Columns

Public Policy Consultations No Field of Dreams

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the release last week of the results of a CRTC public online consultation on new media that will feed into hearings on the issue early next year. Given that it was a consultation on new media, the Commission established a special website last spring for the month-long consultation and commissioned noted pollster Nik Nanos to serve as moderator and report back on the results. The Nanos report does not cast judgment on the success of the consultation – it merely reports the factual results – but there is no hiding the fact that by Internet standards the consultation failed to attract a large audience. Over the course of an entire month, the website generated just over 2,500 unique visitors with an average of 84 visitors per day. Only 284 Canadians registered with site, posting a total of 278 comments.

I argue that while the Commission should be commended for trying, it is clear that public consultations are no field of dreams – it takes more than a "if you build it, they will come" approach. With the increasing desire of governments and businesses to use the Internet as a tool for public feedback, it is worth examining why the consultation failed to spark significant interest.

September 16, 2008 — 8 comments — Columns

Digital Issues Deserve a Spot in Election Campaign

With a federal election now set for October 14th, the coming weeks will be dominated by political debate as each party seeks to make their case to voters across the country. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the election mode marks an important role reversal – after months of Canadians working to gain the attention of their elected officials, those same politicians will be knocking on doors, making phone calls, and participating in all-candidates meetings in an effort to seek them out.

The 2008 election therefore presents an exceptional opportunity to raise the profile of digital issues. Not only do these policies touch on so-called core concerns such as the economy, the environment, education, and health care, but they also resonate with younger Canadians, who could help swing the balance of power in many ridings. In the United States election, both Barack Obama and John McCain have unveiled detailed digital policy positions. Canadian leaders have yet to promote their policies, but there are at least five worth watching and asking about.

September 8, 2008 — 21 comments — Columns

PickupPal Controversy Highlights Power of Networked Economy

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) "picks up" on the debate over PickupPal, a ride sharing service that operates around the world. Trentway-Wagar, a Peterborough-based bus company, has raised questions about the legality of the service in Ontario. PickupPal has about 100,000 registered users worldwide (approximately 10,000 in Ontario alone) who use the Internet service to connect and identify possible ride sharing partners. The result is more carpools, less traffic congestion, and decreased emissions. Notwithstanding the benefits, Trentway-Wagar argues that the service violates the Ontario Public Vehicles Act because it allows drivers to collect money by offering strangers a ride. This is not the first time that the company has targeted ride sharing services. In 2000, it succeeded in stopping Allo-Stop, then Quebec's biggest ride sharing company, from operating in Ontario.

The PickupPal debate has thus far focused on an outdated provincial law (the government has promised to review the legislation) and the environmental impact of rules that appear to discourage ride sharing. Yet there is a bigger story here. The law has been rendered out of date because the Internet facilitates new modes of production and organization that enable thousands of people to connect, share, and work together in ways that were previously limited larger, well-organized, and well-funded companies. As scholars such as Yochai Benkler and Clay Shirky have persuasively argued, these modes of production provide great promise.

September 2, 2008 — 5 comments — Columns

Culture Cuts a Blow to Canadian Digitization Strategy

The Canadian cultural community has been abuzz over the past two weeks as details emerge about the government's plans to cut millions of dollars from nearly a dozen culture programs. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while the cuts may find support among some Canadians opposed to public funding for the arts, a closer look at the plans reveal that this has little to do with handouts to artists. Rather, the affected programs are focused on industrial policy and the creation of a digital information strategy.

August 26, 2008 — 13 comments — Columns

Bell’s PVR Legal Woes the Tip of the C-61 Iceberg

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) picks up on last week's story involving the Bell commercial touting a new digital video recorder that features an external hard drive permitting users to "record forever." The archiving functionality may sounds enticing, yet last week several media reports noted that Industry Minister Jim Prentice's Bill C-61 forbids Canadians from recording television programs for archival purposes. Indeed, the new "time shifting" provision in the Prentice bill contains at least a dozen restrictions that could leave consumers facing significant liability for those that fail to comply. Innovative businesses do not fare much better as they will also be forced to shelve potential new services if the bill becomes law. For example, Bill C-61 explicitly prohibits a network-based PVR that Telus has considered introducing into the Canadian market.

These restrictions leave Canadians trailing the United States, where consumers have enjoyed the legal right to time shift for more than two decades without the statutory restrictions that Prentice has proposed. Moreover, earlier this month a U.S. court ruled that Cablevision, a leading cable provider, can legally offer its network-based PVR. While it is tempting to focus on the need to improve the bill's PVR provisions, the reality is that the spotlight on Bell's promotion highlights a pervasive problem within Bill C-61. Surprisingly for a political party that typically promotes "market based solutions," the bill introduces a complex regulatory framework for everyday consumer activities and represents an unprecedented incursion into the property rights of millions of Canadians.

Just how far beyond restrictive television recording does Bill C-61 go?

August 18, 2008 — 18 comments — Columns