Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Net Neutrality. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2020

New book out: Canadian Communication Policy and Law

 My new book Canadian Communication Policy and Law has just been published!

https://www.canadianscholars.ca/books/canadian-communication-policy-and-law

The book is available in print and e-book formats and will be available for short-term rental on VitalSource starting in the fall.

“At last, a book on Canadian communication policy that thoroughly integrates critical theory including political economy, gender, and race-based approaches, as well as Indigenous and postcolonial analysis. Bannerman’s crystal-clear prose and exhaustive research provide readers with the definitive guide to who benefits from public policy in a digital age.”
    —Vincent Mosco, Queen’s University, Author of The Smart City in a Digital World

“With its robust attention to critical race theory and intersectionality, Bannerman’s book enriches scholarship in Canadian communication policy and law. The book tackles some of the most pressing communication and digital policy issues today, highlighting in particular the imbrication of power and politics and the importance of upholding the often-vexed nature of the public interest.”
—Leslie Regan Shade, Professor, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto

 "This exciting and innovative new text from Sara Bannerman brings a diverse range of critical perspectives to bear on enduring issues and pressing concerns in communications policy, law, and regulation in the 21st Century. The scope is as ambitious as it is impressive. At each step of the way, Bannerman deftly guides readers through the hotly contested issues that will continue to shape the terrain of intellectual property, freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, telecommunications, broadcasting, and internet regulation for years to come.”
—Dwayne Winseck, Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University

“This work is immensely valuable in many respects—it offers an engaging introduction to a wide range of theoretical approaches that are made accessible through clear prose and compelling real-world examples. Unlike many introductory texts, which present perspectives on law and policy in a neutral fashion, this work offers a vigorous critique of Canada’s legal and regulatory communications framework—a regime that, while neutral in its face, serves to reinforce inequity and preserve the status quo.”
—Lisa Taylor, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, Ryerson University

“Sara Bannerman offers a unique primer on a range of Canadian policy and legal issues pertaining to media and communications; its expansive scope is unparalleled. What especially stands out about this book is its attention to the underlying power structures that shape policy and law, as well as its innovative approach to guiding readers through the process of legal research. This text is essential for anyone interested in how Canadian media and communications are shaped by law and policy.”
—Tamara Shepherd, Communication, Media and Film, University of Calgary

“Canada’s rapidly-changing communications system requires thoughtful analysis of both long-standing and emergent issues, from intellectual property law to telecommunications policy. Synthesizing decades of research and legal precedent, Dr. Bannerman unpacks core debates from various theoretical and normative standpoints, paying close attention to power relations and systemic bias, and offering readers a framework to engage in policy research. This is a valuable resource that connects communications policies with the lived experiences of the diverse individuals and groups who make up Canadian society.”
—Rob McMahon, Communications and Technology, University of Alberta

 

Summary

This essential resource examines the central issues in Canadian communication policy and law, including freedom of expression, censorship, broadcasting policy, telecommunications policy, internet regulation, defamation, privacy, government surveillance, intellectual property, and more. Taking a critical stance, Sara Bannerman draws attention to unequal power structures by asking the question, whom does Canadian communication policy and law serve?

The in-depth discussions consider fundamental theories for analyzing law and policy issues, such as pluralist, libertarian, critical political economy, feminist, queer, critical race, critical disability, postcolonial, and intersectional theories. Accessibly written and featuring further readings, a glossary, and a chapter on legal and policy research and citation, this book provides a superb introduction to the field for students in media studies and communications programs, while also synthesizing advanced critical analysis of key problems in Canadian communication policy and law.

 

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1: Whom Do Law and Policy Serve?
Chapter 2: Introduction to the Canadian Legal System
Chapter 3: Freedom of Expression and Censorship
Chapter 4: Defamation
Chapter 5: Privacy
Chapter 6: Government Surveillance
Chapter 7: Intellectual Property
Chapter 8: Telecommunications Regulation
Chapter 9: Broadcasting Regulation
Chapter 10: Internet Regulation
Chapter 11: Access to Information
Chapter 12: Legal and Policy Research and Citation
Conclusion
Glossary
List of Acronyms
Bibliography
Index



