Few surprises in BTLR ‘what we heard’ report

The blue ribbon panel in charge of reviewing Canada’s communications legislation has released its interim report, which — as expected — offers no indication of what policy positions the seven members might take in their final recommendations. Earlier this month, panel chairwoman Janet Yale said at an industry conference the panel’s “what we heard” report would be just that: a summary of the input members have received so far. The 67-page report outlines the “key themes and messages” it received during its consultation period, which included written submissions and meetings with stakeholders. It declined to make those submissions public until the interim report was released Wednesday, a move that drew criticism from some industry-watchers. However, many of the companies and organizations who weighed-in published their submissions or made them available to media, meaning that Wednesday’s report had few surprises for those who have been following the review closely. One of the major issues it heard about was how to allocate regulatory responsibility for the communications sector, which is currently divided between the CRTC, the ministries of innovation and heritage, and the governor-in-council. “We heard a variety of opinions concerning the effectiveness of current regulatory authorities and their respective responsibilities,” the report outlined. Some parties said there shouldn’t be any changes to how responsibilities are currently allocated, with some warning that any such changes would be disruptive and shouldn’t be taken lightly. Others suggested changes like Canadian Heritage being “given greater direct responsibility over the regulation of broadcasting activities.” The report said many “also advocated for the reallocation of authority and responsibility for the management of spectrum from the Minister of Industry to an independent regulatory body, with some proposing the CRTC specifically as an appropriate body,” something a Senate committee study also heard. The report also said there are different views on whether the telecom, broadcasting and radiocommunication act should be combined into a single piece of legislation. “Those who favored maintaining the status quo noted that the objectives of broadcasting are different from those for telecommunications and radiocommunication, and it would therefore be inappropriate to combine the three Acts. Others noted that a large body of jurisprudence exists regarding the current legislative structure and that the existing structure might be weakened by converging legislative provisions into a single Act,” the report said. “In contrast, some parties submitted that a single communications statute would likely be clearer in terms of purpose and easier to understand.” Another question was whether digital platforms should be subject to regulation from bodies like the CRTC. Regarding the subject of online misinformation, “some interested parties asked that digital platforms be subject to regulatory oversight. Providers of digital platforms disagreed, stating that they were committed to the free flow of information but were also taking steps to stem the flow of misinformation online,” the report said. It outlined there was consensus from various parties about the need for affordable access to “high-quality broadband networks,” but “significant debate” over how to get to that goal, with a split between those who support facilities-based competition and those who think service-based competition should be encouraged. “Some parties submitted that there is robust competition in Canada’s telecommunications markets. However, others submitted that telecommunications markets are highly concentrated, the level of effective competition is limited, and prices for telecommunications services in certain markets in Canada are too high,” the report said. Another area of agreement was over rural broadband, and “that there is insufficient incentive for private-sector players to make investments that will close the gap between service and price levels in urban centres and areas in the rest of Canada.” Most agreed that the government will need to continue to subsidize the rollout of rural broadband. A key area of concern was access over passive infrastructure, such as electrical poles, water towers and street furniture. Telecoms said there is a need for more “regulation at the federal level over access to public rights-of-way and other passive infrastructure,” the report outlined. “These parties commented that delays in attaining rights-of-way or high prices for accessing structures will limit the development of advanced networks,” while municipalities and electrical associations were opposed to such proposals. The report noted that a number of parties suggested the CRTC be responsible for managing this access. Regarding spectrum, the panel heard “it is imperative that the spectrum regulator provide timely access to spectrum as communications services continue to develop. Many participants commented that assignment processes will need to be accelerated in future to keep pace with technological change.” The report noted that it heard mixed views on whether net neutrality should be enshrined in law. On Canadian content, there was consensus from the cultural sector, where the “loss of revenue (from advertising and subscriptions) experienced by traditional players such as private broadcasters, radio stations and broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) in favour of new players in the cultural sector, including foreign digital platforms and Internet service providers (ISPs), has prompted most parties to call for equitable treatment for both traditional and new players.” They said new players should have to pay into the CanCon system, while a number of parties said internet service providers (ISPs) should also have to contribute to the creation of Canadian content. “Almost all interested parties advocated for equity in the application of sales taxes between Canadian and foreign companies even though this issue is outside the scope of the communications legislative framework,” the report noted. It also said the “majority” of parties recommended maintaining current rules on Canadian ownership of the broadcasting system, though a “small number of interested parties” were in favour of relaxing them. Other suggestions included discoverability of content online, with some parties suggesting broadcasting policy set out objectives regarding discoverability. “This could result in digital platforms being required to promote and prioritize content, and/or to hold a minimum number of Canadian programming hours or titles. Many parties also asked for changes to the legislative framework to impose data-sharing obligations regarding the viewing of titles in order to measure the consumption of Canadian content on these platforms,” the report said. Many were concerned about local news, with several parties proposing “creating an information media fund to fund local and regional news and information programming on all platforms.” The panel also heard about the importance of CBC/Radio-Canada, with some submissions calling for more stable funding and increased funding. Some parties said that the legislative framework should recognize and support more than just the national public broadcaster, but also “provincial educational and cultural broadcasters, Indigenous media, non-profit services, and community-based television and radio stations.” Other issues the panel heard about included affordability for low-income Canadians, as well as accessibility, with some suggesting “that accessibility-related policy objectives should be included in communications legislation.” The report also highlighted that the FairPlay debate has made its way into the legislative review. In a press release, the panel said the release of the report marks the end of its consultation activities. The panel’s recommendations for updating and changing the legislation are due by January 2020. CORRECTION: A previous version of this story indicated the panel had eight members. — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Ahmad Hathout at ahathout@thewirereport.ca

Few surprises in BTLR ‘what we heard’ report

News | June 26, 2019

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Few surprises in BTLR ‘what we heard’ report

News | June 26, 2019

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

New business model needed to keep 5G customers engaged, CTS told

Telus invests $44 million in Montreal, Nanaimo network upgrades

Telus investing $24B in Ontario network upgrades

Irekvist promotes Ericsson’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us