August 2019604-170 Laurier Ave. West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5V5613-233-8891
csls@csls.ca

CENTRE FOR THE
STUDY OF LIVING
STANDARDS

An Improved Connectivity Component for an
Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities

Myeonwan Kim, James Ashwell, Nicole Johnston, and Sebastian Tansil

August 2019

CSLS Research Report 2019-05
Prepared for National Indigenous Economic Development BoardI

An Improved Connectivity Component for an Infrastructure
Index for Remote Indigenous Communities

Abstract
In March 2018 a report entitled “An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities”
was delivered to INAC. The report included discussion of the rationale and methodology for theindex and estimates for the index for 236 remote communities (200 Indigenous and 36 nonIndigenous) with breakdowns by jurisdiction (province/territory) and heritage group. The Index
itself consisted of seven components of infrastructure (broadband, transportation, energy, health,education, water and housing) and 15 separate indicators. A database of over 3,450 data points
was constructed with publically available information. One weakness identified with the index
was the broadband indicator, which focused on the availability of broadband, not its quality inremote Indigenous communities. INAC (now CIRNAC) was interested in addressing thisweakness and commissioned the Centre for the Study of Living Standards (CSLS) to develop a
new broadband indicator. In this report, we develop a new index for broadband connectivity,
incorporating two key factors that determine the quality of broadband services in Indigenous
communities in remote regions: speed and capacity.

IIAn Improved Connectivity Component for an Infrastructure
Index for Remote Indigenous Communities
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... II
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................III
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ IV
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................4
II. Broadband Connectivity and its Significance for Canadians ......................................................4
III. A New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous Communities .........................................5
1. Background ..............................................................................................................................5
2. Two Criterion for Determining the Index for Broadband Connectivity .................................7
3. Data Availability ......................................................................................................................8
4. New Index for Broadband Connectivity ..................................................................................9
IV. Estimates of the New Connectivity Index .................................................................................9
V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................11
References ......................................................................................................................................13
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................15

III

An Improved Connectivity Component for an Infrastructure
Index for Remote Indigenous Communities
List of Tables
Table 1: Old Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities,
by Province/Territory, Canada, 2018 ...............................................................................................7
Table 2: New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities,
by Province/Territory, Canada, 2018 ............................................................................................10
Table 2-1: New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities,
by Heritage Group, Canada, 2018..................................................................................................10
Table 3: Distribution of New Connectivity Scores by Availability of Broadband Backbone andLast mile Infrastructure, by Heritage Group, Canada, 2018 ..........................................................11
Table A1: New Connectivity Index, Selected Remote Communities, by Province andTerritory, Canada, 2018 .................................................................................................................15

IV

An Improved Connectivity Component for an Infrastructure
Index for Remote Indigenous Communities
Executive Summary
This report develops a methodology to measure and quantify connectivity in remotenorthern communities in Canada in order to improve the broadband connectivity indicatorused in the March 2018 report “An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous
Communities” delivered by the Centre for the Study of Living Standard to INAC. This
report developed the methodology and rationale for a composite index to measureinfrastructure levels in remote communities in Canada’s North. The report included
estimates for 236 remote communities (200 Indigenous and 36 non-Indigenous) withbreakdowns by jurisdiction (province/territory) and heritage group.
The infrastructure index itself was developed using 13 indicators of infrastructure, which
comprised seven types of infrastructure: access to basic broadband, transportation (comprised ofroads, ports/harbors, and airports), access to the electrical grid, health care, education (comprisedof on-site schools and community colleges), water (comprised of water treatment, water
distribution, and water quality), and housing (comprised of housing quantity and housing
quality). These types of infrastructure can be further aggregated to form the two sub-indices of
economic infrastructure and quality of life infrastructure, which then comprise the overall index.
A system of coding was used to rank-order and enumerate the response categories foreach of these infrastructure indicators. This system assigned values from 0 to 1 to each category,creating a numerical score for each indicator in each community, which could be used to
calculate scores for the seven types of infrastructure, two sub-indices and the overall index.
These calculations used a system of weighting that assigns equal value to each of the subcomponents within the types of infrastructure, equal weighting to each type of infrastructure in a
sub-index, and equal weighting to the sub-indices comprising the overall index.
A weakness was identified in the indicator used to measure broadband in the March 2018
report. In the 2018 report, the connectivity indicator was based on the availability of Internet and,if available, the type of service (dial-up or broadband). A score of 0 was given to communities
with no Internet service, a score of 0.5 to communities with dial-up Internet service and a scoreof 1 to communities with broadband services. No attention was given the quality of the service(e.g. download and upload speed, frequency of outages, hours of availability, reliability) or thecost of service. This report proposes a new indicator for broadband for the Indigenous
Infrastructure Index and develops estimates for the indicator for all 236 communities.
This report begins by defining broadband and analyzing the significance of broadband for
Canadians, with an emphasis on Canadian living in remote Northern communities. Broadband is
the most widely used form of Internet access and is provided in four major forms: Digital
Subscriber Line (DSL), fiber optic, cable, and satellite. In all these forms, broadband provides
greater bandwidth, giving its user greater ability to multitask with several applications
performing in the background (e.g. using the phone and listening to audio) while surfing the1

