Broadband speeding up, broadcast TV slowing down?

sam-knows-map

~~~

This morning brought news that the CRTC has launched a national broadband measurement initiative using the SamKnows platform (“The global leaders in broadband measurement“). The announcement comes hard on the heels of Michael Geist’s Tuesday post entitled Missing the Target: Why Does Canada Still Lack a Coherent Broadband Goal? Ironically, after his well taken lament, the Commission suddenly seems ready to answer Michael’s question – though not in the way some of us might like.

“The CRTC is recruiting up to 6,200 Canadians to help measure the Internet services provided by the participating ISPs. Volunteers will receive a device, called a “Whitebox”, that they will connect to their modem or router. The Whitebox will periodically measure broadband performance, testing a number of parameters associated with the broadband Internet connection, including download and upload speeds.”

On this Commission page, the visitor is offered some details, including how to sign up. In a discussion with some other folks today, there was agreement that the Commission is going to have to work hard to attract mainstreamers who have no technical background. To do so, the project team is going to have to take a more didactic approach, and give up self-congratulatory marketing lingo like a “world-class communication system.” Continue reading

Rebooting our communications laws: aboriginal broadcasting

nunavut-internet

From APTN homepage

In a post last week, I described the conference taking place this Friday and Saturday in Ottawa dubbed Rebooting our communications legislation. I’ve had a chance since then to talk to several other participants and one message emerges clearly: watch out, Ottawa, the legislation is going to get a kick in the ass. 

I zeroed in on a couple of issues that I find are especially telling signs of the need for change. I’ll stick with one right now: the would-be protection for aboriginal broadcasting in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act

radio-crtc-aboriginal-vs-commercial-1The chart above was sent to our panel by Monica Auer. As she notes, section 3(1)(o) sets out a provision explicitly intended to promote aboriginal broadcasting:

“… programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose” (my emphasis).

Continue reading

CRTC’s code of conduct for TV providers: too little, too late?

coax-1

The CRTC is moving ahead with its Code of Conduct for TV service providers (TVSPs). The Code was initially announced on March 26, as a by-product of the Let’s Talk TV proceeding (Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-105). Now, in its best populist spirit, the Commission is asking for public comment on its TV Code:

“Canadians sent us a strong message that they were encountering problems with their television service providers. The CRTC is acting on these comments and has prepared a draft version of a TV Code that reflects what Canadians told us. I invite them to take an active part in the discussions. Now is the time to shape your TV Code.”–CRTC Chair JP Blais, May 12, 2015 (emphasis original)

Less consulting, more research

The Commission may have the substance right, but it has the timing and execution all wrong. The idea that TVSPs provide lousy service isn’t exactly new. Much of the evidence has been anecdotal. A public consultation, however, will not make up for that shortcoming. Worse still, the idea of holding this public consultation arose from the earlier public consultation that was part of Let’s Talk TV. They’re breeding. Continue reading

Canada’s outmoded communications laws: a 21st-century reality check

parliament_hill_as_viewed_from_the_gates

Next week, a group of conferees (including me) will meet in Ottawa to discuss an important and difficult question: Is it time to overhaul Canada’s communications legislation? Two bedrock pieces of legislation are at issue: the Broadcasting Act of 1991 and the Telecommunications Act of 1993. The two-day event has been organized by the Forum on Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC), through the efforts of Monica Auer and Sharon Jeannotte. They’ve headlined it Rebooting Canada’s Communications Legislation.

Monica and Sharon have done something very unusual in planning this confab. They’ve sent out lengthy, detailed instructions to all the participants to manage everyone’s expections – on the substantive issues, not food allergies and room rates. (On the strength of this attention to quality alone, I’d recommend Rebooting highly.)

~~~

tv-flag-4Canadian families spend an average of roughly $200 a month on communications services, a figure that keeps rising. Our federal and provincial governments are also heavy spenders in this sector, across a range of programs that include cultural agencies (e.g. CBC, Telefilm); direct subsidies (e.g. the Canada Media Fund); indirect subsidies (e.g. tax credits); and other periodic expenditures (e.g. broadband infrastructure). The money certainly matters. But Canadians also invest a great deal of time, faith and social equity in our broadcast media, especially television, as well as the telecom networks that power our smartphones and home Internet access.

