
Not enough traffic — or speed — on Alberta's internet 'highway,' critics complain
With about $1 billion invested over a quarter century in the Alberta SuperNet, the province still has some of the worst rural broadband availability in Canada.
The project was well-intentioned and showed foresight but the investment has not paid off, says Michael McNally, co-chair of the Alberta Rural Connectivity Coalition's policy committee.
"We have about 40 per cent of rural homes with access to high-speed internet, and that puts [Alberta] last," said McNally, an associate professor with the University of Alberta's School of Library and Information Studies.
"In Quebec, close to 85 per cent of rural homes have high-speed."
According to 2022 statistics from the CRTC, Alberta ranks lowest among all provinces in reaching federal benchmarks for internet speed — 50 megabits per second for downloads and 10 megabits per second for uploads.
Back in 2001, the province pledged to connect rural communities to a high-speed internet "highway" network called the Alberta SuperNet, a broadband network of fibre-optic cables, wireless towers and other equipment connecting 4,200 schools, hospitals, libraries, government and municipal offices in 429 communities.
The idea was for SuperNet to act like an internet highway to connect communities, while internet service providers would build the "last mile" connections to homes or businesses, McNally said.
He and others question if the investment in the project has been worth the reward. McNally suggests the once-promising project has become an expensive failure.
McNally recently co-authored an article on the SuperNet for the digital magazine Policy Options, and spoke to CBC's Edmonton AM.
Household connections 'never materialized'
McNally said the relative lack of internet connectivity in rural Alberta is partially due to the shortcomings in how the SuperNet project was implemented.
"The thinking was [the SuperNet] was going to put us at the cutting edge of the digital economy and society. It kind of did in that early phase, but what never materialized were the smaller connections to households, especially in rural communities," he said.
"The idea, theoretically, was that SuperNet would enable small providers to build local networks and then connect through the SuperNet to Calgary and then into the main internet exchange and the global internet."
However, smaller internet service providers found connection costs were too high to use the network, he said.
"In 2018, the auditor general of Alberta said we've invested over a billion public dollars on the SuperNet … Yet, it's not clear that we're getting all of the benefits from that network."
That year, Bell Canada acquired the contract to operate the SuperNet, but McNally said he is concerned about how much money the province has spent on the project, and how little is known about the details of Bell's contract.
In the Policy Options article, McNally and co-author Gregory Taylor argue that not all of Alberta's internet challenges are related to SuperNet.
In 2022, the province launched the Alberta Broadband Fund (ABF) in partnership with the federal government's Universal Broadband Fund. The UBF was started in 2020 with the aim of connecting all Canadians to high-speed internet by 2030.
Together, the federal and provincial funds are providing money for new broadband projects in underserved areas of Alberta. Eligibility requirements for the Alberta fund are similar to those for the federal fund.
WATCH | Connectivity problems in Alberta:
Rural Alberta struggling with lack of high-speed internet
1 day ago
Duration 3:13
An Alberta government report on the provincial strategy in 2022 found that 67 per cent of rural Albertans and 80 per cent of Indigenous communities didn't have access to reliable high-speed internet at federal target speeds.
McNally and Taylor said in their Policy Options article that both the Alberta and federal broadband funds have shown "slow results" in getting internet to households.
An August 2024 news release from the province said that in 2021, 489,000 Albertans living in 201,000 households lacked access to internet at federal target speeds.
It said Alberta "continues to work to get more projects approved by the federal government so more households and communities have access to better connectivity."
The same release said 62 projects supported by the Universal Broadband Fund were underway in Alberta, bringing connectivity to more than 51,000 households in 328 communities.
In a statement to CBC for this story, Alberta's Ministry of Technology and Innovation said that to date, the province and the federal government have jointly invested over $370 million in 54 broadband projects in Alberta.
'A massive failure'
Red Deer County is using $10 million from the Universal Broadband Fund and another $20 million of its own money to develop its own broadband infrastructure.
The county is going its own way "so we're not beholden to the SuperNet," said assistant county manager Dave Dittrick.
