p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- The “CRTC has concluded that the new media on the Internet are achieving the goals of the Broadcasting Act and are vibrant, highly competitive and successful without regulation.

“The CRTC is concerned that any attempt to regulate Canadian new media might put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.”

The statement, from then chairwoman Francoise Bertrand in 1999, “sent a ripple of relief through the Canadian internet community,” and was, “singular not only for its wisdom, but also for the process of consultation,” said Stephen Downes.

“The CRTC’s decision to hold online hearings, and their capacity to listen and learn from what was said, marks a watershed in government. It’s enough even to give us some hope.”

But that hope is now being dashed

In 2008, under the chairmanship of Konrad von Finklestein, the CRTC wants an official, government version of DRM – (Digital Restrictions Management).

In another context, DRM is being used by the entertainment cartels to try to precisely control what consumers do with ‘product’ they bought and thought they owned.

Massive efforts to implement this form of consumer control to stop people from making backup, or any other, copies of DVDs and CDs fell flat on their face from day one.

“Digital files cannot be made uncopyable any more than water can be made not wet,” Bruce Schneier once observed.

“The Net cannot be bound any more than water can be made not wet,” he might also have said.

‘Parallel online discussion’

Back in the days when the Information Highway was seen as an exciting route to travel, “The CRTC is Canada’s version of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),” said Downes.

“Like the FCC, it regulates all aspects of telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. It allocates spectrum, monitors content, and coordinates development.”

He went on »»»

In traditional CRTC hearings, a panel is convened, suits from the radio and television industry state their case, and the verdict is rendered. The process, although ostensibly public, is tilted toward large industries who have the time and resources to make formal submissions.

In the case of the internet hearings, however, the CRTC and the McLuhan Institute at the University of Toronto convened a parallel online discussion as part of the formal process.

In 2008, however, that won’t, indeed can’t, happen.

The Net is viewed as a dire threat by old-style companies and institutions which, almost 10 years after Bertrand, are struggling desperately to survive. They could for the first time become truly relevant: they  could, if they chose, talk almost one-on-one with the people they supposedly exist to serve, responding directly to their needs and concerns.

Instead, in an era in which they’re increasingly being called to answer for sins which they thought had been swept under the carpet, the powers-that-used-to-be are using their immense political and financial clout to try to maintain the kind of control they’d always enjoyed, and abused. Until the Net came along.

Overturning the 1999 decision

Yesterday, the CRTC is, “trying to establish a role for itself in the regulation of what Canadians can and should be able to see over the internet similar to the way the commission regulates what Canadians can see over Canadian radio and television,” p2pnet quoted Digital Home as saying.

“Today, high-speed Internet access has been adopted by most Canadians, new technologies and applications are offering high-quality broadcasting content, and Canadians are spending more time accessing this type of content over the Internet and mobile devices,” the regulator said yesterday in a statement, said the story.

The hearings, “could result in in the overturning of a 1999 decision that exempted from regulation broadcasters that distribute their video content over the Internet,” it says.

Needless to say, consultation would take place behind closed doors and if anyone is allowed input, it’ll be vested interest politicians and captains of industry.

In addition, the CRTC will re-examine a 2007 decision which, “took a hands off approach to broadcasters and wireless companies who were sending video through cellphones and other mobile devices,” says Digital Home, adding

“In a written statement this week, the federal bureaucrats said the review was required now because Canadians are now spending more time watching video over the internet and mobile devices. The Commission, therefore, wishes to consult on the ‘the appropriateness of the Commission’s exemption orders for new media and mobile broadcasting services’.”

A ‘larger investigation’

In much the same way Bell Canada’s efforts to shackle the net by imposing traffic management on users represent not only a threat to Net neutrality, they’re also a direct assault on freedom of speech, the same applies to CRTC efforts to put its metaphorical hands on the Web.

And it’s already happening.

“The CRTC has given Bell Canada carte blanche to continue treating its users, ordinary people and smaller ISPs, like dirt,”p2pnet posted yesterday.

“Bell Canada Inc. will continue throttling the internet speeds of its smaller competitors for at least another few weeks as the CRTC has again delayed its decision on whether the company has broken the law by doing so,” says the CBC.

In a dslreports post “CRTC chairman [stressed that the] decision will be limited to whether or not Bell has violated its obligations to wholesale customers, and will not apply to the issue of throttling in general,” says DSL_Ricer.

“The CRTC will likely launch a larger investigation, which would look into the throttling practices of Bell [...], after the CAIP dispute is dealt with, he said.”

But, DSL_Ricer wonders »»»

Doesn’t that mean that bell could just give a 4 month notice (1 year from last April) that the service will be throttled, and then the CRTC would take another year or so to decide whether they’re in fact allowed?

‘ Ample business and market incentives exist’

Meanwhile, is it wasted effort to hope von Finklestein will take the time to revisit policy statements made by Bertrand back in 1999 when she published online »»»

Regarding whether content on the Internet is broadcasting as defined by the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has made the following points

  1. Everything transmitted over the Internet that is predominantly alphanumeric text is by definition not broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act.
2. Material transmitted over the Internet, which is significantly “customizable” or capable of being uniquely tailored by the individual user, does not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and is, therefore, not broadcasting.
3. The remaining material would fall within the definition of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act, but will be exempt from regulation for the following reasons:

• The new media complement, rather than substitute for traditional broadcasting. Before the new media could substitute for traditional media, key technological and other developments would have to take place.
• The Commission does not believe that regulation of the new media would further the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
• There is a substantial Canadian presence on the Internet today, supported by demand for Canadian new media content.
• Ample business and market incentives exist for the continued production and distribution of Canadian new media content.
• The new media industry requires local Canadian content to develop their businesses.
• Both the Federal and Provincial governments have initiatives in place to support Canadian content on the Internet.
• Generally applicable Canadian laws, industry self regulation, content filtering software as well as increased media awareness are appropriate tools to deal with offensive and illegal content on the Internet.

Stay tuned.

Jon Newton – p2pnet

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am and is filed under P2P, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 4277 times