Shaw came out swinging at the New Media hearings, charging that the concept of an internet content tax has been proposed by “self-interested” groups who have not produced any evidence that there is a shortage of Canadian content on the internet.

Jim Shaw proclaimed:

The internet is about the World Wide Web, not the Canadian Wide Web.

Other themes raised by Shaw in their presentation this afternoon included:

• Regulation did not build the internet; technology and consumers did.
• An internet tax would represent an unwarranted burden, including the administrative burden of registration and licensing.
• Shaw invested $700M last year in capital improvements and it plans to continue to do so, responding to customers. Shaw is introducing DOCSIS 3, with speeds up to 100Mbps later this year.
• Shaw needs the certainty of an unregulated internet if it is to continue its investments.

The CRTC rejected discussions of legal opinions submitted by Rogers and Shaw, telling the panels that it can leave that determination to the courts.

The chair summarized the perspective of supporters of the levy as trying to ensure that as eyeballs migrate from cable TV to new media distribution, that support for Canadian content development only comes from the BDUs and the other platforms provide no support. Shaw touched on the point that the quantum of support has not gone down, since it is an assessment on cable revenues, not cable viewers.

Shaw challenged the proposition that revenues will migrate from cable to internet. Jim Shaw said that people want to watch their sporting events on their high definition TVs, not on the internet. Shaw has not seen people giving up their cable in favour of new delivery platforms.

As such, would the proposed production levy on internet and mobile wireless revenues result in a windfall for the content production industry?

Technorati Tags:
Shaw, New Media

Last month, I wrote about the Digital Britain report, that laid out a strategy for the UK to build its knowledge economy.

The UK report looked at proposals including both network and cultural issues, including the future of radio and intellectual property rights.

Here in Canada, we have multiple departments that deal with such matters. While the CRTC sits as a regulator at the intersection of of broadcast and telecom, policy is divided between Heritage and Industry.

In my initial blog posting, I commented:

It seems that there are lots of studies, but it is harder to find a clear statement of vision for Canada’s digital future. As we invest in measures to jump start job creation, what concrete measures will affirm Canadian leadership in a global digital economy?

Economic stimulus projects are challenging various levels of governments in Canada to throw money at infrastructure projects. Beyond the belief that more and faster broadband is better than less and slower, do we have an idea of what we want to see in the Digital Canada over the next decade?

Do we have a champion to lead the creation of such a national vision?

The potential financial impact of the arbitrated settlement between Bell and Public Works (PWGSC) in respect of Canada’s Department of National Defense (DND) network is not public, but it must be enough to justify launching a court challenge of the CRTC’s ruling.

TELUS has filed leave to appeal two related CRTC rulings in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). Various links on the FCA page show that Court Number 09-A-12 has named PWGSC, the CRTC and Bell among the parties to the case.

On February 20, the Commission published its rationale for its determination that was issued on January 30. The information on the FCA website seems to indicate that TELUS is appealing the January 30 decision as well as a determination the day before that TELUS would not be granted a last minute voice in the arbitration.

TELUS is pursuing this file with what might be called a bodacious display of tenacity. How material is the DND remediation on TELUS’ financial results?

I enjoy sitting on the nominations committee for Canada’s Telecom Hall of Fame.

It is the time of year that our committee reviews the various nominations that have been received in order to produce a short list for the Laureate Selections committee.

There are so many stories to be told in the rich history of Canadian communications, dating back to the early days of trans-oceanic cables and radio communications, early satellites, fur trapper communications networks and more.

I encourage you to visit the Telecom Hall of Fame website and tour the virtual hall of fame. Over the coming months, I’ll post some information about some of the interesting stories that should be told.

If you think of someone who should be recognized, please submit a nomination for consideration.

Technorati Tags:
Telecom Hall of Fame

The CRTC is in the midst of a one week recess in its New Media hearings, respecting the school break in the province of Quebec.

In many ways, this break also serves to separate the content creators, who were the main actors in the first weeks of the hearing, from the carriers who will be appearing next week.

This polarization helps to focus the discussion from those who seek funding to enhance Canada’s new media presence and the ISPs and wireless service providers who are being asked by some to contribute to a new media development fund because they carry new media content.

If the CRTC does decide that delivery of new media content is a form of broadcasting and decides to create a fund, the reality is that shareholders of ISPs and wireless carriers will not pay for it. You and I will see our rates increase. There can be little doubt that this will increase internet and wireless rates with a discrete line on the bill saying CRTC New Media Fee.

ACTRA says that a majority of Canadian support rates going up. Actually, here is how they said it:

We also believe the Canadian public favours such a levy. In a Harris-Decima Poll we commissioned last year, we found that 69% of Canadians believe that ISPs should be required to help fund the production of Canadian digital media content. 73% agree that WSPs should be required to contribute.

I’ll bet if you asked Canadians if they support someone else paying for to improve snow clearing, they would agree in those kind of numbers as well. ACTRA didn’t show how many Canadians agree that they want their own internet and wireless bills to go up. In the average connected household (say, one internet connection and 2-4 cell phones) we could be looking at at increases of $5 per month or more.

Where are the interventions from consumer advocates who claim rates are already too high? I don’t want to pay more. Anyone out there want higher rates for internet and mobile phone service? Canada’s arts community thinks 7 in 10 Canadians do.

Maybe it was the comedians among their members.

Technorati Tags:
new media, ACTRA