Appeared in the Toronto Star on July 12, 2104 as The CRTC’s Make or Break Moment When Canada’s broadcast regulator embarked on the third and final phase of its consultations on the future of television regulation earlier this year, it left little doubt that a total overhaul was on the […]
Articles by: Michael Geist
CRTC Report Confirms Yet Again: Canadian Wireless Prices Among Most Expensive in G7
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission yesterday released the latest Wall Communications Report comparing prices for wireline, wireless, and Internet services in Canada and with foreign countries. While some initial reports focused on the increased wireless pricing for light wireless users (150 minutes per month with no data or texting) that was attributed to the shift from three-year contracts to two-year contracts, the bigger story is that Canadian wireless pricing is ranked among the three most expensive countries in the G7 in every tier.
The report measures four different baskets of users and for every usage Canada is one of the three most expensive countries in the survey (other countries include the US, UK, France, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Italy).
Canadians That Access U.S. Netflix May Be in a Legal Grey Zone, But They Are Not Stealing
Netflix is enormously popular in Canada with millions using the online video service. While the Canadian version of Netflix has improved the scope of available titles since it launched, there are still differences with the U.S. service, leading some subscribers to use virtual private networks to mask their address and access U.S. Netflix. Are those subscribers “stealing” something? The Globe and Mail’s Simon Houpt apparently thinks so.
This weekend he wrote a column titled Even the Content Creators are Stealing Content, which focused on content creators who unapologetically download television shows or use virtual private networks to access U.S. Netflix from Canada. Accessing the U.S. Netflix service is common in many countries including Canada (see stories on Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K.). Houpt argues that accessing the U.S. Netflix from Canada deprives creators of their fair share of earnings and make the creation of future shows less likely:
Paying for the Canadian service means your money goes to whoever holds the Canadian rights for the shows on Netflix. If you’re watching the U.S. service, the rights holders – that is, those who pay the creators to make the shows you’re actually watching – aren’t getting their fair share. That means they’re less likely to help get the next round of shows or movies green-lighted, making it harder for artists to get their projects off the ground.
Yet while the legal issues associated with accessing U.S. Netflix may be in a legal grey zone, the argument that creators are not paid seems wrong.
In Defence of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law, Part Two: Why the Legislation Is Really a Consumer Protection and Privacy Law in Disguise
My first post defending Canada’s anti-spam law focused on why spam remains a problem and how the new law may help combat fraudulent spam and target Canadian-based spamming organization. Most would agree that these are legitimate goals, but critics of the law will argue that it still goes too far since it covers all commercial electronic messages, not just fraudulent or harmful messages.
If the law were only designed to deal with harmful spam, they would be right. However, the law was always envisioned as something more than just an anti-spam bill. Indeed, when it was first introduced, it was called the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, reflecting the fact that it was expressly designed to address online consumer protection issues (the name CASL was an unofficial working name developed within Industry Canada). The law has at least three goals: provide Canada with tough anti-spam rules, require software companies to better inform consumers about their programs before installation, and update Canadian privacy standards by re-allocating who bears the cost for the use of personal information in the digital environment.
In Defence of Canada’s Anti-Spam Law, Part One: Why Spam is Still a Problem and the New Law Will Help
Canada’s anti-spam legislation took effect at the beginning of the month, sparking a steady stream of critical opinion pieces calling it an absurd solution to a mostly non-problem or “ludicrous regulatory overkill.” The criticisms generally boil down to three claims: spam isn’t a big problem, the law is ineffective because most spam originates outside Canada, and the law is overbroad because it targets legitimate businesses alongside fraudulent spam. I think all three criticisms are wrong. This post addresses why spam is still a problem and how the law will help. A second post tomorrow tackles the broad scope of the law, arguing that it is better understood as privacy legislation that fairly apportions the costs associated with electronic marketing.
Recent Posts
Grocery Shopping While Jewish 
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law 
Out of Nowhere: TIFF Undermines Artistic Freedom of Expression With Forced Name Change of October 7th Documentary 
TIFF Removes October 7th Documentary Film From Schedule Citing Implausible Copyright Clearance Concerns From Hamas Terror Footage 
Carney’s Digital Recalibration: How the Government is Trending Away from Justin Trudeau’s Digital Policy
