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 270: Roundtable on the Bill C-22 Risks for Canadian Tech Companies Featuring VPN Services Tailscale and Windscribe
byMichael Geist

May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 270: Roundtable on the Bill C-22 Risks for Canadian Tech Companies Featuring VPN Services Tailscale and Windscribe
RCMP Confirms Bill C-22 Concerns: Police Want Law to Provide Access to Encrypted Communications
More Misinformation on Bill C-22 as the Government Struggles to Defend Its Lawful Access Plan
The Phony Phone Book Analogy: How Liberal Cabinet Ministers and MPs are Misleading Canadians About the Privacy Risks of Bill C-22
Apple on Bill C-22: “This Bill Allows the Government of Canada to Force Companies to Break Encryption by Inserting Backdoors into their Products”

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.