Columns

OECD Report Finds Canadian Broadband Slow, Expensive

In recent months, much of the discussion about high-speed Internet service in Canada has focused on two key issues – net neutrality and the need to bring broadband access to the remaining underserved areas in rural Canada. Both of these issues are now squarely on the public agenda with the CRTC conducting hearings on net neutrality next month and the government committing millions toward rural broadband initiatives in this year's budget.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that issing is a third, fast-growing concern, however. According to a new OECD report, Canada has one of the slowest and most expensive consumer broadband networks in the developed world. The OECD report, widely viewed as the leading global benchmark on broadband networks, compared Canada with 29 other countries on a range of metrics. These included broadband availability, pricing, speed, and bandwidth caps.

At first glance, the numbers do not seem that bad, with Canada ranking ninth out of 30 countries for broadband penetration. While that represents a sharp decline from years ago when Canada prided itself in standing second worldwide, its current position is unchanged from last year. Yet the situation becomes far more troubling once the OECD delves deeper into Canadian broadband pricing and speed.

June 1, 2009 — 18 comments — Columns

Anti-Spam Bill Will Face Tough Fight Over Consumer Protections

The recent introduction of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, Canada's long-awaited anti-spam bill, has been greeted with initial all-party support in the House of Commons. The bill just passed second reading with committee hearings the next step in the legislative process. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) argues that looking ahead, the big fight seems destined to focus on the government's desire to establish a comprehensive regime with tough penalties that apply to most commercial communications to consumers. Consumer groups will likely welcome the reforms, while some business and marketing organizations may paint a gloomy picture of the costs associated with the new regulations.

May 19, 2009 — 6 comments — Columns

House of Commons Lawyers Sent Takedown Notices Over Committee Video

In the spring of 2007, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the well-known broadcasting advocacy group, began to post videos and podcasts of Parliamentary committee proceedings on their website. When officials at the House of Commons caught wind of their activities, they promptly sent a cease and desist letter, demanding that the videos and podcasts be removed from the Internet. A lawyer for the House of Commons argued that posting excerpts from committee proceedings could be treated as "contempt of Parliament." The group responded that they did not want to remove the videos, but would be willing to follow a reasonable procedure to obtain the necessary permissions. That response did not sit well with the Chairs of the Finance and Canadian Heritage Standing Committees, who upon learning that the group was offering webcasts and downloads of their proceedings, asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (SCPHA) to examine the issue to prevent further infringement.

My weekly technology column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the idea that videos of committee hearings constitute proprietary content that when used without permission raise the potential for allegations of contempt of Parliament or copyright infringement will undoubtedly come as news to many Canadians. Using these excerpts in YouTube videos, webcasts, or podcasts has emerged as an important and powerful tool for business and consumer groups to educate the public on policy issues and legislative proposals. Yet House of Commons lawyers maintain that many of these activities violate the law and have sent notice and takedown demands to YouTube seeking the removal of videos that include House of Commons and committee proceedings. These include clips that involve satire and parody, since they are seen to "distort" the video itself.

May 11, 2009 — 19 comments — Columns

U.S. List Unfairly Tarnishes Canada’s Digital Reputation

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the U.S. decision to elevate Canada to the Priority Watch list. I note that the elevation will undoubtedly heighten pressure for reforms, it also points to the need for the Canadian government to reassess how it manages the Special 301 process and its bilateral relationship with the U.S. on this issue. In previous years, Canadian officials have done little more than express disappointment with the U.S. findings. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been repeatedly advised that "Canada does not recognize the Special 301 process due to its lacking of reliable and objective analysis, and we have raised this issue regularly with the U.S. in our bilateral discussions."

Raising the issue in bilateral discussions may have worked in the past, but this year's report sends a clear signal that more is needed. This year's designation is so unsupportable that Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore should not hesitate to challenge both the process and the substance of the findings.

May 4, 2009 — 4 comments — Columns

The Untold Story of Do-Not-Call Enforcement (aka Why Killing Do-Not-Call Can’t Come Fast Enough)

Earlier today, I posted on how one of the most significant aspects the anti-spam bill introduced on Friday was not reported or discussed in government briefing materials. Namely, that buried at the very end of the 69-page bill, are provisions that lay the groundwork to kill the National Do-Not-Call list. I noted that the proposed approach is very complicated, but boils down to the government repealing the provisions that establish and govern the do-not-call list. In its place, the Electronic Commerce Protection Act approach of requiring an opt-in would apply, meaning that Canadians would no longer need to register their phone numbers on a do-not-call list.

My weekly technology law column (homepage version, Ottawa Citizen version, Toronto Star version) provides some reasons why that the change cannot come fast enough. The column reports that while misuse of the do-not-call list remains a concern, a review of thousands of pages of internal government documents released under the Access to Information Act reveal that it is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition to lax list distribution policies, the enforcement side of the do-not-call list raises serious alarm bells with the majority of complaints being dismissed as invalid without CRTC investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest in sorting through complaints, and a regulator that has been content to issue to "warnings" rather than levying the tough penalties contained in the law.

The CRTC documents obtained under Access to Information include a list of companies that have downloaded the do-not-call list. Given the broad exceptions under the law, virtually no charities, survey companies, political parties, or newspapers have acquired it. Instead, real estate agents, car dealers, financial advisors, and lawn care companies dominate the list of over one thousand organizations. Many of those organizations are identifiable, yet there are also over a hundred provincial numbered companies for which little is known, as well as cryptic names such as “My broker office” or “Michele.” It is unclear whether the CRTC invoked further verification before granting access to unknown organizations.

The proliferation of the do-not-call list is certainly disconcerting, but picture that emerges about its enforcement is even more troubling. The documents reveal that the CRTC receives over 20,000 telemarketing complaints each month, many involving the do-not-call list (some complaints may relate to other telecommunications rules that cover automated dialers or curfews).

The initial evaluation of complaints is handled by Bell, which manages the do-not-call list, rather than the CRTC. Bell reviews each complaint and provides a prima facie evaluation of whether it is valid, invalid, or indeterminate (which require further investigation). Despite tens of thousands of complaints, very few have been categorized by Bell as a prima facie violation of the do-not-call list. For example, in January, Bell reported that there were only 42 valid prima facie national do-not-call violations, while 3,033 national do-not-call complaints were ruled invalid (an unknown number of do-not-call complaints were treated as indeterminate).

April 27, 2009 — 11 comments — Columns