Evidence of meeting #89 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Not within our jurisdiction. We obviously implement what's in the Telecommunications Act, and the scope there regulates what's in Canada only.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Coming back to the traffic management practices and the example of the broadcaster using their new media sales capacity to diminish user fees, do you have other potential examples or examples that may have occurred in the United States previously that could one day affect Canada?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Yes. If you go back to the early days, some of the earlier issues were about the phone companies wanting to block voice-over-Internet protocol applications to protect their voice market. There are some cases of that occurring, but it would be clearly offside of our rules right now in terms of traffic management practices.
As I mentioned, in several cases in the U.S. they bundle a set of services together, and you have to get approval to be in that bundle to be exempt from the data allowance. There are those cases out there. India had a big concern with Facebook's Free Basics. They were trying to offer their version of the Internet, and India eventually rejected that solution and went with a stronger net neutrality stance.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
The FCC chair said, in advocating the removal of the 2015 regulation, that it would in fact encourage greater investment, greater growth, with the Internet achieving its full potential. Do you hear that from Canadian companies?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
When we had the differential pricing proceeding, the focus for many of the service providers was that they needed the ability to differentiate their products and make market share. There wasn't a lot of discussion on investment, but clearly, we've heard before as well that we need to.... It's really about money, obviously, and getting the money from the application space to fund their solutions in the marketplace. I think that's where the U.S. is focusing.
Today we have major incumbents, whether they're cable companies or telephone companies, offering Internet. We also have a wholesale regime. They open up their networks to other providers, such as Electronic Box, TekSavvy, or others that are riding on top of those networks. We do have more competition here. They don't have that in the U.S. The two main providers are the majority of the market share in the U.S., giving them even more control over what to charge application providers. Controlling how they stream or provide that content gives them a lot of leverage in that negotiation.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Thanks very much, Mr. Kent.
The next seven minutes are to Mr. Angus.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much.
When my mother was 15, she went to work as a telephone operator. In those days, when someone called in from Boston or Toronto or Vancouver, my mom plugged the little wire in, and that made a connection. I think we see the CRTC and the Internet as an extension of the telephone, when it's not constructed that way at all, correct? The data packets are coming from all over. How information is transmitted from one jurisdiction in Canada to another may not go through a straight line at all, and much of it will be routed through the United States.
What capacity does the CRTC have to maintain the Internet as we know it if the Americans decide to blow the model up?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The commission has the powers under the Telecommunications Act. We have a power under section 24 to impose conditions on carriers if they help to fulfill the objectives of the act. One of the objectives is to protect the privacy of Canadians as well, so if we see that as a real issue, the commission could look at that.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
In terms of the issue of throttling of content that will be going through the American pipes, we're going to be dealing with very large entertainment conglomerates, with their ISP providers in the United States now having a free hand to decide what's moving in those pipes and what's not. Canada's market is smaller than California's, and we're very dependent on what's going through those American pipes.
At the end of the day, is there anything we can do to guarantee that our content is not going to be slowed down or throttled as collateral damage from some kind of U.S. action?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I think having strong net neutrality rules in Canada will give a clear message to the application space that you will have a safe haven here, if I can use that term, in terms of being treated fairly by your Internet service providers. If the jurisdictions are not that friendly, I could see those content providers coming and connecting directly to our Internet providers here in Canada, and you'll see more traffic within Canada.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'd like to think that. My concern is that the Internet was constructed through a very unique history in terms of having all manner of players to create a common exchange of information, which has now become increasingly controlled by a few giants. In Canada, we decided against competition. We decided on very protected markets. We have two, three, or four big providers that run the ISPs and are also content providers. You have rules to keep them in check, but in the United States, they have the same situation times a hundred.
Will there not be pressure economically on our ISP providers if they see that their competitors in the United States are able to start throttling content and offering faster service? Competitively, there's going to be pressure from the Canadian content providers, correct?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Not within Canada. ISPs here compete against each other. They don't compete with the ISPs in the U.S., so I don't see that dynamic playing out in that model. We have rules in place that should enable an innovative marketplace. We have connections with content delivery networks directly in Canada, whereby these providers can peer. Certainly we've seen more and more peering locations show up across the country, and keeping the connectivity within Canada for that content is a very positive sign.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
In the FCC dissenting decision, Jessica Rosenworcel says that this power will give ISPs “the power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content.” It is certainly disturbing, when we see China's move to censor content, if the U.S. entertainment industry decides what they're going to throttle or shut down.
We have, obviously, in Canada.... You said you didn't want to speak about FairPlay, which I understand, but under what terms would the CRTC look at shutting down content here? Is that something you would consider as part of your mandate, and under what circumstances would you start to go after content?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Our mandate, as spelled out in the Telecommunications Act, is really about the transmission and the service providers that provide that transmission. As I mentioned earlier, through the power we have in section 36, nobody can block or influence the content without our approval. We spelled out in our original decision back in 2009 that you can't influence the content from an application such that it's actually blocked, including by slowing it down to the point that it's beyond recognition. That would be offside, and we wouldn't allow that.
I can't speak further in terms of blocking specific sites and content while we have the FairPlay application before us.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you for that.
Finally, my concern is that we know most of the main Internet players are American-based and therefore now under the FCC regulations. Is there a possibility that our use of the Internet is going to be impacted by these corporate changes that are happening in the United States, given the huge power of the United States to control and run the Internet?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It's obviously a huge market and a very important market for all the application providers out there. If AT&T, Verizon, and the other major providers start preferring specific applications to an extreme, causing others to fail, obviously that application space will be affected. It's a global marketplace, so we may see limitations for some of those new start-ups, if you want to call them that, in Canada as a result of the impact of the U.S. market. You would have to see that play out. It's unclear how that would play out.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Have you expressed concerns or discussed with the FCC the potential impact on Canada of the decision they've made? If not, are you expecting to?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Not formally, no. That's not part of our mandate.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Thanks very much, Mr. Angus.
Next up we have Mr. Baylis.
February 6th, 2018 / 9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you. We've talked a lot about the United States. Are there other jurisdictions in the western world that do not impose a net neutrality regime and that are operating as the United States is going to operate?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
There are. It varies by country, and it's very nuanced across the countries. I don't have a specific example that I can give you of one that doesn't have any rules. I've been focused more on those that are supporting net neutrality in that sense, so areas that haven't addressed it yet are probably the ones to look at.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
In terms of what the impacts of the change in the United States would be, I would think that we could look at other jurisdictions that are dealing with this. I don't know them, but you're saying there are others that do not have as strict or as formalized a net neutrality as ours. Is that correct?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Telecommunications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
That's right. I would think, in looking at Canada's net neutrality, that it is probably one of the strongest in the world in terms of addressing all aspects. We started off with the prioritization of traffic, dealing with congestion situations. We moved into self-dealing in terms of your own content, and now we've dealt with paid prioritization and differential pricing with others' content. We've really run the gamut of the different areas that net neutrality touches on.
We've also addressed the privacy item as well. In terms of the spectrum of areas we've addressed, it's there. We haven't got into peering relationships and that marketplace, so anybody can peer anywhere with others. We let that rely on market forces.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal