news compass logo
site map
public notice
news
how to respond
forum
search
home page
en français
precedent/previous suivant/next

November 29, 1998

NEWMEDIA-FORUM BULLETIN #5
New Media Forum concludes online citizen consultation on new media

Contents:
1.   Introduction
2.   The state of New Media Forum debate
3.1. Summary Core themes and "threads"
3.2. Compilation of core themes
4.   Citizen questions and proposals
5.   Concluding comments

1. Introduction

The online public discussion hosted by the McLuhan Program E-Lab on behalf of the CRTC received posts from September 22 to November 22. In an historic Canadian first, the complete New Media Forum web site will remain online and form part of the CRTC's official record of proceedings.

In its call for comments in Broadcasting PN 1998-82 and Telecom PN 1998-20, the CRTC announced:

"With this public notice, the Commission initiates a proceeding, under both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, to examine the rapidly expanding, and increasingly available, range of communications services collectively known or referred to as 'new media.'

In this proceeding, the Commission wishes to conduct a thorough public consultation on the broad implications and significance that the new media hold for such affected parties as the developers and producers of these services, those who are engaged in their delivery, and those who ultimately make use of them.

The Commission's purpose is to establish a forum in which interested parties can set out their views on the new media and engage in a constructive discussion about issues of concern. It is the Commission's expectation that, from this proceeding, a comprehensive record will emerge that will provide the Commission with a better understanding of the scope and impact of the new media, the evolving industry structure, and the potential competitive access issues that may affect consumers in all regions of Canada. The Commission also believes that the proceeding will offer Canadians a clearer perception of the potential benefits they may reap from the evolution of new media services, as well as of the economic and cultural contributions of such services to Canadian society.

The Commission wishes to underscore the fact that it brings to this proceeding no preliminary views with respect either to how new media should be defined, or to what role, if any, the Commission should play in their regulation or supervision."

The Commission continued:

"The McLuhan Program E-Lab unit, on behalf of the CRTC, will host a New Media Forum website at http://www.newmedia-forum.net (English) and at http://www.forum-nouveau-media.net (French). The website will allow the public to engage in discussion on issues relating to this public notice. The launch of the site is scheduled for 31 July 1998.

The site will be open for postings on 22 September 1998 and will provide an opportunity for the public to participate in both moderated and unmoderated discussions of the issues addressed in this notice. Acceptable use policies [the civil rules] are posted on the web site; McLuhan Program E-Lab moderators will ensure that a civil discussion environment is maintained and that no material that may be construed as discriminatory, promulgating hatred or obscenity, or defamation of any kind is posted on the site.

In addition, summaries, in both official languages, of all moderated and unmoderated discussions on the site will be made available and will form part of the record of this proceeding. The first summary will be posted, on both the Forum website and the CRTC website, two weeks after the site is opened for posts. Further summaries will be prepared and posted at least every two weeks thereafter. [This publication schedule was adjusted by the McLuhan Program E-Lab.]

The New Media Forum will accept postings up to and including 22 November 1998. A final summary of the postings shall be prepared and placed on the public record of the proceeding before final comments are due. All content posted by the public and all summaries prepared by the McLuhan Program form part of the record of this proceeding."

And finally:

"Following the oral public hearing, interested parties, including those who have participated in the New Media Forum will have an opportunity to file with the Commission final written arguments. These final comments must be filed no later than 15 January 1999."

2. The state of the New Media Forum debate

The New Media Forum moderators posted 375 responses from an estimated 200 individual authors. The less formal Vox Pop (where self-identification was not necessary) posted 160 messages from roughly 145 different authors. Participants were diverse, including women and men, members of various cultural communities, different levels of experience with the internet, and rural as well as urban residents from most provinces. The Forum heard from new media product developers, producers, internet service providers, and users. The number of subscribers to the news lists far exceeded the participants; visitors to the site who watched the discussion without taking part were even more numerous. [A site anaylsis will be filed prior to January 15, 1999.] Major players in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries and government did not take an active part in the forum, and (with one exception) nor did the official groups who speak in the name of the consumer and public interest. Most of these groups did, however, visit or subscribe to the news lists. All identifying information that was not designed to be made public on the site has been and will be kept confidential.

