Search Results for: regulating internet

Background
Earlier in the year, the CRTC concluded its public consultations under both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act regarding the range of communications and information services referred to as “new media.” On May 17, 1999, the Commission agreed that there is no need for it to be involved in regulating the Internet.

Hands Off!
The Commission concluded that the majority of services now available on the Internet consist predominantly of alphanumeric text, and, therefore, do not fall within the scope of the Broadcasting Act and are thus outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. For those new media services that do fall under the definition of broadcasting, the Commission has concluded that regulation is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. It has therefore determined that the CRTC will not regulate new media activities on the Internet under the Broadcasting Act.

Further, the Commision found that there was no apparent shortage of Canadian content on the Internet today. As such, it determined that there is no reason for to impose regulatory measures to stimulate development of Canadian content in the world of new media.

Equal Access
The Commission has set an official policy of providing open access to high speed internet access facilities used by cable companies and telephone companies for their affiliated internet service providers.

Summary
The CRTC has become one of the world’s first regulators to clearly enunciate a “hands off” policy toward the Internet – allowing market forces to drive development of content and increase levels of accessibility for users. While the CRTC has expressed concern about offensive content on the Internet, it concluded that the Broadcasting Act is not the appropriate tool to apply and instead suggests generally-applicable Canadian laws, coupled with self-regulatory initiatives as alternatives to curb the problem.

Is using regulation to fight fake news a lesser or a greater evil?

Misinformation and disinformation, sometimes called “fake news”, is recognized to be a global problem, but how do we (or even, how should we) deal with it?

Is it the role of governments to deal with it? Should we expect regulatory authorities to restrict the creation of false information online? Should governments limit or ban access to such content?

The International Telecommunications Society is hosting a global webinar on Thursday, October 21, at 8:00 am (Eastern Time) to examine these issues.

While advocates contend that regulation is an effective way to deter individuals from spreading falsehoods, critics argue that regulating fake news will create a chilling effect in society. Is using regulation to fight fake news a lesser or a greater evil?

In this presentation, we will explore this question from a social science perspective by examining and comparing public opinion on regulating fake news in three Asian countries of different social and political backgrounds. First is Japan, a democratic country and is one of the few in the region that the government is taking a non-regulatory approach towards fake news. Second is South Korea, also a democratic country, but the government has been calling for new laws to restrict fake news. Third is Thailand, a semi-democratic country, in which strict laws against fake news have already been implemented.

It is very topical for Canadians, as the government considers reintroducing controversial legislation regulating internet content.

Registration is free.

The issue of communications industry cross subsidies has come to the fore with the Government’s introduction of Bill C-10, “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, legislation that authorizes Canada’s communications regulator, the CRTC, to impose a wide range of regulations and fees on internet content.

Canada has come a long way from its original approach to internet content, as set out in May 1999. At the time, in “Regulation of the Internet in Canada”, I wrote “The CRTC has become one of the world’s first regulators to clearly enunciate a “hands off” policy toward the Internet – allowing market forces to drive development of content and increase levels of accessibility for users.”

A few years ago, I wrote “Regulating the internet: what happened?”, observing “The past 5 years have seen Canada apply an increasingly heavy regulatory hand. A search for “Regulating internet” on my blog turns up a number of posts expressing concern about government intervention.” Citing an earlier post, I noted: “Will Canadians see greener Internet pastures in the USA?”, observing Orwellian euphemisms of “openness” and “choice” to characterize greater government control. Canada’s current approach to internet regulation contrasts diametrically with our neighbours to the south.”

Much of the focus on Bill C-10 has been on the proposal to impose fees on global internet technology companies in order to contribute to Canadian content development.

In some ways, this is reminiscent of a discussion in “The future of communications cross-subsidies” from 6 years ago. The government has long used the communications sector as an alternate tax and wealth redistribution system, with fees from urban phone subscribers subsidizing rural, business subsidizing residential, broadcasting subsidizing content production. In a monopoly era, there was little harm and great political benefit. Social objectives could be attained without impact on the government budget. Politicians could take credit for achieving goals with others footing the bill. Inflated communications bills could be blamed on the industry.

But with competition, especially internet-based competition, an increasing amount of revenue leaks out of the cross-subsidy system. For a given level of subsidy, an ever increasing percentage of revenues was required for those portions that remained in the system, accentuating the cost advantages for industry participants operating outside of the “system”.

In such circumstances, it seems to me there are two ways to level the playing field: try to capture more players inside the cross-subsidy system; or, move responsibility for funding government objectives to the general tax base. In choosing the former, Bill C-10 continues along the path of increasing regulation of the internet.

The United States has followed a different path. As Canada’s neighbours to the south prepare to transition to a new administration, it is again worth examining what FCC Chair Ajit Pai told The 2017 Canadian Telecom Summit:

In short, America’s approach to broadband policy will be practical, not ideological. We’ll embrace what works, and dispense with what doesn’t. That means removing barriers to innovation and investment, instead of creating new ones. That means taking targeted action to address real problems in the marketplace, instead of imposing broad preemptive regulations. And that means respecting principles of economics, physics and law, and acting with humility as we regulate one of the most dynamic marketplaces history has ever known. This vision will unleash the massive investments that the digital world demands.

