We fight for that

Geoff White, PIAC's new Executive Director and General Counsel interviews authors Denise Hearn and Vass Bednar about their eye-opening new book, "The Big Fix", which reveals the extent of Canada's inability to get competition in Canada right. Canadians pay too much, have limited market choices, little control of their shopping experience and suffer intrusive surveillance mostly due to the inability of Canadian regulators to halt mergers in areas such as food retailing, telecommunications, financial services and even veterinary services.

Hearn and Bednar outline their potential solutions to address this market power, to provide a democratic and consumer-driven solution to make the market less "fixed" against Canadians. These include not only a more stringent review of mergers but also a 'whole of government' approach to competition effects on all parts of the economy. Gosh, they even discuss the prospect of structural separation in telecommunications and promotion of human flourishing as an outcome of markets. This is a refreshing and provocative discussion about putting consumers first - a goal PIAC has pursued for 40 plus years, and will pursue in the future.

Buy the book from Sutherland House: https://sutherlandhousebooks.com/product/the-big-fix/

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

In this, the second instalment of PIAC's series on the 'CRTC Gone Astray', Monica notes that the CRTC has abandoned data collection, and its public disclosure and has not measured results in implementing the new Online Streaming Act (which amends the Broadcasting Act), which means it is impossible to know if the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, to in part ensure the amount and quality of Canadian content (CanCon), or indeed any other objectives.

Although the discussion is at times technical sounding, the principles being ignored are easy: first, making decisions based on evidence and measuring results. Second, procedural shortcuts also taken by the CRTC appear to us to undermine the rule of law and risk the spectre that "might makes right". Let's avoid that.

We close with more examples of disclosure of information in CRTC telecommunications that would benefit the public if it were not kept confidential: the Rogers outage in 2022 (and the related full Report to the CRTC); the BCE (Bell) - Northwestel sale to Sixty North Unity; and a CRTC hearing on historical inmate calling rates in Ontario.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

PIAC introduces a new series of podcasts on why the CRTC has gone all funny in the last few years and why no one is laughing.

Our first instalment sees Ted Woodhead, the regulatory 'face of the Rogers-Shaw merger', joining the podcast to give his very experienced take on the challenges faced by and perhaps poor choices and general inertia towards mediocrity at our national communications regulator. 

Ted provides many possible options to fix the problems of slowness, inconsistency and opaqueness that presently plague the Commission.

PIAC could not resist asking about the Rogers-Shaw deal and Ted provides a fascinating view from the other side and a strong argument that the Competition Tribunal and Federal Court of Appeal got it right and the deal is benefitting Canadians. After that viewpoint, we turn to the issue of wireless and Internet pricing in Canada and argue about what a price increase is made of and why the Canadian market is unique, uneven, surely odd, and why ARPU is not a good competition yardstick . I guess we have the market we deserve?

Like all great interviews, this one makes you think.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

NOTE : apologies for a mistake about what the Broadcasting Act actually says about affordability.  Also, please follow Prof. Geist's podcast: Law Bytes .

We recap the inaugural appearance of Professor Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and is a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society.

Professor Geist was greeted with an incantatory acknowledgment and it just got weirder from there.

We discuss this first public hearing on Canada's new version of the Broadcasting Act, which is the result of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which Prof. Geist appeared before Parliament on, on many occasions. It seems his reputation proceeded him, and the questioning was bizarre and perhaps revealed more about the CRTC's view of viewers and consumers than it did about Prof. Geist's opinions on how much money should go from the "online streamers" to the "Canadian broadcasting system".

The public and consumer interest in broadcasting got a bit of an airing but not much progress appears to have been made despite the new Act and the raising of the consumer interest directly by Prof. Geist.

Much speculation on the role such consumer concerns might play in the first of many decisions to follow ensues, including worries that the consumer interest has not been stated strongly enough.  We also discuss the order of the proceeding, which can be viewed as weirdly backwards, perhaps for political reasons.

Advocacy, it turns out, is hard, but hopefully worthwhile, because someone has to make sure this thing works out.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

Well, we are back after a long hiatus (sorry, stuff going on in Canadian communications!) to survey the competitive landscape after the Rogers-Shaw deal closed in Spring of 2023 - two years and 15 days after being announced.

We speak with George Burger, Chief Operating Officer, about the Canadian home Internet market post-Rogers-Shaw; why VMedia and Videotron (Quebecor) are a strong independent disrupter outside Québec that will only help consumers, and why the wireless market may just reward us with a strong 4th player (yes, please!).