Internet. In an increasingly digitized society, broadband high-speed Internet is a cross-sector
enabler, impacting health services, education services and the ability to conduct business(FMCC, 2017). Broadband contributes to economic growth through easy flows of de-centralized
information sharing on the Internet, leading to an exchange of ideas and information conducive
to innovation (Czernich et al., 2011). Moreover, this development of an information society has
led to the rise of important economic activities such as e-commerce.
There are two main types of broadband: mobile broadband and fixed broadband. Mobile
broadband is the type of Internet accessed through smartphones and tablets using “3G” or “LTE”
mobile networks, while fixed broadband is the kind of Internet that is routed into users’ homes.
In this report, we focus on fixed Internet because this is the type of infrastructure that businesses
and households predominantly rely on for essential tasks, while mobile Internet is less essential.
There are two key factors that determine the quality of broadband connectivity: speed
and data allowance (or capacity). Remote areas are more likely to have speeds that are
inadequate for currently available digital services and tools, due largely to rough terrain and lackof related infrastructure, or reliance on satellite-based networks. It is also shown that theNorthern region where the average number of people per household is higher than the rest of
Canada, many households share a single Internet connection, and thus likely exhaust theirmonthly data allowance. Inadequate speed and data capacity have both social and economic
impacts on Northern communities.
In order to assess the state of broadband connectivity in Indigenous communities inremote regions, we examine two components of fixed broadband infrastructure, which have
implications for speed and capacity: "backbone" infrastructure and "last-mile" infrastructure.
Backbone infrastructure is the materials and equipment required to bring Internet access to acommunity from outside of the community, usually over a longer distance, and with relatively
large capacity. Local Internet service providers build last mile infrastructure to connect
households, businesses, and public institutions to this backbone. Using these two indicators ofbroadband connectivity, this report quantifies broadband infrastructure at the community level
using the following three categories: those with both adequate backbone access and last-mile
infrastructure (score of 1); those with one of the two attributes on connectivity (score of 0.5); andthose with neither attribute (score of 0).
The scores using the updated indicator for connectivity found in this report are much
lower than those found in the March 2018 report. Instead of a score or 0.99 or 1.0, the averagescore for remote communities is 0.56. There is also now a very large gap in scores between
remote Indigenous communities and remote non-Indigenous communities: 0.44 versus 0.92.
Additionally, there is a large gap in the levels of infrastructure among remote Indigenous
communities across provinces with Saskatchewan scoring a high of 0.81 and Nunavut a low of
0.00. Connectivity also varies among Indigenous heritage groups with the Métis scoring 0.85 andInuit faring the lowest at 0.11 (with First Nations at 0.59).
An analysis of the breakdown of the average scores for connectivity by the three scorecategories for remote non-Indigenous communities and Indigenous communities further
emphasizes the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and between
2Indigenous Heritage groups. Remote Indigenous communities are divided equally among thethree connectivity categories. For the 69 Indigenous communities missing either backbone or last
mile access, for most it was it last mile access that was missing. In contrast, for the 36 remote
non-Indigenous communities, not one had a lack of broadband access and only 6 were missing
backbone or last mile access. The proportion of Inuk communities with no broadband access wasvery high at 84 per cent, while 77 per cent of Métis communities had full broadband access.
The report concludes with an agenda for future research and data collection,
understanding the challenges in assessing the state of broadband connectivity using the current
Index. The agenda recognizes the challenge posed by unequal access to broadband within agiven geographic region, emphasizing the need to disaggregate data between Indigenous andnon-Indigenous communities falling within the same geographic zone. While the data provided
in this study benefits from using both capacity and speed measurements, the affordability andreliability of Internet have also been identified as key components in access to broadband that are
missed in this methodology. Depending on the availability of data, a more sophisticated Index
can be constructed to better reflect the quality of broadband connectivity in remote regions. One
direction would be to account for other factors that illustrate the state of broadband services inremote regions.