Since the moderated Forum and Vox Pop sections opened on September 22, participants have kept the discussion consistently lively and interesting. Most participants welcomed the chance to offer their 'two cents worth.' Preliminary comparison with other online public consultations shows that this forum did very well in terms of regular active traffic and diversity of opinions, and extremely well in terms of civility among participants, the constructive nature of proposals offered, and the quality of reasoning provided in support of opinions.

As a result, while neither endorsing the accuracy of views nor the opinions of participants, the moderators kept a respectful silence, operating in the background to ensure a civil environment, but staying out of the way of the discussions. Mostly, participants organized and policed their own forum. There were two minor exceptions: first, concerning the f-word. Despite the informality of the site and its language, this word was unwelcome based on a perception that it could make some potential participants uncomfortable and impede the goal of creation of a civil and constructive forum. The moderator decision was to avoid censorship by returning to the sender an entire message where this word appeared, politely requesting an alternative phrasing. No further problems ocurred after the first few weeks online. Secondly, one message that attacked a particular ethnic group was returned to its source, with a note from the moderators stressing the civil rules. This particular message was quite possibly sent due to a misunderstanding of a previous post. Again, no further problems cropped up. The CRTC took no role in these decisions by the McLuhan program E-Lab.

Many contributors stuck to short, blunt messages. Others developed their points at greater length, and sometimes engaged in sustained debates on key topics (called threads). Both types of contributor made their posts count. Regulars appeared, and returned to the site to state and restate their positions. Very occasionally a participant acknowledged learning something from someone else. Rarely did anyone change their position, yet for those who took the time to carry on a more extended discussion, point by point dialogue was the order of the day, not simple repetition. Fresh ideas appeared. Most important, a pattern of sincerely expressed core themes emerged in this online sounding of opinion, always represented by minority and majority positions.

3. Core themes and "threads"

3.1. The Forum discussion deepened substantially over its 60 day life. Core majority and minority themes emerged, including:


3.2. These threads of discussion on the Forum point to persistent concerns identified by citizens. A compilation of comments and positions helps to map the Canadian public mind online during the fall of 1998.

  • Positive responses to the CRTC's willingness to consult citizen views on new media vs repeated challenges to the CRTC's right to conduct a hearing on new media

    Majority
    Most Forum participants welcomed the opportunity to express their views online to the CRTC. The informality and ease of access were appreciated, and the moderators thanked. The Internet medium itself was hailed as a place where free and frank discussion could unfold. Many expressed outrage at the notion that the CRTC might consider regulating the Internet. The frustrated, even strident tone seemed to stem from the perception that government does not listen to citizens. The public knows what the public needs, and government should leave the 'net alone was the majority message.

    Minority
    The CRTC's right to hold a hearing on new media was challenged by some. Among the supporting arguments: the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts do not cover the Internet medium; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section protecting freedom of expression invalidates the CRTC role in content regulation; national law and regulation has no jurisdiction over the global Internet medium; there are other agencies -- such as the Competition Tribunal and RCMP -- and laws -- such as the Criminal Code that overlap CRTC jurisdiction; if taxes are to be levied, the CRTC does not have the authority to do so.

  • Scepticism regarding CRTC ability to regulate the Internet vs the conviction that CRTC must act

    Majority
    The Internet cannot be regulated according to most Forum participants. Reasons include: the Internet is a global medium that crosses and even erases borders; if regulation is introduced in Canada, businesses and consumers will go elsewhere in search of cheaper services and an open climate; Canada could fall behind into an information ghetto if regulation is introduced; as a practical matter, all regulatory measures can be evaded; the CRTC track record does not inspire confidence (with the significant exception of the recorded music industry) and thus the unintended consequences of regulation might be to cripple the new media industry.

