October 23, 2005
TPRP Op-Ed from COMS 644
This week, the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (TPRP) will hold their October Policy Forum at the Gatineau Congress Centre. One of the assignments to my Master’s Level graduate seminar in Media Policy at Concordia University’s Department of Communication Studies was for students to write a “Policy Think Piece” on 1-3 submissions made in the first or second round of the TPRP, with specific attention to Section D (‘Canada’s Connectivity Agenda’) of the Consultation Paper. The following opinion piece presents some of the arguments made by students in the class.
The current round of telecommunications policy review is a narrow-minded look at a broad and complex problem. This prestigious panel has been convened to report to the Minister of Industry, and to make recommendations about the future of telecom policy in Canada. The goal is to frame the modernization of Canada’s ICT infrastructure “in a manner that benefits Canadian industry and consumer” (TPRP i.). Immediately, in the panel’s Consultation Paper, the terms of discussion are set. Policy and regulation are to be set up, or dismantled, in a way that optimizes the market function of ICTs. The stakeholders involved are industry and consumers; the word citizen and the phrase ‘public good’ are not to be found in the Consultation Paper. The panel’s documents relate a conception of ICT development that is mainly economic, and very minimally social.
We can see some current concrete evidence with the inclusiveness, responsiveness, and participatory nature of ICT policy-making. This is made evident most specifically in that, despite the calls for submissions, this is a multiple-choice situation wherein certain elements of policy-making are determined to be inherent (such as the importance of access, the need for ICT adoption, etc.). By founding the discussion on these seemingly universal goals, the discussion limits the participation of those who may be concerned about broader questions of government spending, technological advances, and the uses and abuses of ICTs.
The government ostensibly wants feedback from the public–defined as the telecommunications industry, citizens, community groups and NGOs–with respect to Canada’s Connectivity Agenda and ICTs. However, the lengthy list of questions in the document–with an extremely tight deadline–left little time for a truly engaged consultative democratic process to take place. At a time when telecoms are competing intensively against each other for market share, simultaneously merging and competing with each other, issues concerning the ‘public interest’ in telecommunications convergence warrant a much more comprehensive consultation in communities across Canada. Industry, which have paid staff and lawyers already in place to spend the necessary time researching policy, gathering data and writing submissions, is obviously better placed to be able to respond to the request for feedback in its entirety, which a number of companies did, given that the stakes are o high and they have direct financial vested interests in the outcome of these policy decisions. NGOs and smaller community-based groups were often only able to select a part of the extensive list of questions to respond to because of time and labour limitations.
Private Industry Agendas
The language used in the Telus submission hides nothing and is in fact rather blunt. Words and phrases used to describe current policy, the Telecommunications Act, and the CRTC include: “yesteryear”, “out of step”, “old way of doing things”, “backed into the corner”, “archaic regulatory tools”, “tragedy of the current system”, and “institutional inertia.” Words and phrases used to describe the technology and Telus’ conception of the present and future include: “explosion of new access technology”, “new reality”, “new paradigm”, “sea change in consumer choice and technology”, and “new technology sweeping aside all vestiges of the monopoly conditions.” Stating the obvious, it must be said that such language early in the submission frames everything that follows in fairly stark terms. Couple this with the inordinate length relative to other submissions, which includes Telus’ own chronicle of the past thirty years of telecommunications regulation, introduction of Telus’ own chronicle of the past thirty years of telecommunications regulation, introduction of Telus’ own guiding principles for the submission (included more than once) and the curricula vitae of the various experts, and it becomes clear how invested Telus is in any possible influence on the Canadian policy framework for the next ten years. As if chairing the discussion, paragraph 62 states: “The first order of business is to replace the presumption of regulation with the presumption of no regulation.”
