Part VI in our series on rewriting the Broadcasting and Telecom Acts
TODAY’S COMMUNICATIONS WORLD is marked by a few large, vertically integrated companies offering Internet access, broadcasting, telecommunications and wireless services. These firms have considerable control over who has access to their networks and what content is available over their respective pipes.
This means governments and regulators must ensure smaller independent competitors have access to these networks and to make this access as competitively neutral as possible. Even more, the big owners of those networks shouldn’t be able to favour some content over others. This, in a nutshell, is net neutrality, and according to Konrad von Finckenstein, former chair of the CRTC and Commissioner for Competition, it should be the centrepiece for any future communications legislation.
“Any new communications legislation, the centrepiece has to be the Internet and net neutrality. We have this thing, the first time in history, that we can reach everybody and everybody can reach anybody else. Let’s make sure it’s applied and used to the largest benefit and not to the commercial benefit of a few,” he said.
For John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), there is no question that net neutrality must be an integral part of any future communications legislation, but he reminded it’s already in the Telecommunications Act.
“It says no discrimination and that in section 2 it says at least all the facilities owned carriers are telecommunications common carriers. I don’t know how much clearer you can be than that. I mean, you could define common carrier in the definitions section of section 2 which it is not but it otherwise takes the meaning of the words in law which is what common carriers are – so it’s pretty rock solid,” he explained.
“Net neutrality is an important principle for us but we’re comfortable right now that the Commission has addressed it.” – Jay Thomson, CCSA
“The only advantage to spelling it out in more modern language would be more people would be able to read it and understand what it means,” he added.
Cal Millar, president of Channel Zero (owner of CHCH, Rewind, Silver Screen Classics and other brands), said it’s important to understand the net neutrality issue has absolutely nothing to do with the blocking of illegal websites or halting the distribution of stolen content. Think stolen cars: it’s illegal to buy one and drive one. The same goes for content.
“Net neutrality is incredibly important for innovation, incredibly important for access. If you don’t have net neutrality, how on earth in a new world are independent producers, broadcasters, aggregators, other forms of creative players and new players ever going to get access? It will be a two tier system or a three tier system or a four tier system that we’ll be precluded from, not dissimilar to the inequities currently in the system,” he said.
It’s also important to understand that the big vertically integrated companies would favour their own content without that protection.
“Clearly Rogers, Bell, Corus/Shaw, Videotron have an absolute right in an open and free environment to prefer their own services over others and to work with each other. It’s not collusion, it’s just straight up economics – don’t hurt mine, I won’t hurt yours, but that’s because they control the means of distribution. You need some access rules and net neutrality fits neatly into that same concept in a modern world as opposed to thinking about an old construct,” says Millar.
Having appropriate access rules and provisions to ensure all content is treated equally is particularly important for the smaller players in the Canadian system.
Jay Thomson, CEO at the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA), noted in an interview with Cartt.ca that while some ISPs may want greater flexibility in dealing with content (this has what’s happened in the United States with the Federal Communications Commission having struck down its Net Neutrality laws), a move like this in Canada would be disconcerting for smaller independent ISPs.
“Given that we’re smaller independent players and that the big Internet providers are also the owners of most of the popular programming services we’d be quite concerned that absent net neutrality the big players who would be able to use their new flexibility to favour their own programming services to their own benefit and to our members’ detriment,” he said.
Thomson added though that the way net neutrality is being handled now is just fine. “Net neutrality is an important principle for us but we’re comfortable right now that the Commission has addressed it.”
Editor’s note: We would have loved to include comments from some of the big vertically integrated companies, but they declined our requests for interviews for this series.
Original artwork by Paul Lachine, Chatham, Ont.
Part VII next week will look at whether we need the new Acts to assure a broadband universal service obligation.