Behind all the hours we spend with electronic media, there’s an overarching set of policy goals enshrined in our broadcasting and telecom legislation. The Rebooting conference is designed to examine those goals with a critical eye, in light of new developments on the ground, as the journalists say. The panel I’m on is called “Window to the world, mirror for ourselves: socio‐cultural objectives of communications legislation.” The organizers are particularly interested in hearing from us whether these objectives are still relevant. The initial puzzle, of course, is relevant to what? Beyond that, another difficulty looms.

The objectives of the Broadcasting Act in particular are deeply woven through regulatory policymaking, forming what the legislation calls the Broadcasting Policy for Canada. It stipulates that the broadcasting system should, for example, “serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.” Among many other things, the system should also:

“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…” [emphasis added: see below].

And so on, for a grand total of 1,100 words.

I’m not giving much away if I say here I find that the section 3 objectives are not merely unrealistic and unworkable, but have militated against the public interest by promoting the success of a small number of firms and industry personnel at the expense of consumer welfare. I base this bold claim on the possibly unconvincing observation that I’ve had a long-time interest in how the objectives for broadcasting fit the realities of audience, marketplace and political behavior. By way of illustration, I once wrote the following to sum up my opinion on the merits of section 3:

“Little can be gained from debating whether certain objectives of the system and the national service [read: CBC] are appropriate, when many technical and cultural realities of the system and the national service are simply not addressed by the major institutional provisions of the Broadcasting Act.”

Not to say I told you so, but I wrote this passage in the summer of 1978. I’d been asked by the late, lamented Dept of Communications to write a potted history of the first few decades of our system. What emerged a year later (1979) was a publication entitled Evolution of the Canadian Broadcasting System: Objectives and Realities, 1928-1968. Even in those days, the then Broadcasting Act, dating from 1968, had a section 3, devoted to the Broadcasting Policy for Canada. The tenor hasn’t changed much since, except it’s become much longer – almost four times longer.

That means our current policy framework is almost a quarter-century old, measured against the current statute. But if we measure from the real starting point, the 1968 version, the policy is 47 years old. Consider that the 1991 Act came into force a few months before the very first Web page became available on the public Internet (February 1991 vs August 1991: contrary to widespread belief, the Web and the Internet are two entirely different animals).

radio-crtc-aboriginal-vs-commercial-1

The special legislative place accorded aboriginals is not reflected in available resources

SOME problems with the goals are intrinsic, like provisions without substance or import. The illustration I’ll discuss in a later post concerns the identification of “the special place of aboriginal peoples” in Canadian society and Ottawa’s failure to give that special place any practical meaning (see chart above). Many other problems arise from a disconnect between objectives and the changing realities of the marketplace. To illustrate that idea, I’ll look at the predicament of conventional broadcasters, whose audiences and revenues are fleeing, while the legislation and regulations still enshrine TV as the cornerstone of our culture (see chart below).

crtc-conv-tv-finance-1

D.E.

Cancon redux: Canada’s TV “system” battles the Internet

netflix-browser-jan2015

~~~

“Somebody called me a protectionist this week. I’ve been called far worse, but the term rankled because I had not argued that Canadian television should be protected from foreign competition.”

Kate Taylor, Jan 18: A contemporary argument for Canadian content

~~~

The ball’s in somebody’s court and needs to be lobbed back.

Let’s start with who or what is protectionist. The only such reference I made was to  the policy regime we’ve had in Canada since the 1970s:

“Bell and Rogers (plus Shaw and QMI) have made fabulous amounts of money thanks to the vast protectionist apparatus they’ve enjoyed for decades.”

While life may be tougher now, it would be hard to argue that our broadcasters aren’t still benefitting from protectionism: foreign ownership restrictions, simultaneous substitution and restriction of US satellite signals to the approved list are three current examples. Simsub is also a good example of a policy designed to help our TV business rather than TV viewers, who hate it – as in, where are the Super Bowl ads? Continue reading

