Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- John Michael McGrath highlights how the COVID-19 B.1.617 variant represents a serious threat to the prospect of safely relaxing restrictions over the summer. And Morgan Modjeski reports on the COVID outbreak at the Pine Grove Correctional Centre.

- D.T. Cochrane highlights a few of the major Canadian corporations which have seen massive windfalls as a result of the pandemic. And Grace Blakeley warns that we can't expect the temporary response to the coronavirus to represent the end of neoliberalism.

- Michael Geist has been reviewing some of the problems with the Libs' C-10 regulating online broadcasting - including its application to individual users as well as the tech giants, and its incompatibility with net neutrality. And Nikolas Barry-Shaw makes the case for nationalized telecommunications as an alternative to the cartel which controls communications infrastruction across most of the country.

- T. Cameron Wild et al. find strong support among the Canadian public for harm reduction sites. But Alanna Smith reports on the UCP's latest decision to slash life-saving services first and maybe consider developing an alternative later.

- Finally, Angela Wright discusses the lingering effect of discriminatory urban planning in the U.S. and Canada.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Doreen Nicoll makes the case to reinstate the basic income plan eliminated by Doug Ford in Ontario. Danielle Kurtz examines a few of the ideas being proposed by U.S. Democrats in the lead up to the 2020 presidential campaign (including their own basic income model), while Steven Vogel comments on Elizabeth Warren's arguments to reduce inequality at the predistribution phase. And Brian Dew proposes a "people's dividend" drawn from the growing concentration of unneeded corporate cash. 

- Kristin Annable reports on one Manitoba patient's discovery that chemotherapy pumps used for her treatment are regularly left uninspected. 

- Amanda Vyce discusses how a national public pharmacare program may be the only way to ensure a fair deal for Canadians in light of extended monopolies over biologic medicines.

- Finally, Takashi Tsuji and Yasu Ota report on a further push through WTO structures to hand corporations the ability to keep crucial information secret regardless of any public interest. And Rodrigo Samayoa reminds us why corporations can't be allowed to throttle neutral access to the Internet:

For years, Big Telecom has been telling us that the internet requires greater flexibility to innovate and invest in the new 5G networks that will allow us to safely ride self-driving vehicles and use remote health-care apps.

We have heard this from Verizon, AT&T, Bell, Rogers and Ajit Pai, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. But none of that is surprising, is it?

Of course they want greater flexibility. Wouldn't they love to charge you extra to hook up your car to the 5G network or charge insurance companies more for remote health care?
...
If Canada is to remain at the forefront of innovation and freedom, we need a robust net neutrality framework that doesn't benefit those with deep pockets and vested interests. How could a streaming startup or non-profit news service compete with the likes of Netflix and Google News in a world where your access to broadband is determined by how much you can pay?

For that matter, what guarantees are there that broadband access to telehealth apps won't be determined by how much you can pay?

In the United States, evidence of throttling by ISPs is already evident, even when it comes to first responders. Just last year Verizon throttled the "unlimited" internet connection of a California fire department in the middle of a catastrophic wildfire.

Is that the flexibility we need for net neutrality?

New column day

Here, on the latest threats to a free and open Internet for Canadians.

For further reading...
- Again, Canadaland broke the story of Bell's push to make regulatory restrictions on website access a default answer to copyright issues here, while the FairPlay scheme is here (PDF). Michael Geist discussed some of the problems with Bell's position, while OpenMedia is leading the charge against it. And Sameer Chidra reported on the implicit response from the CRTC's Chris Seidl.
- Matthew Braga reported on Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien's push for a right to be forgotten by multiple means. And both Geist's response and David Fraser's previous submission are worth a look in analyzing the proposal.
- Finally, Marianela Ramos Capela discusses what should be a far larger issue - being the impact of high prices on general access to basic information services.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ryan Avent discusses how wage stagnation is harming U.S. productivity - and how a shift toward empowering workers could be the solution to both:

If low wages are indeed inhibiting productivity, what can we do about it? A large corporate tax cut is unlikely to help. In an economy in which large firms enjoy market power while workers have none, such cuts will raise stock prices and dividends rather than wages and investment. Big increases in the minimum wage would certainly give companies an incentive to automate, but at the cost of jobs for the most vulnerable workers.

A better strategy would be to shift power from companies to workers, to allow workers to bargain for a bigger share of the gains from growth. Keeping companies from getting too big and too dominant would make a difference by increasing the number of companies competing for workers and the competitive pressure they face to maximize worker output.

Making it easier for workers to unionize would improve productivity, too. A strong labor movement, were one magically to appear, could bargain for higher pay, potentially pushing firms to invest in workers and new technology.

Perhaps most important, we should not allow a low unemployment rate to fool us into thinking that labor is scarce. The Fed should wait for much faster wage growth before taking steps to slow the economy. Governments at all levels should make sure that schools and agencies are fully staffed with qualified workers. And Congress should turn its attention to public investments, rather than counting on tax cuts to motivate private ones. Large-scale infrastructure spending would increase the economy’s growth potential while creating good jobs. So would concerted efforts to make postsecondary education as accessible and affordable as possible.

