The UK telecom regulator, Ofcom, has proposed to revise its guidance on how ‘net neutrality’ rules should apply, indicating that a more nuanced approach may be appropriate given the evolution of broadband technologies and the marketplace.

Since the current rules were put in place in 2016, there have been significant developments in the online world – including a surge in demand for capacity, the emergence of several large content providers such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and evolving technology including the rollout of 5G. So Ofcom has carried out this review to ensure net neutrality continues to serve everyone’s interests.

Ofcom indicated that “the [current] net neutrality rules constrain the activities of the ISPs, [and] may be seen as restricting their ability to innovate, develop new services and manage their networks.” The regulator considered that this could lead to poor consumer outcomes, “including consumers not benefiting from new services as quickly as they should, or at all. These potential downsides might become more pronounced in the future, as people’s use of online services expands, traffic increases, and more demands are placed on networks.”

The consultation document [pdf, 1.5MB] is 139 pages long, plus an additional 62-page set of annexes [pdf, 917KB].

Ofcom is proposing:

• most zero-rating offers will be allowed;
• ISPs have flexibility to offer retail packages with different levels of quality;
• ISPs can use traffic management measures to manage networks;
• ISPs have more scope to develop specialised services, such as network slicing;
• Ofcom will not prioritise enforcement action where there is clear public benefit, in relation to:
  • the prioritisation and zero-rating of all communications with the emergency services;
  • traffic management of internet services provided on transport;
  • the use of parental controls and other content filters involving the blocking of traffic; and
  • blocking access to fraudulent or scam content.

Ofcom has also proposed additional reporting from ISPs to allow monitoring the effects of the increased flexibility being provided.

Ofcom is also seeking comment on providing greater flexibility for ISPs in certain areas that could generate positive consumer outcomes, but are not permitted under the current legislation, including: allowing zero-rated content to be accessed after a customer’s data allowance has been exhausted; allowing retail offers which guarantee different quality levels for traffic associated with specific content; and allowing greater flexibility to apply traffic management to specific content to address congestion.

Finally, Ofcom has provided views on “the possibility of allowing ISPs to charge content providers for carrying traffic that might lead to more efficient use of networks.”

We acknowledge that in principle there could be benefits to a charging regime, particularly in improving the incentives on CAPs to deliver traffic efficiently. However, we also recognise the difficulties that designing an effective scheme raises, the risks and uncertainty such a change could create, and the unclear impact on consumers. A charging regime would be a significant step and we have not yet seen sufficient evidence that such an approach would support our objectives at this time. We also consider our other proposals provide flexibility that should help mitigate several issues identified by ISPs.

Comments are due January 13, 2023. Ofcom says that it expects to issue its decision and revised guidance by Autumn 2023.

“We want to make sure that as technology evolves and more of our lives move online, net neutrality continues to support innovation, investment and growth, by both content providers and ISPs. Getting this balance right will improve consumers’ experiences online, including through innovative new services and increased choice.”

I have written a number of times about Australia’s multi-billion dollar broadband boondoggle, more formally known as the National Broadband Network (NBN).

NBN was established in 2009 to design, build and operate a wholesale broadband access network for Australia. To date, the government of Australia has poured more than AU$50B into the project (approximately C$45B), including nearly AU$20B in government debt that is supposed to be replaced by private debt by 2024.

Last week, we learned that the Australian government is pouring another AU$2.4B into the company over the next 4 years, to enable another 1.5M homes and businesses to have access to fibre to the node (FTTN). According to Light Reading, “That includes 660,000 premises in rural Australia and means around 10 million homes and businesses across Australia will have access to top download speeds of around 1 Gbit/s by late 2025”.

There was an interesting data point in the Light Reading story:

More than 8.5 million Australian homes and businesses were connected to the NBN at 30 June 2022, with another 3.6 million ready to connect.

However, just 18% of NBN customers were on wholesale plans offering download speeds of 100 Mbit/s or above.

How does that compare to Canada, where networks are competitively built, owned, operated and financed, by the private sector, without structural separation?

According to the latest figures from the CRTC, of 12.2M broadband connections in Canada, 7M have speeds of 100 Mbps or higher (57%), which is more than 3 times the proportion in Australia.

For more than a month, the Prime Minister’s Office was aware that the government’s anti-racism action program had provided funding to Laith Marouf, failing to issue any public statement until pressured to do so. That is the latest revelation in a story that merits far more investigation than it currently is receiving.

For well over a year, I have been sounding an alarm over public funding of a purveyor of antisemitic social media messaging. For details, please see “Feeding at the funding trough”, a blog post I wrote in late August.

It all started with my observations about Canada’s telecommunications regulator awarding “costs” with the Commission failing to follow its own public processes, in stark conflict with last week’s statement issued by the CRTC’s Chair. I continued to sound the alarm after Canada’s Heritage Department awarded a contract, ironically as part of the Ministry’s anti-racism action program.

I directly approached a Liberal MP in mid-July with information about my concerns. As the Globe and Mail has now reported, this information reached the Prime Minister’s office nearly immediately. However, it wasn’t until a month later, after social media amplified the story, that there was any official government reaction. It took another week until the Prime Minister addressed the issue.

