Day four of the CRTC's New Media hearings featured an interesting mix of presentations as several creator groups sought to advance the discussion with variations on earlier proposals. Carleton professor Ira Wagman provides the details on his blog (part one, part two). Thanks to Samantha Burton for compiling the report.
CRTC New Media Hearings – Day Four: CFPTA, DOC, WGC, SAC, CDM, RPM
February 25, 2009
Share this post
2 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules
byMichael Geist

March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause

Time for a change….
Hi Michael,
It’s time the CRTC grew some collective family jewels on this matter.
Canada now lags far behind the US [and most European countries] in recognizing these “traffic shaping” and “packet inspection” methods amount to nothing more than anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
Further, it’s long past due that the individual Canadian’s rights with respect to Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were recognized by the CRTC – specifically with respect to Section 2, sub b. Quote: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; Unquote
Why should telecos and carriers get to decide who we converse with, how we converse with them, or what we converse about? Sorry, but this is nothing more than self-serving censorship on the telcos and carriers part.
Further, where is the initiative for these parties to competitively engage each other in a free and open market? If Bell does this, and Rogers does this; then Telus and Shaw must match these same practices, in order to remain competitive [as things are currently structured].
It’s time for a change in how these people treat Canadian consumers.
Enough Already
This comment from CFPTA literally makes me sick to my stomache, “to ensure that Canadians have ample opportunity to participate in and enjoy distinctly Canadian broadcasting.”
That is what the internet does now, without a fee attached to it or forcing anyone to view X amount of content created from one country. If Canadian broadcasting is worth watching on the internet, guess what? We will find it and enjoy it!
If Canadians have some great content to add, guess what? The internet makes it so it is very cost effective to reach an enormous crowd of not only Canadians, but the world.
This whole thing is a joke and a huge waste of taxpayer money.