"In our minds, [SuperNet] was a massive failure on the province's part."
Dittrick said the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for better rural broadband connection in his community.
He said many county residents struggled with poor internet connection for online work and schooling during the pandemic and had to find ways to adapt.
"When the pandemic hit, we had one Wi-Fi hotspot at a truck stop, and people would drive to that truck stop, and they would be doing their [online] homework in the parking lot," he said.
He said it's important that Red Deer County residents have the same level of internet access as their urban counterparts.
"We now value the internet the same as you value electricity, gas, water, and sewer. It's a needed and valuable utility, and it's not a 'nice to have,' it's a 'have to have,'" Dittrick said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBC
17-05-2025
- CBC
City councillors want options on how buy Canadian policy should work
City of Windsor staff have been tasked with coming up with policy options on buying Canadian. It comes after a $285,000 American-made outdoor furniture order last month despite a direction to buy Canadian where it's reasonable to do so. CBC's Chris Ensing has the story.


Canada Standard
16-05-2025
- Canada Standard
Canada's Natural Capital Is a Key in the Trump Era-But Needs a New Approach
The Trump 2.0 administration's assault on the rules of world trade and its disruption of other key global elements of the post-Second World War era have made it essential to reset Canada's economic strategy. The U.S. tariffs already imposed and the threats of more to come are unprecedented since the 1930s. They have strained alliances and created huge uncertainty for the re-elected federal Liberal government, the provinces, business and consumers. Amid this extraordinary volatility, Canada's natural capital is a largely overlooked competitive advantage, critical to supporting economic independence, resilience and productivity, write Peter van Dijk, Joanna Eyquem, and James K. Stewart for Policy Options. This natural capital-forests, wetlands, grasslands and other ecosystems-is more than an environmental treasure. These are powerful economic assets hidden in plain sight. Canada urgently needs to use its natural capital as a foundation of its long-term economic strategy, investing in restoring and sustaining green infrastructure, and disclosing in government financial statements the value, condition and trends of natural capital. Natural assets underpin our economic well-being. They provide protection from floods and heatwaves. They supply clean water and air, and contribute billions in services to public health. Unlike traditional infrastructure, natural assets do not depreciate unless they are degraded directly by pollution or overuse, or indirectly from climate change or the introduction of invasive species. The financial value of preserved assets often increases as more of our population depends on them. View our latest digests Natural capital offers multiple services simultaneously. For example, a forest sequesters carbon, filters water, cools surrounding areas and provides crucial habitat for biodiversity. No human-made structure can compete with this array of benefits. Yet, natural capital remains drastically undervalued and largely invisible in our public accounts. Canada's wetlands alone are estimated to provide $225 billion in ecosystem services annually (roughly 8% of GDP). But we do not even have a complete national inventory. This is unintended fiscal negligence in an era of intense budgetary pressures when every dollar of public spending should deliver resilience and long-term value. What is worse, most governments in Canada-federal, provincial and local-fail to track or disclose the condition and value of their natural assets. This blind spot leads to short-sighted decisions, degradation of existing assets and underinvestment in nature-based solutions that could save us money, foster more economic growth and strengthen our communities. Encouragingly, the re-elected Liberal government's campaign platform explicitly pledged to protect more of Canada's natural heritage, given the threats of "climate change and unsustainable development practices." Its key promises in this area include prioritizing natural infrastructure, mapping Canada's carbon and biodiversity-rich landscapes, and mitigating environmental and species-at-risk impacts in areas facing substantial infrastructure development. Yet, serious risks remain from the absence of federal valuation and accounting for natural assets, beginning with the ever-present difficulties of implementing programs versus making campaign pledges. The challenge of meshing the Liberal housing and natural resource development goals with the party's biodiversity, conservation and natural infrastructure pledges also bears watching. At the provincial level, the risks to, and inadequate valuation of, environmental lands and biodiversity have been evident in Ontario and