One of the reasons I’ve been hanging out more in the physical world is that I was working on the submission of the Community Radio Fund of Canada (CRFC) to the CRTC Policy Review for our sector. One month and 22 pages later, here we are. And more than 100 stations, organizations, private broadcasters, governement agencies, and individuals submitted their thoughts as well. More information in the CRFC posting below.

CRFC Participates in Review of Campus and Community Radio
Friday, 16 October 2009

In July 2009, the CRTC launched a review of its Campus and Community Radio Policies. The CRFC filed its comments today outlining the funding reality of the sector and some possible solutions to help lessen its financial stresses. The CRFC is recommending a funding model for both the campus and community radio stations and the CRFC that includes funding from the federal government as well as Canada’s private broadcasters and distributors.

You can read the CRFC’s comments here as well as view other comments submitted here.

The CRTC hearing for this process will begin on January 18, 2010.

I like to keep an eye on things around Net Neutrality, but I will certainly leave it to the experts to put forth some thoughts and opinions about the recent CRTC Decision on this issue.

CRTC Sets Net Neutrality Framework But Leaves Guarantees More Complaints
Michael Geist
Wednesday October 21, 2009
The CRTC’s net neutrality (aka traffic management) decision is out and though it does not go as far as some advocates might hope, it unquestionably advances the ball forward on several important fronts. When considering the decision, it is important to remember that 12 months ago, there was virtually no ISP disclosure of traffic management practices and even an unwillingness to acknowledge that there was an issue. Today’s CRTC decision signifies that traffic management is not a free-for-all and the days of ISPs arguing that they can do whatever they please on their networks is over. That said, it also guarantees that traffic management practices such as throttling will continue and it is going to take more complaints to concretely address the issue. READ MORE

Net Neutrality Developments
Marie Elliott, SaveOurNet.ca
According to Michael Geist, the Canadian government should take some initiative and aid the complete enforcement of net neutrality in Canada. Now that a policy has been created regarding net neutrality, the government needs to make sure that ISPs are following this framework correctly. Geist mainly places this task in the hands of Industry Minister Tony Clement. Geist thinks that Clement should become more engaged in the issue. Fortunately, Clement has stated he is “watching those [Internet Service] providers very closely and [does] not want to see a situation where consumers are put at risk in terms of their access to the Internet.” READ MORE

Net Neutrality in Canada Still a Work in Progress
Michael Geist
Monday October 26, 2009
The release last week of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s report on Internet traffic management – known as the net neutrality decision – attracted national attention. Canadians, Internet service providers, and politicians debated whether the regulator had struck the right balance in addressing how ISPs manage Internet traffic. While some headlines seemed to suggest that the CRTC has given Canada’s ISPs the green light to do as they please, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the reality is that the decision establishes several notable requirements and restrictions, but leaves the door open for further action from the government. READ MORE

CRTC dropped the ball on net neutrality: Charlie Angus
Decision leaves consumers and users out in the cold
(From a news release dated Thursday, October 22, 2009)
OTTAWA – Yesterday’s CRTC decision on Internet traffic-management practices is a blow to the future of digital innovation in Canada, said New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay). The decision allows Bell and other giant Internet service providers (ISPs) to throttle the internet traffic of competitors or end users if they see fit. This interference will be bad news for small third-party competitors and leaves consumers subject to digital snooping and interference from cable giants. Angus said the CRTC has once again failed to stand up for the public interest. “Basically the CRTC has left the wolves in charge of the henhouse. ISP giants have been given the green light to shape traffic on the internet in favour of their corporate interests,” he said. “This decision is a huge blow to the future competitiveness of the internet.” READ MORE

Did the CRTC just crap the bed on Canada’s net neutrality decision?
Wirelessnorth.ca
The answers so far are no, yes and maybe. Depending who you ask. Brush up on the announcement and initial reactions here: Peter Nowak has excellent coverage today of the CRTC call (long time coming) on net neutrality in Canada. Michael Geist and Ars Technica offer some balanced opinion. What everyone seems to agree on is that CRTC’s framework is reasonable, and is highly progressive relative to where the debate was just a year or more ago. We’ve argued in the past for economic solutions to ISP capacity which is what the CRTC is also stressing. READ MORE

The Open Internet: It’s for everyone
Marie Elliott, SaveOurNet.ca
Free Form created a video about keeping the Internet free and open, and how this will benefit people everywhere. Check it out!

Net Neutrality FAQ: What’s in it for You
Tim Greene, Network World
PCWorld
The FCC has approved a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality, and here are a few questions and answers to help shine a light on what that means. (See “FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules“) What exactly did the FCC do? The FCC agreed to consider what regulations, if any, to impose on ISPs about the applications and services that they allow, ban or rate limit. The process calls for formally proposing rules and holding public hearings on them. A vote about the rules themselves will take place sometime next year. READ MORE

GroundWire is a twice-monthly dose of grassroots, independent journalism from the campus-community radio sector of Canada. It is a project of the National Campus and Community Radio Association (NCRA). This edition of GroundWire was supported by a grant from the Community Radio Fund of Canada and produced by volunteers in the studios of CJLY in Nelson, BC. Visit the GroundWire website or download it through the NCRA’s Program Exchange.

The HEADLINES:

• Omme Salma Rahemtullah (CHRY Toronto) speaks with Stephen Moses, a striking employee and the Bargaining Unit Chairperson of Canadian Auto Workers 1000, about the Zellers/HBC strike in Scarborough, Ontario
• Catherine Fisher (CJLY Nelson) talks with Alexis Allen, President of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union about the September 22 strike vote by Nova Scotia Community College employees.

This edition includes two STATION REPORTS:

• Vivian Park (CJSF Burnaby) asks NCRA Vice President External Stephanie Kepman a few questions about the CRTC’s upcoming Campus and Community Radio Policy Review.
• The 2010 National Campus and Community Radio Conference will be held on Gabriola Island, BC. Kelly Price (CKGI Gabriola) chats with Gabriola Radio Society Board Member Kathy Ramsay about how the conference is shaping up. She also speaks with GRS Board President Ken Zakreski about Rogers Media’s application to the CRTC for the last available frequency in the region.

The FEATURES:

• The Vanrad Collective talk with Paulina Walton, who, along with other residents of the Golden Crown Hotel, has recently been served an eviction notice. Kim Kerr, executive director of the  Downtown Eastside Residents Association suggests this eviction has much to do with the upcoming 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver.
• Amber Hieb (CHLY Nanaimo) speaks with Paul Manly, a Nanaimo-based independent filmmaker about the SPP, and North American integration. Manly’s new film is ‘You, Me and The Spp: Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule’.

The MUSIC:

• The September 25th Edition of GroundWire features music by Kathleen Yearwood, The Sinuses, Rabnett 5, and Tamara.

Important issue here, folks. Thanks to a recent CRTC decision, we could see fewer choices of Internet service providers, higher prices, and slower speeds.

Check out Competitivebroadband.com. You can:

• Join the movement
• Read the background on the issue as well as the Top 10 reasons the decision should be reversed
• Write a letter (your own or template is provided) to the Industry Minister, Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and your MP (search provided)

SaveOurNet.ca also wrote about this in their post Businesses Stand Up for Broadband Competition.

Here’s a few highlights from Competitivebroadband.com.

A recent decision by the CRTC has the potential to cause major disruption in the internet service marketplace. Fortunately, the decision can be reversed by the federal cabinet, if voices like yours are heard. Here’s the issue in a nutshell.

… Once these networks were built, and the telephone companies were very well established, the federal government put in rules to help create healthy competition. One of these rules was to require Bell and Telus to allow competitors to connect to their networks, at prices that were regulated by the CRTC …

… The CRTC’s recent decision would destroy this framework. It would allow companies like Bell and Telus to set whatever prices they choose for competitor access to their networks …

… If this decision stands, we can all expect massive price increases designed to choke off competition. One way or another, we foresee higher prices, lower service standards, and little if any innovation …

The CRTC announced the creation of a Local Program Improvement Fund (LPIF) in October 2008 (starting at paragraph 355) to help support local television programming in small/rural/remote areas. This summer, the CRTC also announced that it was increasing that funding. To help support the increase, an on a temporary basis, cable and satellite companies will be paying a small percentage of their revenues into the LPIF (1.5%).

However, these cable and satellite companies are imposing an increase on everyone’s bill. I would like to think that was not the CRTC’s intention.

CTV, one of the largest private broadcasters in Canada, is calling for regulation of billing practices. They will be bringing this issue up during CRTC hearings this fall. If you want to pass along your comments to them, then visit savelocaltv.ctv.ca. I’m not entirely sure, but I think the public hearing that CTV is referring may be Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-411. I believe the deadline for comments has now passed (August 10), so getting your comments in to CTV may be a good way for you to be heard.

Congratulations to Low Power FM (LPFM) stations and supporters in the United States!

——–

Broadcasters lose in court over low-power FM radio
By Matthew Lasar, Ars Technica

Supporters of low-power FM (LPFM) radio won a victory on Friday when a federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit to stop the Federal Communications Commissions from protecting LPFM stations from full power station signal interference.

“This is terrific news for the low power radio community,” declared Sakura Saunders of the Prometheus Radio Project, which helps LPFMs. “Now, these stations can focus on serving their local communities, rather than live in fear of displacement due to the whims of their full-powered neighbors.”

On the other hand, the advocacy group that defended the LPFM service was circumspect about the win. “The decision in the courts merely protects the status quo,” noted the Media Access Project in a statement sent to Ars. “Congress still must pass legislation to allow more low-power FM stations to operate nationwide.”

There’s also the question of how to ensure the funding these stations need to more effectively serve their signal areas. More about that later, though. First let’s look at the nuts and bolts of this case.

Read the rest of the article for the full story.

Have I mentioned how much I love COCo lately? I have? Well this is more public affection. Nonprofit and charity-minded folks who like policy will love these snippets from COCo’s latest newsletter.

————

Finally, at COCo, we are committed to not only providing legal information, but also reflecting critically on the legal systems and structures as they currently stand. In that spirit, this month, we’d like to call your attention to an important consultation by the Canada Revenue Agency. The agency is seeking public feedback on their proposed Guidance on the Protection of Human Rights and Charitable Registration. As we have discussed before in COCo e-bulletins and at events, many organizations have trouble obtaining or maintaining their charitable status because of the advocacy work they do. Other organizations are muzzled in their ability to advocate for social change because they can’t afford to lose their charitable status. The public consultation on the proposed guidelines is an opportunity for community organizations to comment critically on some of the guidelines put out by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Please see http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/cnslttns/ghrg-eng.html for more information on the Canada Revenue Agency’s consultation.

The Canada Revenue Agency’s Consultation on Proposed Guidance on the Protection of Human Rights and Charitable Registration is only ONE piece of the charitable registration puzzle. There is ongoing concern in the Canadian community sector about the number and type of organizations NOT receiving accreditation and the low limits for advocacy work allowed by registered charities. To get a sense of the ‘big picture’ issues around charitable status and limits on advocacy work (or “political activities”) by charities, check out “Charities and Democracy: Election Kit” (prepared by IMPACS and available at http://www.pacedmonton.com/artsvote/election_kit.pdf).

To get a sense of the even bigger picture, and the more progressive stance taken by other governments such as the U.S.A. and the U.K., read: “The Law of Advocacy by Charitable Organizations: The Case for Change” (http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/impacs/law_advocacy-e/law_advocacy-e.pdf).

A full summary of the UK’s policy can be found at “Speaking Out- Guidance on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities” (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/CC9.asp#15).