short answer
Chapter 9
Policy Convergence:
The Government Regulation of Communication
Objectives
To understand:
The different modes of governance employed to regulate the access to and use of new media technologies
The international and national contexts for communication policy
How the Canadian government is addressing governance of new media
The key policy issues currently being debated in Canada
Mythologies: Variations on Theme
With each new technology, prognostications about how it signals the death of “old” media and how it will transform human society
These myths underscore and support ideological positions, which are articulated in policy development
Expose what influences policy-makers in their decisions around technological development
Mythologies: Variations on Theme, cont’d
Five myths:
Technological nationalism
Technological dependence
Technology and industrial structuring
The efficacy of regulation
The gales of creative destruction
Mythologies: Variations on Theme, cont’d
Decisions around communication technology do not spontaneously appear
Communication policy complex because the sector encompasses two sets of values in the struggle for balance:
Use value of communication—the symbolic or normative value of communication in constituting and reinforcing how we think about culture, our communities, and ourselves
The communication sector is dominated by a set of industries grounded in exchange value and, as such, have economic value in their own right
Ideology and Policy-Making
Three ideological approaches:
Liberal pluralism: policy is the result of a competitive process of debate and negotiation between various actors
Neo-liberal approach: the communication sector is like any other sector in the economy, and the best means by which to regulate it would be through the so-called free market
Radical democratic approach: the media system, like all other aspects of society, is marked by structural inequalities—such as gender, race, or class—that limit equal access to resources and to policy structures that regulate those resources
Myth of Globalization
Two broad-reaching myths that shape the direction of policy at both global and national levels, in all aspects of society:
Myth of globalization
Myth of the market
Globalization: a process that embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and power
Myth of Globalization, cont’d
Four types of change are important in understanding the processes of globalization:
Involves a stretching of social, political, and economic activities across political frontiers, regions, and continents
Suggests the intensification of trade, investment, finance, migration, culture, etc.
Growing extensity and intensity of global interconnectedness can be linked to a speeding up of global interactions and processes
Growing intensity and velocity of global interactions can be associated with deepening impact: the effects of distant events can be significant elsewhere and local developments may have enormous global consequences
Myth of Globalization, cont’d
Globalization occurs in part due to the expanding networks of ICTs that underlie the interconnection of global capital and culture
Current myth of globalization impacts power of the nation-state in establishing its own policies related to the development of ICTs and new media
Vertical governance: process whereby decision-making has shifted from internal, unilateral authority of the nation-state to a series of external regional and international bodies, such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization
From National to Global Policy-Making
Myth of the market: greater reliance on neo-liberal ideology in structuring control and access to communication resources
Prioritizes market-oriented processes like commercialization, privatization, liberalization, and financialization
Has led to adoption of different forms of horizontal governance, whereby regulatory responsibility is shifted from sole state responsibility to different arrangements of co-regulation or self-regulation
From National to Global Policy-Making, cont’d
Self-regulation: industry sector establishes its own set of rules and regulations
Often introduced to protect against the creation of government regulations for an industry
E.g., Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) decides on all IP addresses
In liberal democratic and radical democratic approaches to global governance, new media is approached as a set of shared resources, essential for realizing democratic aims
From National to Global Policy-Making, cont’d
Those who view communication as a commodified and private resource also see new media as tradable goods and services
Non-aligned movement: pushed the UN to open a discussion around a New International Economic Order (NIEO)
Creation of a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) under the auspice of UNESCO
Advocated for greater equity in the flow of communication resources globally
MacBride Commission (1979)
World Summit on the Information Society
Push for communication rights re-emerged in the early 2000s as part of the United Nations’ study of the emerging “information society.”
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) (2003, 2005)
Focus narrowed to Internet governance and what role international bodies and national governments would play
ICTs were positioned in terms of their exchange value as tradable goods and services, moving them from the public to the commercial realm (by trade agreements)
Negotiations in Canadian Communication Policy
Influence of the myth of the market applies to the Canadian communication policy arena
Tension between public interest principles, such as diversity of ownership, universal access, and fair uses that are normative founding values of Canadian communication policy
Policy Convergence and Canada’s Digital Future
The last 40 years of policy actions related to the information society demonstrate a shift from liberal pluralism to neo-liberalism
Policy inaction: little is done to bring together legislation and map out a clear direction for Canada’s digital future
1971: Telecommission task force
Policy Convergence and Canada’s Digital Future, cont’d
Early 1990s Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada
Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC)
2002: National Broadband Task Force (NBTF)
2005: Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (TPRP)
Policy Convergence and Canada’s Digital Future, cont’d
Industry Canada: “by 2020, we see a country that boasts a globally competitive digital economy that is driven by innovation and enhanced productivity and generates enduring prosperity”
Policies are becoming more and more closed off from our participation
We are becoming more excluded from the process and from the crucial decisions that affect the wider considerations of social, cultural, and even political implications of how technologies help to shape how we work, live, and play
Ownership
In Canada ownership consolidation has become the norm for the media industries
A number of government bodies and acts of Parliament provide framework for regulation of media ownership in Canada:
Department of Canadian Heritage
Industry Canada
CRTC
Competition Bureau
Broadcasting Act (1991)
Telecommunications Act (1993)
Investment Canada Act (1985)
Ownership Concentration
Canada has one of the most consolidated media systems in the developed world
When companies reach a size that they need not fear the actions of the regulator, the bargain collapses (monopoly power)
Concentration has a negative effect on the viability of local and community media, and has led to massive lay-offs and closures of new bureaus
Foreign Ownership
Existing regulatory system requires Canadian ownership of broadcasting and telecommunication
Advocates of lifting restrictions say liberalizing foreign ownership rules would keep Canada in line with its international commitments and would allow access to foreign capital to expand and upgrade networks
Opponents argue that foreign ownership would shift Canadian communication policy away from public interest imperatives in favour of market forces
Could also lead to the increased homogenizing of media content and loss of local particularism
Internet Infrastructure
Dialectical relationship of public interests and market forces:
Advocates of public interests seek to preserve the principle of network neutrality (principle that network service providers treat all traffic on the Internet equally and without discrimination)
Advocates of market forces favour establishing Internet traffic management practices (ITMPs) to measure and monitor usage online
In Canada, push for regulatory action emerged in 2008
Traffic management policy in 2009
ISPs must fully disclose their ITMPs
Outlawed use of deep packet inspection to assist in throttling Internet traffic
Copyright
Current move to update Canada’s copyright legislation in response to technological change and international obligations
Digital content locks: restrict what people can and cannot do with the media and hardware they have legitimately purchased.
Main goal is to strengthen the rights of copyright holders over digital rights management (DRM) to make tampering with copy-protection measures (e.g., digital locks) illegal, and to make the enforcement of rights through notification measures explicit
Where Are We Going from Here?
Communications industry has restructured itself through digital technology, the Internet, and vertical integration
The p ublic apparatus that governs communications in this country has not been restructured
Dynamic and evolving industry operating under a regulatory system that was designed for a very different environment
Policy debates dominated by neo-liberal goals
Growing public activism both internationally and nationally fighting to preserve public interest principles like universal access to communication resources