Search Results for: regulating internet

The CRTC announced the second phase of its “Let’s Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians”, inviting Canadians to complete Choicebook, a 30 slide interactive questionnaire with a series of scenarios that reflect the realities of the television system.

Some of the questions appear to indicate the CRTC testing whether Canadians might accept taxing internet access, certifying online services or other forms of regulation of the internet.

For example, Slide 27 asks “Should online services be required to provide closed-captioning and adhere to programming standards?” As a follow-up, the CRTC asks if Canadians would be willing to pay a few additional cents per month for online services to meet these requirements. In the preamble to these questions, Netflix and YouTube are cited as examples of online programming.

The CRTC asks if respondents agree with a perspective that “online services like Netflix are getting a free ride by not contributing to the production of Canadian-made programming”, enabling more jobs to be created and allowing Canadian stories to be told on all platforms. If respondents agree with this perspective, they are asked if they would be willing to pay an additional $0.50 per month.

Another question in that section asks:

If streaming content from online services that meet the above requirements didn’t count against your Internet access data cap, would you be willing to pay a small flat fee of $5 per month to cover increased usage costs?

There are a lot of issues raised by this particular question. Exactly which “requirements” are meant? Is it all three of the requirements described two pages earlier in the Choicebook [closed captioning, adhere to broadcast standards, contribute to Canadian content production]? Is $5 really a “small flat fee”? Would this be mandatory for all internet access providers, or would it be a cap on excess data charges for “conforming” content providers.

The CRTC appears to be testing the concept of not all internet content being treated alike: streaming content that conforms to Canadian broadcast standards could be exempt from data metering; non-conforming streaming content would be charged. Is the CRTC considering a licensing process to certify internet content providers as conforming?

How might this work? Could the CRTC identify all internet service providers in Canada and impose a flat fee per subscriber to fund a streaming media fund? Content providers would be under no obligation to get licensed, but those that do might be able to draw from the fund. Still, there is a question of developing a good definition of who is an ISP, let alone identifying which subscribers would contribute. Does it include coffee shops? Internet cafes? Hotels? Airports? University dorms? Do smartphones with dataplans count as subscribers? What about data sticks and mobile hotspots? Business versus residence?

It will be interesting to see what emerges from this consultation. For the next three and a half weeks, through March 14, Canadians are invited to complete the CRTC’s questionnaire.

It’s about more than just TV.

The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place June 16-18 in Toronto, will be looking at “The Continuing Evolution of TV: Content Anywhere, Any Screen, Anytime” in a panel discussion. Early Bird discounts are available for the next 10 days, through February 28. Have you registered yet?

Eighteen years ago, I wrote that the CRTC became “one of the world’s first regulators to clearly enunciate a “hands off” policy toward the Internet.”

At that time, the Commission issued a Public Notice enumerated by codes under each of its Broadcast and Telecom sides: Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-84 and Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-14, with a simple title: “New Media“. The decision makes for interesting reading.

It was a different time for internet content, 5 years before Facebook, 6 years before YouTube: “The Commission considers 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.”

At the time, the CRTC was confident about Canadian content development:

In the Commission’s view, there is no apparent shortage of Canadian content on the Internet today. Rather, market forces are providing a Canadian Internet presence that is also supported by a strong demand for Canadian product.

The Commission notes that a number of initiatives and funds have been developed in both the public and private sectors to help finance and support Canadian new media product.

For these reasons, the Commission concurs with the majority of participants that there is no reason for it to impose regulatory measures to stimulate the production and development of Canadian new media content.

As far as regulation of illegal and offensive content, at the time the CRTC wrote:

The Commission notes that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their industry associations, in conjunction with government agencies and other organizations, have made efforts to develop codes of conduct to help combat the distribution of offensive material. It considers that more could be done for example, by establishing complaint lines and industry ombudsmen and developing international cooperation with law enforcement agencies. The Commission also notes that effective content filtering computer software is being developed. Such software will assist those who wish to control access to material that they feel is inappropriate.

And the Commission was as concerned about competitive ISPs having wholesale access to high speed facilities from the phone companies and cable companies:

The Commission considers that access by competitive providers of Internet services to the facilities they require to offer services is an important concern. In a 1998 decision (Telecom Decision CRTC 98-9), the Commission decided it would approve the rates and terms under which incumbent cable and telephone companies provide higher speed access to their telecommunications facilities to ISPs. The Commission will set out its general regulatory approach to rates and terms for such cable carrier higher speed access services in the near future.

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.

Three years ago, already faced withe a list of areas in which the CRTC had intervened, I wrote: “Are we restricting the evolution of creative business models and innovation through regulation?”

Earlier this year, I asked “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. As 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.

Eighteen years ago, Canada was among the first regulators to set out a light-touch approach to internet regulation. What happened?

Which path will the new Commission leadership follow?

Should we be concerned that the CRTC is co-hosting an event to explore “Discoverability: Content in the Age of Abundance”?

As I wrote last month, the current CRTC Chair continues to insist that the Commission regulates internet content. As he repeatedly told a witness in the Local TV hearing in January, streaming video on the internet (such as Netflix and YouTube, is considered to be unlicensed, not unregulated.

