Communications Law 2023

A clear explanation of (parts of) Net Neutrality from Burger King

As we will see later in the course “net neutrality” is a concept that has multiple meanings. Many of its frequently contested interpretations are projected McGufins that communications activists, pundits, regulators, and lawyers chase around in concentric spirals of ever deepening confusion. Into the fray (of all corporate persons) comes Burger King who brilliantly and accurately illustrate net neutrality principles including a clear explanation of differential pricing. Hilarious too. Click above.

Jon

Read More | No Comments

Confirmed (almost): U.S. Super Bowl commercials will be on television in Canada this year

As we all pretty well predicted last class, there will be U.S. commercials available through U.S. stations on cable whose $5M per 30 second ads won’t be simultaneously substituted in Canada during Super Bowl LII. Or almost certainly anyways. Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Bell’s leave to appeal application on an expedited basis, but sometime after this years game, only the CRTC could reverse itself and reinstitute simultaneous substitution before the big game on February 4, 2018. And that would be a “Hail Mary” play indeed.

Jon

Read More | No Comments

Question of the Week (Class 4) Poll

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

Read More | No Comments

Class 4 Slides

Here are this week’s slides…

Jon

Read More | No Comments

Question of the Week (Class 4): Should there be “should’s” in S. 3 of the Broadcasting Act?

As you may have already noticed S.3 of the Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11) is bit different from most other statutory provisions you might have come across. It is rather full of the word “should”. This is in stark contrast to most statutory drafting norms and, interestingly for our purposes, quite different in style if not substance from a similar in purpose S.7 of the Telecommunications Act (S.C. 1993, c. 38).

Some excerpts from the Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11) ….

“Broadcasting Policy for Canada

Declaration

3 (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

(b) the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;…

(d) the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,

(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society, and

(iv) be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change;

(e) each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources;

(g) the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high standard;

(h) all persons who are licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast;

(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes,

(ii) be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources,

(iii) include educational and community programs,

(iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and

(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector;

(j) educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system;

(k) a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;

(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should

(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;

(n) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out in paragraphs (l) and (m) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in paragraphs (l) and (m);

(o) programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(q) without limiting any obligation of a broadcasting undertaking to provide the programming contemplated by paragraph (i), alternative television programming services in English and in French should be provided where necessary to ensure that the full range of programming contemplated by that paragraph is made available through the Canadian broadcasting system;

(r) the programming provided by alternative television programming services should

(i) be innovative and be complementary to the programming provided for mass audiences,

(ii) cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming provided for mass audiences, and include programming devoted to culture and the arts,

(iii) reflect Canada’s regions and multicultural nature,

(iv) as far as possible, be acquired rather than produced by those services, and

(v) be made available throughout Canada by the most cost-efficient means;

(s) private networks and programming undertakings should, to an extent consistent with the financial and other resources available to them,

(i) contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, and

(ii) be responsive to the evolving demands of the public; and

(t) distribution undertakings

(i) should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations,

(ii) should provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost,

(iii) should, where programming services are supplied to them by broadcasting undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements, provide reasonable terms for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services, and

(iv) may, where the Commission considers it appropriate, originate programming, including local programming, on such terms as are conducive to the achievement of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection, and in particular provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.”

Now some excerpts from the Telecommunications Act (S.C. 1993, c. 38)…

“Canadian Telecommunications Policy

Objectives

7 It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada’s identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives

(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions;

(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;

(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;

(d) to promote the ownership and control of Canadian carriers by Canadians;

(e) to promote the use of Canadian transmission facilities for telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside Canada;

(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective;

(g) to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field of telecommunications and to encourage innovation in the provision of telecommunications services;

(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services; and

(i) to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons.“

Legally do you see these provisions as effectively similar, or quite different? Is the difference simply that the Telecommunications Act requires some positive action of licensees (no matter how small), while the Broadcasting Act doesn’t necessarily require even that?

In Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168, 2012 SCC 68, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489, Rothstein J. (for the majority) had this to say about S.3:

“Policy statements, such as the declaration of Canadian broadcasting policy found in s. 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, are not jurisdiction-conferring provisions. They describe the objectives of Parliament in enacting the legislation and, thus, they circumscribe the discretion granted to a subordinate legislative body (Sullivan, at pp. 387-88 and 390-91). As such, declarations of policy cannot serve to extend the powers of the subordinate body to spheres not granted by Parliament in jurisdiction-conferring provisions.

In my opinion, to find jurisdiction, it was not sufficient for the CRTC to refer in isolation to policy objectives in s. 3 and deem that the proposed value for signal regime would be beneficial for the achievement of those objectives….

In my opinion, CKOY cannot stand for the proposition that establishing any link, however tenuous, between a proposed regulation and a policy objective in s. 3 of the Act is a sufficient test for conferring jurisdiction on the CRTC. Such an approach would conflict with the principle that policy statements circumscribe the discretion granted to a subordinate legislative body.

The difference between general regulation making or licensing provisions and true jurisdiction-conferring provisions is evident when this case is compared with Bell Canada v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, 2009 SCC 40, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 764. In Bell Aliant, this Court was asked to determine whether the creation and use of certain deferral accounts lay within the scope of the CRTC’s express power to determine whether rates set by telecommunication companies are just and reasonable. The CRTC’s jurisdiction over the setting of rates under s. 27 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, provides that rates must be just and reasonable. Under that section, the CRTC is specifically empowered to determine compliance with that requirement and is conferred the express authority to “adopt any method or technique that it considers appropriate” for that purpose (s. 27(5)).

This broad, express grant of jurisdiction authorized the CRTC to create and use the deferral accounts at issue in that case. This stands in marked contrast to the provisions on which the broadcasters seek to rely in this case, which consist of a general power to make regulations under s. 10(1)(k) and a broad licensing power under s. 9(1)(b)(i). Jurisdiction-granting provisions are not analogous to general regulation making or licensing authority because the former are express grants of specific authority from Parliament while the latter must be interpreted so as not to confer unfettered discretion not contemplated by the jurisdiction-granting provisions of the legislation.

That is the fundamental point. Were the only constraint on the CRTC’s powers under s. 10(1) to be found in whether the enacted regulation goes towards a policy objective in s. 3(1), the only limit to the CRTC’s regulatory power would be its own discretionary determination of the wisdom of its proposed regulation in light of any policy objective in s. 3(1). This would be akin to unfettered discretion. Rather, discretion is to be exercised within the confines of the statutory regime and principles generally applicable to regulatory matters, for which the legislature is assumed to have had regard in passing that legislation.“

Worth noting is that Mr. Justice Rothstein never takes on the the word “should”. But if there were no “should’s” in S. 3 might Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168 have been decided differently.

Which begs the core question: Should there be “should’s” in S. 3 of the Broadcasting Act?

Jon

B.C. Minister Promises Review of Alert System After Patchwork of Tsunami Warnings

The B.C. Minister of Public Safety Mike Farnworth says the province will be reviewing its alert system, following a tsunami warning to areas of B.C.’s coast. A 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Alaska, 278 kilometres southeast of Kodiak at a depth of about 10 kilometres. Environment Canada has initially issued a tsunami warning, but hours later it was cancelled and evacuations have been lifted.

Early Tuesday morning Emergency Management B.C. sent a warning about the tsunami threat to local communities, which then put their emergency programs into place.

According to Farnworth, each community’s own emergency plan, which is worked out in collaboration with the province, reflects unique needs.

LTE messaging, the system used in Hawaii to alert anyone connected to a local cellphone tower about the false missile threat, won’t be available in Canada until April.

That’s when the CRTC will start requiring all cell providers to provide AlertReady the ability to send out LTE messaging alerts on their networks. But even with that enhancement, it won’t help people who have their phones off or are in remote areas with no service.