As Michael Geist wrote on his blog, “I can’t shake the reality that the Minister knew for a month. The Prime Minister’s Office knew for a month. And they did nothing.”

It calls to mind the message from MP Rob Oliphant on the lesson he learned from his father admonishing him for ignoring acts of antisemitism. He protested saying that he didn’t do it. His father responded, “It doesn’t matter. You overheard it, and you didn’t counter it.”

It simply isn’t credible that its delay in responding was because the government needed to consult with lawyers to look at how it could unwind the arrangements. Lawyers weren’t required to look at the “vile” tweets and come out with a statement.

Looking at the initial statement issued by the Minister of Diversity and Housing, it is clear that the lawyers had not yet completed their examination.

So why the delay?

They knew for a month and they did nothing.

This statement could have been released immediately after learning about the issue. It should have been released by the PMO in mid-July.

It took another day for the Minister’s lawyer’s to have a “resolution”.

We are left wondering why the government was remaining silent for a month. Were the political strategists hoping that the matter would simply fade away on its own?

The fallout from the funding of an antisemitic hate-monger is far from over.

• The parliamentary Heritage Committee needs to continue its examination of the matter to explore the complete timeline and ensure accountability for this shameful episode.
• The CRTC needs to carefully examine why it failed to conduct a public process in the case of awarding costs, in conflict with its own standards and procedures. If appropriate, it should review its cost award decisions on its own motion to correct its error.
• The Broadcasting Participation Fund needs to operate with increased transparency.

In order to bookmark reference articles about the affair, I will try to keep this bibliography up to date:

• Jonathan Kay in Quillette: The Line Between Anti-Racism and Racism Keeps Getting Fainter
• Joshua Lieblein in The Line: Anti-Semitism from an anti-racist? How unusual.
• Isabelle Hachey in La Presse: Fallait chercher (un peu) plus loin
• Rex Murphy in the National Post: What’s the Liberals’ excuse for hiring an ‘anti-racist’ who spews antisemitism?
• Rex Murphy in the National Post: The Trudeau government’s hypocritical stance on hate and its targets
• Michael Geist on his blog: Silent No More: Liberal MP Anthony Housefather Calls on All 338 MPs to Speak Out on Anti-Semitism and Ensuring No Government Funding for Anti-Semite
• Anthony Furey (with Jonathan Kay) podcast on National Post Full Comment: Oops, we hired a raving bigot to teach anti-racism
• Barbara Kay in the National Post: The private organizations trying to get to the bottom of the Marouf affair
• Dan Donovan in Ottawa Life Magazine: Why Jewish people in Canada should fear the Trudeau government.
• Marie Woolf in the Globe and Mail: CRTC launches payment review over Laith Marouf affair
• Robyn Urback in the Globe and Mail: Why was the government silent on Laith Marouf’s antisemitic tweets for an entire month?
• Marie Woolf and Marieke Walsh in the Globe and Mail: PM’s office knew of derogatory tweets a month before contract was cancelled
• Michael Geist on his blog: Government Funding For an Anti-Semite: They Knew For a Month. And Did Nothing.
• Marie Woolf and Marieke Walsh in the Globe and Mail: Opposition MPs question silence from PMO on derogatory tweets from government contractor
• Tristin Hopper in the National Post: First Reading: Liberals ignored Laith Marouf affair until it made the news
• Editorial in the National Post: NP View: The insidious silence from non-Jews about Kanye’s and Marouf’s antisemitism
• Editorial in the Globe and Mail: The fight against antisemitism requires solidarity with Jewish Canadians, not just sympathy
• Marie Woolf in the Globe and Mail: Laith Marouf once barred from re-entering Canada, interviewed by CSIS
• Marie Woolf in the Globe and Mail: Ottawa hires debt collectors to get grant back from Laith Marouf employer

Apparently, October is Canada’s first ever Circular Economy Month, an awareness campaign focusing on the importance of waste reduction and recycling.

TELUS and the Circular Innovation Council are encouraging Canadians to repair, recycle or upcycle their “pre-loved” phones or tablets, prolonging the device’s lifespan, reducing electronic waste, and keeping them out of landfills, thus helping toward what is being called a circular economy.

According to a TELUS release, 69% of Canadians say their mobile phone is their most expensive personal item, however less than half of the population has actually repaired their phone and only 12% of us have ever purchased a used device.

Circular Economy Month provides us an opportunity to think about how production and consumption effects our environment. It is also a time to celebrate innovation and reimagine how we produce, use and discard products to increase their value and reduce environmental impacts.

TELUS and its customers have recycled over 3.5 million devices; this year alone, the company has “upcycled” more than 80,000 used handsets into Certified Pre-owned devices.