3

An Improved Connectivity Component for an Infrastructure
Index for Remote Indigenous Communities 1
I. Introduction
The CSLS sets out to accomplish three tasks: propose a new broadband or connectivity
indicator for the Indigenous infrastructure index to replace the indicator used in the 2018 index;
develop estimates for the indicator for all 236 communities; and integrate the new connectivity
indicator into the overall Indigenous infrastructure index. This document does the first two ofthese tasks. The third task is found in the new version of the report “An Infrastructure Index for
Remote Indigenous Communities.”

II. Broadband Connectivity and its Significance for Canadians
Broadband uses a high-speed transmission link to connect people to the Internet. Highspeed Internet access via broadband infrastructure has developed rapidly worldwide since thelate 1990s, becoming the most widely used form of Internet access. It is usually offered in four
different forms: Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), fiber optic, cable, and satellite. In all these
forms, broadband provides greater bandwidth, giving its user greater ability to multitask withseveral applications performing in the background (e.g. using the phone and listening to audio)
while surfing the Internet.
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has
established a “universal service objective that Canadians – in rural and remote areas as well as inurban centers – have access to voice services and broadband Internet access services on fixed
and mobile wireless networks” (CRTC, 2018). In a time of increasing digitization and higher
dependence on the Internet, high speed Internet access through broadband availability has cometo be recognized as an essential and basic telecommunications service.
Canada’s Indigenous communities have identified broadband high-speed Internet accessas a cross-sector enabler. It is required for “many applications such as health services,educational videos, webinars, personal and organizational videoconferencing, cloud-based
applications and software, and other bandwidth-intensive services” (FMCC, 2017). As the rest of
Canada’s urban population centers continue to develop broadband quality and capabilities foraccess to common services, it is easy for Canada’s remote rural and Indigenous communities toexperience greater isolation and disconnectedness from the rest of the country should they not beable to keep up with Canada’s own high-speed Internet development.
1

Contributions to this document were made by the following CSLS staff: James Ashwell, Nicole
Johnston, Myeonwan Kim and Sebastian Tansil under the supervision of CSLS Executive Director Dr.
Andrew Sharpe. We would like to thank Dr. Adam Fiser from the Conference Board of Canada forcomments on the proposed connectivity indicator. This report was prepared as a supplementary report for
the August 2019 CSLS report “An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities
Incorporating an Improved Connectivity Indicator”.
Emails: njohn070@uottawa.ca, andrew.sharpe@csls.ca.
4More than just generic entertainment, broadband access has been key to economic,
cultural, and community development. Broadband infrastructure has come to be an important
study for policymakers due to its capability to foster economic growth (Ford and Koutsky, 2005;
Koutroumpis, 2009). A quality broadband infrastructure allows for easy flows of de-centralized
information sharing on the Internet, leading to an exchange of ideas and information conducive
to innovation (Czernich et al., 2011). Moreover, this development of an information society has
led to the rise of important economic activities such as e-commerce.
New forms of social and economic transactions derived from ongoing Internet accesshave increased the demand for the development of broadband communication infrastructures andbroadband Internet connections (Umino, 2002). Additionally, policymakers are interested in
gauging the effects of the speed of broadband Internet access. This is because the quality ofbroadband Internet speed affects the quality of the individual’s experience and thereby, to asignificant extent, can determine the quality of certain kinds of services offered through it, suchas education and health (OECD, 2014).