Like SMS, LTE messaging allows an alert issuer to send a text alert to anyone in a designated geographic area based on which cell tower they’re connected to. But unlike SMS, LTE messaging uses a phone’s data connection rather than its much slower and more crowded telephony connection, so it doesn’t bottleneck the same way.

However, not all phones are capable of using LTE, and if you’re in a more remote or rural part of the country, you might not have access to an LTE network even if your phone is capable of using it.

How is such a system implemented? Who makes the call?

In B.C., Emergency Management B.C. is the only organization allowed to activate the system. But other provinces have opted for a more decentralized approach where individual municipalities — or even local police and fire department — can activate the system themselves. Take Alberta for example. They have over 900 users who could activate their alert system, which may lead to false alarms, but could very well be worth the tradeoff.

Another concern arises: would the alert reach enough people in time?

Kent Johansen, an engineer at UBC’s Earthquake Engineering Research Facility, says that speed is imperative when it comes to warning the public about earthquakes. His team designed and operates the earthquake detection and alert system that’s used by B.C.’s Catholic schools and a few public schools as well.

According to Johansen, we have roughly 16 to 26 seconds of advanced warning if it’s an intercostal earthquake. This means that traditional SMS text messaging just isn’t an option in that kind of a scenario. You can only send about 10,000 a second, and with almost 2.5 million people in the Lower Mainland, you wouldn’t be able to reach everyone fast enough.

Instead, Johansen says, we need dedicated earthquake warning devices — ideally in homes, but he says we should start with public buildings like schools, government buildings and even stores and factories.

Should a centralized or decentralized system operate? how should alerts be sent out?

Source article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emergency-information-bc-how-are-residents-alerted-to-danger-1.4499675

CRTC emergency alert system: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/television/services/alert.htm

Tsunami warning on B.C.’s coast: https://globalnews.ca/news/3981296/bc-tsunami-warning/

LTE messaging: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/emergency-phone-alerts-1.4496464

Read More | No Comments

News of the Week; January 17, 2018

MEDIA, COMMUNICATIONS & NET NEUTRALITY

DIGITAL

CREATIVITY

SURVEILLANCE & PRIVACY

GAMES

Jon

Read More | No Comments

Does cord-cutting save money?

Fed up with the rising cost of cable television, consumers have increasingly “cut the cord” on traditional cable television. I’ve been interested in seeing how these services compare and what developments have since occurred in the area of internet television. This is where YouTube TV comes in.

YouTube TV offers the same channels as your cable TV provider but bypasses the cord and delivers its service via a broadband connection. However, YouTube TV, which is currently only offered in the US, costs $35-$40/month in addition to the cost of your internet services. This is not much cheaper that what cable would cost when included in a bundle. So does cord cutting really make economic sense?

I came across an article (referenced below) that states that cord cutting and moving over to services like YouTube TV does not save money for consumers when the savings from bundling are considered. According to M Science’s findings, the average internet television subscriber paid $15 more than the average cable TV subscriber.

The article provides two possible reasons for this finding. First, the effect of unbundling services penalizes the consumer when each individual service starts to cost more on average. Second, consumers increase broadband speeds to support better quality and higher usage, which eats into the cost savings from switching to internet television.

If switching to internet television is not primarily motivated by cost saving, what other reasons could explain the increasing popularity of services like YouTube TV? According to the article, the idea of being able to pay for the channels you want is accepted with open arms after decades of being forced to purchase packages with channels that subscribers never watched. Moreover, the ability to watch live television from a multitude of screens means that the subscriber is no longer restricted to consuming television from the set-top box but rather the convenience of consuming content on mobile devices is desired.

Article: https://qz.com/1182312/internet-tv-bundles-like-slingtv-arent-saving-cord-cutters-money-off-cable/

Some background on YouTube TV and Hulu TV: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/youtube-live-has-about-300k-subscribers-and-hulus-live-has-450k-sources-reveal.html

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/22/youtube-tv-and-hulu-live-tv-now-have-hundreds-of-thousands-of-subscribers-says-report/