A recent determination by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sets out a listing of hallmarks of hate. These provide insights into the assessment of defining hate speech in Canada.

An analysis of the growing body of s. 13 [of the Canadian Human Rights Code] jurisprudence reveals that there are a number of hallmarks of material that is more likely than not to expose members of the targeted group to hatred or contempt. It may be useful at this point to provide a list of these hallmarks

1. The targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving others of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
2. The messages use “true stories”, news reports, pictures and references from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about the targeted group;
3. The targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
4. The targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
5. The targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
6. The messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any
   redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
7. The messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
8. The targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
9. Highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
10. The messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution or tragedy involving members of the targeted group;
11. Calls to take violent action against the targeted group.

All of these attributes involve an attack on the inherent self-worth and dignity of the members of the targeted group. As noted in the tribunal’s ruling, material that bears the hallmarks of a hate message disparages and ridicules other people “just for drawing breath, for living”.

On Friday, the CRTC issued a broadcasting decision in a case that examined the terms for Bell Canada to carry a sports channel (Sportsnet) owned by its competitor, Rogers. I’m going to leave the merits of the case and the details of the resolution aside for now.

For the purpose of this discussion, the important point to glean from the decision is that the CRTC re-affirmed the principle that specialty channels – the content provider – cannot grant more favourable terms to an affiliated distributor. In this particular case, the CRTC determined, in effect, that Sportsnet’s deal with Bell would need to be on terms “that are no less favourable than those accorded [Rogers Cable].”

It strikes me that a different twist on the net neutrality issue arises from this kind of decision.

We tend to think of net neutrality as seeking to ensure that ISPs don’t engage in bit-boinking – degrading the traffic of content providers that refuse to pay for protection. Is there a corollary that examines whether content providers can or should deny an ISP access to their content on equivalent terms to other ISPs?

Technorati Tags:
Bell Canada, Sportsnet, Rogers, Net Neutrality

FCC approval is the last thing standing in the way of AT&T; (NYSE: T) connecting with Bell South (NYSE: BLS), which, at $82.2B, is the largest telcom industry merger in US history.

The US regulator is currently deadlocked along party lines with 2 commissioners on each side of the issue. Democrat commissioners are said to be seeking concessions from AT&T; prior to giving their assent to the deal. The Justice Department gave its approval on Oct. 11, with no competitive concerns nor requiring the divestiture of any assets. The takeover has also been approved by regulators in 18 states.

FCC chair Kevin Martin is moving to permit commissioner Robert McDowell to vote on the issue, breaking the tie. McDowell once worked for COMPTEL and had previously declared a conflict of interest.

Concessions could include: wholesale price caps on access to AT&T;’s local lines; divest unused wireless spectrum; pledges to not discriminate against certain Internet traffic; and, offer reasonably priced naked DSL service.

The complaints sound familiar to observers of the regulatory frameworks around the world. Will partison politics in the US regulator affect the conditions of approval? Are conditions on mergers really the best way to regulate, if the rules don’t apply to all ILECs?

Technorati Tags:
ATT, FCC, Bell South, Net Neutrality

The deal has closed and the world’s largest telecommunications equipment vendor has a new name and logo: introducing Alcatel-Lucent (NYSE: ALU). I wrote a little piece this past summer about rebranding and the caution that needs to be taken in changing a corporate identity. Alcatel-Lucent has (so far) decided to keep both names. I guess Alcacent sounded too much like a remedy for after my Super Bowl party.

Like the smudged effect of the former Lucent red coffee-cup stain, the company’s new logo is a stylized version of an infinity symbol that looks as if it is drawn by hand. Embedded within the symbol are likenesses of an A and an L. The signature color of the new logo is purple (which goes so nicely with the my own homepage).

Patricia Russo, Chief Executive Officer of the combined Alcatel-Lucent is quoted saying:

Our new logo represents the endless possibilities for the future and our commitment to being a strong and enduring ally for our customers around the world.

Will the double corporate name be as strong and enduring?