[Advisors] CACTUS: New Study Calls for More Coherent Approach to Community Media in Digital Environment

[Gary W Kenward]

James:

   With a new, majority government, anything is possible.

   My concern is not with CRTC staff. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the individuals to comment on their positions regarding community media and the Internet. I have heard Mr. Blais being interviewed and his responses do suggest that he is interested in change.

   The difficulty with the current CRTC lies in its mandate, and the conditions which that mandate enables. The Canadian Radio-telecommunications and Broadcasting Commission Act lays out the objects and powers of the CRTC as set out in two documents, the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act. The Broadcasting Act is concerned with “any transmission of programs”, not with an Internet application service ecosystem and not with community media.

The Telecommunications Act is concerned with information transmission, and thus arguably covers Internet transport. However, the Act itself does not identify those issues, such as net neutrality, that are important to the survival of the Internet as we know it.

   To be very clear, both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act are important pieces of legislation, and I am of the opinion that the CRTC has performed reasonably well in fulfilling their role, given the forces at play.

   However, I suggest that the current CRTC mandate is biased towards the historic role of broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada. This at least partially enables the established corporate broadcasters and telecoms to insert themselves in all conversations as principles.

   Legislation that specifically enables the CRTC, or a new commission to address Internet issues within Canada, particularly those affecting small businesses and communities would mark real change.

Cheers,
Gary

PS I take exception to the statement that Canadian’s got the government they deserved with the Harper regime. Only 23% of the eligible voters actually voted Conservative in the 2011 election. This, however, is a discussion for a different venue.

-----------------------------------------------
Excellence can be attained if you: 
Care more than others think is wise, 
Risk more than others think is safe, 
Dream more than others think is practical, and 
Expect more than others think is possible. 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 

