While travelling overseas, I have been trying to follow the CRTC’s wireline wholesale hearing taking place in the National Capital. The hearing moves into its reply phase today and CPAC is streaming the action from gavel to gavel.
On Monday afternoon, I was listening to Open Media’s testimony when I heard a reference to nationalizing internet and tweeted a question:
Did @OpenMedia_ca just go beyond structural separation and endorse a call to nationalize the internet? Government control? #crtcwireline
— Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) December 1, 2014
A colleague replied “I do believe that is what I heard – but I am remote so perhaps it was lost in the medium.”
Rather than clarify, Open Media’s executive director responded with a personal attack:
My favorite telecom lobbyists "Goldie" is trying to use a citizen comment to misrep @OpenMedia_ca views at hearing. Gross! #crtcwireline
— Steve Anderson (@Steve_Media) December 1, 2014
Looking beyond the personal swipes, I took this to mean that Open Media chose to distance its own views from those of its member who was quoted in their opening statement [transcript line 8346]:
In fact some, as David B. of Rockaway, New Brunswick go as far to suggest: “The Internet is rapidly becoming an essential public service. It should be nationalized or rather internationalized as a non-profit service.”
Open Media claims to “work toward informed and participatory digital policy”.
Why is its executive director unwilling to engage in civil discourse to clarify its position – informing us about a key point of digital policy?