Showing posts with label Telecom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telecom. 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



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

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Geist on The Canadian Telecom Complaints Commission

Michael Geist comments on the new Canadian Telecommunications Complaints Commission, launched yesterday, saying that telecom companies have acted independently on the Canadian Telecom Review Panel's recommendation to set up the Commission, thereby preempting the CRTC's oversight of its creation and related public consultations. The new commission, he says, comes without many of the elements recommended by the Canadian Telecom Review Panel. Such a premptive launch should have been prohibited; instead, the Industry Minister welcomes it.

Friday, April 6, 2007

Bernier decision on local competition

Industry Minister Bernier has reviewed the CRTC's April 2006 decision, which set certain standards that had to be met before regulation of Bell and other major local service provider's local phone service pricing would be ended. Those regulations stopped Bell from raising or lowering its local prices too much or too quickly. One fear was that Bell might lower local service prices drastically, pushing newer phone services from new companies or VoIP companies out of business.
Bernier also announced that restrictions on "win-back" calls (where your old phone company calls you up and tries to convince you to return to the fold) from phone companies would be lifted. Companies were previously prevented from making "win-back" calls for a period of three months after a user switched services.
He has also called for the implementation of one of the Telecom Policy Review Panel's decisions: to create a Telecom Consumer Agency, which would take complaints from consumers regarding telephone services.
These announcements fall in line with the Telecom Policy Review Panel's recommendation to rely to a greater extent on "market forces" and to create a Telecom Consumer Agency.
Bernier's decision is good news several groups. First, it may lead to lower prices for local phone services from Bell and other incumbents. This will benefit people who stay with those big phone companies, rather than switching to some of the newer phone services. For those who switch, the end of "win-back" restrictions might lead to annoying phone calls from the old phone company, but, on the flip side, they might also lead to better offers. Bernier says "in a competitive sector, there is no reason to prevent consumers from getting the best offers."
The creation of a Telecom Consumer Agency will be good news for consumers, as it may be able to pressure companies for better phone service. On the other hand, the agency may not have adequate power to challenge dominant players that will soon be playing at full strength.
Most of all, the announcements are good news to Bell and other major phone companies, who will be in a better position to compete with newer services.
The decision isn't good news for the newer phone companies, who will now have to go up against a unrestrained giants with huge sources of revenue and dominant market positions. This could mean a loss to consumers as well, of innovative services and packages offered by competitors.

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.