> On 2015.10.31, at 06:03, James Van Leeuwen <jvl at ventus.ca> wrote:
> 
> There is substance to the CRTC’s interest in community involvement.
> 
> I recently coordinated an engagement with community broadband interests here in southern Alberta for Commissioner Linda Vennard, who has replaced Commissioner Menzies.
> 
> Commissioner Vennard is a university professor, not a lawyer, and she has a long background in researching the roles of ICT in community, cultural and economic development.
> 
> She was hand-picked because she can provide the CRTC with a bottom-up perspective on ICT and development, especially rural development.
> 
> 
> I first met Dr. Vennard in 2005 when she was a collaborator in the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance, which did some excellent benchmarking work in rural Alberta in advance of SuperNet lighting up.
> 
> The ASRA project was intended to track the social and economic impacts of the Alberta SuperNet, but funding evaporated after the GoA more or less abandoned the SuperNet in 2006 (no votes in it).
> 
> Commissioner Vennard was also in attendance at the recent Digital Futures Symposium in Olds Alberta, home to www.o-net.ca <http://www.o-net.ca/> and the fastest Internet connections in Canada. 
> 
> The theme of the symposium was rural broadband enablement, and the entire event was a de facto endorsement of the DIY approach taken by Olds. 
> 
> (few community leaders are ready to take similar initiative in rural Alberta, but that’s another story)
> 
> 
> At this juncture, my strong impression is that the CRTC is keenly aware of what is at stake for communities in their upcoming ruling on the BSO, especially rural and remote communities. 
> 
> The hard reality is that if our communities are to keep pace with the rest of the world in broadband and economic development, a major disruption will be required in our telecom industry.
> 
> We are already at risk of being leapfrogged by some ‘developing' nations, and more facilities-based competition will just dig us deeper into the hole we are in.
> 
> 
> It is also my strong impression that our telecom incumbents have seen the writing on the wall, and are now doing everything they can to build and protect their most valuable assets - their fibre plants.
> 
> Hence the recent challenge from Bell on the wholesale ruling, essentially handing us all a great big stick to beat them with (see article from CNOC President Bill Sandiford in today’s Globe & Mail).
> 
> Bell's position makes absolutely no sense in relation to Canada’s social and economic development, an issue the CRTC became far more concerned with than the Harper Government.
> 
> The Trudeau Government could hardly do any worse, and there is ample reason to believe they will do much better. 
> 
> I won’t be surprised if Trudeau and the CRTC begin to follow the examples already set by Obama and the FCC. 
> 
> Obama has been a vocal advocate for community broadband, and the FCC is clearing the path for a whole lot more of it. 
> 
> A major challenge in Canada has been lack of investment capital for community fibre projects, but this is now changing. 
> 
> It will cost roughly $60 billion to plaster Canada with fibre utilities, and multinational developers like Macquarie Capital are looking our way with gleaming eyes.
> 
> One of their strongest assets in Canada will be the depth and breadth of market antipathy towards incumbent carriers, who may finally get their asses handed to them by network developers with much broader and deeper experience in the new telecom paradigm (create abundance, not scarcity). 
> 
> They will have nobody to blame but themselves for hiding behind a captive regulator and failing to respond to transformative changes in technology and market sentiment.
> 
> The rest of us will likely come to blame the utter incompetence of the Harper Government, but we really have nobody to blame but ourselves - we got the governments we deserved. 
> 
> 
> We have a hell of a lot ground to make up, but I am confident our new Government and the CRTC will be up to the task - they know what is at stake. 
> 
> There is much to hope for, and I am particularly hopeful that some of our First Nation communities will finally get the recognition they serve for leadership in rural broadband development. 
> 
> Olds was not the first community-owned fibre network in rural Canada. 
> 
> JvL
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Brian Beaton <brianbeaton at knet.ca <mailto:brianbeaton at knet.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Gary and others ... Thanks for taking the time to articulate this perspective of the role of the CRTC... You might be right about their historical role that is still pretty much in place today thanks in large part to the corporate telcos that continue to dominate and influence political minds and policies all in their own best interests... But I am hopeful and probably very naive to think that the current Basic Service Objective... BSO... Hearings might create some desired changes in the operational mandate of the CRTC to include strategies and hopefully funding supporting community owned and managed infrastructure, services, and access ... 
>> 
>> That is in part what the FMCC team is advocating during these hearing ... Our interventions and responses to questions are posted online at both the CRTC site and the http://firstmile.ca <http://firstmile.ca/> site. For me it more a matter of trying and hoping there is a way to create change in how to influence and change policies that are negatively impacting communities... Trying to get new politicians to understand all this is one method that is important but I often wonder what effect it is having ...
>> 
>> I have heard Jean Paul Blais speak a couple of times and he wants to create change at the CRTC and he talks about community involvement... So I am hoping and doing what I can with a great group of people to support Mr Blais' efforts... 
>> 
>> Brian Beaton
>> Researcher, First Nations Innovation project
>> Grad Student, Faculty of Education, Critical Studies, University of New Brunswick
>> Box 104, Fredericton, NB, E3B 4Y2
>> 
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Gary W Kenward <garykenward at eastlink.ca <mailto:garykenward at eastlink.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I hadn’t thought of the possibility of the CRTC intervening in community media. And you are correct in that there is a potential for mischief.
>>> 
>>> The CRTC’s “mandate” appears to contain a few of contradictions. At the very least, the language the CRTC itself uses shows a clear and persistent bias towards broadcasting and telecommunications. The CRTC’s lack of awareness of the concept of the Internet as a community resource rather then yet another transport medium seems apparent in both the language they use and in their approach to Internet issues.
>>> 
>>> The CRTC still appears to view content as a controllable output from a small number of providers (the broadcast/telecommunications model). As long as they retain this antiquated perspective, their activities will be biased towards the big content providers.
>>> 
>>> My primary point is that the CRTC is not the entity to respond to this call for a "more coherent approach to community media in digital environment" (sic) with any effectiveness. Content on the Internet is largely an emergent phenomena of a occasionally self-organizing chaotic ecosystem. Government policies should reflect and nurture this ecosystem.
>>> 
>>> But, as you imply, we appear to be on the same page.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. 
>>>  - Alexander Fraser Tytler 
>>> 
>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 
>>> 
>>>> On 2015.10.29, at 11:50, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net <mailto:garth.graham at telus.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> There’s no disconnect.  That’s a very cogent and useful analysis of the CRTC’s relationship to Internet regulation, and I agree with you completely.  I was merely looking what might be in it for TC in continuing an alliance with CACTUS, given they see themselves as constrained by the CRTC more than we do.  I think you are pointing out that suggesting community access sites be considered as community media has hidden dangers, such as taking the CTRC where we really don’t want it to go.
>>>> 
>>>> GG