Canadians can be an active participant in the circular economy this month and all year round by:

• Repairing pre-loved devices: Canadians can keep their devices longer and minimize waste by visiting one of TELUS’ Mobile Klinik stores to have it repaired, whether it’s a cracked screen, sluggish operating system or water damage, or other issues. Each day, Mobile Klinik refurbishes 300 devices across its more than 125 locations in Canada.
• Recycling pre-loved devices: Bring a pre-loved device into a TELUS store where the team will responsibly recycle it to keep it out of landfills. TELUS will also plant a tree for every device recycled as part of its mission to plant its one millionth tree. Learn more about how to recycle your device.
• Upcycling pre-loved devices: Drop off pre-loved phones or tablets at a TELUS store and the team will upcycle them to connect a Canadian-in-need through TELUS’ Mobility for Good® program. TELUS’ Mobility for Good provides access to smartphones for youth ageing out of foster care, low-income seniors and Indigenous women at risk or surviving violence. Find out more about donating your phone.

Reuse and recycle programs for other service providers can be found at Frequent readers will know that I am somewhat partial to the Mobility for Good program. TELUS says that it will recycle phones and tablets, whether or not you are a TELUS customer.

RecycleMyCell.ca. That site includes a list of drop-off locations.

It may be time to fill a box (or two) with the “pre-loved” phones that are filling up space in my office cabinets. I’m hanging onto my Motorola Dynatac brick phone. I’ll be ready in case Hollywood decides to do a remake of Michael Douglas’ walk on the beach in Wall Street.

A recent interview on The Hub caught my eye: “Cancel culture comes to the classroom: Professor Deborah Appleman on how teachers are navigating the new culture wars.”

In the article, Sean Speer and Professor Appleman discuss “how culture war politics are intruding into the classroom.”

I had been reading a number of articles on similar themes, such as the blowback against cancel culture at Yale Law School by some US Federal judges who will no longer offer clerkships to graduates of the program (see “Yale Law clerk boycott now up to a dozen federal jurists”), and a ban on speakers who are from Israel or who support Zionism by 9 student groups associated with Berkeley’s law school (see: “Leading US Jewish groups blast Berkeley Law school amid anti-Zionism uproar”).

As Professor Appleman describes, “this pressure of canceling, this culture war, is coming from both liberals and conservatives.”

Classroom teachers are used to conservative critics who think that the books that teachers choose are inappropriate because of profane language or explicit sexual content. We’ve been dealing with that with support from the American Library Association, and we’re about to celebrate Banned Book Weeks coming up.

We’re sort of used to that. What we’re not used to is the canceling that’s coming from the Left, canceling because of problematic portrayals, because of use of offensive language, and canceling because someone has made a judgment about the appropriateness of the life of an author, for example, Sherman Alexie, and the degree to which that author’s behaviour should keep us from teaching their books. It’s a particular moment in time where we’re being pressed from both sides. And that, of course, in the United States is exacerbated by a lot of movements, a lot of anti-gay movements, by movements of critical race theory, even though the people who talk about it don’t really exactly know what it is, a real backlash.
…
On one hand, we don’t want to have kids read things in our classroom that perpetuate harm.

On the other hand, the purpose of reading literature is to unsettle you, is to hurt you in some ways, and is, maybe, in my opinion, most importantly, giving you the opportunity to feel the hurt of other people.

I encourage you to read the entire interview, including the discussion of the “need to confront ideas or arguments that [students] may find distasteful or even offensive as part of the process of learning.”

And that brings me back to my concern about legislation being considered to address the issue of online harms.

Recall that the mandate letters for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General each contain a section calling for the Ministers “to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host”.

As I wrote two months ago, from the outset, I have had concerns about plans to create new legislation addressing online hate, trying to establish a regime that defines what constitutes online harms, and places limits on our freedom of expression.

Then there is the case of Twitter suspending Laith Marouf, and the subsequent withdrawal of a government consulting contract for him to conduct workshops to develop an anti-racism media strategy. Frequent readers are familiar with this case and others can refer to the reading list at the bottom of my September 6 post. As I wrote in August:

That said, let’s examine a very current situation: a Montreal-based consultant who refers to Jews as “loud mouthed bags of human feces”, and threatens “Jews with a bullet to the head” (as highlighted in a Twitter stream last Friday by journalist Jonathan Kay).

Was this hateful or merely offensive? To me, it’s pretty clear that this kind of commentary crossed the line.

But we don’t actually need to consider whether or not Laith Marouf’s comments would survive Canadian Heritage’s prospective Online Harms legislation. Legal or not, it seems pretty inexcusable that this same department of the Canadian government has been providing funding to him.

It is worth noting that it didn’t require new legislation to deal with this case. Marouf was found to have violated Twitter’s terms of service and was suspended (again) without government intervention. Following public exposure, the government cancelled the funding agreement.

Canadian Heritage, the department charged with developing legislation to combat serious forms of harmful online content, found itself having funded a purveyor of the kind of content it was supposed to combat. The Minister’s mandate is to hold social media platforms accountable for the content they host, but two months after the story became widely known, no one has yet been held to account for the department’s failure to conduct proper due diligence before awarding the contract to CMAC.

I am doubtful of the ability of this government to introduce legislation that balances concerns about online harms with our Charter freedom of expression. Still, it is important to note that there are certain limits to our right to freely express our views. And the Charter clearly doesn’t include a right to receive government funding for those with a habit of spewing vile messages.