    Minority
    Although outnumbered, some participants called for a renewed role for the CRTC. Areas of concern include: child pornography, explicit materials available to children, access, education, spam (unsolicited commercial messages), privacy, potential monopolies, bilingual and French language content, Canadian content, access issues affecting the disabled, and cost of Internet service provision. Some of these issues are taken up below.

  • Opposition to regulation vs certain consistent reservations

    Majority
    Eighty per cent of responses in the Forum, and ninety percent of opinions voiced in the VoxPop opposed any CRTC regulation of the Internet. The Internet is a global, democratic, people's medium, argued many. Government did not create it, and should not interfere with it. Freedom of expression was the majority ground for arguing against regulation. The best approach is education not legislation. Where childen are involved, the strong sentiment was that browsers can be equipped with filters and parents should be educated to use them. Canadians are adults and should not be treated as children by the government or CRTC was the strongest message from the Forum.

    Minority
    Reservations on the question of complete deregulation of the Internet medium are consistently expressed. The threat of exposure of children to explicit content was demonstrated in several posts that recounted the shock of arriving at unwanted content as a result of innocent use of a browser search engine (for example, looking for "Spice Girls"). A fair number of participants viewed access for all as the best solution to all problems concerning the Internet. This infant new media industry requires guidance, not discipline said many. Several participants called for the CRTC to ensure access through a combination of keeping connection costs down, preventing monopolies which would work againt market competititon, encouraging small and independent Internet Serice Providers and also encouraging community public access points. One post, received too late for Forum comment, called upon the CRTC to establish a Universal Access Fund. Most participants expressed opposition to the levy of any taxes or additional expenses which could become barriers to entry for low income consumers, and disincentives for the smaller Internet Service Providers.

  • The position that "new media" equals the Internet vs a broader interpretation

    Majority
    Most participants focused their comments on the Internet, which represented new media at this point in time.

    Minority
    A lively exchange ensued over the question of Canadian content in the packaged software industry, notably CD ROMs. Taking the case of the Canadian Encyclopedia, the question of new media became more broadly one of the digital media environment. From this vantage point, old issues surrounding Canadian culture surfaced in a fresh light, including: the competitive advantage of giant U.S. firms, who make their money in their own market and, if unregulated, simply regard the Canadian market as an extension; the lack of 'shelf space' for Canadian software in an industry dominated by foreign companies; the practices of 'bundling' software with hardware and disadvantages faced by Canadian smaller firms in competing; the greater opportunities for promotion of U.S. product in the English Canadian market in widely consulted trade review publications, relative to the francophone Quebec and the European markets; the call for some form of Canadian content regulations, based on the case for their success at promoting the Canadian recording industry.

  • The view that new media definitions challenge CRTC jurisdiction and existence vs attempts to redefine the CRTC's role in a new media environment

    Majority
    Most participants consider that the Internet falls outside the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts. Some argue that the Internet is like the telephone, and thus should be private with content unregulated. However, there is no consensus on the definition of the new medium. Some argue that the Internet is like publishing, and therefore should be unregulated by the CRTC, subject only to the same general laws that apply to newspapers and the print media. Others argue that the Internet is like speech, and thus should enjoy complete unregulated protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of freedom of expression. Some argue that the Internet is entirely new, and resembles a neighbourhood pub where association should be free and unregulated. Many appear to believe that the Internet may signal the end of other media forms, and the withering away of the CRTC. Based on these positions on the question of the definition of new media, many regard the CRTC's exploration of new media as illegitimate. The reasoning is that since the CRTC is a regulatory agency, if the Commission examines new media it must be so as to regulate it, and find a new role in a new media environment.

