These aren’t idle threats. In a capital-constrained environment with global opportunities, companies will allocate resources to jurisdictions with predictable returns. If Canada makes it harder to earn back infrastructure investments, those investments will go elsewhere—like the United States, which just made it easier.
A Tale of Two Philosophies
This divergence reflects two competing regulatory philosophies.
The American approach trusts markets, values speed, and prioritizes deployment. It acknowledges that infrastructure doesn’t build itself and that regulations must enable, not obstruct, those willing to risk capital to connect underserved communities. It reflects a pro-investment, pro-growth mindset.
The Canadian approach, by contrast, is driven by a belief that the government must engineer competitive outcomes, often by forcibly redistributing access to infrastructure. The CRTC sees itself not as a referee ensuring fair play, but as an architect attempting to design market outcomes from the top down. The result is predictable: less investment, more delay, and fewer incentives to innovate.
Ironically, this approach often entrenches the incumbents it claims to check. The resale model the CRTC favours tends to produce a tier of discount ISPs that are entirely dependent on the very companies they’re supposed to compete with. These resellers don’t build; they lease. And when infrastructure upgrades are needed, such as the transition to 5G or full fibre-to-the-home, it’s the network builders who must shoulder the burden, even as their profit margins shrink.
Missed Opportunity in Rural Canada
The implications of this policy misalignment are most acute in rural and remote communities. These are the regions that need broadband the most, and where the business case is hardest to make.
In the U.S., federal broadband dollars are increasingly flowing toward shovel-ready projects. By making it easier for builders to access poles and begin deployments, the FCC is making sure that rural Americans are not left behind.
In Canada, the CRTC’s decision actively discourages private-sector investment in these areas. The result? More government grants, more delays, and fewer projects that pencil out. The bureaucrats in Gatineau may believe they’re standing up for consumers, but the people paying the price are those still stuck with unreliable service or no service at all.
Ottawa’s Crossed Wires
It’s also worth noting the policy incoherence in Ottawa. The federal government, through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), says it wants to close the rural broadband gap and encourage investment. Meanwhile, its own regulator is undercutting that goal by punishing the very firms doing the building.
This is not a partisan problem, it’s a structural one. Ottawa’s broadband strategy is riddled with contradictions, and no one seems willing to reconcile them. On the one hand, politicians praise “public-private partnerships” and “nation-building infrastructure”; on the other, they quietly support rules that erode investor confidence and slow down deployment.
The CRTC’s decisions don’t happen in a vacuum. They send market signals. And right now, the signal is: if you invest in Canadian broadband, prepare to be punished.
A Competitive Disadvantage
This matters for more than just connectivity. Broadband is foundational to economic competitiveness. A country that cannot reliably deliver high-speed internet, at scale, and at speed, is at a structural disadvantage in the digital economy.
Canada has the talent. It has the geography. But it lacks regulatory ambition. The Americans, despite their political polarization, have managed to develop a bipartisan consensus that infrastructure matters. In the Build America Agenda, the FCC is executing on a national vision.
Canada, meanwhile, is stuck in a regulatory feedback loop, more studies, more consultation, more regulation of the last regulation. It’s not forward-looking policy; it’s policy inertia dressed up as consumer protection.
Time to Wake Up
The CRTC’s decision is a wake-up call, not just for telecom investors but for anyone who believes Canada can compete in the digital future. At a time when the U.S. is removing barriers to broadband deployment, Canada is erecting them. At a time when we should be encouraging bold investment, we are penalizing risk-takers.
If Ottawa is serious about closing the digital divide and building a resilient economy, it must step in and correct course. The FCC is showing what regulatory leadership looks like. It’s time Canada did the same.