Quebec in recent years. In their efforts to boost housing supply, a range of provincial (and federal) policies still facilitate building in areas at high risk of major flood and wildfire damage. With rising pressures in 2025 to accelerate resource and other development, protections for species at risk are being scaled back in Ontario and other jurisdictions. At a minimum, the following elements should be part of a new natural capital strategy: Invest in natural infrastructure. Restoring wetlands, protecting urban tree canopies and conserving grasslands are vital for the environment, as well as for reducing fiscal pressures from floods, heatwaves and water treatment costs. They are also much less expensive than man-made infrastructure. The cost of sustaining green infrastructure is often a fraction of repairing or replacing concrete and steel, while delivering broader benefits. Close the accounting gap. Government financial statements must begin to disclose the value, condition and trends of natural capital. This is already under way with a small group of forward-looking municipalities. International accounting standards for natural assets are on the way. Canada should lead, not lag, in adopting these frameworks across all levels of government. Recognize that natural capital is not a distraction from "real" economic policy. Instead, it must be a core part of economic policy. Natural assets directly shape our productivity, competitiveness and ability to adapt to shocks, whether from extreme weather or an erratic U.S. president. Canada has already fallen behind in investing in climate adaptation. While spending far more on climate mitigation-but not nearly enough-current Canadian efforts will not shield us from the existing costs of climate change and biodiversity loss. Our response must be to build systems-level resilience, and that means protecting and valuing the very foundation on which our economy rests. It is time for governments to embed natural capital into budgets, policies and financial reporting. It is time for Canada to create a national inventory of natural assets and time for the federal government, working with the provinces and territories, to lead a natural capital investment strategy that aligns fiscal responsibility with ecological sustainability. Natural capital is Canada's quiet and underappreciated strength. It is time we sustained and treated it like the decisive economic advantage it truly is. This post originally appeared on Policy Options under a Creative Commons licence. Source: The Energy Mix


CBC
01-05-2025
- CBC
Faster isn't always better. Slow-charging EVs could have big benefits
Social Sharing When Julia McNally decided to buy an EV and started her research, she came across a lot of articles and ads pushing an apparent must-have accessory — a speedy home charger designed specifically for EVs. "Everything was pointing me to Level 2," recalled McNally, director of climate action at Toronto Hydro. She knew that all EVs can do Level 1 slow charging, or "trickle charging," from a regular 120-volt wall outlet, adding about six kilometres of range per hour. And she already had one of those in her backyard, near the alleyway where she planned to park her new Mini EV. But more than four out of five U.S. EV owners used Level 2 for home-charging in 2023, according to market research firm J.D. Power. Using a higher 240 voltage, often needed for a stove or dryer, Level 2 chargers can add about 30 to 50 kilometres of range per hour and refill a typical EV's entire 400-kilometre range overnight. Meanwhile, Level 3, or DC fast chargers, often installed along major highways, can add up to 250 kilometres of range per hour and charge a battery to 80 per cent in 30 minutes. Why faster may not be better Some experts, such as Daniel Breton, CEO of Electric Mobility Canada, have argued people "really need" Level 2 chargers at home, as it can take days to charge an empty battery to full at Level 1. But most people don't drive the hundreds of kilometres needed to empty their battery each day — and there's a downside to faster charging. "You're adding cost," McNally said — potentially thousands of dollars. Installing a Level 2 charger requires a licensed electrician, she said. In Toronto, it means consulting with Toronto Hydro and the Electrical Safety Authority. And homeowners often will need to increase the size of their electrical panel, adding additional costs. But it's something more Canadians may be thinking about soon, amid Canada's zero-emission vehicle mandate, requiring that 20 per cent of cars, vans and light trucks sold in Canada be electric, hybrid or hydrogen-powered cars by next year. The goal is to reach 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had vowed to scrap the target if elected, but with a Liberal re-election, the target still stands. WATCH | Can northern power grids handle electric vehicles and heat?: Can northern power grids handle electric vehicles and heat? 5 months ago Duration 2:33 Level 2 charging isn't just more expensive and