    Minority
    Some argue that various forms of the Internet seem like broadcasting. Some regard the Internet as a type of telecommunications because it is delivered via the telecommunications system. Some would see the CRTC encourage access to the Internet for all citizens; monitor the Internet in its infancy to see whether self-regulation is sufficient (and take a hands off attitude now); assist with standard setting, such as the debate over the .ca domain name question (addresses for Canadian sites); watch out for price problems that may affect access; oversee the development of the Internet to prevent unfair competition and monopoly practices; encourage education and awareness; and promote Canadian content.

  • Passionate committment to freedom of expression vs anxieties over child protection

    Majority
    Unrestricted freedom of expression is the key value for many of the Forum participants, outweighing all other rights and freedoms. Every objection was denounced, as a form of censorship, in the name of free speech, which is widely celebrated as the spirit of the Internet. The basis of a democratic society is an unrestricted flow of individual ideas, on this view, which claims a basis in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Clearly this popular interpretation has many online adherents. Free speech is balanced by the notion that as reasonable adults, those who use the new media are capble of self-organizing and self-regulating. The notion (attributed to MP Chris Axworthy) that Internet Service Providers would wilfully carry illegal pornographic or hateful sites and content was strenuously disputed. Pornography will always be available somewhere, argued others. Parents should supervise their children's Internet use, and not expect the Internet to be child-proofed. Canadian content quotas are viewed as a form of censorship.

    Minority
    The most commonly expressed anxiety over the Internet concerned the perceived unrestricted flow of child pornography, and the threat of exposure of unsupervised children to explicit sexual content. The minority taking this stance called for the CRTC to uphold moral values on the Internet, and were more concerned with community standards than the loss of free speech.

  • Conviction that existing laws and regulatory agencies are adequate for the Internet vs a conviction that the CRTC retains a role

    Majority
    Many participants believe that existing laws can be extended into cyberspace without a need for further regulation. Child pornography is illegal, fraud is illegal, and these can be addressed by the RCMP. There were calls for greater training for the police forces, mainly the RCMP, and for a major computer crime unit. Monopolies could be handled by the Competition Tribunal. The Internet Service Providers who participated strongly expressed a desire not to be held accountable for the content on their services, unless complaints were received or a search warrant obtained.

    Minority
    As above, the CRTC was urged to continue a supervisory role, possibly with a new Communications Act that reflected the new media environment. Privacy came up as an isue that the CRTC might look into, as did the issue of pricing barriers for access by low income or remote area residents.

  • Committment to the collective value of public access to the internet vs an unregulated market approach

    Majority
    Most participants are unrestrained in their enthusiasm for the promises of the Internet, if left alone by government. Thus, the solution to many problems with the Internet lies in making possible greater access to the Internet for all Canadians. Canadian content creation, e-commerce, all such initiatives were to seen to benefit from expanding the Internet coverage and participation rate. With one thoughtful exception, which developed a universal access fund model, most participants did not wish to pay for the access of others.

    Minority
    A minority addressed this issue directly, arguing that costs are so low that the concern over access is misplaced; or that if access is desired it is the obligation of the local community to ensure it, and that no cost burden should be imposed on others.

  • Fear of domination of new media by large corporate monopolies vs an unregulated market approach

    Majority
    Persistent concern surfaced over the ability of large monopolies (cable and the telecommunicatins companies were frequantly mentioned) to engage in anti-competitive behaviour, and thus drive out the diverse Internet Service Providers. This issue was viewed by some as the proper concern of the Competition Tribunal, meaning a purely economic and trade issue surrounding the regulation of carriers, where the question of national "content" has no relevance.

    Minority
    Some felt that the market could take care of itself. Big government was the favourite target for participants in this Forum, not big corporations.

  • The hope that an unregulated Internet will provide a people's global democratic medium vs the fear that government will ruin this medium

    Majority
    The state versus the people sums up the majority position. Leave the Internet alone, and it will thrive as the only medium, and only space in the history of human communications where ideas can flow without interference. The passion and depth of this sentiment cannot be discounted.

    Minority
    Beginning with the stance that the CRTC was engaged in some sort of fixed agenda to regulate the Internet, participants in the Forum warned persistently that Canada could be left behind in the information race, businesses would relocate, and citizens would suffer if government dared to interfere with the people's medium.