III. A New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous Communities
In this section, we introduce our new measure of connectivity for remote Indigenous (andnon-Indigenous) communities in Canada. We differentiate between backbone infrastructure andlast-mile infrastructure, as the components are distinct. Both are important for the overall qualityof connectivity for a community as they imply the state of speed and capacity of broadband
services in a given community.
We first provide background for focusing on the two types of infrastructure to construct
the index for broadband connectivity for Indigenous communities in remote regions. We also
review the availability of data related to the state of the two types of infrastructure for remotecommunities in Canada. Then, we describe how the index for broadband connectivity isconstructed.
There are two main types of broadband: mobile broadband and fixed broadband. Mobile
broadband is the type of Internet accessed through smartphones and tablets using “3G” or “LTE”
mobile networks, while fixed broadband is the kind of Internet that is routed into users’ homes.
In this report, we focus on fixed Internet because this is the type of infrastructure that businesses
and households predominantly rely on for essential tasks, while mobile Internet is less essential.

1. Background
There are two key factors that determine the quality of broadband connectivity: speed
and data allowance (or capacity). First, high-speed Internet is crucial for households to enjoy
increasingly digitized services related to education, public information, and media. Moreover,small businesses and employees working remotely require high-speed connection to exploit
digital business tools and applications (e.g. conference calls, real-time collaborative work, andcloud-based tools). This implies that not only the download speed but also the upload speed is5crucial.2 According to CRTC (2018), "some representatives of smaller communities andcommunities outside large urban centres submitted that the lack of availability of higher speeds
constitutes a barrier to attracting businesses and investors into their communities." Therefore,
speed is a crucial factor that determines the quality of broadband connectivity.
Remote areas are more likely to have speeds that are inadequate for currently available
digital services and tools. Due to rough terrains and lack of related infrastructures, communities
in remote areas are likely to have poor or minimal broadband infrastructure (i.e. backbone andlast-mile infrastructure). Or, they are more likely to rely on satellite-based networks. Canadianhouseholds that rely on satellite services for their telecommunications needs tend to be in
Canada's most remote regions since terrestrial transport infrastructure is minimal or non-existent(CRTC, 2018). Satellite-based communication is best suited for areas with rough terrains where
it is difficult to lay wires (e.g. fiber optic). However, satellite-based communications have much
lower data rates (i.e. the speed with which data can be transmitted from one device to another)and more propagation delays, compared to cable- or fiber-based communications. The large
distance from communities on the earth to the satellites introduces significant delays in datatransfer.
Second, digital services offered over the Internet increasingly require substantial amountsof download and upload capacity. Not only adequate speed but also data allowance (or capacity)
is crucial for communities in remote regions to consume data required to satisfy theireducational, cultural, and social needs.
However, it is shown that the Northern region where the average number of people perhousehold is higher than the rest of Canada, many households share a single Internet connection.
This implies that they quickly exhaust their monthly data allowance, making access to broadband
less effective in participating in today's digital economy (e.g. e-health, e-finance, online learning
platforms, streaming media sites). The Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation, forexample, claims that consumers in satellite-served, remote, and predominantly indigenous
communities face the most restrictive data allowances among Canada's peers in the Group of
Eight and in the OECD.3
Moreover, while almost all cable- and fibre-based broadband Internet service subscribers
in urban centres can choose various data allowance packages including packages with anunlimited data allowance or data add-ons, many Canadians in rural or remote areas do not havethese choices (CRTC, 2018).
Inadequate speed and data capacity could potentially limit both social and economic
development in those areas. For example, limited data capacity and inadequate speed may
prevent farmers in remote areas from adopting increasingly digitalized operations in agriculture(e.g. computerized farm systems which require high data capacity). Hence, they become lessefficient than those in areas with access to higher quality broadband services. In general, remote2

Moreover, it is increasingly the case that households participate in creating digital services (e.g.
YouTube and personal blogs).
3
The Group of Eight (G8) includes: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
6

areas would be less attractive to businesses, talents, and tourists due to poor broadband services,
hampering economic activities and innovation.

