Are Canadian Cellphone Carriers Policing Themselves When It Comes To Our Kids?
- The White Hatter
- 2 hours ago
- 8 min read
CAVEAT - As an independent family based social capital company, we take no money or gifts in kind from any of the Canadian Cellphone Carriers. This gives us the freedom to say things that some organizations and individuals may be reluctant to say publicly, especially when a significant portion of their funding may come from these telecommunications tech giants. In our opinion, Canada’s cellphone carriers have largely avoided the level of public scrutiny now being directed at social media companies, despite the fact that they are a key part of the same digital ecosystem. Social media platforms may design the apps and algorithms, but cellphone carriers provide the access layer that keeps those platforms constantly available in a young person’s hand. If carriers are going to publicly position themselves as partners in youth digital safety, then they should also be prepared to explain how they enforce their own rules when their services are used to harm others, and this article explains the “why”.
In 2022, we wrote an article titled, “Internet Providers, Cyberbullying & Sextortion Responsibility: Are They Doing Anything To Protect?”(1). In that article, we argued that Canadian internet service providers, including major companies such as Bell, TELUS, and Rogers, should face greater scrutiny when their networks are being used to facilitate cyberbullying, sextortion, online exploitation, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, and other harmful or criminal online behaviours.
To be clear, many of these companies appear to prohibit this kind of behaviour in their own Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policies. On paper, the rules are often there, however, the bigger question is whether those rules are being meaningfully enforced when users weaponize these networks against youth, teens, and others. From what we have been able to find publicly, clear evidence of enforcement is difficult to locate, and that absence matters.
This month, Rogers launched “The 5.2 Project”, a slick documentary style video initiative designed to show parents how much time teens are spending on their phones each day (2). According to Rogers, the project followed teens from three Canadian families and captured their daily phone use on camera. That footage was then condensed into video for their parents to watch and respond to.
We believe there is value in telecommunication companies investing money into digital literacy and internet safety education for parents. In fact, we welcome more meaningful corporate attention being paid to the challenges families are facing in today’s connected world. Rogers has stated publicly that they have funded, “Rogers Screen Break”, which is a “national 5 year, $50 million program to help teens balance daily screen use (3). However, education campaigns should not become a substitute for accountability. If a cellphone internet service provider is prepared to spend significant money educating youth, teens, and parents about digital wellness, then it should also be prepared to answer an equally important question, “what is it doing when its own network is being used to cyberbully, harass, exploit, threaten, or distribute intimate images without consent?”, especially if such behaviour is brought to their attention! This is where the conversation needs to go beyond screen use, and move toward network responsibility.
We believe that cellphone carriers have a meaningful role to play in youth well being because they are not neutral bystanders in the digital ecosystem. Social media platforms may design the apps, algorithms, notifications, live streaming tools, private messaging features, and engagement systems that capture attention, but cellphone carriers provide the access infrastructure that makes those platforms available in a young person’s pocket, bedroom, classroom, bus ride, and social life.
From a simplified perspective, social media companies may create the digital movie theatres, attractions, and billboards that capture attention, but cellphone carriers provide the highway, the vehicle, the fuel, and the always on connection that allows youth and teens to access those spaces anytime, anywhere. Without mobile data plans, smartphone access, texting, app downloads, push notifications, and 24/7 connectivity, many of the concerns connected to teen social media use would look very different.
This does not mean cellphone carriers are responsible for everything that happens online. They are not the designers of TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Discord, YouTube, or encrypted messaging apps. They do not write the algorithms, and they do not moderate most of the content that appears on these platforms. However, they are part of the access chain. They profit significantly from youth and family connectivity, sell devices and data plans to households, market smartphones as essential tools, and often bundle the very technology that gives young people constant access to platforms now being scrutinized for their impact on sleep, attention, privacy, exploitation, harassment, and compulsive use.
Canada’s cellphone carrier business is not only massive, it is central to the country’s digital infrastructure. According to the CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications service sector generated $59.6 billion in 2024, with mobile services representing 56.4% of that total, or approximately $33.6 billion (4). This is not a fringe industry. It is a multi-billion-dollar sector dominated by a small number of major players whose networks provide the always on access that allows Canadians, including youth and teens, to connect to social media platforms, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and the broader internet anytime and anywhere. Given that scale, it is reasonable to ask whether cellphone carriers should face greater public scrutiny when their networks are used to facilitate cyberbullying, sextortion, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and other forms of digital harm.
