Cable / Telecom News

CRTC, Industry Canada chiefs complain about lack of tools


OTTAWA – Canada’s top two communications industry regulators lamented the fact that they don’t have the appropriate tools to deal with a rapidly changing marketplace.

CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein and Helen McDonald, assistant deputy minister at Industry Canada, were speaking on a panel of regulators at the International Institute of Communications annual conference in Ottawa earlier this week (where Cartt.ca was the media sponsor).

McDonald said that for the department to more effectively manage scarce spectrum resources, legislative changes are in order. She pointed to secondary market trading for spectrum as an area that would run much more efficiently with some legislative changes.

Rather than having parties requiring department approval for every single case, a legislative change removing that requirement would quicken the pace of trades and eliminate some administrative burden, she noted.

Having the right to levy administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) is another area where McDonald said could allow IC to deal with wireless companies in a more effective manner. She added that AMPs are much more “flexible tool” to use when encouraging licence conditions compliance.

Von Finckenstein echoed those comments, noting that AMPs are something the Commission would like to have at its disposal. He said these types of penalties would give the CRTC greater ability to ensure broadcasters and distributors remain in compliance with their licence conditions. AMPs are really the only way to encourage licence compliance, he added. Von Finckenstein has called for that ability repeatedly since he was hired.

A vertically integrated broadcast/communication sector is also putting increasing strain on the CRTC’s ability to effectively regulate, said von Finckenstein. He added that the CRTC doesn’t have all the necessary tools to deal with issues arising in such a highly vertically integrated sector. The challenges are daunting when trying to regulate the integrated broadcast/communications companies, he noted, pointing to Shaw-Canwest, Bell-CTV, Quebecor-TVA and Rogers-Citytv. Plus they all have telephone, wireless and Internet arms. Von Finckenstein said the current regulatory tool belt at the CRTC’s disposal is outdated and is in dire need of fixing.

“We’re making do,” when asked how the regulator was doing in managing its regulatory responsibilities. “We really don’t have the tools to deal with [this type of vertical integration].” While von Finckenstein didn’t specifically mention the need for unified legislation governing both the broadcasting and telecommunications sector, it’s something he’s called for in the past.

Justice William Vancise, chair of the Copyright Board of Canada, highlighted as a source of concern the vast number of collectives the board has to deal with now. “In the good old days,” he said, “we only had to deal with six collectives, now there are 38 collectives. We don’t have to deal with them all the time, but we certainly see them.”

With respect to dealing with a changing environment, he noted that new enabling legislation has been promised in the past, but it’s still not there. A new Copyright Act is now its third iteration, he noted.

To conclude the panel, moderator Len St-Aubin (the former director general, telecommunications policy at Industry Canada) asked if the regulators felt they were independent enough to do their jobs properly.

McDonald had the most interesting answer.

There are times when there needs to be a more clear separation between policy and operations of the regulator, she said, pointing to the design of spectrum auctions as an example.

But as spectrum management changes, Industry Canada will also have to alter the way it deals with licence holders. For example, if spectrum licences are granted more property-like rights, this could cause some ministerial tension.

McDonald closed her comments, noting that it’s time to look at Industry Canada’s enabling legislation, “not this year, but next year”, to determine whether changes are required to ensure that it’s meeting the needs of all stakeholders.