2. Two Criteria for Determining the Index for Broadband Connectivity
In order to assess the state of broadband connectivity in Indigenous communities inremote regions, we examine two components of fixed broadband infrastructure, which have
implications for speed and capacity: "backbone" infrastructure and "last-mile" infrastructure.
Backbone infrastructure is the materials and equipment required to bring Internet access to acommunity from outside of the community, usually over a longer distance, and with relatively
large capacity. Local Internet service providers build last mile infrastructure to connect
households, businesses, and public institutions to this backbone. Where backbone infrastructure
ends and last-mile infrastructure begins is called a “point of presence” (PoP).
Criteria for the adequacy of backbone access include the availability of broadband of acertain capacity (e.g.1 GBPS) within a certain distance from the community (e.g. 2 Km). Criteria
for the adequacy of the last-mile infrastructure include the availability of broadband forhouseholds of a certain Internet speed (e.g. 5/1 Mbps) from terrestrial infrastructure.
Table 1: Old Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities, by
Province/Territory, Canada, 2018
Total remote

Indigenous

Non-Indigenous

Weighted

Unweighted

Weighted

Unweighted

Weighted

Unweighted

Alberta

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

British Columbia

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Manitoba

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Newfoundland and Labrador

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

n/a

n/a

Northwest Territories

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Nunavut

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

n/a

n/a

Ontario

0.94

0.94

0.89

0.93

1.00

1.00

Quebec

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

n/a

n/a

Saskatchewan

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yukon

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Canada

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

Communities can be classified into three groups: those with both adequate backbone
access and last-mile infrastructure; those with one of the two attributes on connectivity; andthose with neither attribute.
In the 2018 report, the connectivity indicator was based on the availability of internet
and, if available, the type of service (dial-up or broadband). A score of 0 was given tocommunities with no internet service, a score of 0.5 to communities with dial-up internet service
and a score of 1 to communities with broadband services. No attention was given the quality of7the service (e.g. download and upload speed, frequency of outages, hours of availability,
reliability) or the cost of service.
As some form of broadband access appears to be available in virtually all remotecommunities in Canada, it turned out that the score for connectivity in the 2018 report were
extremely high, generally 0.99 or 1.0, as seen in Table 1. This was the case even in remote Inuit
communities. While technically correct, this is not particularly useful information for assessing
the connectivity gap between remote Indigenous communities and remote non-Indigenous
communities, and between remote Indigenous communities and cities in Southern Canada.

3. Data availability
In order to increase access to high speed Internet, the federal government has allocated$500 million in funding for ISED to distribute to improve backbone and last-mile infrastructure
under the “Connect to Innovate” program. ISED has collected data on Internet access incommunities across Canada to determine eligibility for these funds, which we propose we use toimprove the broadband component of the Indigenous Infrastructure Index.
ISED proposes five types of funding eligibility, three for backbone and two for last-mile.
Useful data is provided by ISED on community eligibility for two of these funding streams: new
backbone and new last-mile funding. The other types of funding require communities to provide
proof of eligibility, so no useful public data can be obtained from those requirements.
New backbone eligibility: Communities are eligible for new backbone projects, incommunities where current backbone capacity is less than one Gigabit per second (1 Gbps), or
the nearest access to backbone infrastructure of that capacity is more than 2 km away.
New last-mile eligibility: Communities are eligible for new last-mile projects if, within
a populated 25km square hexagon (as defined by ISED), there are zero households with access toterrestrial internet infrastructure providing internet of speeds greater than 5 megabits per second
download and 1 megabit per second upload (5/1 Mbps). Hexagons meeting this eligibility
requirement are identified by a unique ID as shown on ISED’s eligibility map.
Sources used by ISED to ascertain eligibility: Backbone and last-mile coverage
information has been collected by ISED through consultation with ISPs, the CRTC, industry
associations, provinces and territories, and other stakeholders – Broadband Internet Services in
Canada.4

4

The eligibility map is available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/sitt/ibw/hm.html?lang=eng.
8

