Blog

Getting Signals Straight in the Great Wireless War of 2013

The great wireless battle of 2013 continues to unfold with Bell, Rogers, and Telus – the big three incumbents that dominate the Canadian market – calling for “fairness” in Canadian telecom policy. Ben Klass posted an exceptional response to Bell over the weekend that provided some perspective on Canadian spectrum allocation, while Peter Nowak once again took on Telus’ speaking points on the issue. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the incumbents concerns with the policy represent a notable shift, since they described it as “thoughtful and balanced” when it was unveiled by then-Industry Minister Christian Paradis in 2012. The same companies now say the rules will create a “bloodbath” since they fear the potential entry of Verizon Communications, a U.S. telecom giant with the power to shake up the Canadian market.

While the incumbents have framed the issue around fairness and a “level playing field”, the reality is that Canadian policies are strikingly similar to those found in many other countries that have sought to encourage greater competition. Moreover, the arguments around level playing fields conveniently omit the myriad of advantages enjoyed by the incumbents.

August 6, 2013 — 8 comments — Columns

Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk

One year ago, many Internet users were engaged in a contentious debate over the question of who should govern the Internet. The debate pitted the current model led by a United States based organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (supported by the U.S.) against a government-led, United Nations-style model under which countries such as China and Russia could assert greater control over Internet governance.

The differences between the two approaches were never as stark as some portrayed since the current model grants the U.S. considerable contractual power over ICANN, but the fear of greater foreign government control over the Internet led to strong political opposition to UN involvement.

While supporters of the current model ultimately prevailed at a UN conference in Dubai last December where most Western democracies, including Canada, strongly rejected major Internet governance reforms, the issue was fundamentally about trust. Given that all governments have become more vocal about Internet matters, the debate was never over whether government would be involved, but rather about who the global Internet community trusted to lead on governance matters.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the Internet governance choice was a relatively easy one at the time, but in recent weeks the revelations about widespread U.S. secret surveillance of the Internet may cause many to rethink their views. Starting with the first disclosures in early June about the collection of phone metadata, the past two months have been marked by a dizzying array of reports that reveal a massive U.S. surveillance infrastructure that covers the globe and seeks access to virtually all Internet-based communications.

August 2, 2013 — 4 comments — Columns

Save the Date: The Canadian Copyright Pentalogy Conference on October 4, 2013

Earlier this year, the University of Ottawa Press published The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law, an effort by many of Canada’s leading copyright scholars to begin the process of examining the long-term implications of the copyright pentalogy. The book is […]

August 2, 2013 — Comments are Disabled — News

Industry Minister James Moore’s Commitment to Wireless Competition, Resolution Style

Whereas the 2013 OECD Communications Outlook ranked Canada among the ten most expensive countries for wireless services in virtually every category;

Whereas the Wall Report commissioned by Industry Canada and the CRTC found that Canadian prices are on the high side in nearly every category of wireless service;

Whereas the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association has argued that consumers would be willing to pay more for wireless services and Telus has said that given our geography Canada should be the most expensive country for the wireless services in the OECD;

Whereas Canada has long been one of the only developed economy countries with significant restrictions on telecom foreign investment and has been characterized as the most restrictive in the OECD;

Whereas Bell has consistently opposed or sought to delay changes to the foreign investment rules;

Whereas the government announced a telecom policy last year that opened the door to greater foreign investment and rules designed to facilitate new entrants to the marketplace;

Whereas Telus described that policy as “thoughtful and balanced”;

August 1, 2013 — 8 comments — News

Telus Flip-Flopping Continues With Latest Lawsuit as Company Changes Its Tune Yet Again

Telus’ decision to file a lawsuit against the federal government over its spectrum transfer rules continues a trend of flip-flopping on policy issues at the company. What does Telus think of the government’s wireless policies? Apparently it depends when you ask. For example, in March 2012, Telus said the following about the spectrum auction approach:

TELUS believes this is a thoughtful and balanced decision that meets the Government’s objectives of promoting consumer choice, supporting sustainable competition through investment in technology and further expanding broadband services in rural markets.

Sixteen months (and the possibility of a Verizon entry) later, CEO Darren Entwistle now says:

There’s going to be a bloodbath, because people are not going to give up on getting that block. So it’s going to be prohibitively expensive and suck a lot of money out of the industry – money that won’t go to infrastructure and technology, money that won’t go into rural coverage or support lower prices.

There is similar change of tune with the latest lawsuit.

July 31, 2013 — 11 comments — News