Net Neutrality And Creative Freedom (Tim Wu at re:publica 2010) by Anna Lena Schiller (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/7VfazT

Net Neutrality

Bell Internet Kiosks Fail by Boris Mann (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6kQ5h9

Canada’s New Telecom Policy Begins to Take Shape With Rejection of Bell Appeal, Support for Net Neutrality

For the first six months of the new Liberal government, telecom watchers were unsure about whether Navdeep Bains, the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, would maintain the pro-consumer and competition approach that typified the previous government. The Bains ministerial mandate letter referenced the importance of competition, choice, and investment in communications, leaving enough wiggle room to shift in a new direction.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the full policy remains a mystery, but developments over the past two weeks suggest that a major change in approach is unlikely. With several big issues still to be decided – a plan for universal broadband access and review of the proposed Bell acquisition of MTS among them – getting a better sense of government policy is essential for business and consumers.

May 17, 2016 — 7 comments — Columns

CBC Vancouver - Wanderin'-The-Corridors by kris krüg (CC-BY-SA 2.0), https://flic.kr/p/2jXse

Forget a Netflix Tax: How The Digital CanCon Review Can Shake Up the Status Quo

Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly’s digital CanCon consultation is likely to spark calls from the cultural establishment for new levies and taxes to fund the creation of domestic content. The Internet will be the primary target with demands for a Netflix tax along with legislative reforms that would open the door to additional fees on Internet providers.

Yet an unimaginative approach that seeks to regulate the Internet imposes costs that would make Internet access less affordable and create a regulatory environment that runs counter to fundamental principles of freedom of speech and access to information. Joly should reject efforts to recycle stale policies and instead embrace the opportunity to shake up Canadian cultural policy.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the starting point should be a shift in funding for Canadian content creation. The current model, which relies heavily on mandatory contributions from the Canadian broadcasting community, is in decline as revenues from the sector slowly shrink (the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission recently reported that conventional television revenues declined by 2.4 per cent in 2015).

May 10, 2016 — 12 comments — Columns

Protest at the White House for Net Neutrality by Joseph Gruber (CC BY-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/p294TD

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 20: Unenforceable Net Neutrality Rules

One of President Barack Obama’s selling points for the TPP has been claims that it helps preserve “an open and free Internet.” The references to an open and free Internet, which is closely linked to net neutrality, may strike a chord with those concerned with digital issues. However, the Trouble with the TPP is that a close examination of the text and a comparison with existing net neutrality rules in many TPP countries reveals that it doesn’t advance the issue. In fact, the standards are so weak and unenforceable that at least half of the TPP countries already far exceed them.

Article 14.10 of the TPP provides:

Subject to applicable policies, laws and regulations, the Parties recognise the benefits of consumers in their territories having the ability to:
(a) access and use services and applications of a consumer’s choice available on the Internet, subject to reasonable network management;
(b) connect the end-user devices of a consumer’s choice to the Internet, provided that such devices do not harm the network; and
(c) access information on the network management practices of a consumer’s Internet access service supplier.

As a starting point, this is not mandated obligation. The TPP countries merely “recognize” the benefits of some net neutrality provisions. For those countries without net neutrality rules, there is no requirement to implement anything in order to comply with the agreement. In fact, if there was any doubt about the lack of enforceability, the entire provision is prefaced by the reference to “subject to applicable policies, and regulations.” In other words, the provision doesn’t advance anything for countries without net neutrality provisions.

January 29, 2016 — 6 comments — News

Net Neutrality rally by Alistair (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/4RFiJd

Why Canada’s Net Neutrality Enforcement is Going at Half-Throttle

Canada’s net neutrality rules, which require Internet providers to disclose how they manage their networks and to treat content in an equal manner, were established in 2009. The policy is administered by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which releases quarterly reports on the number of complaints it receives and whether any have been escalated to enforcement actions.

At first glance, the reports on the so-called Internet traffic management guidelines suggest that net neutrality violations are very rare. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that last year, there were typically a few complaints each month and all were quickly resolved. The CRTC does not disclose the specific targets or subject matter of the complaints.

Yet according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the complaints and their resolution give cause for concern. There are generally two types of complaints: those involving throttling technologies that limit speeds to render real-time services unusable or treat similar content in different ways, and quality-of-service issues that seem like throttling to the customer.

August 10, 2015 — 7 comments — Columns

Kill Your Television by Jeremy Brooks (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/oqYVbH

Don’t Go Changing: The Canadian Broadcaster Fight Against Legal and Regulatory Reform

Throughout the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission TalkTV hearing, Canadian broadcasters such as Bell (CTV), Rogers (CITY), and Shaw (Global), tried to assure Canada’s regulator that they were ready to embrace the digital future and prepared for regulatory change. Yet in recent weeks, it has become increasingly apparent that Canadian broadcasters plan to fight change every step of the way.

The effort to keep core business models intact are sometimes obvious. For example, new services such as Shomi and CraveTV are often characterized as Netflix competitors, but given their linkage to a conventional cable or satellite television subscription, are a transparent attempt to persuade consumers to retain existing services and not cut the cord. The viability of those services remains to be seen, but more interesting are the regulatory and legal fights, where Canadian broadcasters are waging an ongoing battle against change.

Bell Media leads the way with the two legal challenges against recent CRTC decisions. Yesterday it asked the Federal Court of Appeal to overrule the CRTC on its decision to ban simultaneous substitution from Super Bowl broadcasts starting in 2017. The Bell motion for leave to appeal strikes me as weak:

March 3, 2015 — 6 comments — News