While Rogers does not appear to publicly disclose how many teen users are on its network, a reasonable estimate suggests that Canadian teens likely represent millions of dollars in annual wireless revenue for Rogers and its related brands. Using Rogers’ own reported wireless subscriber base, it approximately has one-third share of the Canadian wireless market (5), Canadian youth population estimates, and reported mobile revenue per user, teen cellphone users on the Rogers network could plausibly represent somewhere in the range of $300 million to $650 million annually. Even at the lower end of that estimate, this is not a small or incidental customer segment. Again, this raises a fair question, “if youth and families represent a significant revenue source, what responsibility does the carrier have not only to educate youth, teens, and parents, but also to enforce its own Terms of Service when its network is being used to facilitate cyberbullying, harassment, sextortion, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, or other harmful and potentially criminal behaviour?”
If social media companies are expected to consider how their design choices affect youth, then cellphone carriers should also be expected to consider how their access products affect youth. The carrier may not create the harmful content or persuasive design features, but it helps make them portable, persistent, private, and always available.
Cellphone carriers are not the same as social media platforms, but they are enabling bad actors in the same ecosystem. This becomes especially important when we look at the companies own Terms of Service. For example, Rogers’ Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy, page 18, prohibits users from using their services to transmit, post, upload, disseminate, or otherwise make available unlawful content, threatening or harassing statements, content that violates the privacy rights of others, or communications that may constitute or encourage criminal conduct (6).
As Rogers Terms of Service states,
“This includes, without limitation:
obscene, profane, pornographic content;
ii. defamatory, fraudulent, or deceptive statements;
iii. threatening, intimidating, abusive, or harassing statements;
iv. content that violates the privacy rights or intellectual property rights of others;
v. content that unlawfully promotes or incites hatred;
vi. content that is otherwise offensive or objectionable; or
vii. any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any municipal, provincial, federal or international law, order or regulation.”
Rogers also defines “content” broadly, including text, photographs, images, audiovisual recordings, and audio recordings.
That language matters because it appears to cover many of the behaviours parents, schools, police, and youth serving professionals are deeply concerned about, including cyberbullying, harassment, threats, exploitation, privacy violations, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
The concern is not that these companies lack rules. The concern is that we have seen little public evidence showing how those rules are being applied or enforced in these specific contexts. Back in 2022, we contacted Rogers with several questions about how they enforce their Terms of Service when their services are used for illegal activity. We asked whether they enforce these terms, how many customers had service terminated due to breaches, how many had corrective or disciplinary action taken, and how many cases involved illegal activity as defined in their own policies. Several weeks later, we received the following response:
“We apologize but this is not something abuse@rogers.com can assist with.”
What was particularly notable is that the response did not direct us to anyone else within the organization who could answer these questions. For a company that has policies prohibiting unlawful and harmful use of its services, this lack of a clear pathway raises fair questions about transparency, accountability, and enforcement. Again, the argument is not that cellphone carriers should become the internet police, as that would be neither practical nor desirable. The argument is that these providers should become more responsible access partners.
If a carrier is going to publicly position itself as part of the solution by funding parent education, digital wellness campaigns, and screen time awareness projects, then it should also be willing to explain how it responds when its network is used to cause serious harm. Education and public service announcement are important, but education alone is not enough if the company’s own enforcement systems remain unclear, difficult to access, or invisible to the public. Families should not be left with awareness campaigns on one side and unanswered accountability questions on the other.
We believe cellphone carriers should provide clearer reporting systems for serious misuse of their networks, especially where youth are being targeted. They should explain what happens when credible evidence is provided that a customer is using their services for harassment, threats, exploitation, sextortion, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, or other criminal conduct. They should publish transparency data showing how often Terms of Service violations lead to warnings, suspensions, referrals, or termination of service. They should also provide clearer points of contact for parents, schools, law enforcement, and victim support organizations. The challenge, there is no external body that holds these companies accountable to their own Terms Of Service, they are left to police it themselves - sound familiar?
In the same way that we should be legislating social media platforms to design products with youth safety, privacy, and developmental readiness in mind, we should also legislate cellphone carriers to sell, package, support, and enforce mobile connectivity with those same principles in mind.
Youth and teen well being is not shaped by one company, one app, or one device, it’s shaped by an ecosystem. Social media platforms have a responsibility for the design of their digital spaces, but cellphone carriers also have a responsibility because they provide the access layer that makes those spaces constantly reachable by youth.
When a company profits from selling phones and always on connectivity to families, it should also accept some responsibility for helping families manage that connectivity wisely, and for enforcing its own rules when that connectivity is being used to harm others.
Yes, funding for digital literacy campaigns are welcome, parent education is welcome, and screen use awareness is welcome. However, when a cellular internet service company’s own Terms of Service appear to prohibit harmful, unlawful, and abusive conduct, the next reasonable question is simple:
Are those terms just words on a page, or are they being meaningfully enforced when youth and others are being harmed through the use of that network?
We have asked these cellular carriers in Canada to provide us with evidence that demonstrates their due diligence specific to this issue, and to date we have heard and seen nothing.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
Resources:
