Last week, an important report by the Canadian-Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission was released - entirely in favor of Freedom of Speech on the Internet!
I am posting this rather large report in full for those of you who are interested in the legal-technical side of this development. You may download it at <http://www.lebensraum.org/english/chrc/crtcreport.html>
In a sour-grapes press release, B'ani Brith Canada - the outfit most interested in getting its censorship claws into the Zundelsite while having its special interest agenda satisfied - issued a statement May 18, 1999 that said, in part:
"'The CRTC has it half right. In our submission to them we argued that the Internet should be regulated - but not by them. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is the body with the mandate and the expertise to deal with hate propaganda transmitted over telephone wires. They should have the clear mandate to deal with hate on the internet.'
'In a current test case involving Ernst Zundel's alleged use of a web site to promote hatred, the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with hate transmitted over the Internet is one of the issues being argued.
'The Federal Government has also appointed a national review panel to review the Canadian Human Rights Act over the coming year. B'nai Brith Canada will be arguing that this aspect of the Commission's mandate needs to be made explicit and to be strengthened.'" <end>
So what is B'nai Brith Canada admitting here? That their mandate is ***not*** explicit in the least - and that they need government flunkies to do their bidding and say that it is!
This CRTC Report is helpful to the Zundel defense team because it addresses the technical part of the Zundelsite controversy in unmistakeable language. It sheds a different light on the enemy's technical expert, Ian Angus's, testimony and strengthens our case.
Perhaps now we will finally receive the still pending Judicial Review decision of Judge Evans addressing this very issue of "alpha-numeric text", which is what all the complaints are about. The societal pressure on Judge Evans must be enormous, and this report ought to help. Our opposition cannot get around the "text transmission" question, and also the territorial question because, clearly, the Zundelsite and I are located outside their jurisdiction.
This should abort the (what's left of it...) "Tribunal of One" and put the whole Holocaust Enforcer censorship attempt where it belongs - in the trash bin of history!
Below is a copy of this historic CRTC press conference in relation to the Report:
Speech
Notes for an address
by Francoise Bertrand
Chairperson, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
on the occasion of the release of the
Report on New Media
Ottawa, Ontario
May 17, 1999
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the release of our report on the New Media. My name is Francoise Bertrand, I'm the chairperson of the CRTC, with me is David Colville, CRTC Vice-chair, Telecommunications.
It's taken ten months and a lot of hard work to get here, but we're very proud of the result. The Report on New Media clarifies the commission's position on the Internet. We hope it will support innovation, development and infrastructure enhancement as well as the emergence of new media services in Canada.
Background on the New Media process
But how did we get to this point?
In July 1998, we released our call for comments on the state of the new media industry in Canada. We felt we needed to examine these important new phenomena which touch on the two main industries we regulate. The new media had been, and are, causing rapid changes in an already swiftly evolving communications industry. They are generating major implications for all citizens.
When we issued our call for comments we also questioned whether, in the broad context of the government's agenda to promote connectedness and electronic commerce, existing laws and regulations might play a role in promoting or inhibiting that agenda.
At the time, we also said very clearly to those who were concerned that we were not looking to apply old regulatory models to the new media, nor did we have in mind any particular regulatory model, and nor did we want to regulate. It was a learning process for us.
We wanted to ask three questions:
How do the new media affect the regulation of the traditional broadcasting undertakings of radio, television and cable?
Do any of the new media constitute services already defined by the Broadcasting Act or the Telecommunications Act and if so, how should they be regulated?
Do the new media raise any other broad policy issues of national interest?
The Commission saw this process as an opportunity to learn about and understand the current state of the Canadian new media industry - and its domestic and global potential. We felt that the Commission could and should take advantage of its unique public processes to help create a better understanding of these phenomena. And because our public proceedings are open to a wide variety of people, they offer interested parties a forum to set out their views and engage in a constructive discussion on issues of concern.
The public hearing
Well, the new media hearing did capture the attention of many Canadians. It was unprecedented for the breadth of the range of individuals, industries, and interest groups from which the Commission received comments. And also for the media attention it has generated.
In response to the public notice we sent out in July, the Commission received over a thousand submissions on the new media. That translates to roughly 6,500 pages of documentation. Close to eighty parties made presentations at the oral sessions held last November and December. As well, the McLuhan E-lab Unit hosted an on-line forum on behalf of the CRTC, which received hundreds of e-mail comments on this issue.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who appeared before the Commission, or who made submissions for their time and effort. Your participation is highly valued and helps us to clarify many questions. I want to reassure all of you that we have listened carefully to the information and opinions put before us. Your arguments and viewpoints were all carefully considered when we wrote this report.
CRTC findings
So what have we determined?