Tuesday, April 17, 2018

My Questions for Facebook at Canadian Ethics Committee

On Thursday, Kevin Chan, Global Directeur and Head of Public Policy at Facebook Canada, and  Robert Sherman, Facebook's Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, will appear before Canada's House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Here are some questions I would ask them, if I had the chance:
  • Political parties’ use of Facebook
    • What data have Canadian political parties’ had access to through parties' past and current Facebook apps?
      • Basic Facebook data (names, photos, and email addresses)?
      • Phone numbers, location?
      • Call and text history?
      • Events and check-ins?
      • Likes?
      • Interests?
      • Political affiliation?
    • Do Canadian political parties, or other third-parties, use any ad targeting techniques that might cause concern?
  • Privacy
    • What third-party personal information (such as data Facebook purchased from data brokers or other outside companies) has Facebook acquired about Facebook users? 
      • Consumer data?
      • Purchase histories?
      • Credit records?
    • What are shadow profiles, and how does Facebook create profiles about people who are not users of Facebook?  
      • How can people who are not Facebook users opt out of being profiled, or give their consent to being profiled?
    • How can Canadian Facebook users access, correct, and delete that third-party personal information and users' surfing data (obtained through Facebook social plugins, analytics, the Facebook Pixel, or the Facebook Audience Network)? How can Canadians who are not Facebook users access, correct, and delete that third-party personal information and surfing data?
    • How long is third-party-obtained data and users' surfing data retained?  When is it deleted? 
    • Who is the designated person at Facebook who Canadians can contact to obtain their personal information or to correct it, and what is the contact information for that person?
  • Election Integrity
    • Facebook has announced that it supports the US' Honest Ads ActIt has also promised a public archive of ads (similar to what I suggested in a recent op-ed), to be ready in June.  A crowdsourced archive has also been announced by the CBC.  To confirm, will the Facebook ad archive be made available in Canada?  When?  Will  it expand the current election integrity initiative so that: 
      • the archive is publicly available to those not logged in to Facebook?
      • the archive is searchable: 
        • by party and/or candidate;
        • by issue?
      • the archive contains not only currently-running ads, but also all past ads?
      • Will it contain: 
        • a description of the targeted audience;
        • the amount spent on the ad;
        • impressions delivered; and
        • demographics of audience reached?
  • Facebook's relationship with Canadian political parties
    • What sort of services, sales, training, or advice have Facebook employees or contractors provided to Canadian political parties?
      • Have Facebook employees or contractors provided training on how to use your service to target users, or to create apps? Please describe.
      • Have Facebook employees or contractors provided advice on how to use your service to target users, or how to create apps? Please describe.
      • Where were Facebook employees or contractors who offered services, sales, advice, or training located? Were they in Canada? 
      • Have Facebook employees or contractors ever been embedded in Canadian political parties' campaigns? Has any Facebook employee dedicated more than 25% of their time to any one Canadian election or leadership campaign?
      • What was the billing structure for these services?
    • How are Facebook's relationships with political parties' campaigns kept separate from Facebook's policy efforts, such as Facebook's position on network neutrality or on  Canadian privacy legislation?  

Thursday, November 10, 2016

What does a Trump presidency mean for media and communications?

Have American media helped elect a president that will contribute to the decline of press freedom?  Yes, they have.  Trump's presidency also may mean the end of net neutrality, the rise of internet tracking, and the rise of alt-right-wing media.

Trump has derided mainstream media and journalists as dishonest and corrupt.  As Justin Peters comments, "He represents a group of people who see a strong independent press not as a necessary check on accumulated power in America but as a bothersome impediment to the accumulation of that power. And he will almost certainly use the office of the presidency to bring the press to heel."  His opposition  to journalists goes beyond derision and antagonism to threaten its very freedom; Trump is known for suing journalists and he has threatened to "open up" libel laws to make it easier for public figures to sue the press:
One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.
Journalists and media outlets have only begun to ask what approach and tone they will take in their coverage of Trump.  Will their approach be conventional and traditionally adversarial, or oppositional?  But the threat of libel lawsuits and the decline of advertising dollars could restrict their scope of action.

Trump has opposed potential mega-media mergers while favouring alt-right media and social media.  He has expressed opposition to mergers between AT&T and Time Warner, and Comcast and NBC Universal.  His opposition to free trade could impact foreign (and especially Chinese) investment in Hollywood and US content producers (Lieberman).  Meanwhile, alternative media like the Breitbart Report, which supported Trump, are now set to expand internationally, seeking to "monetize the anger and anti-immigrant sentiment unleashed by Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign"  (Flitter).

Trump's presidency will affect the leadership and composition of the FCC.   It will mean a change of leadership, as the chair traditionally leaves office when a new President is elected.  Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel may have to step down at the end of the year if her re-nomination is not confirmed by the Republican majority Senate.  The balance of power in the FCC will shift Republican  (Silbey).  Broadcast attorney David Oxenford has speculated that this well  mean “a lessening of the regulatory burden on broadcasters" (McLane).

Trump has opposed net neutrality, siding with ISPs over Amazon, Netflix, and other services (Glaser).  This could make it easier for ISPs to charge internet companies like Netflix for faster speeds.  Trump's presidency could also lead to the overturning of recently-passed regulations that require ISPs to obtain explicit consent from their subscribers before selling their data to marketers (Glaser).

As on many policy issues, Trump has said little that indicates his stance on intellectual property, other than complaining about Chinese theft of American intellectual property (Standeford).

American media have contributed to the rise of a president who could change the entire landscape of media, press freedom, and the communications industry.