Concerning Section D, Nortel follows similar neoliberal economic lines, most notably: promoting private/public partnerships especially where there is market failure – such as implementing ICT networks in remote Canadian locations – calling for the government to step in and industry will follow with technological deployment flare. Nortel feels there is a role for government to play, and that role is as the ICT benefactor: “Governments should drive the adoption of ICTs within publicly funded sectors…” (Round 1 submission, page 32). Discussion quickly leads to a call to arms so to speak, with Nortel suggesting an urgent need for efficiency, competition and economic growth. In their final analysis concerning section D, the company lists how networks “change the way Canadians live, work, and play…” (Round 1, page 32) but there is no mention of how networks change the way we think, behave, learn, grow as communities, or how networks effect the social fabric. Not surprising for a large corporation looking out for profit, but definitely an incomplete vision when applied to Nortel’s motto that it is a company that enhances the human experience. Perhaps the word economic should be inserted between human and experience.
A noticeable omission from Bell’s submission is any recognition of the role of telecommunications outside of market activity; that is, the role of communications as a means by which Canadians determine their social, cultural, and political realities. According to Bell, the ultimate risk of not changing the Telecommunication Act is “stifling investment which would deprive consumers of the benefits of competition (Bell: D, p. 13). In other words, the worst that can happen to Canadians through telecommunications policy is to be deprived of the benefits of private sector competition for improved profitability and market share. Bell’s recommendations for new legislative objectives for the Telecommunication Act speak directly to this narrow concern. A comparison of the proposed changes with existing objectives reveals that Bell wants to delete the express understanding that telecommunications perform an essential role in the maintenance of Canada’s identity and sovereignty, and that the telecommunications system has as a primary objective to safeguard, enrich, and strengthen the social fabric of Canada and its regions. Bell is lobbying for a watershed change in our legal understanding of the role of communications in Canadian society and the degree to which the Canadian parliament should be allowed to make telecommunications policy with social and democratic goals in mind.
Responding to the needs of various communities
The Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) supports the idea that communities can be the not powerful forces in closing the access gap, and truly empowering people in a sustainable manner for ICT use and development. Community groups have already provided connectivity, affordable access, as well as training to citizens in the past decade. In light of this, CRACIN advocates that community groups can be looked to as principal actors in the struggle for access and connectivity. Placing the locus of these activities at the community level also highlights the non-financial social benefits of ICTs.
The Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation’s (NBDC) and the Kitikmeot Economic Development Commission’s (KEDC) submissions point towards using the internet as a tool for self-determination and interaction between Nunavut itself and with the rest of the country. One would hope that these contributions will be treated equally alongside that of Northwestel, as evidence of the use to which broadband can be put in remote and aboriginal communities, and ideally, the need to support capacity-building such that the internet is used actively, rather than consumed passively. However, in this panel’s context it is conceivable that such submissions would merely be used to demonstrate that the North now has internet access, obscuring the need to consider who is using the services, how, and how the access might be best supported towards democracy and the communities’ goals.
The BC First Nations Technology Council submission elucidated that high quality broadband connectivity needs to be considered as basic community infrastructure and a priority of all communities as this technology, when properly implemented, can serve as social, cultural, and economic public goods. The Government needs to prioritize all round development of the socio-economic factors such a lack of potable piped water as well as ICT infrastructure and skills development. Secondly, the Government needs to realize that ICTs are a part of culture and language development through services such as radio over the internet and video conferencing that can deliver cultural support programmes. Thirdly, ICTs are necessary for civic participation in e-government, they provide information through e-health portals, and ensure education in the communities through e-learning. Furthermore, ICTs provide tools not only for social and cultural development, but also for e-commerce that allows especially remote communities to participate on the global market to ensure productivity and economic growth.
Each submission paper was selected for the ideology it would represent: a sample from the Government of British Columbia, the British Columbia Business Council, and a nonprofit activist group, the British Columbia Community Connectivity Cooperative. While each group has varying ideas of how to approach the digital divide, they all believed universal broadband access is a must for the success of the province. There is a great deal of enthusiasm surrounding the provincial project, NetWork BC, whose goal is to connect all of BC’s 366 communities by the end of 2006. With this type of energy surrounding a project, it should be relatively easy to mobilize a good deal of media attention and public action. However, the most striking element of the submissions was the uniform disdain and distrust of the federal government. Each group I focused on, all with different agendas, took the opportunity to criticize the federal government’s lack of agenda, mismanagement of money, slow response times, out-of-touch approach and general ineffectiveness. Each of the groups believes that action by the federal government will be necessary to bridge the remaining digital divide. Whatever framework the federal government designs, it should be with a special eye toward the needs and demands of British Columbians. There is a strong feeling that Ottawa doesn’t recognize the realities of life in BC, and these submissions all took the opportunity to voice an individualized approach to future regulation.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) represents the interests of the largest Canadian cities as well as the 17 provincial and territorial municipal associations. Their submission makes clear the frustration of municipalities with regards to the approach of the CRTC in expanding telecommunications networks using existing municipal infrastructure. Stating that federal policy on the issue has meant “tearing ip Main Street and handing taxpayers the bill,” the FCM argues that the “legitimate federal interest” in telecommunications development must also take into account the “equally legitimate role of municipal government in managing municipal property.”