Not quite sure if it's going to come true, but hopium at this stage is good.

We end with a dunk on those people who thought Bill C-11 meant more money for Canadian creators.  Turns out traditional broadcasters are not as keen on funding it when they think someone else will pay.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

This episode recounts the dramatic, rapid decision(s) of the Competition Tribunal allowing the merger of Shaw and Rogers (with divestment of Freedom Mobile to Videotron) and why that is weird, appealable, and not a good sign for Canadian wireless and other telecommunications markets.

Ben Klass again joins the podcast to give his opinion on the meaning of the decision(s), the appeal, the possible state of the market if the merger proceeds and the weaknesses of Canada's Competition Act and related entities.

We close with an update on the CBC-Radio-Canada licence renewal decision that was overturned by Cabinet and welcome new CRTC Chairperson Vicky Eatrides. She has a lot to do.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

We return to look at the Rogers-Shaw deal and possible different solutions than the divestment of Shaw's wireless business to Videotron (Quebecor) - solutions that might include a "maverick" once and future(?) independent wireless competitor, Globalive, best known as the operator of WIND Mobile before it was sold to Shaw and renamed "Freedom Mobile".  Globalive's Simon Lockie joins the podcast to give the inside scoop on a past and future competitor's efforts to start a fourth national wireless company and whether Globalive can acquire Shaw's "Freedom Mobile" assets if Shaw (or Rogers) must sell them to obtain regulatory approval of the larger Rogers-Shaw deal, which is now before the Competition Tribunal. What Canadians pay for wireless service for the foreseeable future will be decided in the next few months and we discuss all of the possible futures at this hinge point.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

We discuss Bill C-27, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, Personal um, something AI and a tribunal, I think? It does not matter, because the federal government took the last bill ('the other' Bill C-11) to try to replace the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and MADE IT WORSE.  Wow.

The new Bill C-27 guts consumer privacy by simply abolishing it and replacing it with a regime of business use of consumer information. All done without your knowledge and consent. But don't worry, it will all be used by the artificial intelligence (AI) industry to do whatever discrimination they say is important to do with all of that big data. Oh, sprinkle on the bacon bits of all of the exceptions (legitimate interests (of business)) from the European Union's GDPR with none of the constitutional rights to privacy of the individual they have there, ignore the mismatch with provincial privacy laws (especially Quebec), and just dare Europe to call this Bill what it clearly is: inadequate.

 Plus a bonus update on CRTC's continued low-effort non-proceeding into the Rogers outage.

With Executive Director John Lawford and PIAC staff lawyer Yuka Sai, who had to figure out the problems with C-11 back in Episode 5.  Ah well, on with the show.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

Black swans, red dawns and consumer pawns. I had a longer summary but the Internet ate it. Not typing this again. Just listen.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/

NOTICE TO LISTENERS: THIS EPISODE DISCUSSES A RACIAL SLUR (BUT WE DON'T USE IT)

We also note both commenters are racially white and do not pretend to be able to speak to systemic racism, except in general terms and that this episode is not intended, even indirectly, as a collateral attack on the decision's holding. Rather, the CRTC's way of approaching the issue legally and procedurally is what is discussed.  Since the recording, the CBC has claimed to appeal the decision, but is also agreeing to follow the CRTC's expectations (to issue an apology), which is interesting given the discussion on the episode (see below).

Returning guest Monica Auer of Canada’s Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) discusses the procedural and legal oddities of the CRTC's N-word decision such as why this decision was not dealt with as part of the CBC's licence renewal proceeding, which ran in parallel, and whether the decision can be appealed or petitioned to Cabinet. We also review the more traditional ways to enforce inappropriate language in broadcasts, previous CRTC rulings on broadcast content and similar situations in the past, as well as the unexpectedly difficult efforts to get the CBC's 'Tandem' service discussed in the CBC's licence hearing, a consideration that the complaint at issue in this episode did not get. We then have a discussion of how the decision is structured avoids finding the CBC in breach of its licence or the Radio Regulations and the requirements to alert Parliament or to face a fine. Finally, we close with the concept of freedom of expression as filtered through the Broadcasting Act and the limits on that expression when speech is broadcast, under the Act's s. 3(1)(g) "high standard" requirement. We close with a discussion of whether Bill C-11 can be amended to avoid this type of awkward approach by the CRTC in the future.

Make a donation to PIAC, right now, through Canada Helps: https://www.piac.ca/become-a-donor/