More reading

Journalism

FCC Regulation

Net Neutrality

Monday, October 19, 2009

CRTC Net Neutrality report

The CRTC has announced that it plans to release its policy statement on Net Neutrality this week.

Friday, February 20, 2009

The CRTC & User-Generated Content

In announcing the New Media hearings back in October, the CRTC placed upfront its position on user-generated content. It said, "the Commission is not concerned with user-generated broadcasting content. That is, the Commission does not seek to inquire into the content, quality
or availability of material created by individual Canadians in a personal capacity."
It seems that the CRTC is not interested in regulating what people post on YouTube. While this is reassuring, the Commission's lack of concern with user-generated content also seems out of step with what the Internet is all about and what seem to be some of its most exciting opportunities.

YouTube at one point announced that it would pay for user-generated content. Google lets users generate revenue through its ad services. It seems that these types of models, that treat user-generated content as potentially valuable, attractive, and on par with other types of content, are the way of the future.

Ira Wagman proposes an idea:
What would happen if the CRTC brought down a levy on ISPs to a create a fund that any Canadian could access to produce works for new media -- not just those who do this for a living? Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it?
There may be fears that models that reward user-generated content may not work to sufficiently provide high quality content. Bruce Dinsmore of the online series Tetes a Claques argues:

While there is no question amateur videos can entertain and inform us, they alone cannot be relied upon to share the important stories that Canadians want to share and tell. For that we need high-quality, professionally produced content, including scripted drama," Dinsmore said. "If we want a wide array of content produced we need new sources of funding.

The CRTC's attitude towards user-generated content means, however, that Canadian voices - Canadian user-generated content - don't count as "Canadian content". If the CRTC creates a new media fund it will be geared towards whatever the CRTC considers to be professional content. If the CRTC decides to make 'shelf-space' for Canadian content, it won't be a space for the kind of online democracy we might think the Internet opens doors to; it will be 'shelf-space' for traditional Canadian broadcasts - similar to the kind we see on TV.

As Ira points out, this would involve an attempt by the CRTC or delegated body to try to define an increasingly blurry line between professional and user-generated content, and, in the case of a levy, to define how proceeds are distributed. Such schemes are never satisfactory and are always open to contestation. Take the example of the blank tape levy; at a time when the Conservatives have mused about stepping away from the long-contested levy approach (also here) to copyright regulation, is this the direction in which the CRTC wishes to move? (Of course, there is also the prospect of an ISP copyright levy..., which would mean two levies... or more) Is there any reason why funds for new media production could not continue to come out of general government funds rather than through a rather contestable model that treats ISPs as old media broadcasters? Why involve ISPs in content-production funding?

The levy issue raises interesting questions with regard to net neutrality. It produces the prospect that ISPs could be required to pay content producers through a levy while content producers, should net neutrality arguments fail, pay ISPs for priority carriage. Sounds like an incestuous nightmare to me.

The CRTC might find itself attempting to shore up a gap between user-generated content and professional content; stopping up the exciting potential that the Internet offers when it acts as a common carrier and places user-generated up-and-coming content in direct competition with professional content; and trying to sort out back-and-forth payments between content producers, collecting societies, and ISPs.

Friday, September 12, 2008

US Presidential Candidates on IP Issues

IP-Watch has a good article (subscriber only) on the US presidential candidates' positions on IP issues. Industry associations like the Business Software Alliance, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the International Trademark Association are hot on the campaign trail.

A quick summary of the candidates' positions on IP:
  • On copyright:
    • Obama wants greater enforcement and copyright reform. He thinks the Bush administration should have done more to pursue enforcement cases at the WTO. He also supported Creative Commons licensing of presidential debates. (Update Sept 22: he has Harold Varmus, advocate of open-access research, on his team of scientific advisors)
    • McCain wants to crack down on piracy
  • On patents:
    • Obama suggests reform of the patent system, which would create a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge while also ensuring that "where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity."
    • McCain argues that "too much protection can stifle the proliferation of important ideas and impair legitimate commerce in new products to the detriment of our entire economy." McCain wants to provide alternatives to litigation in resolving patent challenges.
  • On net neutrality

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Fee for service?

Debates are underway on Capitol Hill about whether telecom companies who provide Internet service should be allowed to charge extra fees to internet companies to guarantee specific levels of service (today's Financial Times: Telecoms and internet groups clash on charges, p. 6).

Opponents to the fees say that telecoms will use the fees to hinder access to certain Internet services such as Voice-Over-IP services that compete with their own offerings - a claim the telecoms deny.

Opponents also say that these types of fees will make it more difficult for newer companies to reach an audience.

I know that I want an Internet on which it is as easy as possible to access all the little start-ups - not one where start-ups have to pay to reach me. And I don't want to pay extra to be able to reach certain services like VoIP. I want an Internet that allows me to access any service I want - I don't want to have to pay extra to access this one or that one.

A good article on this topic can be found on the BBC web site.