4. New Index for Broadband Connectivity
Using the lists of communities and areas in which backbone and last-mile infrastructure
are lacking, we propose that the broadband measure be broken down into three levels as follow.
Note that the example communities presented in the bracket can be found in Table A1 in the
Appendix.
0.0: Community lacks a 1 Gbps backbone access within 2 km of the community (the community
is eligible for new backbone funding) AND the hexagonal area in which the community issituated has no households with 5/1 Mbps Internet speeds from terrestrial infrastructure (thecommunity is eligible for new last-mile funding) (e.g. Cambridge Bay, NU)
0.5: The community lacks a 1 Gbps backbone access within 2 km of the community (thecommunity is eligible for new backbone funding) BUT there is at least one household within the
25km hexagon in which the community is situated which has access to 5/1 Mbps internet speeds
from terrestrial infrastructure (the community is NOT eligible for new last-mile funding).
OR the community has a 1Gbps backbone but some or all of the community is situated in an area
in which no household has access to speeds of 5/1 Mbps (e.g. St. Theresa Point (Reserve), MB)
1.0: The community has a 1 Gbps backbone access AND at there is least one household within
the 25km hexagon in which the community is situated which has access to 5/1 Mbps internet
speeds from terrestrial infrastructure (community not eligible for new backbone NOR new lastmile funding) (e.g. Sioux Lookout, ON)
For more examples, we present the connectivity scores for selected communities by
province and territory in Table A1 in the Appendix.

IV. Estimates of the New Connectivity Index
The new estimates of connectivity for the 236 remote Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities are found in Table 2 and Table 2-1, with breakdowns by province for Indigenous
and non-Indigenous communities based on the most recent data and breakdowns by heritage
ground at the national levels (breakdown by heritage group by province/territory can becompiled from the database). Two sets of scores are provided: weighted, where each community
is given the weight of its population in the total population of the jurisdiction or group, andunweighted, where the scores of each community are averaged irrespective of the size of thecommunities. Following the practice in the report, unweighted estimates are used more
frequently as they give a more accurate depiction of the situation in the average community.
Not surprisingly, the scores for the connectivity for remote communities are much lower
with this new definition. Instead of a score or 0.99 or 1.0, the average score for remotecommunities is 0.56. There is also now a very large gap in scores between remote Indigenous
communities and remote non-Indigenous communities: 0.44 versus 0.92.

9In addition, large gaps in connectivity in Indigenous communities among provinces andterritories now appear, ranging from a high of 0.81 in Saskatchewan to a score on 0.00 in
Nunavut. Other jurisdictions where remote Indigenous communities fare very poorly in terms ofconnectivity are Quebec (0.15), Newfoundland and Labrador (0.20) and British Columbia (0.25).
Table 2: New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Communities, by
Province/Territory, Canada, 2018
Total remote

Indigenous

Non-Indigenous

Weighted

Unweighted

Weighted

Unweighted

Weighted

Unweighted

Alberta

0.97

0.83

0.72

0.76

1.00

1.00

British Columbia

0.96

0.45

0.27

0.25

1.00

1.00

Manitoba
Newfoundland andLabrador
Northwest
Territories

0.63

0.41

0.32

0.33

0.92

0.88

0.09

0.20

0.09

0.20

n/a

n/a

0.93

0.72

0.84

0.69

1.00

1.00

Nunavut

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

n/a

n/a

Ontario

0.67

0.61

0.64

0.59

0.71

0.75

Quebec

0.17

0.15

0.17

0.15

n/a

n/a

Saskatchewan

0.89

0.82

0.88

0.81

1.00

1.00

Yukon

0.98

0.80

0.83

0.75

0.99

0.83

Canada

0.76

0.56

0.44

0.49

0.98

0.92

Connectivity varies very significantly among heritage groups (see Table 2). The Métis
have the highest score of the three heritage groups at 0.85, while the Inuit fare lowest at 0.11.
The First Nations are roughly mid-way between these two groups with a score of 0.59.
Table 2-1: New Connectivity Index for Remote Indigenous and NonIndigenous Communities, by Heritage Group, Canada, 2018
Weighted

Unweighted

First Nations

0.57

0.59

Métis

0.92

0.85

Inuk

0.09

0.11

All Indigenous

0.44

0.49

Non-Indigenous

0.98

0.92

Total remote

0.76

0.56

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the average scores for connectivity by the three scorescategories (0 no broadband access, 0.5 no backbone or last mile, and 0 no backbone and lastmile) for remote non-Indigenous communities and Indigenous communities, with the latter
broken down by heritage group. For the intermediate category the table also indicates whether it
is backbone or last mile access which is missing.

