The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has launched a campaign to get the public to “Send A Letter To Ottawa To Stop The Canadian DMCA“.
This is the group that wants to enable greater copying rights and I just thought it was funny that they couldn’t even depend on their supporters to create their own letters.
At least it is consistent for them to be sending copies of the same letters.
Globalive founder Tony Lacavera was on BNN last night praising the CRTC’s revised timetable for its ownership review, as we updated yesterday. The CRTC has indicated that it will have the review wrapped up within 30 days of the hearing concluding.
I’m fully supportive of the CRTC review, and as we were with the Industry Canada review. We were fully compliant with the Industry Canada review and received the licenses earlier this year and now the CRTC is conducting its control and ownership review. So, we don’t anticipate any show stopping issues with this.
In the interview, he expressed his support of the CRTC and the process.
He told BNN that the competitive landscape is shaping up quite nicely for consumers, even in advance of the launch of the new competitors.
In summing up the internet network management hearing, Michael Geist makes an observation that may inadvertently make the case as to why no regulatory intervention is required:
Days of testimony revealed the issue is far more complicated than the rhetoric might suggest. First, there is a wide variation in the use of traffic management tools with a different approach for pretty much every major ISP. Some throttle all the time (Cogeco), some during large chunks of the day (Bell), some only during congested periods (Shaw), and some not at all (Telus, Videotron).
In other words, consumers have choice. We should be concerned if every ISP uses the same, government-mandated network management techniques, without competition driving innovation, evolution, differentiation and consumer choice.
Barrett Xplore’s oral comments summarized 3 principles that should be at the core of the CRTC’s decision: (i) transparency; (ii) non-discriminatory treatment; and (iii) non-interference with content. Items (ii) and (iii) are handled by legislation; the first is largely covered by companies responding to competition. The CRTC should deal with internet traffic management complaints in response to specific complaints and resist the calls for ex-ante regulation.
The marketplace is working.
The CRTC has issued a policy statement that is intended to improve access to broadcasting and telecom services by Canadians with disabilities.
In the accompanying press release, the Commission summarizes seven new requirements:
Telecommunications services
- require IP relay, a new service to convert internet text messages into voice calls, and vice versa
- require improvement of accessibility of customer service
- request wireless companies to offer at least one type of phone to serve the needs of people with disabilities, and
- investigate improvements to 911 services for Canadians with disabilities.
Broadcasting services
- improve closed captioning, and develop standards for it in digital and HDTV
- make available high-quality audio descriptions of programming, especially for news broadcasts, and
- provide at least four hours per week of described-video programming
The CRTC used the phrasing of “requests” rather than “required” for wireless handsets. When it forbore from regulating the mobile industry, it retained the power to regulate under sections 24 [the power to impose conditions of sales] and 27(2) [unjust discrimination / undue preference] of the Telecom Act.
The Commission is asking nicely so far, with the implicit threat that if accessible cell phones aren’t in stores by October 21, it will order the carriers to maintain inventories of accessible devices.
The CRTC has decided to hold a public hearing to examine the ownership structure of Globalive as part of its process to approve the test of Canadian ownership and control.
The Commission has set aside 2 days for the review: September 23 and 24.
The Commission considers that Globalive’s corporate structure meets the criteria for a Type 4 review. Specifically, the Commission considers that given the complexity of Globalive’s corporate structure and financing arrangements, the determination with respect to its compliance with section 16 of the Act would contain valuable precedents concerning the Commission’s understanding of eligibility under that section. Moreover, the Commission considers the evidentiary record would be improved by third-party submissions and that the appearance of third parties will assist the Commission in its completion and examination of the evidentiary record.
The operative section of the Telecom Act will be the test of Canadian control of the company, found in Section 16(3):
a corporation is Canadian-owned and controlled if
- not less than eighty per cent of the members of the board of directors of the corporation are individual Canadians;
- Canadians beneficially own, directly or indirectly, in the aggregate and otherwise than by way of security only, not less than eighty per cent of the corporation’s voting shares issued and outstanding; and
- the corporation is not otherwise controlled by persons that are not Canadians.
Although a company may structure itself in a manner that conforms to the first parts, the CRTC will likely focus on “otherwise controlled.”
This makes for an interesting situation: companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase wireless licenses and their ownership has been reviewed and approved by Industry Canada using the same test and the licenses have been issued. Still, the CRTC, in a public and transparent process, could require significant changes to the corporate structure in order to ensure conformance.
The duplication of review processes is one of the reasons why Recommendations 5-10 and 5-11 from the Telecom Policy Review panel sought changes to the way spectrum is managed and regulated in Canada. The report has languished on the shelf for more than 3 years now.
Is it time for government to act?
Update [July 21, 5:40 pm]
The CRTC has issued an erratum on its Globalive review notice. The initial notice indicated that a decision would be issued within 120 days of the conclusion of the hearings. The erratum indicates that the decision will be out within 30 days.
In practice, ownership reviews are usually issued even faster.
If we look at the experience in the BCE ownership review, the CRTC indicated areas of discomfort and suggested that the company could examine an alternative structure that would cause less regulatory angst over the evening break.
The opportunity to allow the company to review alternate control structures may be a reason that the CRTC has allocated 2 days for the review.