Industry execs blast Quebec Internet-blocking, call for CRTC involvement

TORONTO — Executives from Canada’s telecom companies took aim at a new bill by the Quebec government that would force Internet service providers (ISPs) to block some gambling websites Tuesday, saying the CRTC should take action on the issue. During a panel discussion at the Canadian Telecom Summit Tuesday, Ted Woodhead, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs at Telus Corp., said the Bill 74 measure to block certain gambling websites is “about as offensive to the net neutrality principle as you could possibly ever dream of. And apparently nobody cares.” He asked why the CRTC doesn’t “ask the Quebec government to show up in Hull and explain themselves. This industry is regulated constitutionally by the federal government and that’s what should happen.” As the Wire Report reported recently, while the Quebec government sees the issue as a matter of public heath, telecom falls under federal jurisdiction. When asked about Quebec’s bill recently, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly responded: “we believe in net neutrality.” BCE Inc. chief regulatory officer Mirko Bibic said the CRTC should be addressing that legislation instead of holding a hearing on zero-rating, which he said was launched “out of the blue, where no real issue needs to be decided.” Bibic said the website-blocking issue is unclear. “You’ve got the provincial government saying, ‘at some point you have to do this,’ then we’ve got section 36 of the Telecom Act.” That section says carriers shouldn’t influence the meaning or purpose of the telecommunications it carries for the public. “We’re going to need to wait for somebody to file an application on that issue. If the commission wanted to be forward-looking, there’s the issue,” he added. Bram Abramson, chief regulatory officer for smaller player TekSavvy Solutions Inc. said it “seems nuts. I mean, we have a Canadian government, one of the governments in this country, who for the first time wants to say our first port of call is the neutral intermediary, and we’re going to tell you guys to block content.” He said that was a solution “that will be expensive, that will be ineffective, and probably is not constitutional.” “It’s very surprising it’s happening,” Abramson added. David Watt, senior vice-president of regulatory at Rogers Communications Inc., agreed with the other panelists on the issue. Earlier in the discussion, the panelists also said there should be more chances for the industry and other stakeholders to have informal discussions with the CRTC, outside of public hearings. Bibic said there has been “a large absence of dialogue between all stakeholders in a collaborative fashion, including with the commission, because the only times we ever talk is in the confines of a formal hearing process.” He suggested “going back to a more quasi-judicial, collaborative process,” such as past meetings held “on particular topics, where everyone got an opportunity to come in and talk to the commissioners… and key staff.” “It allowed the commission to learn where the industry was going and what other stakeholders groups’ concerns were,” he said. “That’s completely gone now. I think it’s a mistake, actually.” Incumbents, competitors and other stakeholders should all have a chance to weigh in, Bibic suggested. “It allows everyone to share certain things that you’ll never say in a public hearing, other than filing a confidential response. Just think about what the commission loses when they don’t have a full appreciation of where every stakeholder is going on a particular issue, not today, but a year and five years from now.” Watt said the CRTC would be well-served to return to previous practices of meeting with stakeholders to hear “their strategic vision of the industry,” in a non-adversarial environment. Abramson said while he agreed the CRTC should be talking more to industry, it should be done in a fair way, and not in a way “where people feel that they don’t have the same access” or the same time or resources to get that access. “Some folks have more resources and are more able to lobby than others,” and such processes can be open to abuse, Abramson argued. “Abuse, not because anyone is a bad actor, but because people…go in and talk to the folks they need to talk to because they have the time to do it and because they have a job that says they need to do it,” he said. Bibic suggested that the CRTC could invite industry and others to talk about a particular issue at the beginning of the year, before holding a formal process, and give everyone the same amount of time. During the question-and-answer session, Carleton University doctorate student Ben Klass pointed out that under that model “there’s one stakeholder who’s left out … and that’s the public.” Public hearings have Canadians who are watching, he said, adding that “if you can’t say something in front of them, maybe there’s some sort of problem.” Bibic responded there are solutions that could address that, such as a conference call or Facebook chats with commissioners. Watt said such proceedings should be considered as additional input. “For example, there may be things that Rogers is planning on doing over the next 18 months, and they may impact on some future CRTC decision,” but it cannot outline them in a public hearing for competitive reasons, he noted. — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Charelle Evelyn at cevelyn@thewirereport.ca

Industry execs blast Quebec Internet-blocking, call for CRTC involvement

News | 06/08/2016 12:29 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Related Stories

APTN defends new structure proposal from broadcaster criticism

News | 10/03/2023 4:29 pm EDT

Telus says CRTC strayed from accounting principles in spectrum revenue and contribution decision

News | 10/02/2023 6:20 pm EDT

OPINION: Bulk MDU deals no longer a rare occurrence

News | 09/29/2023 6:20 pm EDT

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us