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Otttawa, believes that the federal, provincial, and local government should offer broadband services in areas where cable and telephone providers have not, so as to guarantee that all Canadians do in fact have access to the services and information available through the internet that require broadband. He also proposes that local municipalities, even in areas where there is the choice of either telco or cable broadband, should present the option of a substitute broadband service that is publicly funded. Stressing the importance of a quick timeframe and the necessity of these services Geist states that broadband access to all Canadians should be available by the end of 2008.
In the end, Womenspace focuses on issues around women and ICTs, but they are issues that affect every member of civic society, regardless of gender. By highlighting the challenges faced by women in the world of ICTs, Womenspace is drawing attention to the human repercussions of an industry-led private/public deal in Canada that is increasingly technologically deterministic. By calling for regulations in privacy, safety for women, local governance and inclusivity starting with the marginalized, Womenspace is calling for a sober look at ICTs and ICT policy. In the end, they are at odds with industry pundits like Nortel, because they are calling for a more democratic infrastructure and a more democratic process.
Professor Leslie Regan Shade, Carol Auld, Neil Barratt, Alison Harvey, Michael Lithgow, Heather Peters, Rachel Miles, Michele Ohnona, Rebecca D. Reeve, Craig Stewart, Nyambura M. Waruingi,
--Submitted October 21 2005
Leslie Regan Shade
504 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa ON K1S 3P1
Tel: 569-5858 (daytime)
Cell: 614-5827 (area code 613)
lshade@alcor.concordia.ca
Posted by shade at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)
March 31, 2005
Review of Network Society by Barney
Alison Powell has published a review of Darin barney's The Network Society in David Silver's Resource Centre for Cyberculture Studies.
Posted by shade at 03:18 PM | Comments (1)
January 31, 2005
Internet Evolution
From Pew Internet and American Life Project
A decade after browsers came into popular use, the Internet has
reached into-and, in some cases, reshaped-just about every important
realm of modern life. It has changed the way we inform ourselves,
amuse ourselves, care for ourselves, educate ourselves, work, shop,
bank, pray and stay in touch. On a typical day at the end of 2004,
some 70 million American adults logged onto the Internet to use
email, get news, access government information, check out health and
medical information, participate in auctions, book travel
reservations, research their genealogy, gamble, seek out romantic
partners, and engage in countless other activities. That represents a
37 percent increase from the 51 million Americans who were online on
an average day in 2000 when the Pew Internet & American Life Project
began its study of online life. The Web has become the 'new normal'�
in the American way of life; those who don't go online constitute an
ever-shrinking minority. And as the online population has grown
rapidly, its composition has changed rapidly. At the infant stage,
the Internet's user population was dominated by young, white men who
had high incomes and plenty of education. As it passed into its
childhood years in 1999 and 2000, the population went mainstream;
women reached parity and then overtook men online, lots more minority
families joined the party, and more people with modest levels of
income and education came online. Full report can be found here.
Posted by shade at 08:47 AM | Comments (1)
January 20, 2005
What a Bummer!
In 1991 or 1992 I wanted to write about the internet but wasn't sure what to say. In one of my first doc classes at McGill I was also asked to write about technology. So I chose a tech I was more than familiar with at that time: the diaper. Here's the paper I wrote and published, What a Bummer! The Social Shaping of the Diaper. It explores the social shaping of the diaper and includes some reflections as well on feminist perspectives on technology.
Posted by shade at 03:03 PM | Comments (2)