Summary

  • CRTC 2026-242 makes a geographically or technologically diverse second route eligible for future Broadband Fund resilience calls, while retaining the C$150 million annual cap.
  • The CRTC deferred broader recurring operating support. Its separate Indigenous-stream proceeding still asks whether operational costs should qualify; no such support has been approved.

A second route is a capital decision

The September policy changes what the Broadband Fund may build. Where no more than one terrestrial transport route serves a community, a resilience project must create a second route with similar or greater capacity that is geographically or technologically diverse. For a satellite-dependent community, a second, diverse satellite backhaul connection may qualify under the stated conditions. The aim is to reduce the risk that one route failure cuts off a community; the rule does not promise that every isolated network will receive a grant.

That distinction matters because a redundant link is an asset. It can give traffic another way into a community when the first path is unavailable. It does not, on its own, pay the monthly backhaul bill, keep a powered hut staffed, replace equipment after the grant period, or fund routine repairs. Those recurring obligations continue after a ribbon-cutting and after a project’s eligible completion date.

The fund moved one ledger and deferred another

In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2026-242, the CRTC made resilience projects eligible for future calls and maintained the annual distribution cap at C$150 million. It also noted that almost all contributions collected through the end of 2025 had already been allocated to selected projects. The cap is therefore part of a constrained programme, not a separate reserve for each new project type.

The same decision did not extend general operating-cost support. The Commission said such funding could serve the Broadband Fund’s access purpose, but deferred broader consideration until it could weigh two related processes: the proposed Indigenous stream and a Far North retail Internet subsidy proceeding. It said it would then assess whether gaps remain and whether the fund and the National Contribution Fund have capacity. The decision is a deferral, not a permanent rejection.

The record contains competing submissions: some parties argued that rural networks need operating support to remain viable and affordable; others warned of permanent subsidies, competition effects, administrative burden, and pressure on contributions. There is disagreement inside the decision too: Commissioner Bram Abramson’s dissent argued that further delay leaves structural questions unanswered and proposed scoped work on high-cost areas, service baselines, and cost and revenue assumptions. That is a dissent, not the policy adopted by the majority.

The current capital policy already draws a sharp line. Telecom Regulatory Policy 2024-328 generally permits direct costs of implementation, while excluding post-project expenses, operating costs to run funded infrastructure, general repairs and ongoing maintenance. Operational expenses to increase satellite transport capacity for satellite-dependent communities remain an exception. This boundary is not new, but the resilience decision makes it more visible: public money may pay for a second route while the recurring cost of keeping the network available remains a separate question.

Capital relief is not operating support

The 2024 policy eased some upfront constraints for Indigenous funding recipients. It allows a request-linked advance of up to 15% of approved capital funding, capped at C$750,000, after final approval; provides up to two years of initial local technical training; and waives the 10% holdback for qualifying projects of C$5 million or less. These measures can help a recipient secure equipment, materials or expertise and manage a construction project. They do not convert ongoing network operation into an eligible cost.

That is why the Indigenous-stream proceeding is consequential. Telecom Notice 2026-47 asks about the application and funding process, recipient reporting, and eligible costs. The CRTC reports that participants raised long-term financial support, training, flexibility and the difficulty of sustaining remote networks. Those are attributed views, not findings that every project is uneconomic. The notice says the stream should use a distinctions-based approach that recognizes the different rights, histories and governance systems of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The process remains open. Notice 2026-47-1 moved the intervention deadline to 1 December 2026 and the reply deadline to 2 March 2027 after the CRTC reported substantial interest from groups, Indigenous organizations, communities and governments. The Commission intends to put a draft policy on the record for comment before final approval. As of 11 October, the eligible-cost design is still being made.

Participation has a separate ledger

An August order adds one more distinction. The CRTC approved C$17,850 in interim costs for the First Mile Connectivity Consortium (FMCC) to participate in the proceeding. It found that FMCC, which operates largely on a volunteer basis, lacked sufficient resources to participate effectively without the award. The order is for consultants’ work in the policy process, including research, engagement and drafting. It is not a Broadband Fund project award and does not pay a network’s recurring costs. The CRTC allocated this specific amount among Rogers, TELUS, Bell and Quebecor by their telecommunications operating-revenue shares.

That small order does not establish what any community needs. It does show why the financial ledgers should not be blended: funds for a participant’s evidence help shape a rule; a capital award builds or hardens infrastructure; an operating mechanism would pay eligible costs over time. Each has a different recipient, purpose, control and test.

The next draft will determine whether the Indigenous stream changes the last ledger, and how. Until then, a funded second route is evidence of eligible resilience capital—not proof that a network has a durable operating model. A useful review of the draft will ask which recurring costs qualify, for how long, under what service and reporting conditions, and how the answer respects distinct community priorities without assuming they are identical.

Sources