Columns

CRTC Ruling a Small Step Toward Broadcast Overhaul

Coverage of last week’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruling on mandatory carriage of a couple of dozen channels may have focused on the future of the Sun News Network (no mandatory carriage that would have guaranteed payment from all cable and satellite subscribers) and the monthly cost of cable and satellite bills (a very small increase since virtually all new proposals were rejected), but the decision really represents a small step toward a complete overhaul of Canadian broadcasting regulation that is likely to unfold over the next ten years.

The Commission will hold a further hearing on how to treat news channels, telegraphing that it plans to adopt a must-carry approach so that all Canadians can subscribe to the news channels of their choice. Yet the entire process harkened back to a different world, when space on the television dial was scarce, access to Canadian content scarcer still, and consumer choice for broadcast content largely unknown.

The reality of the current environment is that none of these conditions exist. Cable and satellite providers have virtually unlimited space (my provider currently features a trio of channels that continually display a fireplace, aquarium, and sunset in high definition), Canadian content can be found through a multitude of venues including video-on-demand and Internet-based streaming services, and consumers can access broadcast content from anywhere on any device.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the upcoming battle will not be about which channels benefit from regulatory handouts, but rather over whether there is a need for any broadcast regulation beyond basic principles of non-discrimination on what consumers can access through conventional broadcast and the Internet. These principles, now found in the Commission’s policies on vertical integration and Internet traffic management, will become an increasingly important part of the regulatory process.

August 15, 2013 — 3 comments — Columns

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

Moore’s Mission: Put the Canadian Digital Economy Back on Track

One of the headliners behind last week’s federal government cabinet shuffle was the shift of James Moore, formerly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to Industry Canada. The Minister of Industry position holds the promise of having a significant impact on the Canadian economy, as the department is responsible for everything from competition policy to foreign investment reviews to telecommunications regulation.

Christian Paradis, now the former Industry minister, never seemed particularly interested or engaged in the portfolio. He disappeared on legislative initiatives (Moore assumed the lead over a copyright bill that was technically Paradis’ responsibility and his privacy bill never left the starting gate), allowed regulations to languish (the anti-spam regulations are years overdue), and failed to articulate an overarching vision for key sectors such as the digital economy.

While inaction might have few consequences in a smaller department, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the policy failures at Industry slowly began to accumulate and emerged as a mounting problem for the broader economy. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s Office appears to have assumed control over the telecom file earlier this year, emphasizing the need for greater competition and consumer rights in a series of moves designed to welcome foreign giants such as Verizon to Canada.

Moore undeniably brings better communications skills, more energy, and experience with several of the portfolio’s most contentious issues, generating great expectations for future actions. What might Canadians expect from Industry Minister Moore?

July 23, 2013 — 7 comments — Columns