Columns

Spectrum Auction Puts Wireless Competition on the Line

My weekly column (Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) looks at the current debate over the spectrum auction set for 2008. The first round of the consultation comments closed last month, generating nearly 50 industry submissions, yet surprisingly only four Canadians provided their views (follow up responses can be made until June 27th). By comparison, in the United States more than 250,000 people have written to the Federal Communications Commission to urge it to set conditions on a forthcoming spectrum auction that would make Internet access more open, affordable, and accessible.

Despite the lack of Canadian public awareness, the issue has an enormous impact on telecommunications since it plays a pivotal role in determining wireless competition. The three incumbent wireless providers (Bell, Telus, and Rogers) along with some business groups stand on one side, calling for an "open auction" that would involve minimal pre-conditions and see the available spectrum auctioned off to the highest bidders. These groups argue that the Canadian wireless market is already competitive and that the government should avoid setting aside spectrum for new providers.

Major cable companies (Shaw, Quebecor, Cogeco) and smaller telecom companies (MTS Allstream, Toronto Hydro Telecom) provide the alternate perspective. They are seeking a "set-aside" that would reserve spectrum for new entrants. These companies point to data that places Canada well below other developed countries on metrics such as the number of wireless subscribers, pricing, and the introduction of innovative services. They also note that Canadian spectrum auctions are not truly open, since foreign ownership restrictions exclude many potential bidders.

While the incumbents have been quick to characterize a spectrum set-aside as akin to a government subsidy, they fail to acknowledge that they were handed reserved spectrum to get off the ground.

June 19, 2007 — 4 comments — Columns

Behind the Scenes of Canada’s Movie Piracy Bill

With Bill C-59 scheduled for second reading and debate today, my weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) highlights some of the behind the scenes developments that led to Canada's movie piracy bill. Based on documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the column reveals that Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda held a private meeting in Ottawa with Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association President Douglas Frith one year before the bill was introduced, at which Frith provided the government with draft legislation – legislation that the lobby group itself had crafted – that likely served as the basis for what is now Bill C-59. Moreover, a briefing note prepared by department officials for Oda in advance of the CMPDA meeting help explain the barrage of lobby pressure on the camcording issue as the Minister was advised that there was little evidence that the industry’s proposal would prove more effective that current Canadian law.

The CMPDA meeting focused on several issues, including counterfeiting and signal theft, yet it was a movie piracy amendment to the Criminal Code that was clearly top of mind.

June 11, 2007 — 8 comments — Columns

Multilingual Domain Name Delay a Barrier to Net Diversity

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the delays associated with establishing multilingual domain names (often referred to as internationalized domain names). Since their inception, domain names have been largely confined to ASCII text, based on a Roman character set used in the English language. While this works well for people familiar with those characters, thousands of other language characters – from French accents to the Greek alphabet to Japanese Kanji – are not represented. This creates a significant access barrier for non-English speakers, who are forced to use the Roman characters for most aspects of their Internet addressing.

June 6, 2007 — 10 comments — Columns

Open Access Should Lead on National Science & Tech Strategy

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the recently released national science and technology strategy. The column includes new information obtained under the Access to Information Act that highlights publisher opposition to open access in Canada and demonstrates the need for government leadership on the open access issue. I argue that maximizing the value of Canada's investment in research requires far more than tax breaks and improved accountability mechanisms. Instead, government must rethink how publicly-funded scientific data and research results flow into the hands of researchers, businesses, and individuals.

Achieving that goal requires action on two fronts. First, the government should identify the raw, scientific data currently under its control and set it free. Implementing expensive or onerous licensing conditions for this publicly-funded data runs counter to the goals of commercialization and to government accountability for taxpayer expenditures. Ottawa has already taken some important steps in this direction. Last month, it announced that Natural Resources Canada was making its electronic topographic mapping data available to all users free of charge over the Internet. The topographic data, which can be accessed at the aptly-named GeoGratis, provides information on the location of landscape features – such as lakes, rivers and elevations as well as roads, railways and administrative boundaries. This information is used for commercial, non-commercial, and research purposes by governments, academia and the private sector.

Second, Ottawa must pressure the three federal research granting institutions to build open access requirements into their research mandates.

May 28, 2007 — 2 comments — Columns

There Will Be No Privacy Reform. Get Over It

My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) examines the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics' much-anticipated report on the reform of Canada’s private sector privacy law released earlier this month. Despite hearing from 67 witnesses, the Committee followed the lead of Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart – neither of whom argued forcefully for reform – by issuing a tepid report that rejects the changes that many privacy advocates believe are necessary to improve the effectiveness of the current legal framework.

Instead, the final report, which includes separate dissenting opinions from the Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs, features 25 recommendations that at best represent little more than tinkering with the law and at worst undermine privacy protections in several key areas, most notably the use of privacy law to counter the mounting spam problem. Most of the major issues presented to the Committee, including beefing up the Privacy Commissioner's powers, adopting a "name and shame" approach for privacy violators, and safeguarding Canadian data that is outsourced to other jurisdictions, were met with indifference, as the Committee recommended no further reforms. In fact, even a mandatory security breach notification requirement – widely expected as a response to the massive data security breaches involving retail giants Winners and Homesense – was tempered with a recommendation to require notification to the Privacy Commissioner, not necessarily to the individuals affected by the breach.

In fairness to the Committee, many of their recommendations appear to have been shaped by the inexplicably weak responses from Industry Minister Bernier (who is responsible for the legislation) and Privacy Commissioner Stoddart.

May 21, 2007 — 4 comments — Columns