Now - to the essence of our conclusion: The CRTC will not regulate new media services on the Internet. Our message is clear. Let me repeat that for those of you who were worried - the CRTC will not regulate any portion of the Internet. The Canadian new media industry is vibrant, highly competitive and successful without regulation. In October 1998 it was estimated there were between 650 to 1,000 multimedia firms in Canada. Together these companies have generated 17,000 jobs for Canadians. In September 1998, an estimated sixty percent of Canadian households owned at least one personal computer. And by the year 2001, we expect that approximately five million Canadian households, or forty percent, will have access to the Internet.
The numbers I am using are taken from submissions made to the Commission over the course of the Hearing into the New Media. Of course, as you all know, the rapid rate of change and growth in the New Media means that these numbers have likely changed since the time they were submitted. But I think they still serve to provide you with a snapshot of the state of the Canadian new media. There is also a substantial Canadian presence on the Internet today. It is estimated that five percent of the world's web-sites are Canadian. These web-sites are supported by a strong demand for Canadian new media content. We believe that Canada's open new media environment will attract investment to both the broadcasting and telecommunications industries and their new media partners. Given the creativity, the presence, and the entrepreneurial spirit demonstrated by the new media industry in Canada, we see no reason to intervene.
We feel rather, it would be better to allow innovation to continue to blossom on the Internet without our intervention, meaning without regulation. In other words we do not believe that regulation would serve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
In coming to this determination, the CRTC is one of the first regulators in the world to clarify its position on the Internet. Now, if I may, I'd like to quickly go over with you some of our key findings arising from this hearing that relate to issues of concern for many of the interested parties who appeared before us. I'd like to look specifically at the areas of broadcasting and telecommunications.
In broadcasting
Much time during the hearing was spent examining the issue of what might constitute broadcasting on the Internet as defined by the Broadcasting Act. Regarding this issue, we have made the following points in our report:
First, everything transmitted over the Internet that is predominantly alphanumeric text is by definition not broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act.
Second, material transmitted over the Internet which is significantly "customizable", or capable of being uniquely tailored by the individual user, does not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and is, therefore, not broadcasting. Third, the remaining material would fall within the definition of broadcasting, but will be exempt for the following reasons:
We have found that the new media complement, rather than substitute for traditional broadcasting. Before the new media could substitute for traditional media, key technological and other developments would have to take place.
The Commission does not believe that regulation of the new media would further the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. There is a substantial Canadian presence on the Internet today, supported by demand for Canadian new media content. There are ample business and market incentives to support the continued production and distribution of Canadian new media content. The new media industry requires local Canadian content to develop their businesses.
AND
Both the Federal and Provincial governments have initiatives in place to support Canadian content on the Internet. The Commission also examined very carefully the issue of offensive and illegal content on the Internet. We acknowledge the concerns that many of the parties coming before us had on this issue. In keeping with our approach to the Internet; however, we will not regulate offensive and illegal content on it. We believe, as did many of the people who made submissions on this issue, that appropriate tools already exist to deal with offensive and illegal content. Tools such as Canadian laws of general application, industry self regulation, content filtering software as well as increased media awareness. In telecommunications, the new media process gave us an opportunity to explore whether there were any problems of access to the Internet for producers and creators of content as well as for users and citizens. And while we have no intention of regulating the Internet, we are aware that our decisions and policies in the area of telecommunications do influence access in this regard.
Two main access issues that touched on concerns regarding access were raised during the hearing.
First, a number of Internet Service Providers told us that in order to be able to compete, they needed access to the high-speed services both the telephone companies and the cable companies already provide to their own customers. In the opinion of the Internet Service Providers, competitive access to these services is vital for competition in the Canadian new media industry to succeed. In response to this concern, I,d like to note that the Commission already requires telecommunications companies and cable companies to offer Internet Service Providers access to their high-speed services. The Commission has already approved the prices for the high-speed services offered by the telephone companies. Further, it will also shortly issue a decision that will describe its approach to the pricing of high-speed services for the cable companies.
Second, we heard many concerns access for the public to the Internet. Many of the people who came before the Commission were worried that many Canadian citizens, for a number of reasons, might not be able to get on-line themselves and take part in this important technological revolution. This issue is fundamental because it is clear that the promise predicted for the Internet for Canada cannot be realized if we do not have access to it. Although many aspects of this challenge lie outside the scope of its jurisdiction, the Commission will examine those over which it has jurisdiction, in the context of the issues related to remote and high-cost areas.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Commission staff for their hard work on this file. Again, I'd like to thank all those who participated and made submissions.
David Colville and I would now be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
- 30 -
Contact: Denis Carmel, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Tel.: (819) 997-9403, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 997-4245 e-mail: denis.carmel@crtc.gc.ca
Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God."
(Mark Twain)
Back to Table of Contents of the May 1999 ZGrams