|
Tuesday May 21, 2013 |
|
The National Post reports
that the Competition Bureau of Canada plans to launch an investigation
into Google Canada. The scope of the investigation is unknown. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday May 21, 2013 |
|
|
Thursday February 07, 2013 |
The Competition Bureau yesterday posted its submission
to the CRTC on its draft wireless code. The key message from the
Bureau: be bolder. The Bureau expresses concern with the competitiveness
of the wireless telecom sector in Canada:
certain impediments continue to diminish the effect of competitive
forces in this industry. First, certain industry practices have tended
to impose costs on consumers who wish to avail themselves of competitive
alternatives. Second, consumers are not always provided with sufficient
information in an adequately clear manner to make informed purchase
decisions. These features can deprive consumers, competitors, and the
Canadian economy of the beneficial effects of competition in this
industry, namely lower prices, higher quality service, and greater
innovation. This submission provides recommendations on how the Wireless
Code can minimize the effect of these impediments.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday February 07, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
Wednesday August 29, 2012 |
Summer is rarely a time of heated broadcast policy battles, but the
proposed Bell - Astral merger has generated considerable public
attention and fostered a growing war of words between Bell and
groups that have banded together under the "Say No to Bell" banner.
The anti-merger campaign, supported by consumer groups as well as
several leading cable and telecom companies, has garnered tens of
thousands of signatures on an online petition and the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has received more
than 1,700 submissions on the deal.
Despite the mounting public opposition, my weekly technology law
column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) argues that stopping the $3 billion merger remains a
longshot as none of the big three - government, the CRTC, or the
Competition Bureau - seems ready to call it off.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday August 29, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
Wednesday August 29, 2012 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on August 26, 2012 as Remedies if Bell -
Astral Merger Goes Through
Summer is rarely a time of heated broadcast policy battles, but the
proposed Bell - Astral merger has generated considerable public
attention and fostered a growing war of words between Bell and
groups that have banded together under the "Say No to Bell" banner.
The anti-merger campaign, supported by consumer groups as well as
several leading cable and telecom companies, has garnered tens of
thousands of signatures on an online petition and the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has received more
than 1,700 submissions on the deal.
Despite the mounting public opposition, stopping the $3 billion
merger remains a longshot as none of the big three - government, the
CRTC, or the Competition Bureau - seems ready to call it off.
The government has remained silent on the matter, suggesting it does
not want to wade into the transaction, particularly when it is
struggling to address the proposed Nexen purchase by Chinese
interests.
The CRTC will probably pressure Bell to make some adjustments to the
deal, but squashing it altogether is unlikely given the many prior
approvals of media mergers. Much of the CRTC hearing will be devoted
to debate over the "tangible benefits" package, with cultural groups
trading short-term gain for long-term pain by supporting the merger
in return for a bigger payday.
The most obvious benefits package target is Bell's proposal to spend
tens of millions on infrastructure development in the north, which
seems certain to be rejected. Indeed, a cynic might suggest that
Bell added the proposal with the expectation the CRTC would kill it,
thereby allowing the Commission to appear responsive to public
criticism while leaving the bulk of the transaction untouched.
The Competition Bureau could become active on the issue given its
previous willingness to closely examine the Quebec media market, but
with imminent changes in bureau leadership and the expected sale of
several Astral radio stations to third parties, it may reluctantly
give the deal a pass.
Should the Bell-Astral merger receive the required regulatory
approvals, Canada would be left with one of the most concentrated
media markets in the world, with a single company controlling a
remarkable array of broadcast television networks, radio stations,
specialty channels, as well as telecom, satellite, and Internet
services.
While there will be no easy answers to address media convergence
concerns, several policy reforms may help build the foundation for a
more competitive Canadian market. First, the government should
remove foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasting companies.
While this raises obvious cultural sensitivities, there is little
reason to believe that Canadian-owned broadcasters are any more
likely to air Canadian programming than their foreign counterparts.
All broadcasters invariably adopt whatever strategy maximizes
revenues without regard for the origin of the content. In many
instances, this means cheaper U.S. programming is preferred.
Canadian content regulations ensure a baseline level of support for
Canadian programming and there is little evidence that Canadian
businesses are more likely to comply with these rules than foreign
companies.
Second, Canada's net neutrality rules, which restrict the ability of
network operators to discriminate against competitive content or
grant preferential treatment to their own programming, require
tougher enforcement. Recent studies suggest that Canadian Internet
providers are still using throttling technologies that render it
more difficult for Internet-based new media companies to compete
with the established broadcast giants.
Third, the Competition Bureau and the CRTC must be vigilant in
ensuring that the new Bell entity does not unfairly leverage its
position by refusing to deal with competitors. The CRTC has waded
into this issue in the past and will undoubtedly be called upon to
do so again should the market become even more concentrated.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday August 29, 2012 |
|
|