Should Canada approach internet regulation with a greater sense of humility?

Do such policies sufficiently consider whether they are imposing or relaxing barriers to innovation and investment?

Last summer, I wrote a brief blog post called “Regulating the internet” suggesting it may be worthwhile for some academic researchers to take a look at the impact of regulating internet content in Canada, from such perspectives as economic and social policy, cultural issues, etc.

Are we restricting the evolution of creative business models and innovation through regulation?

• Internet Traffic Management Regulatory Policy (Net Neutrality)
• Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL)
• New Media Exemption Order
• NFL Mobile Content Decision
• Others? (such as digital copyright, lawful access, etc.?)

Yesterday, I saw an article by Brian Fung of the Washington Post, seeking to explain “How the cable industry is trying to reshape the economics of the Internet“. He writes, “As it waits for the regulatory shoe of net neutrality to drop next month, the cable industry is going on the offensive.”

As I read the article, it struck me that internet services in the United States could be on the verge of some very heavy handed regulation.

In launching a countdown clock, American Enterprise Institute asked, “Will February 26, 2015 mark the death of Internet freedom?“, referring to the upcoming vote by the FCC on its Open Internet process. In the view of AEI, “Title II reclassification of ISPs would cripple our nation’s dynamic and thriving Internet ecosystem.”

If the US moves to apply new regulations and government intervention in internet access and network management and interconnection services, what opportunities might arise for Canada?

Will Canada see such moves as an opportunity to lead or will Canada’s regulatory and policy authorities follow suit?

A number of sessions at The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit [June 1-3 in Toronto] will be well suited to discuss these issues and more:

• On Monday morning, June 1, a panel of world leading telecom policy economists and academics will be exploring “Competition in Telecom”
• That afternoon, another panel will examine “Cyber Security”
• Tuesday morning, June 2, former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff will be speaking about global internet governance in a talk entitled “One Internet or Thousands: Preserving the World Wide Web in a Diverse Globe“
• That session will be followed by our always popular “Regulatory Blockbuster”, featuring Canada’s leading regulatory affairs personalities
• Wednesday morning, June 2, has a panel looking at “Internet of Things: Hyperconnectivity“
• Wednesday afternoon explores the video revolution in a session we are calling “Coming to Any Screen Near You”
• Our closing speaker that afternoon will be Dr. Kellie Leitch, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women.

How can Canada seize opportunities for competitive advantage in the emerging digital economy?

Be sure to join us at The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Early bird savings are available through February 28.

Have you registered yet?

There are around 100 submissions currently listed on the CRTC’s New Media consultation website. The usual suspects came to the proceeding looking for internet service providers to become new sources of funding for Canadian cultural production.

Most interventions warned the CRTC to stay away from regulating the internet. Some were pretty basic, like Ron Turner’s eloquent contribution to the discussion:

You are talking bout poking yur nose into regulating internet in Canada—keep your nose out of it– none of your business– we got way too much government regulation already– why dont you go after the virus and spammer guys and for thaT you dont haver to regulate nothin for that—- MAKE YOURSELVES USEFUL NOT USELESS

And then there is John Renny’s submission:

I am disgusted and appalled to think that the CRTC are thinking or even thinking about regulating the Internet; you’ll keep your damn hands off of our Internet; I’m going after each and every one of your jobs; …

Who the hell do you think you are? …

Into this debate, a number of other parties waded with far less passion. Such as Google looking to keep the internet ‘awesome’:

Canadian content is flourishing on the Internet. The Commission should resist the temptation to try to fix what is not broken. 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.

Barrett Xplore’s submission is strictly legal, indicating that the CRTC has no legal authority to impose such fees. Barrett suspects that some continue to believe that there are very few facilities based ISPs, a fact belied by the Deferral Account proceeding.

Most facilities based ISPs are explicitly exempted from provisions in the Broadcast Act:

For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to any telecommunications common carrier, as defined in the Telecommunications Act, when acting solely in that capacity.

Rogers has appended a legal opinion from Faskens which confirms that the CRTC has no legal authority to impose fees on the ISP sector.

Since the major ILECs and cablecos are also Broadcast Distribution Undertakings, perhaps this is what leads some to believe that the Commission has authority and administrative wherewithal to tax ISPs for subsidies. It will be interesting to see legal argument on the other side.

As CAIP notes in its submission:

The true issue at hand is that no amount of funding will compel audiences to watch content that is not compelling. … Canadians are simply finding the content they desire using online resources rather than traditional distribution methods.

There are many other issues being reviewed by the CRTC in this proceeding, as we wrote in October. Many of the parties noted constraints set out in the Public Notice that limited their ability to discuss accessibility and net neutrality. At least one party has noted the potential for overlap with the internet network management proceeding and has recommended merging the oral hearings.