Search Results for: incentives

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:

1. Defining broadcasting in new media
2. The significance of broadcasting in new media and its impact on the Canadian broadcasting system
3. Are incentives or regulatory measures necessary or desirable for the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content in new media?
4. Are there issues concerning access to broadcasting content in new media?
5. Other broadcasting or public policy objectives
6. 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.

Let’s continue with a theme I raised on Friday.

Last week, as Videotron expanded the reach of its DOCSIS 3.0 ultra-high speed broadband [ pdf, 32KB], it also increased the download caps for its users of 30 and 50 Mbps internet services. It adds pressure to Canadian telephone companies to consider the massive investments (such as a Verizon-like FTTH approach) to compete with cable internet speeds.

In the past, I have called for all levels of government to create more favourable environments for increased broadband investment by all service providers. The most basic incentives would be for the public sector to liberalize access to public rights of way, support structures and vertical real estate such as towers.

Last week, Portugal went even further, setting up an €800M line of credit for operators to roll-out next-generation broadband networks. Governments have many levers that can help stimulate investment in next generation network equipment, including accelerated depreciation for certain classes of capital and matching funds for rural service improvements. Telecom service providers have a track record of being to move quickly to implement their infrastructure projects – much faster than roads, public transit, sewers and bridges.

As governments look for ways to stimulate various sectors of the economy, incentives for investment in digital infrastructure may be among the lowest cost, while delivering the highest returns and most sustainable benefits.

A loyal reader, frequent commenter and fellow eater of kippers for breakfast sent me a link to a release from the US Chamber of Commerce, describing two new major studies showing the economic benefits of delivering broadband to all consumers, especially senior citizens.

The papers recommend that the federal government should adopt policies to incent investment in broadband infrastructure.

The two reports, Network Effects: An Introduction to Broadband Technology & Regulation [pdf 288K] and the first of 4 companion reports: The Impact of Broadband on Senior Citizens [pdf 482K], provide a number of policy recommendations with a US focus but relevance for Canada. Other companion reports to be released will review the impact of broadband on telemedicine, people with special needs, and education.

These US Chamber of Commerce reports are worthwhile reading over the holiday period.

We will want to look at them further in the new year – especially in preparing for the CRTC’s internet network management proceeding.Here is a sample of what the US Chamber has to say:

Network regulation would serve only to slow innovation and discourage continued network deployment by increasing regulatory uncertainty and decreasing financial incentives to deploy advanced infrastructure.

The Chamber also suggests some guiding principles for ensuring that all U.S. consumers have access to broadband and broadband-enabled tools. So far, Canadian initiatives have been provincial initiatives.

In recent months, we have seen 3 provinces announce universal broadband access plans: PEI, Saskatchewan and last week’s announcement from New Brunswick.

What will be the role of the January federal budget in launching national broadband infrastructure initiatives? How will we create an effective, pro-competitive national broadband strategy for Canada?

What does side of the net neutrality debate does Google really support?

That was the question raised in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ), although Google’s Washington-based Telecom and Media Counsel Rick Whitt reaffirmed the company’s support for net neutrality in his blog posting rebuttal.

The WSJ article suggests that support for net neutrality may be softening as companies understand more about the realities of delivering quality to users.

Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.

So where does Google stand on the issue of imposing net neutrality regulations?

Last week, I looked at some of the comments filed in the CRTC’s New Media proceeding.

Let’s return to Google’s comments, in part because the submission provides wonderful evidence of the emergence of diverse Canadian new media content and also because the company appears to endorse a vision of the internet that keeps regulators at bay. It is understandable that the WSJ is finding it tough to follow Google’s position.

Google’s filing with the CRTC includes examples of Canada’s presence on YouTube that should serve as notice to those who rely on traditional handouts that there is already a vibrant Canadian production presence in new media, without having waited for incentives.

I cited one quote from Google’s 20 page submission last Wednesday, but I left out the last two sentences from that paragraph, which may be relevant to the WSJ discussion. So let me repeat this quote from Google, emphasizing those last two sentences:

Without regulation the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been, and will continue to be, implemented on the Internet. The New Media Exemption is the best regulatory approach to keeping the Internet awesome. It should remain in place without change. It should not be varied, removed, replaced, or supplemented with regulation. [emphasis added]

Catch that? Google is not asking to vary, remove, replace or supplement current internet regulation – presumably, not even supplementing with net neutrality legislation.

Google continues a few paragraphs later with a further endorsement of how the internet has succeeded without regulation.

New and evolving tools put the power to easily and inexpensively create and disseminate legal content in the hands of users. All this has been made possible by creators experimenting with Internet business models, without regulation influencing their development.

Which begs the question of why, in the context of net neutrality, Google so often appears to be asking for regulation that might prevent experimentation by ISP’s with various business models. Google uses a footnote in its submission that is a little confusing:

In this submission, Google uses the term “access” to mean the ability of Internet users to view, hear, and find content, and not network neutrality issues.

Google defines the access issue as one that appears to largely be covered by existing non-discrimination regulations and rational business behavior:

So long as the broadband “on ramps” to the Internet remain open to all, and the broadband providers themselves supply sufficient capacity to support robust Internet access, the Internet can serve as an important content distribution platform.

Other parties, such as Primus, address this point in submissions, noting that the Sections 27(2) and 36 of Telecom Act ensure that internet-based content will continue to be widely and easily available.

As Google says in its submission, why would we want regulation to inhibit experimenting with Internet business models?

So, is the WSJ correct that Google may be softening its stance on new net neutrality regulation?

Technorati Tags:
Google, new media

I was having trouble understanding Michael Geist’s article that appeared in various papers this past week [Toronto Star version, Geist web version].

On Wednesday, I pointed out the problem with his allegation that “many Canadian ISPs” are fiddling around with customers’ traffic on the basis of the content.

I have read the article a few times and I was not sure if I understood the proposal. At first blush, it seemed that he is calling for a deeper level of deep packet inspection than anything employed by carriers today. He seemed to be proposing that, if traffic shaping is to become a fact of life, then ISPs should agree to give Canadian content a free pass to un-managed bandwidth as their “Internet equivalent of cultural funding.”

As ISPs move toward tiered access that grants preferential treatment (such as faster speeds) to their own content or to premium content promoted by deep-pocketed interests, an equal opportunity approach to new media content would effectively bring Cancon into the Internet era by asking for nothing more than a fair shake.

The implementation of a regime that might need to examine all new media content for a Canadian content flag in order to be awarded ‘safe passage’ is of great concern and was the subject of some of the comments on his blog. So he provided a clarification by way of a reply comment:

I am an advocate of net neutrality and this is a call for net neutrality. The piece argues for the promotion of the Canadian content by treating all content equally.

So, there must have been a hidden meaning to the article.

With this clarification, he seems to be suggesting that net neutrality would be the solution to providing incentives to stimulate access to Canadian content, as if providing unfettered access to all content is enough of an incentive to promote Canadian content.

How does net neutrality provide a promotion of Canadian content?

Is the root of this proposal the unfounded presumption that any ISP is treating traffic differently on the basis of content?

Professor Geist will be speaking at the Public Policy Forum session on net neutrality in Ottawa next week. I suspect we will hear more about this proposal there.