I LOVE TIMOTHY DENTON’s diatribes. I love them every time he writes them, such as the one Cartt.ca ran on Tuesday
(Maybe that’s because I write them too. It’s just that mine tend to be less frequent and in the form of 40 page reports). Timothy’s blogs (diatribes) are witty, succinct and often bang on. Except when it comes to regulating the internet.
When it comes to regulating the Internet, Timothy Denton is prophet. A prophet of the doom that will become mankind if we were ever to regulate the internet. The firestorm and maelstrom. It will be the end of days. Actually it will be worse. It will be a federal-provincial jurisdiction dispute.
Unfortunately, there’s a small problem with his concern. I’ll say it very quietly because I don’t want to upset anyone.
We’re already regulating the internet.
Have a look at the federal government’s 2014 Digital strategy, Digital Canada 150, which, under the rubric of “protecting Canadians”, cites 15 instances of some form of internet regulation – from privacy and child pornography rules to anti cyberbullying and anti-money laundering legislation.
There’s even CRTC-specific internet regulation, including anti-spam laws. And, of course, net neutrality requires regulation for enforcement, and the digital media exemption order itself, with its undue preference provision, is a form of regulation.
While this is apparently acceptable, while this is even lauded, the notion of any kind of content regulation, any kind of support for Canadian values or programming on the internet is, according to Timothy Denton, heresy – both futile and an affront to the free speech of Canadians, in fact, to free people everywhere.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why. Perhaps someone can explain why a separate country (or province) shouldn’t consider whether it might treat the internet in an analogous way to every other medium – at least, audio visual media – that preceded it. (And by the way, it’s not about spectrum scarcity.)
As to Timothy’s concerns about it being impossible. Sorry, we’ve crossed that bridge. Been here, done that. Sure there are issues. There always are. But impossible? Not in the least. (And no, that doesn’t make us China or North Korea.)
As to what we should do, and how far we should go, yes, let’s be reasonable. It shouldn’t be about protecting monopolies. Maybe “blocking” should be an absolute last resort saved for the most egregious of illegal activity. But “support”, “priority” for Canadian? Maybe that deserves a more sober and considered look. Let’s just not suggest that the whole idea of “regulating the internet” is so preposterous as to warrant nothing more than a diatribe.
“Nothing feeds debate better than extreme, irreconcilable views.”
Actually, sorry, maybe that’s wrong. We need this debate. And nothing feeds debate better than extreme, irreconcilable views.
In fact, who knows, maybe that debate may actually be starting.
I know of two recent debates between Timothy Denton and current CMPA VP regulatory, Jay Thomson. I know that in the first debate, at a Law Society of Upper Canada conference in May, Denton went in even, but came out the loser (according to that media-centric audience). I don’t know what happened in the second debate in Ottawa just a couple of weeks ago. (UPDATE: As the commenter below noted, that debate can be viewed on CPAC.ca)
I also just participated in a debate held by none other than the C.D. Howe Institute. I suspect that if it had been another Denton-Thompson rematch, Timothy would have won. But more to the point, kudos to C.D. Howe for putting it on. On my side was Tony Burman, former CBC Exec. Against was National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, and 2010 C.D. Howe Institute author, (and former Bell Canada senior exec) Lawson Hunter.
You can probably imagine what was said without me saying any more.
Yet one area we all agreed on is that we need a broader public debate on the need for a public Canadian media space in the internet age. A debate among Canadians, not consumers. And we’re not likely to get it. It’s not sexy enough to get mainstream journalistic attention, and there’s a paucity of leadership from the government and opposition parties.
Read the record of the Aird Commission (1929). Investigate the origins of Canadian broadcasting policy. And you will realize how sad that is.
Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell once famously said that an election is no time to talk public policy. Wouldn’t it be nice to prove her wrong.
So, in a complete reversal, I applaud Timothy Denton’s piece. Mr. Denton is a worthy proponent of a particular point of view. I can play moderator or join whichever side wants help. (I’m a lawyer. That’s what I do.) But let the debate begin. Greg O’Brien: Bring it on.
(Ed note: So, we’ve now heard from industry lawyer Peter Miller former CRTC commissioner Tim Denton. Who’s next? Email me at greg.obrien@cartt.ca – GOB)
Peter Miller (pictured at last week’s Canadian Telecom Summit) is a lawyer and engineer with 25 years of broadcast and
telecommunications industry experience and is chair of Interactive Ontario. His legal and consulting practice is focused on broadcasting, digital media, creative industries and telecommunications, and his experience includes senior positions with the Vision TV group of companies, CHUM Limited, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
