Michael Geist asks readers of his blog to flood the CRTC with input on its network management proceeding in advance of the submission deadline [which, by the way has just been extended to February 23].
I think that public engagement is a good thing, although a comment in the posting makes me wonder about “warning” our politicians:
Indeed, a strong response will send a signal to the CRTC about the public concern with net neutrality and serve as a warning to Canada’s politicians that they will have to step up to address the issue if the CRTC is unwilling to do so.
What is meant by “if the CRTC is unwilling to do so?”
The CRTC has already stepped up to address the issue. That is precisely why there has been a public notice issued, interrogatories directed to ISPs, a consultant report commissioned, public comment solicited, hearings scheduled, and then staff and Commissioner consideration of all the facts prior to releasing a Decision. Don’t we want a transparent process to assess such an important issue as opposed to a politicized lobbying effort with intimidation of politicians?
The CRTC has been more than willing to address the issue within a reasoned, legal framework. What can be behind this “warning to Canada’s politicians?”
Telephony Online has an article about the availability of a portfolio of deep packet inspection products and services from Continuous Computing targeted at the mobile industry.
There was a quote from CTO Mike Coward that caught my eye and defines the essence of why DPI technologies are being considered by mobile service providers:
Everywhere else in the network, you can throw more bandwidth at the problem. You can lay more fiber and convert from 1 Gb/s to 10 Gig, but you can’t make more spectrum.
Will thoughts turn to mobile internet in the course of comments that are due to be filed next week?
We have a special session looking at net neutrality issues at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place in June in Toronto. Early bird registration rates are available until the end of February. Have you registered yet?
Next Tuesday, the CRTC’s New Media hearings open in Gatineau. The Commission has scheduled time for oral presentations through the middle of March.
As we described last October, the proceeding is looking at how Canada’s broadcasting system is affected by new mechanisms, such as the internet and mobile devices, as contrasted with traditional over-the-air and cable delivery.
The Commission sought responses to six main themes, the third of which has attracted calls for a levy to fund Canadian content:
Defining broadcasting in new media
The significance of broadcasting in new media and its impact on the Canadian broadcasting system
Are incentives or regulatory measures necessary or desirable for the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content in new media?
Are there issues concerning access to broadcasting content in new media?
Other broadcasting or public policy objectives
The appropriateness of the new media exemption orders
There are a number of different visions being set in front of the Commission.
CBC does not yet see evidence of new media displacing conventional TV viewing, given stability in weekly TV viewing hours. It notes that
most of the professional video content that is being consumed on the Internet continues to originate from traditional media. At the present time and into the foreseeable future we see new media and traditional media as being co-dependent.
CBC also observes that its new media broadcasting activities are not self-supporting at this time, nor does CBC expect this to change in the near to medium term.
Many creative groups are calling for ISPs and mobile operators to contribute to a new fund to support the creation of Canadian content. Others are telling the CRTC to keep its light touch, if not hands-off, approach to new media.
In his October, 2008 speech at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ convention, Ofcom Chair Philip Graf said that the UK regulator viewed its role as more of a facilitator than regulator. CAB’s submission quotes him suggesting that government should:
Encourage providers to develop classification, search and filtering systems that parents can use to inform themselves and protect their children.
Promote transparency and informed consent for adults, for example in the areas of behavioural advertising.
Promote kite marking and branding by responsible site operators including those of the traditional broadcasters and newspapers who have web sites and
Promote media literacy so that parents and children understand how to sensibly access, understand and use material.
We’ll be monitoring to see how the Canadian model unfolds.
Update [February 10, 9:10 am]
Thanks to Pamela for pointing out that the hearings are only running for 2 days next week [Tuesday and Wednesday (Feb 17/18) before resuming for a week on Feb 23, taking a week off and finishing during the week of March 9. The agenda that shows who is appearing on each day can be found on the CRTC website.
A comment on my posting from last Monday points to critiques of some of the job creation figures being thrown around the broadband debate in the US.
A warning bell sounded for me when reading the Reuters article. I had to wonder if we are guilty of creating an unquestioned myth surrounding some of the economic benefits of universal broadband?
It is somewhat reminiscent of the “big lie” on internet growth that helped fuel the dot-com boom. As such, it is a wake-up call to all of us to pause and examine our arguments for increased government broadband investment.
The key question now being raised is the quantum of jobs benefits, which seems to be sourced in a July 2007 article from the Brookings Institute [pdf, 231KB].
We can all agree that broadband is good; more broadband is better. Building broadband creates positive economic impact – during the construction and once people go on-line. But, we need some critical research rather than blindly extrapolating results produced under specific sets of assumptions. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true – just more authoritative.
An article entitled “Not So Fast” in the January 29 issue of the Economist says:
When it comes to promoting economic activity, it is easy to see why having broadband is better than not having it, but most benefits are likely to come from wiring people up in the first place rather than making existing connections hum faster. In Japan and South Korea over 40% of households have fibre links capable of blazing speeds, but that does not seem to have resulted in more rapid economic growth, or the emergence of new applications unavailable to consumers with ordinary broadband.
The article notes the potential for market distortions when governments intervene.
Fibre networks are already being built by private companies in many countries; the prospect of handouts might cause them to delay their plans, in the hope that the state will pay for things they were going to do anyway.
It is important to ensure that we have more informed discussion when we’re talking about pouring millions, if not billions of tax dollars into these project.
I suspect I was long overdue for a system crash. In the more than 27 years that I have been a PC user, I have never had a major system crash – until yesterday at noon.
I dutifully did weekly back-ups and daily protection for critical files. For two years now, I have used a continuous on-line back-up service called Carbonite and it was a lifesaver.
As a result of its easy on-line access, I was back on the air in less than 20 minutes – pressing my laptop into service. It will likely take the weekend to download most of my files. There are 40GB in the back-up. I suspect that I will have lost a few pieces that are in progress and had not yet been backed up.
If I don’t reply to your recent email, please write me again – I didn’t mean to ignore you.
Let me recommend to all of you that you keep your back-ups current and brush your teeth after every meal.