10Remote Indigenous communities are divided equally among the three connectivity
categories. For the 69 Indigenous communities missing either backbone or last mile access, formost it was it last mile access that was missing. In contrast, for the 36 remote non-Indigenous
communities, not one had a lack of broadband access and only 6 were missing backbone or last
mile access.
Again reflecting the average scores the proportion on Inuk communities with nobroadband access was very high at 84 per cent. Only 2 per cent, or one Inuk community has full
broadband access. It was the opposite for Métis communities where 77 per cent had full
broadband access and 6 per cent or one community has no access. Just over one third (37 percent) of First Nations communities had full broadband access, with 19 per cent with no access,and 44 per cent missing backbone or last mile.
Table 3: Distribution of New Connectivity Scores by Availability of Broadband Backbone andLast mile Infrastructure, by Heritage Group, Canada, 2018
Panel A: Counts
0

0.5

Heritage group (# communities)

1

Lack backbone

Lack last mile

First Nations (134)

26

22

39

47

Métis (17)

1

3

0

13

Inuk (49)

41

0

7

1

All Indigenous (200)

68

25

46

61

Non-Indigenous (36)

0

2

4

30

Total remote (236)

68

27

50

91

Panel B: Shares (per cent)
0
Heritage group (# communities)

0.5

1

Lack backbone

Lack last mile

1

First Nations (134)

19.4

16.4

29.1

35.1

Métis (17)

5.9

17.6

0.0

76.5

Inuk (49)

83.7

0.0

14.3

2.0

All Indigenous (200)

34.0

12.5

23.0

30.5

Non-Indigenous (36)

0.0

5.6

11.1

83.3

Total remote (236)

28.8

11.4

21.2

38.6

V. Conclusion
In this report, we briefly review the state of broadband connectivity for Indigenous
communities in remote regions and introduce our new Index for Broadband Connectivity.
Compared to the CSLS 2018 report, the new Index better reflects the quality of broadband
services as it is constructed based on the adequacy of backbone and last-mile infrastructure
within communities in remote regions. These two indicators of infrastructure development reflect

11

the two most important factors that determine the quality of broadband connectivity: speed andcapacity.
With the new index for broadband connectivity, we find that remote communities havemuch lower scores for broadband connectivity compared to the scores reported the CSLS 2018
report. Importantly, we find a quite large gap in scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
remote communities, which does not exist with the old index -- 0.44 versus 0.92.
The connectivity scores vary greatly across provinces/territories and heritage groups.
Across provinces and territories, Nunavut and Quebec exhibit very low scores (0.00 and 0.15)
while Alberta and Saskatchewan exhibit very high scores (0.83 and 0.82). Across heritagegroups, we find that Inuk fared very poorly compared to other heritage groups. For example,
Métis have the highest score of 0.85 while Inuk have the lowest score of 0.15. First Nations islocated in between with a score of 0.59. Among Inuk communities, it is found that all thecommunities that have at least one broadband infrastructure (i.e. a score of 0.5) have inadequate
last mile but have adequate backbone infrastructure.
For future agenda for research and data collection, we conclude our report by describing
some challenges in assessing the state of broadband connectivity using our new index:


If just one household in a hexagon has access to 5/1 Mbps internet speeds then that
hexagon is not identified by ISED as being eligible for new last-mile funding. Internet
access is heavily variable and dependent on geographic features such as hills and trees, so
this list likely overstates access to 5/1 Mbps Internet. as one household having accessdoes not mean all households in the hexagon have it.



One implication of this is that if a reserve falls within the same 25km hexagon as a nonIndigenous community, or even a non-Indigenous household, which has access to 5/1
Mbps speeds then the community is not identified as deficient in this area (see Dease
Lake 9 for example in Table A1 in the Appendix). Given that many Indigenous
communities are geographically near to non-Indigenous communities this could lead tounderestimation of the broadband gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities.



ISED states that the eligibility data has been collected with the CRTC, Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), and others. It is not clear how reliable these data sources are, and what
incentives may be operating to skew reporting of these numbers.



Given that this data was compiled to establish eligibility for a one-time infrastructure
funding initiative, it is not likely that such data will be compiled consistently in the
future.



While our methodology benefits from using both capacity and speed measures (albeit atdifferent levels), the affordability and reliability of internet have been identified as key
12components in access to broadband, and this data does not include any information onthese factors.


