Columns

Canadians Face Triple Lock on Apple iPhone

Amid rumours that Apple is scaling back on its delivery of the iPhone to Rogers, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the Canadian debut this week of the Apple iPhone. The arrival of a Canadian iPhone is expected to generate long lines at Rogers Wireless stores, though the pre-launch publicity has not been particularly smooth for the company. Its announcement of iPhone service pricing set off a wave of online protest, as consumers noted the absence of an unlimited data plan, higher prices, and longer contractual commitments. The Rogers offer is not particularly surprising. Canada ranks toward the very bottom among developed countries for cellphone penetration as the lack of competition leaves Canadians with some of the highest prices for wireless services in the world. Indeed, Rogers has a monopoly on the iPhone since it is the only Canadian carrier currently capable of carrying the device.

Most of the public criticism has focused on the uncompetitive data rates that render it difficult to maximize the iPhone’s potential. Yet the bigger story is how the Canadian version of the device features a triple lock that is the result of onerous contracts, technological locks, and a legislative proposal from Industry Minister Jim Prentice that simultaneously locks consumers in, while locking the competition out.

July 7, 2008 — 26 comments — Columns

CIRA’s Backdoor Access in New WHOIS Policy

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) revisits the disappointment with CIRA's implementation of its new whois policy. While dot-ca registrants across the country were being advised of the new policy last April, special interests representing law enforcement and trademark holders were quietly pressuring […]

July 1, 2008 — 4 comments — Columns

The Spectrum Surplus

Each week millions of Canadians buy lottery tickets as they "imagine the freedom" of hitting it big. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while the federal government may not have won the lottery, it has certainly hit the jackpot with the wireless spectrum auction that is now in its final stages. The auction was expected to yield roughly $1.5 billion for the federal treasury, yet it may now top $4 billion as the bids have far exceeded initial estimates. That represents a huge windfall for the federal government as an extra $2.5 billion does not come around every day.

The surplus revenues do more than just conclusively rebut the claims of the big three wireless providers (Bell, Rogers, Telus) who aggressively lobbied against a "set aside" that reserved some spectrum for new entrants on the grounds that it would reduce auction revenues. As telecom consultant Mark Goldberg noted earlier this month, the auction's success also raises the important question of what to do with the money.

The immediate response from Ottawa is likely to be that the 2008 Federal Budget earmarked the spectrum auction proceeds to debt reduction. However, that promise was made when $1.5 billion was expected to be on the table. With nearly triple that amount at stake, the government could fulfill its commitment to allocate the expected revenues to debt reduction and simultaneously use the surplus proceeds for purposes more directly connected to the issues of wireless, the Internet, and communications in Canada.

At least three possibilities come immediately to mind.

June 23, 2008 — 9 comments — Columns

How the U.S. Got Its Canadian Copyright Bill

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) examines the role that U.S. pressure played leading up to the introduction of Bill C-61 last week. I argue that the bill is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model. The U.S. pressure has intensified in recent years, particularly since there is a growing international trend toward greater copyright flexibility with countries such as Japan, New Zealand, and Israel either implementing or considering more flexible copyright standards.

The public campaign was obvious. U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins was outspoken on the copyright issue, characterizing Canadian copyright law as the weakest in the G7 (despite the World Economic Forum ranking it ahead of the U.S.). The U.S. Trade Representatives Office (USTR) made Canada a fixture on its Special 301 Watch list, an annual compilation of countries that the U.S. believes have sub-standard intellectual property laws. The full list contains nearly 50 countries accounting for 4.4 billion people or approximately 70 percent of the world's population. Most prominently, last year U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn, along with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, escalated the rhetoric on Canadian movie piracy, leading to legislative reform that took just three weeks to complete.

The private campaign was even more important.

June 16, 2008 — 33 comments — Columns

Copyright Bill’s Fine Print Makes For a Disturbing Read

This morning I run a special column (Toronto Star version, Vancouver Sun version, Ottawa Citizen version, homepage version) on Bill C-61. Based largely on my initial post, I note that in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark copyright decision in a battle between the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario legal bar association, and CCH Canadian, a leading legal publisher. The court was faced with a dispute over an old technology – photocopying in a law library – and in a unanimous decision it ruled that the underlying purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest. That interest, reasoned Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, is best served by balancing both user rights and creator rights.

Yesterday Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner delivered what amounts to a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court's copyright vision of public interest and balance. After months of internal discussions (though precious little public consultation), the government unveiled its much-anticipated copyright reform bill. Casting aside the concerns of major business, education, and consumer groups, the bill seeks to dramatically tilt Canadian law toward greater enforcement and restrictions on the use of digital content, leading Liberal Industry critic Scott Brison to warn that it could result in a "police state."

June 13, 2008 — 13 comments — Columns