Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, October 20, 2012

CRTC decision on Astral a sign that regulatory body finally working for consumers

MONTREAL - This week’s CRTC decision to reject a proposed takeover of Astral Media by Bell Canada Enterprises is an early Christmas gift to all of us. Canadians will be nearly as shocked as BCE — although considerably happier — to find that our national telecommunications and broadcast regulator has finally begun to do a little regulating in favour of consumers. In the past, it was a given that this body would give dominant firms like BCE pretty much whatever they wanted, usually in return for face-saving promises like more Canadian content.

But under a gutsy new chair, Jean-Pierre Blais, the commission is finally focusing on what most consumers really want: more choice and better pricing.

That’s a goal that wasn’t compatible with the Bell-Astral deal, which threatened to produce the most intense concentration of media ownership and vertical integration (ownership of both the content and the “pipes” that carry it) in the industrialized world, according to a study by Dwayne Winseck of Carleton University.

From industry analysts to citizen activists, there was an exceptionally wide spectrum of agreement that this was a bad deal for consumers, foreshadowing more limited choice and higher pricing in cable television. And since it also would have given Bell nearly one-third of the entire national market in radio — a rare mass medium that now enjoys broad diversity of ownership — it also would have cut the number of independent voices there.

The bottom line, says Lindsay Pinto of Open Media, a coalition of activists devoted to a more open and diverse media landscape, was this: “Fewer choices, higher prices and fewer channels for free speech.”

Strangely enough, industry analysts have questioned whether this deal was even good for Bell. After all, a key competitor, Telus, has relied on a strategy of sticking to its knitting instead of buying up television assets, and has done rather well compared with Bell.

“I was skeptical of this deal, and also skeptical of their buying the CTV network — both the first and second time,” says tech analyst Iain Grant, managing director of the Seaboard Group. “If they want television programming, why not buy it directly instead of owning a broadcaster?”

Blais, a career civil servant, began sending signals right after his appointment in June that change was coming to the CRTC.

Within weeks, the commission killed a $100-million-per-year “Local Programming Improvement Fund” that was largely passed on to cable subscribers. Then it announced the appointment of its first-ever chief consumer officer, Barbara Motzney, who likely played a role in the Bell-Astral decision. More recently, it responded to widespread complaints about one-sided, incomprehensible cellular contracts, asking the public to offer suggestions for a national code of conduct for cell firms.

Happily, the metamorphosis at the CRTC isn’t an isolated development. It seems to be part of a general push by Stephen Harper’s government to create a more consumer-friendly environment in telecommunications, which has long been subject to antiquated regulatory restrictions that hobble this key economic driver.

Cell service, for example, isn’t just a convenience for consumers; it’s essential in the operations of many businesses. The high prices endured in this country for many years act like a tax on both consumer spending and business activity. After all, the average cost of basic cellular service in Canada is among the highest in the world, Grant and other analysts have found.

That situation has improved a little in recent years, though, since the Harper government loosened up restrictions on foreign investment in telecommunications and set aside some of Canada’s radio spectrum — the resource that enables cellphones to link with each other — for new competitors. Now the big three — Bell, Telus and Rogers — face rivals like Videotron, Wind Mobile, Public Mobile and Mobilicity. These little new cell providers “have done a remarkably good job” of signing up customers, says Grant, but they need still more spectrum if they’re to compete fully.

Unfortunately, that may not happen soon. An auction of additional spectrum begins early next year, but the rules so far don’t set aside the essential spectrum needed by small new firms. It’s a “missed opportunity,” Grant says.

Still, the big picture is considerably brighter than before, with the promotion of competition finally trumping the empty nationalism that locked out foreign investment and stifled consumer interests in past years. “ Says Grant: “I think having an economist as Prime Minister has not been a bad thing.”

Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Jay Bryan

No comments:

Post a Comment