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 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada's Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
byMichael Geist

June 22, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention

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.