Most recently, the CRTC has declared Internet access a basic service and increased theirtarget for providing broadband to all Canadians, from 5/1 Mbps to 50/10 Mbps, which
would arguably make the 5/1 speed target out of date. However, it is estimated that 18%of the Canadian population doesn’t have access to the new speed targets, and among all
Canadian internet users only 26% subscribe to a service with 50 Mbps download speed.
Conversely, the FCC in the U.S. has declared a target of 25/3 Mbps as of 2015.
Therefore, the new CRTC target can be viewed as largely aspirational, rather thandescriptive of basic Internet access, making our 5/1 threshold an adequate basis forconsidering basic Internet access. As such, our measure risks only speaking to the mostbasic level of Internet service.

The above challenges should be resolved over time as more and better data become
available. Depending on the availability of data, a more sophisticated Index can be constructed tobetter reflect the quality of broadband connectivity in remote regions. One direction would be toaccount for other factors that illustrate the state of broadband services in remote regions. One
factor is the price of broadband services in Indigenous communities in remote regions. Even if a
community is given a score of 1 for the new Connectivity Index, it does not necessarily meanthat all households in the community can easily access the services. High prices could prevent asignificant number of households from using these services.
Both provincial/territorial governments and consumer groups representing remote areas
recognize that prices for broadband internet services, if available, are substantially higher thanthose in non-remote areas or urban centres (CRTC, 2018). Vast land mass and low population
density constitute challenges in establishing high-quality broadband networks for households andbusinesses in remote regions. The costs associated with building modern networks in theseregions are much higher than those in urban centres due to lack of transport infrastructure, harshterrain, and short construction seasons.

References
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (2018) “Closing theBroadband Gap,”
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm
Centre for the Study of Living Standards (2013) “The Contribution of Broadband to the
Economic Development of First Nations in Canada,” CSLS Research Report 2013-04, July.
http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2013-04.pdf
Czernich, N., Falck, O., Kretschmer, T., & Woessmann, L. (2011) "Broadband infrastructure andeconomic growth," The Economic Journal, Vol. 121, No. 552, pp. 505-532.
13

First Mile Connectivity Consortium. 2017. “Comments on the ‘Broadband Connectivity in Rural
Regions’ study to be conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry,
Science and Technology”
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/INDU/Brief/BR9137395/brexternal/FirstMileConnectivityConsortium-e.pdf
Ford, G. S., & Koutsky, T. M. (2005) "Broadband and economic development: A municipal casestudy from Florida," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies: Journal of the Applied
Regional Science Conference, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 216-229.
Koutroumpis, P. (2009). The economic impact of broadband on growth: A simultaneous
approach. Telecommunications policy, Vol.33, No.9, pp. 471-485.
OECD (2014), “Access Network Speed Tests”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 237, OECD
Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz2m5mr66f5-en.
Umino, A. (2002). “Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: The Role of Government
Assistance,” OECD STI Working Paper Series.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.5761&rep=rep1&type=pdf

14

V. Appendix
Table A1: New Connectivity Index, Selected Remote Communities, by
Province and Territory, Canada, 2018
Ontario
Sandy Lake 88 (reserve)

Index
1

Abitibi 70 (reserve)

0

Moosonee (town)

0.5

Sioux Lookout (municipality)

1

Pickle Lake (township)

1

Manitoba
St Theresa Point (Reserve)

0.5

Opaskwayak Cree Nation 21I (reserve)

0.5

Ilford (Indian settlement)

0.5

Churchill (town)

0.5

Gillam (town)

0.5

Saskatchewan
Pelican Narrows 184B (reserve)

0.5

Turnor Lake 193B (reserve)1

La Loche (northern village)

0.5

Green Lake (northern village)

1

Alberta
Sturgeon Lake 154 (reserve)

0.5

Horse Lake 152B (reserve)

1Fort Vermillion (unincorporated place)1

Rainbow lake (town)

1

BC
Fort Nelson 2 (reserve)

0.5

Dease Lake 9

0.5

Lower post (Indian settlement)

1

Dawson Creek (city)

1

Yukon
Beaver Creek (settlement)

0.5

Watson Lake (town)

1

NWT
Colville Lake (settlement)0

Hay River (town)

1

Lutselk'e (settlement)

0.5

Nunavut
Cambridge Bay (hamlet)0

Iqaluit (city)

0.5

Resolute bay (hamlet)

015