In the recent “Review of basic telecommunications services“, the Chair said he likes to look at outcomes:

when you set large national objectives you start off defining the outcomes and then you — which is the strategy — and then you define specific actions required. But you actually have to figure out what the outcome is and then work backwards.

So what is the outcome that is being sought through the Discoverability project? We have seen announcements that say “The Summit will be a forum for learning and creative discussions with respect to new strategies, tools and approaches to tackle the challenge of discoverability.”

Is that the outcome? Is the ultimate outcome to hold a forum and issue some kind of a report or strategy document? Or, is the outcome to develop new strategies for tackling the challenge of discoverability? If the latter, what is the outcome being sought? In the Chair’s own words, “you actually have to figure out what the outcome is and then work backwards.”

Was the intent for a “strategy” to be the outcome? It would fit what Terence Corcoran called Canada’s National Strategies Strategy:

A National Strategies Strategy would aim to bring together all Canadian stakeholders, perhaps at a foundational event or summit, for cross-disciplinary strategy-setting that would devise evidence-based intelligence on how Canada — as a diverse nation — can set up a system that would allow our best minds, institutions and diverse cultural communities to establish a national strategic hierarchy of strategies.

So, what is the outcome being sought through the Discoverability project? What is the role of the regulator in this process? Is “Content in the Age of Abundance” a euphemism for “Content in the age of the Internet”? Will the forum be an opportunity for Canada’s telecommunications and broadcast regulator to reinforce its assertion of authority to regulate internet content? Should we be concerned?

Some of the things I have been thinking about this week. Perhaps they will percolate into a bigger post over the summer. Otherwise, I thought I would share these thoughts with you. Please feel free to comment.

Over the past few years, Canada has enacted a number of regulatory and legislative constraints on the delivery of content over the internet. Some have been proclaimed (with pride) as being first in the world, such as internet traffic management, or among the most protective, in the case of anti-spam laws.

It may be worthwhile for some academic researchers to take a look at the impact of regulating internet content in Canada, from an economic perspective, 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.?)

What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?

That is an important question being considered in Canada and around the world as governments seek solutions to online harms and the spread of misinformation. My own views on the subject have been evolving, as I wrote early this year.

As the Center for News, Technology and Innovation (CNTI) writes, “the credibility of information the public gets online has become a global concern. Of particular importance… is the impact of disinformation – false information created or spread with the intention to deceive or harm – on electoral processes, political violence and information systems around the world.”

It’s important to distinguish between “hate” and that which is “merely offensive”. We may not like encountering offensive content, but does that mean there should be legal restrictions preventing it? Readers have seen me frequently refer to Michael Douglas’ address in Aaron Sorkin’s “The American President“. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

My post in January referred to a Newsweek article in which Aviva Klompas and John Donohoe wrote:

The old saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Turns out that when those words are propelled by online outrage algorithms, they can be every bit as dangerous as the proverbial sticks and stones.
…
When it comes to social media, the reality is: if it enrages, it engages… Eliciting outrage drives user engagement, which in turn drives profits.

But my views are also informed by years living in the United States, a country that has enshrined speech freedoms in its constitution.

As CNTI notes “Addressing disinformation is critical, but some regulative approaches can put press freedom and human rights at great risk.”

Ben Sperry provides another perspective in a paper soon to be published in the Gonzaga Law Review. “The thesis of this paper is that the First Amendment forecloses government agents’ ability to regulate misinformation online, but it protects the ability of private actors — ie. the social-media companies themselves — to regulate misinformation on their platforms as they see fit.”

The Sperry paper concludes that in the US, regulating misinformation cannot be government mandated. Government could “invest in telling their own version of the facts”, but it has “no authority to mandate or pressure social-media companies into regulating misinformation.”

So, if government can’t mandate how misinformation is handled, by what rights can social media companies edit or block content? The author discusses why the “state-action doctrine” protects private intermediaries. According to Sperry, the social media platforms are positioned best to make decisions about the benefits and harms of speech through their moderation policies.

He argues that social media platforms need to balance the interests of users on each side in order to maximize value. This includes setting moderation rules to keep users engaged. That will tend to increase the opportunities for generating advertising revenues.

Canada does not yet have the same history of constitutional protection of speech rights as the United States. However, most social media platforms used here are US tech companies. Any Canadian legislation regulating online misinformation is bound to attract concerns from the United States.

About a year and a half ago, Konrad von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies released a relevant paper for the MacDonald Laurier Institute. In “Social media responsibility and free speech: A new approach for dealing with ‘Internet Harms’” [pdf, 619KB], the authors say that Canada’s approach to date has missed the mark. “Finckenstein and Menzies note that the only bodies with the ability and legitimacy to combat online harms are social media companies themselves. What is needed is legislation that establishes a regime of responsibility for social media companies.” Their paper proposes legislation that would protect free expression online while confronting disinformation, unrestrained hate speech, and other challenges.

The UK Online Safety Bill is continuing to work its way through British Parliament.

Canada already has laws prohibiting the wilfull promotion of hate, as applied in a recent case in Quebec. In that case, a man was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews in articles written for the no-Nazi website, the Daily Stormer. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail with three years of probation.

Does Canada need to introduce specific online harms legislation?

What is the right approach?

These papers provide perspectives worth consideration by policy makers.