It’s 2015: Cancon is the aberration, not VPNs or the Internet

witopia-promo-page

WiTopia is a provider of personal VPN services

~~~

In a Globe and Mail piece last Friday, Kate Taylor starts off by asking the wrong question: Digital content may be cheap, but who will pay to create it? Things go downhill from there.

Ms Taylor’s old-fashioned apology for Cancon, with its predictable sideswipes at “freeriding” Netflix and marauding pirates, is based on ideology rather than evidence. It completely misconstrues the role of security tools like VPNs, at a time when Canadians should be far more concerned about their privacy and security online than about shelf space on the network for domestic TV shows. Most of all, it treats the Internet like a cultural and economic aberration that’s ruining our TV system, when the aberration is Canada’s bizarre and unworkable framework for broadcasting.

Virtual private networks and why you need one

What the article says about VPNs:

“The latest scheme is to use a virtual private network, or VPN, to trick Netflix into believing you are located in the United States and can thus subscribe to the video-streaming service’s American catalogue….

Internet advocates love to preach choice, diversity and freedom – after all, a VPN can also be used by citizens in China to access content censored by their government.”

A VPN is specialized client software that encrypts online messages, and is said metaphorically to “tunnel” through the public Internet. It’s a “virtual” network because there’s no real tunnel or separate physical network. Your data packets are still co-mingling with other people’s packets, but only you and folks with the authentication tools – like a password – can read those packets. The VPN is said to be private for exactly that reason, like an office behind a locked door. Continue reading

Updating the Sony hack: FBI story not selling to crypto experts

sony-hacked-again

***

Here in a nutshell is how things stand a week after my original comments on the hack and Sony’s culpability:

  • Sony Pictures chair Michael Lynton has even more pointedly dodged any responsibility for the damage caused on November 24.
  • FBI director James Comey insists more than ever that North Korea engineered the hack.
  • A high-profile crypto expert, Marc Rogers, has just published a detailed critique of the claims made by the FBI and Sony.

Lynton’s lapses. In an interview last week for ABC News, Chairman Lynton said the following:

“We are the canary in the coal mine, that’s for sure. There’s no playbook for this, so you are in essence trying to look at the situation as it unfolds and make decisions without being able to refer to a lot of you’ve had in the past or other peoples’ experiences. You’re on completely new ground.”

Talk about revisionist history. In case you haven’t read my previous post, I lay out the michael-lynton-sony-2sordid 10-year history of Sony’s experiences in the so-called “coal mine.” Needless to say, Lynton has a vested interest in getting the audience to believe the November 24 attack came out of the blue. That makes him look less like a failed leader, and probably prevents him sinking even further into legal liability. Here are three highlights of the backstory he conveniently overlooks:

  • Sony Pictures itself (not the parent company) was hacked – with many of the same awful results – in the summer of 2011. No, November 24 didn’t happen without any “playbook.”
  • IT consultants hired by Sony Pictures in the summer of 2014 warned of numerous security vulnerabilities in their netwok, which management apparenty ignored.
  • Sony Corp’s fight with the hacker community began all the way back in 2005, with the Sony rootkit scandal, which produced years of conflict and plenty of guideposts to refer to, if the Lynton squad had been paying attention.

Continue reading

The GOP hack: making Kim answer for Sony’s 10-year online war

theinterview-rogen-franco

***

Sony Pictures, the White House and the FBI should get a medal for the greatest political marketing triumph of 2014.

kimjungununiformAfter the horror show following the November 24 hack of Sony Pictures by the Guardians of Peace (GOP), America rallied behind Washington’s theory that Sony was the hapless victim of a Cold War cyberattack. Kim is certainly an easy guy to dislike and no friend of the Americans – no friend of anybody but Kim for that matter. (He comes by it legitimately. His dad and predecessor once had an actor hired to play grandpa Kim Il-sung in a movie role, for which the actor underwent plastic surgery to more closely resemble a Kim; once the shoot was over, the actor was shipped off to a concentration camp.)

The triumph of Cold War marketing over any hint of Sony’s bad behavior is all the more remarkable given the nasty quarrels that have embroiled US stakeholders, press and critics of all stripes. Not to mention the fact that as recently as New Year’s Eve, cryptographer Bruce Schneier and others were still casting doubt on the official claim that the hack was carried out by the Kim regime.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Lining up for The Interview as an exercise in patriotism

“The fact that they’re showing this movie shows that America still has a backbone regardless of the critics,” said Jay Killion, a golf pro who caught a screening at Tower City Cinemas in Cleveland.

Continue reading