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 7:35 AM, imaginit <imaginit at eastlink.ca <mailto:imaginit at eastlink.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Garth:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I agree with the spirit of your posting. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   The disconnect I see in your thesis is whether the CRTC is to play more then a role in regulating Internet connectivity (which I would agree, they could be doing much more), or whether there is a broader role for them to play in influencing application services. They have done this in the past, for example with CanCon.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   In the past, however, service and connectivity were tightly coupled: telephony service was the sole purpose of the copper wire distribution network, broadcast radio and television the sole purpose of the (broadcast) wireless and cable infrastructure.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   The Internet is a different beast, as we all know. One of the principles of the Internet architecture is to ensure a clear independence between applications and the Internet transport service. This is one of the principle strengths of the Internet, which cannot be undermined even for the most noble of purposes. Regulating the Internet is a valid policy, as long as it stops with connectivity (including security and privacy of transport, net neutrality, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>>   The telecoms, cablecoms and cellcoms themselves have had great difficulty dealing with the separation of application services from transport. Their initial approach was to binding applications to transport was through explicit “garden walls”. This approach mostly failed (but hasn’t gone away), and the current emphasis is on market centric approaches, such as attempting to dominate content creation and distribution. The *coms pursue profit in businesses they understand. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Clearly, there may be justification for regulations aimed at mitigating monopolization of the Internet by content providers. It’s not clear how this would be accomplished, given the current existence of natural Internet monopolies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Providing community services is something the *coms might undertake as part of their public relations efforts. It is not something they will aggressively pursue as part of their business model, no matter how much regulation the CRTC attempts to impose.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  A better path, moving forward, would be to limit the mandate of the CRTC to regulation of distribution mediums (wireless and wired), with, i think we would all agree, an emphasis on providing fair access to everyone in Canada (with the caveat that “fair” is an open term and requires careful definition for each medium).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If there is a government role in promoting community services at the application level, including community web sites, information distribution, emergency services, etc., then I strongly suggest this should not be undertaken by the CRTC. It must not be presented as a regulation issue, either. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Perhaps there is a place for a new government entity aimed at promoting Internet communities at the local level. An entity that would (hopefully) be more independent of the antiquated relationships between the *coms and the CRTC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With a new government, elected on a platform of “change”, there may be a window of opportunity for new approaches to the governments role in new media.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Gary
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>> It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. 
>>>>> - Alexander Fraser Tytler 
>>>>> 
>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015.10.29, at 00:03, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net <mailto:garth.graham at telus.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think public access internet sites are (should be considered as) part of community media.  Not sure if this is addressed in this report.  If anybody has time to look at it and suggest a way for us to comment, please do.  I have considered attending this conference which will be held in Ottawa in late Nov.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject:	CACTUS: New Study Calls for More Coherent Approach to Community Media in Digital Environment
>>>>>>> Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:48:54 -0400
>>>>>>> From:	Cathy Edwards <cathy at timescape.ca <mailto:cathy at timescape.ca>>
>>>>>>> To:	Cathy Edwards <cathy at timescape.ca <mailto:cathy at timescape.ca>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ….The report is posted on the web site of the conference at www.ComMediaConverge.ca/survey <http://www.commediaconverge.ca/survey>.  The site also hosts a forum where the public can offer comments and feedback.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There may be some way of finding common ground with TC inherent in their identification of the benefits of community media:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ·      Provide a platform for local artistic and cultural expression,
>>>>>> ·      advertise local events and provide visibility to community groups,
>>>>>> ·      provide alternative points of view,
>>>>>> ·      provide communication services that strengthen the community and have significant impact on their community’s awareness of local issues and events.
>>>>>> ·      profile local jobs, economic opportunities and businesses
>>>>>> ·      provide local weather and emergency warning services
>>>>>> ·      access to local information
>>>>>> ·      celebration of local culture and preservation of heritage
>>>>>> ·      positive impacts in terms of bringing the community together, increasing levels of civic engagement, coverage of local government proceedings, expanding political involvement, and media skills training and capacity building.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But it’s difficult to see where the agencies we represent, tech centers, telecenters, maker spaces, digital inclusion services, and community networks, fit into the universe of broadcast media they imagine.  The survey defines community media as:
>>>>>> “Community media make up one of three elements in the Canadian Broadcasting Act that contribute to one integrated system.  Regulated community media comprise campus and community radio stations, BDU [cable]-administered community channels, and community- owned independent community television broadcasters. Community media are also increasingly distributed via unregulated online platforms, including audio podcasts, streamed video, and interactive games.”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Obviously, all that is in a one-to-many broadcast mode.  Even as they intend, “multiplatform opportunities for production, circulation and consumption of community-generated content,” they are still focused on reaching the citizen as member of an audience.  For example, they place the idea of “convergence” through digital media in the context of, “the need for established community media organizations to leverage the Internet as an auxiliary platform for distribution.”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They view the Internet as one more means of mass communication using digital technologies.  They are ignoring the interactive, participatory dimensions of the parallel development of “new media,” and the implications that has for defining “convergence” differently than they are doing.  They do not define themselves in terms of community development in the context of a digital economy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps it’s their focus on the CRTC’s review of community TV regulations that’s circumscribing their approach to being digital.  They say:
>>>>>> “…[the]rise of a recognizable 'community media sector' within new media appears to trail the development of commercial media on new platforms. Part of the reason for this may be that the CRTC does not regulate the Internet and does not recognize community media on new media platforms per se nor provide for its support. The federal regulator's relationship with community media is mediated by the licencing process, which applies only to the 'traditional' community media: radio and TV, even though the latter may be available on the Internet in addition to their licenced distribution method (over-the-air, digital cable and so on). “
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know that, in the past, we’ve endorsed their “need to generate new proposals for a refocusing of policy attention and support for community media in the digital environment.”  As we embark, once again, on doing the same thing for community networking, it may be interesting to see if they are willing to reciprocate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> GG
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Advisors mailing list
>>>>>> Advisors at tc.ca <mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
>>>>>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors <http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advisors at tc.ca <mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
>>>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors <http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies….
>>> - C.A.R. Hoare
>>> 
>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advisors mailing list
>>> Advisors at tc.ca <mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
>>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors <http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advisors mailing list
>> Advisors at tc.ca <mailto:Advisors at tc.ca>
>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advisors mailing list
> Advisors at tc.ca
> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20151101/e5cbfe75/attachment-0001.html>