Panel won’t make them public until June
CARTT.CA HAS BEEN TOLD Navdeep Bains, Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Minister, has decided to keep the public submissions made to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation Review secret for now. So, Cartt.ca will continue to report on the ones made available to us.
PIAC
As usual, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre has a submission full of good quotes.
For example, on 5G, they say that it “is not so revolutionary that it should require legislative changes that favour the technology’s deployment beyond the powers currently granted to the CRTC,” and so the group proposes an interesting solution. Whether it is feasible or not, it is the best we heard so far. “If telcos are given cheaper access to hydro poles, Canadians could see a rise in both hydro rates (at the provincial level) and to the cost of (now 5G) wireless services,” reads its submission.
“PIAC believes that a federal-provincial ministerial meeting or joint task force is necessary to first examine the jurisdictional issues and costs of such a move before any decisions are made about broadening the CRTC’s powers with respect to jurisdiction over passive infrastructure. In PIAC’s view, a serious negotiation amongst the various government levels and regulators should be convened rather than attempting to force such a change down the throats of provincial and municipal authorities via amendments to communications legislation.”
Of course, all the network owners believe the CRTC already has jurisdiction and that new legislation just needs tweaking to set that in stone.
PIAC, however, sees in 5G the potential to widen the technological chasm between urban and rural Canadians. “If the needs of rural communities are not met, it could further a digital divide between Canadians and leave many without access to adequate Internet services or Internet services in general.” It also sees a potential for rich/poor digital divide as one can argue that 5G will cost more for average consumers with limited benefit, even though we are still well removed from proper 5G business plans, even from the earliest adopting wireless companies.
“PIAC is largely content with the structures of both the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act and the jurisprudence and practice that has grown up around them. In short, if nothing were to be changed in either Act, that would, in our opinion, be a positive outcome for consumers and average Canadians—at least when compared with possible changes made to weaken each Acts’ core legislative powers,” argues its submission.
However, it continues, “Any Chicago-school economic-regulation approach to modifying the Telecommunications Act, such as that promoted in the 2007 Model Act, should not be followed in the Panel’s developments of recommendations to the Government.” The Model Act paper was co-authored by Hank Intven, one of the panel members.
“Whatever the verdict on the state of competition in Canadian retail telecommunications services, removal or crippling of the rate-setting requirement… risks destroying any actual control of telecommunications by Parliament through the bias of these Acts.” – PIAC
PIAC is “tired of forbearance,” too. “Whatever the verdict on the state of competition in Canadian retail telecommunications services, removal or crippling of the rate-setting requirement (whether fully or partially forborne or not) risks destroying any actual control of telecommunications by Parliament through the bias of these Acts,” reads its report.
They also argue for Universal Access Obligation (as in the U.S.) in Telecom as opposed to the present Basic Service Objective, enshrined in the Act.
Finally, they strongly argue to change the CRTC’s costs award process: “The Panel should urge the CRTC and the government to fix the costs awards system with all due haste. If the Panel has any ability to issue interim conclusions before its final report for urgent recommendations, PIAC requests that it do so on this issue, for the sake of our survival.”
VMedia
Within the independent ISP and IPTV provider’s submission are the usual complaints about Vertical Integration, wholesale policies and MVNO, and legislative proposals to fix that.
On 5G, its position is interesting: “VMedia does not advocate for a state-owned 5G network in Canada. Structural separation, on the other hand, would be ideal, and while VMedia is strongly in favour of it, pragmatism reigns, and the focus should be on the doable.” Wise choice. Governments buy pipelines not networks.
Would the government force separation of the network from the service business in new legislation?
“Any approach is better than status quo” is the VMedia answer. Contrary to the people we covered yesterday, they (and others) don’t feel they have benefited from the present regime.
CNOC
The Canadian Network Operators Consortium does not feel well served by the current laws. The challenges facing the group of independent ISPs regarding the wholesale regime are well known and abundantly documented.
“The lack of access to FTTP has become an existential crisis for service-based competitors as subscribers are migrating in droves towards FTTP connections, despite the fact that they must pay extremely inflated rates for this access due to the lack of competitive choice. Many CNOC members have reported subscriber losses of over 50% in the last few years,” reads its pitch to the BTLR panel.
On 5G, the CNOC submission says: “To the extent that there is any open constitutional issue as to the extent of the federal government’s jurisdiction over provincially regulated passive infrastructure necessary for the deployment of telecommunications (such as hydro poles), CNOC recommends that a reference be directed to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.“
(CNOC submitted a corrected version of their submission to the BTLR panel and to us, after we originally published this story and the excerpt above now reflects that new document.)