logistically difficult for individual EV owners. In some Canadian communities, the aging electrical grid may not be able to handle too much Level 2 charging at once. For example, a recent Yukon University study found that if more northerners install Level 2 chargers and electric heating, that could cause problems for transformers — a key piece of equipment in local electricity distribution networks. At the time of the study, published last December, there were only 88 EVs in all of Yukon, and half of them were plug-in hybrids. Blake Shaffer, a University of Calgary associate professor, studied the situation in his community with local utility Enmax. He previously told CBC News that electricity distribution networks would need "significant" upgrades in order for all EV drivers to be able to charge at Level 2. "That's where the real challenge of EVs comes about," he said, noting high costs for both individuals and electric utilities. McNally says Toronto Hydro has adequate capacity for "whatever EVs and heat pumps come at us." She acknowledged, however, that in cases where someone does ask Toronto Hydro for extra capacity "you need to pay for the upgrades." Meanwhile, Level 1 takes advantage of wall outlets that people often already have, including residents of apartments or condo buildings. In colder parts of Canada, many parking spaces have a plug intended for block heaters. (Although tenants may have to negotiate with their landlord to use it for charging.) WATCH | This electric vehicle owner says tenants who pay hydro should be able to plug in: 6 months ago Duration 3:25 Renters might find themselves in uncharted legal territory if their landlord wants to make them pay for charging their electric vehicles — even if electricity is included in their lease. Many people don't need Level 2 at home Living in Toronto, McNally doesn't drive 400 kilometres a day; typically, she only covers 600 kilometres in an entire month. So she knew that Level 1 charging was probably good enough for her needs. That's not unusual — even outside Canada's largest city. Shaffer studied the driving and parking habits of 129 EV drivers in Calgary from December 2021 to December 2022. (While that was during the tail end of the pandemic, Statistics Canada reports very similar commute times in Calgary in 2022 and 2024.) The study found 29 per cent of drivers only ever needed Level 1 charging because they drove very little relative to the time they were parked. Another 53 per cent could use Level 1 most of the time, but might need to visit a public Level 2 or fast charging station up to once per month to top off their battery. WATCH | Canada needs more charging stations to hit EV targets: Canada needs more charging stations to hit EV targets 1 year ago Duration 1:59 The City of Vancouver estimates that the average driver can meet their daily driving needs in under four hours using a Level 1 charger and in about 45 minutes using a Level 2 charger. Either of those is plenty of time if people have a place to park and charge overnight. Level 1 can even work for drivers in rural communities. Rob van Adrichem lives in Prince George, B.C., and got an electric car this past summer. He only has Level 1 charging at home, but tops up at Level 2 chargers at the park or the library in town if he needs to. "I'm finding Level 1 is no problem," he said. "I think people get scared off on Level 2s because they think it's going to be thousands of dollars and I don't know that it's always necessary." Ali Mohazab is co-founder of a startup called Parkizio Technologies that helps people such as apartment dwellers access electricity for charging. He said people thinking about switching to an EV may imagine doing a variation of what they did with their gas car: driving to empty and then going to a gas station and filling the entire tank — something they're forced to do because they don't have a gas pump at their home. Mohazab said that "gas mentality" may not allow people to see that with an EV, "every parking opportunity is a charging opportunity" and it doesn't matter if you charge faster so your battery is full at 1 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. when you leave for work — you can just leave it plugged in overnight. He added, "If you kind of look at your car as a, you know, cell phone with wheels, then it really makes sense." McNally has found that she doesn't even need to charge every day, even at Level 1. "I charge about once a week," she said. "Couldn't be easier." But how can you tell if Level 1 will be enough for you? Level 1 is probably enough for most people, Mohazab says, except those who drive all day for work, such as Uber drivers. McNally suggests this rule of thumb: "If you drive less than 60 kilometres a day, you are probably just fine with the regular plug that is already at your house." She recommends that new EV owners start with Level 1 to keep things cheap and simple. "Start there, see how it works, learn your patterns — and then if you really want Level 2, you can add that cost later."