The key to ensuring a competitive environment therefore rests on maintaining open platforms on all service providers. That may prove challenging, since the newly vertically-integrated companies will find it tempting to grant preferential treatment to their own assets. In addition to exclusivity, this could take the form of faster speeds on wireless services for company-controlled broadcasts, allowing users quicker access to the walled garden content.
Alternatively, it might mean excluding walled garden content from the bandwidth caps imposed by most providers. Under such a scenario, subscribers would find that accessing walled garden content would be “free” in the sense that it would not count against their monthly bandwidth allocation. By contrast, competing Internet services would effectively face an additional cost, since subscribers would have to factor in their bandwidth consumption.
These scenarios point to the possibility of greater regulatory intervention to ensure a fully competitive converged broadcast and telecom environment. Indeed, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission expressed concern about this direction in its 2009 New Media decision.
Notwithstanding assurances from the wireless carriers that walled gardens have not proven successful and “the industry is quickly moving toward the open Internet model, whereby mobile users can access content of their choice,” the commission worried that “the ownership structure within Canada’s wireless industry suggests that the potential for unduly preferential treatment needs to be addressed because the industry structure comprises vertically integrated companies with ownership interests in content providers.”
The U.S. merger resulted in a year-long review by the Federal Communications Commission (the CRTC’s counterpart) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ alone interviewed more than 125 companies and individuals in the industry and reviewed over one million documents from the merged companies.
While the deal was ultimately approved, the U.S. regulatory bodies focused on the prospect that the new media giant could lead to anti-competitive behaviour. For example, the emergence of the online video distributors such as Netflix, GoogleTV, iTunes, and Hulu were identified as particularly vulnerable with the FCC concluding that “Comcast-NBCU will have the incentive and ability to discriminate against, thwart the development of, or otherwise take anticompetitive actions against OVDs.â€
As a result, the FCC established a host of rules designed to maintain a competitive environment and restrict the merged Comcast/NBCU from discriminating against these new competitors. Moreover, it forced Comcast to drop off the Hulu board of directors and even extended net neutrality rules to the set top box, which will increasingly be used to distribute both digital TV and the Internet.
Sadly, the Canadian mergers were approved with far less scrutiny. Given the warning signs (and the Commission’s own concerns in 2009), the hearing that launches today has the feel of coming at least one year too late.
Of course it is. That seems to be the standard for Canada with it comes to keeping up with changing technology.
Its pretty simple, netowrk providers should not be allowed to run streaming/tv/media services liek SHAW,Telus, etc…
So far what we have is Ford building Transcanada, charging a toll (which is fair for road maintenance) then letting ford cars drive on it for free while charging others a fee or keeping them in the right slow lane while Fords are allowed in the left fast lane.
Nice analogy end user.
Need I remind anyone of the immediate response to the threat of Netflix that the Canadian ISPs implemented?
Significantly lowering the bandwidth caps within days of Neflix announcing it’s Canadian expansion was not even subtle … never mind arrogant.
…
Like everything else the CRTC does, the result will ultimately favor big industry (Shaw, Telus, Bell, Rogers, et. al.) as the cost of the consumer. Like with UBB, the only hope we have is public pressure forcing the government to intervene. God help us all!! We’re so $cr3w3d!!!
Tar my britches!
Is no one gonna ride side saddle with Rogers? Seems them folks they call ‘customers’ are getting darn right antsy!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/smart-phones-tablets-like-wild-west-rogers/article2067263/
RE: Tar my britches!
Yet more proof our “technology” sector doesn’t have a clue and are stuck in the past. Only a Canadian company could call a years old technology, at least for smart phones, the “wild west”, implying it’s new and out of control.
To get my vote, dismantle the CRTC.
The government hasn’t changed its philosophy since the days of the Kent Commission.
Concentration of media ownership has been allowed for decades, and the response of the regulator has been “this is good for the consumer. We wouldn’t want them confused by variety or low prices.”
Sounds like our provincial liquor commissions!
My Beefs are that Netflix isn’t Canadian (and Shaw execs get paid 3x more than Rogers and Telus and Bell)
Why can’t there be a Canadian Netflix?
Why can’t there be a Canadian Netflix?
It must be our lax copyright protection laws! 0_o