CCSA and Eastlink
Their issues are similar and their proposals, too. Mostly…
Vertical Integration and the lack of powers of the CRTC to remedy anti-competitive behaviours. Access to infrastructure. The recent increase of hydro poles attachment rates in Ontario is affecting them greatly. (PIAC argues that the hydro customers benefit, so it could be a zero-sum operation.)
Neither like Third Party Internet Access, however while one wants MVNOs (CCSA) on the wireless side, the other does not (Eastlink).
"Government should support increased competition in the delivery of mobile wireless services, especially in underserved rural and remote regions and should encourage existing facilities-based telecommunications service providers in such areas to provide competitive wireless services. Government should support competitive entry on the basis of an MVNO reseller model," says the CCSA submission.
"A regime that encourages resale models (such as wholesale internet access) as a solution to increasing the number of retail competitors will not bring about the investments where those models are not compensatory, do not require resellers to take on any risk or investment obligation, and where they compromise the business case of facilities-based investment (whether entry, expansion or upgrading) in smaller communities… Resale regimes, at minimum should not apply in smaller and rural communities where the cost to build compared to the size of the population is significant and where the business case of investing would be compromised," reads the Eastlink section talking about resale and wireless MVNOs.
(An earlier version of this story contained a mistake when it came to our short summary of the Eastlink submission. Cartt.ca regrets the error.)
APTN together with other Aboriginal media and telecom groups
“The Panel should take explicit notice of the Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples and incorporate those Principles into its recommendations to the Government regarding Canada’s communications legislative framework,” begins their proposal.
“One of the Principles recognized by the Government is the ‘distinctions-based approach’ needed to ensure that the unique rights and circumstances of different Indigenous Peoples, whether First Nations, Inuit or Métis are recognized,” it continues.
“The telecommunications policy for Canada set out in the Telecommunications Act should refer specifically to the objective of ensuring the provision, operation and use of high-quality telecommunications services by Indigenous Peoples and including for the purposes of self-determination and economic development,” they also argue. It is well known that Aboriginal communities are often remote and notoriously ill-served by wired, wireless and media.
The groups (together the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation, Native Communications Inc., Native Communications Society, Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace), Northern Native Broadcasting Yukon, OKâlaKatiget Society, and Taqramiut Nipingat Inc.) also advocate for Aboriginal representation in various decision-making institutions. For example, two board members on the board of the CBC.
They end on this note: “It is time to update our communications legislation to reflect not just the ‘special place’ of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian society, but to make it clear that it means that Indigenous Peoples have a right establish our own media and to participate fully in the communications ecosystem.”
“Canada cannot and should not outsource its cultural policy by assuming that the contributions by a few fast-growing multinational corporations will continue into the foreseeable future.” – Writers Guild of Canada
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
In a well-researched paper the FCM makes recommendations on telecom issues that matter to its members. An official National Broadband strategy is required, as is the need for ISED and the CRTC to work together.
They propose “leaving the door open to a direct municipal role in service provision can be part of the connectivity solution in certain cases”.
Finally, and without surprise, it argues to leave Sections 43 and 44 of the Telecom Act (those dealing with access to infrastructure which the telcos want altered) unchanged.
Fédération nationale des communications-CSN (FNC) and UNIFOR
The unions, as it is their mandate, will defend their members who work in the Communications field.
The FNC, for example, proposes to rename the Broadcasting Act to stop mixing up transmission and cultural content. On the cultural side it could be named the Cultural Sovereignty Act. The union also proposes to rebalance the awarding of money of the CMF for more French production.
Unifor proposes five things:
- To preserve the core objectives in the Acts, and key elements of existing regulatory policy.
- To ensure that all who benefit from the broadcast system contribute to it, in fair and equitable manner.
- To ensure that citizens have the greatest possible access to essential communications services, which includes access to news and information.
- To recognize the role that Canadian workers play in building and sustaining a successful and modern communications industry.
- To ensure that any immediate legislative or regulatory measures that can be taken, are taken.
Writers Guild of Canada
On Netflix, the film and TV writers argue: “Simply put, Canada cannot and should not outsource its cultural policy by assuming that the contributions by a few fast-growing multinational corporations will continue into the foreseeable future. The WGC welcomes the investments that Netflix and others are making in Canada, and we praise them for their current contributions. We simply believe that it is not Netflix’s job to set and sustain Canadian cultural policy outcomes. It is the Canadian government’s job to do so, and the government ensures this is done through legislation and regulation.”
