We echo the importance of rolling out broadband in rural communities, and our members are doing just that, often with the help of the government programs that are in place, which are much needed. We welcome investment from anyone in rural broadband.
It's just that the starting point, for example, is that Rogers calls this a “broadband “fund. It's not a fund like the universal broadband fund, or the connecting Canadians program, or the connect to innovate funds, which are open to any provider eligible to apply. The funds have very clear rules on eligibility and the goals associated with it, as well as transparency in the process and auditing of the results at the end to make sure that they actually accomplish what the money was intended to do.
As far we know, we haven't heard any details in fact about the “Rogers fund”, as it's called, in that respect. It's money that Rogers has put forward as a commitment to sweeten the pot for this deal, but beyond that, they'll be in control of the money and we don't know necessarily where it will go and how its success will be measured.
One of the concerns we have is that while they suggested at the outset that the money would be going to 600,000 customers in western Canada who are unserved or underserved, on Monday when they appeared before you, they added the goal of serving communities that already have a provider. In underserved communities or smaller rural communities that already have a provider, it's typically because they've had access to help from the government funds.
What Rogers is now seeming to propose is that it's going to overbuild in communities where the government has already been in to support the building of broadband. That doesn't seem to us to be a good use of available resources and good public policy to be overbuilding against what taxpayers have supported building already.