  • Faith in Canadian ability to compete in a global internet marketplace vs concern for Canadian content

    Majority
    Most participants seemed offended at the prospect that they would need assistance at competing. Making a profit and finding a market was deemed by most to be the pinnacle of cultural and all other types of success. The individual must be allowed to compete, and no barriers must be allowed to stand in the way.The strong message conveyed by most Forum participnats was that Canadians have grown up, and are fully capable of facing the world. Several Francophone participants took the same stance.

    Minority
    Concern over the need to protect specifically Canadian services, whether delivery services (like Internet Service Providers), or software tools and content (like the Canadian Encyclopedia CD-ROM), was a minority position in this Forum. The question of the need to preserve a space where Canadian stories could be told, and where the French language would also find a place came up, but this position was in the minority in the Forum.

4. Citizen questions and proposals

The key question posed by participants in the Forum concerns how CRTC intervention in the Internet will make a positive contribution to the evolution of a global, democratic, people's medium. For most, the answer is that the CRTC should take a hands off approach.

In the emerging online world, participants in the Forum overwhelmingly identify the free flow of ideas, expression and information as the spirit of the Internet. Unfettered free speech has typically characterized a U.S. approach, based on the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. In Canada, there are countervailing protections for collective and minority rights. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of expression is not an unrestricted right. Most participants in the Forum regard any interference with their right to free speech as a form of censorship. They call for a self-organizing, self-regulating medium of communications, where every person can be their own publisher. This online consultation reveals that the majority of participants champion individual rights over all collective protections.

  • Do not impose old ideas on new media, warn participants in the Forum. Some of the proposals advanced during the consultation include:

  • A Web site rating system, similar to movie ratings. This idea found favour with some, but constituted censorship for many more.

  • New media education for all parents, so that they understand how to use software that would block out sexually explicit and other Web sites that they may consider offensive to their children.

  • New media education for police forces, so that they could work with Internet Service Providers to ensure freedom of expression within the bounds of the law.

  • Establishment of a major computer crime unit within the RCMP.

  • A universal access fund was proposed (too late for discussion in the Forum). Most participants however rejected any solution that would increase costs of access.

  • Access to the Internet was viewed as necessary to advance Canada's interests in new media. Public access points should be located at libraries and community centres, or e-mail addresses and computers should be made available for all, suggested a participant. Keeping the costs of access to the Internet down was also proposed.

  • Access was viewed by most as the solution to the Canadian content question, since with more Canadians online, more Canadian content would be created.

  • Promote awareness of Canadian Web sites and new media content argued some, in order to raise the profile of Canadian content globally.

  • The Competition Tribunal should keep a close watch on anti-competitive and monopolistic practices by large companies.

  • Choice is highly prized, whether it be of content or service providers. Ensuring a place for independent Internet Service Providers was seen as important by some. Others felt that the market could take care of these problems.

  • Shelf space for Canadian packaged software products was suggested. Most participants in this Forum however rejected all forms of quotas, which were regarded as protectionism or censorship.

  • Rules on privacy were recommended to encourage electronic commerce.

5. Concluding comments

The McLuhan Program E-Lab at the University of Toronto would like to thank the citizens who participated. We are especially pleased that both anglophones and francophones took part in this bilingual Forum. All those who participated are eligible to contribute final comments to the CRTC prior to January 15, 1999. The E-Lab also thanks the CRTC for the invitation to create and host the Newmedia-Forum web site. A final Bulletin will be issued, prior to January 15, 1999.

For more information please contact:

Dr Liss Jeffrey, director & executive producer
McLuhan Program E-Lab
University of Toronto
39a Queen's Park Crescent East
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1.
admin@bydesign-elab.net


precedent/previous
newmedia-forum bulletin #4
feed-back

site map
suivant/next
schedule of weblication
make a difference online: www.newmedia-forum.net