“At the centre of the writing process is the showrunner. A showrunner is the chief custodian of the creative vision of a television series whose primary responsibility is to communicate the creative vision of that series—often from the pilot episode through to the finale,” WSG says. However, the showrunner nationality is not a factor nether in CRTC’s or CAVCO’s systems.
We need to address the “pen drain,” continues the WGC pitch. It provides the following fact: “Presently, the WGC’s largest membership region is Toronto, but its second-largest region, running not far behind, is Los Angeles. That is worth emphasizing. The WGC is a guild of Canadian screenwriters, yet more of our members are working out of an American city than out of Montreal, Vancouver, or anywhere else in this country other than Toronto.”
It ends saying: “Questions about the mandate of the CBC do not represent an actual or potential crisis point that the impact of the Internet and digital technologies on private traditional broadcasting does. In the WGC’s view, the primary challenge of the CBC has long been, and remains, that it is seriously underfunded. As we understand it, funding for the CBC is not within the ambit of the Panel. As such, we do not have substantial comments in this respect.”
Independent Broadcast Group
IBG (which includes Channel Zero, Ethnic Channels Group, APTN, OutTV, Hollywood Suite, TV5, Stingray, Super Channel and Zoomer Media) is mostly concerned with vertical integration. Their submission says VI “raises serious policy concerns regarding the diversity of voices and representation in the broadcasting system, particularly since the Canadian system is itself characterized by very high levels of ownership concentration and cross-ownership of media and communications networks. This is not an accident. It is the result of policy decisions taken over time to create ‘Canadian champions’ to compete directly with global companies.”
“As the broadcasting system moves to a platform environment, many of the principles ensure access of programming and programming services to distribution undertakings should also be applied to programming platforms.” – IBG
IBG proposes to “reconsider some of the assumptions around the exclusion of the delivery of programming to ‘public places’ in the current definition—it is not clear why the delivery of content to most commercial establishments should be excluded from the Act.”
The group also proposes:
- “The regulatory policy in the Broadcasting Act should explicitly recognize ownership diversity, including independent ownership,
- As the broadcasting system moves to a platform environment, many of the principles ensure access of programming and programming services to distribution undertakings should also be applied to programming platforms.
- The Commission’s authority to regulate economic relationships between undertakings should be made explicit.
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
“Our position begins from a firm belief that for the most part, the 1991 Broadcasting Act remains relevant. No major changes are necessary or warranted,” reads its submission.
However, “Section 3 is still the law of the land, and the extent to which the reality of the marketplace no longer reflects its precepts amounts to a serious failing by the Government and the CRTC to uphold their duty to implement the Act.”
“Democracy-eroding platforms like Facebook should be required to contribute to a democracy-enriching antidote: the CBC.” – FCB
Friends argues some measures should be taken immediately: “Do all of this as soon as possible, well before the dissolution of the current Parliament casts the future of this vital endeavour into limbo.”
Then, it doubles down. “In reality, the intermingling of broadcasting and non-broadcasting content on the internet presents only a modest definitional and practical challenge for regulators. Suggestions to the contrary are mere fearmongering, and to boot, they insult the intelligence and public-mindedness of qualified policymakers. Regulators can accept the internet’s ‘ permissionless’ entry ethos without neglecting the obligation to oversee Canadian broadcasting that happens to be delivered online,” Friends is not really in the business of making friends, it seems.
It proposes some interesting solutions: “Contributions from foreign entertainment-based OTT players, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, should be primarily directed to the licensing of independently produced Canadian programming,” and “additionally, democracy-eroding platforms like Facebook should be required to contribute to a democracy-enriching antidote: the CBC.
“Furthermore, the Commission should be given the power to audit, without prior notice, the recommendation algorithms of digital platforms subject to these Canadian content regulations. This power should be accompanied by the power to enforce penalties for noncompliance, up to an including the power to order ISPs not to carry specific noncompliant services.”
Much more to come as we continue to read and analyze the 26 submissions we have received after asking the companies or groups. Those who have told us no, we’re not sending our submission? Bell Canada, Corus Entertainment and SaskTel. Those from whom we haven’t yet heard an answer? Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. Those whose submissions we’re waiting on their arrival or reading? CMPA, Google, Pelmorex, ACTRA, Internet Society
We also intend to break down the submissions in more detail by the issues, and not just by companies/organizations, in the coming weeks. Please email us directly if you have any story ideas or angles you think we should be pursuing on this topic. Your email will be kept confidential.
Original artwork by Paul Lachine, Chatham, Ont.
