Search Results for: foreign

The news will be breaking shortly, so you might as well read about it here first. Late in the day on Tuesday afternoon, I helped in filing the first application requesting the CRTC to authorize Canadian carriers to block internet content.

Recall that last summer, TELUS got into trouble for blocking access to a website without the permission of the CRTC. The basis is Section 36 of the Telecom Act which states:

[Content of messages]
36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

So, Section 36 tells us that we need the Commission to approve any control of the content that carriers handle for the public.

A couple points arise from this sentence. First, it only applies to ISPs that are carriers. This means that ISPs that are resellers, including all of the foreign owned and controlled ISPs, are free to play with the content all they want. Second, the Commission has never before been asked to approve such an application.

There are websites operated by a US-based white supremacist which call for the murder of an Ottawa human rights lawyer who successfully fought to put Tomasz Winnicki, a London, Ontario purveyor of hate, in jail for ignoring a court order to stop posting hate on the internet. In the court’s decision, the lawyer’s concern for his own well-being is mentioned:

RW testified that he has been personally harassed and threatened by neo-Nazis and that he now lives in hiding and does not dare to reveal his occupation or address for fear of harassment for his family and himself.

Unfortunately, two US-based websites have now called for this man to be murdered and provided his home address. The sites also call for the violent overthrow of the Canadian Government and for the streets to run red with the blood of Jews.

Enough was enough. I have never seen a more compelling case to put before the CRTC. Working together with lawyers from Papazian Heisey Myers and Bernie Farber, CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress who has experience in hate cases, we filed an application with the CRTC on Tuesday, seeking authorization for carriers to block the websites containing the illegal material.

Frankly, if the CRTC denies our request, they are washing their hands of the powers granted to them by Parliament. The CRTC would be saying that it does not want the power granted by Parliament to regulate content on the internet.

If you look at the CRTC stripping CHOI-FM of the renewal of its broadcast license, when someone engages in name calling (and other personal and inappropriate attacks) on a morning radio program, this new case involving calling for murder and publishing an address for the intended victim should provide for an easier CRTC determination.

We think the CRTC will make the right decision. We hope it will act quickly.

At the annual ITAC dinner in Toronto on Tuesday, Ted Rogers delivered a patriotic message, referring to Canada Day on Saturday, supporting increases in military spending and in response to a question from the floor, he expressed concerns about the announcement that Canadian mining giants Falconbridge and Inco are being sold to Arizona-based Phelps Dodge.

In a reference to corporate philanthropy, Ted took a swipe at the challenge of getting a foreign based company interested in making substantive contributions to local hospital.

With Nortel’s CEO Mike Zafirovski facing shareholders today at its AGM, we note that speculation is rampant about what kind of company it will be next year – and will it remain a technology powerhouse, let alone a Canadian business icon. There are lots of Canadian institutions that are watching for signals.

I want to return to my earlier metaphorical connection between the debate on Net Neutrality (aka “Save the Internet“) and Canada’s angst over private medical care. In part this is driven by the arrival of this week’s issue of Maclean’s magazine and its “Complete User’s Guide to Private Medical Care in Canada.”

Metaphors aren’t always appropriate; they often don’t fit. Still, there is no reason why we can’t look at other experiences in order to try to learn, develop best practices and improve the end result.

I think that looking at healthcare, as a cloud, can have a number of similarities with ‘the internet’. Like the internet, healthcare is a concept rather than a tangible entity. People are concerned about fair, high quality access to healthcare, and it is sometimes publicly funded, privately provided together with every permutation of these.

Similar to the internet, there is a populist view that a public healthcare system should deliver a uniform quality of care to all. In the view of some, for both healthcare and the internet, such a model just doesn’t work. Loads of experts can examine why this is so, but one can point to the failure of public funding to be able or willing to cope with appropriate levels of capacity planning, technological change and ongoing investment.

As a result, the delivery of healthcare is failing on many measures of satisfaction: it is hardly uniform quality (some regions of the country or province have longer or shorter waiting lists for similar procedures); it is not offering flexibility in solutions; and, public healthcare is not making sufficient use of advances in technology, due to lack of capital and ongoing operating funds.

As seen in the Maclean’s feature, private health clinics are a reality across Canada. To those who predict that this means the end of Canada’s democratized health care, I would argue that this may actually be the beginning of democratized premium health care.

The upper crust has always had access to preferred, private health care. They are happy to jet to US or other foreign clinics to access the best care money can buy. The arrival of private clinics in Canada means that more of us can get the same level of service, at a cost premium but within the reach of far more.

At the same time, there is no harm being done to the public system. If anything, there is a reduction in demand for public health care, so there is a net benefit to everyone.

How does this relate to Net Neutrality? Having premiums paid by content providers in order to gain preferred access to their customers is similar in many ways. Maclean’s talks about the way that health insurance companies have negotiated arrangements with hospitals and certain clinics. The concern is that there be degraded service to the rest of the public internet. If content providers are satisfied with the current level of service, then they can continue as today on a permissive basis, with no quality of service guarantees.

Don’t confuse tiered service with discrimination. As Dave Greenfield wrote last month, “Is it fair that Business Class customers get better treatment than Economy class? You bet.” That means you (or your content provider) may have to pay a premium, if you both want delivery with a premium grade of service.

That isn’t discrimination.