Yes, a fair question, and I think you're quite right: the Internet doesn't stop with wires; it includes wireless.
Number one, and the CRTC has started that process, you use the powers under section 27 of the act to say that things like exclusivity, giving an affiliated business a preference to advantage you over competitors, is an undue preference. But how you put teeth in that I think is the bigger question. So you need to have a rule against exclusivity across all platforms, because that content has been created by public funding, or it is used.... You know, American programming or foreign programming--that contributes. So it has to be accessible to all Canadians.
The simple thing is an ex ante rule that says exclusivity of programming content from the broadcasting system, whether delivered on a wire or a satellite or a wireless network, is prohibited. This is as a general rule. Then how do you ensure that the vertically integrated carrier doesn't agree to give you the program but at such extortionary terms that exclusivity is pointless? You need transparency into the deals that went on in the past, before exclusivity. You need an arbitration process that is predictable in terms of timeliness, because, as I like to say, there's no point in winning the right to offer the hockey season on your wireless phone if you don't get the decision until baseball season starts. So timeliness is critically important. Then you need the ability of the commission, once they've made their decision or an arbitrator has made the decision, to force compliance quickly. If compliance isn't quick, then the decision has to be filed with the Federal Court so that the vertically integrated carrier knows that if they don't comply immediately, they could be in contempt of court.
If nothing like that works, you can then start talking about fines, but I think most companies at that point usually give up. But you need some ex ante rules to say some things are wrong and they simply will not be done, and exclusivity is a perfect example.