- Katie McDonough reports on the confirmation from U.S. executives that they plan to hoard the proceeds of any Republican tax giveaway. And the New York Times' editorial board discusses how a bill which can't be explained as anything but a service to greedy donors reflects unacceptable inequality in both wealth and political power, while Jared Bernstein focuses on the distortionary effect of big money in politics in arguing for public financing.

- Andrew Jackson writes about Canada's own persistent wealth inequality. Zoe Williams comments on the juxtaposition of massive corporate bonuses handed to executives who have enriched themselves and their shareholders by keeping housing unaffordable for people. And James Bloodworth offers a look at some of the regions of the UK which are being left behind.

- Finally, Zaid Jilani and Evan Malmgren each discuss how the end of Net neutrality in the U.S. may represent the beginning of a push for publicly-operated internet service providers.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- PressProgress points out Statistics Canada's latest numbers on Canada's extreme wealth disparity - with 60% of the population owning only 10% of the wealth while a lucky few amass gigantic fortunes. 

- Jordan Brennan discusses how a lack of labour conflict has led to low levels of both wage increases and inflation while ensuring that productivity gains accrue only to the wealthy. And Harrison Samphir examines how Skip the Dishes is one of the poster children for the suppression of workers' rights and interests through precarious work arrangements.

- Darryl Greer notes that the Paradise Papers have shed new light on the use of offshore tax havens. But Marco Chown Oved and Robert Cribb report that federal and provincial finance ministers are electing not to set up a publicly-accessible register of beneficial ownership to reduce the secrecy behind corporate holdings.

- Somini Sengupta reports on the massive amount of food which gets wasted (up to a third of what's produced around the globe, and more than that in wealthier countries), as well as the greenhouse gas emissions dumped into our atmosphere in the process.

- Finally, Christo Aivalis points out how the net neutrality debate should lead us toward a broader discussion of social goods in contrast to capitalist exploitation:

(W)hy does the NN debate matter for the Canadian left specifically, and the general left more broadly? For Canadians, it matters because while NN in Canada doesn’t appear to be under assault from the current government, ISPs in Canada have been emboldened by the victories of their corporate analogues south of the border. Further, the fight against NN has been recently picked up by former Industry Minister and runner-up for the Conservative leadership Maxime Bernier. In both Bernier and the ISPs views, NN is little more than state interference into the rights of consumers and companies alike.
This is where the socialist moment reveals itself on the question of Net Neutrality. While many defenders of a free internet have made the argument that NN is actually the free-market capitalist way to run the internet, and the non-NN position is a ‘crony-capitalist’ bastardization, the reality is that opponents of NN are sincerely defending the ideals of liberal capitalism. They are quite correct—by the letter of capitalist law—that ISPs should be more than allowed to partner with certain websites to prioritize bandwidth to that site, or should be allowed to flex their market muscles to restrict access to their competitors’ holdings.

Here’s the crux of the issue: many people see capitalism as synonymous with the free market. But what this episode has shown us, more than anything else, is that the free flow of information exists not because of capitalism, but in spite of it. Capitalism is not a system of free exchange; rather, it is a system of profit maximization for those who own the capital. In some cases this may coincide with what are understood as free markets, but in a great many cases capitalists profit most by restricting the freedom of others, be it their workers, their consumers, or democratic institutions.
...
The fight for Net Neutrality is but the first salvo in a longer battle over the age-old debates about democracy. The left has to realize that the first stage of this battle is on easily winnable grounds. Capitalists and their ideological brethren have lined up to fight NN as a barrier towards their profit-making enterprise, and socialists can make the case that if capitalism means antagonism to the very concept that manifests a free internet, perhaps the owners of private industry shouldn’t be trusted with other important aspects of our daily lives. Winning this second stage—questioning the undemocratic ownership of major industry in general—is a harder slog altogether, but it must be won. We cannot have a democratic society where the internet is either constrained by ISPs, or dominated by a scant few companies. We cannot choose. The people—either directly or through their duly elected representatives—must control their own public venues, and in the 21st century, the internet is undeniably one of those most important public spaces... 
...
This is a great opportunity for democratic socialists but only if the message is cast consistently and thoroughly that the fight for Net Neutrality is in reality a battle against capitalism’s logical conclusions.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Linda McQuaig discusses how Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau and the federal Libs are focused mostly on further privileging the rich:

There’s lots of lamenting about the way the rich keep getting richer while ordinary folk struggle to keep their heads above water. Along with the lamenting, there’s usually some resigned muttering about how it’s all just part of today’s global economy.

But there’s a much simpler explanation: our governments keep passing laws that make the rich richer and ordinary citizens poorer.

An example of this is currently being played out in Ottawa as the Trudeau government — ostensibly a “progressive” government that champions the middle class — is moving forward with legislation aimed at stripping away pension benefits from potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.
...
The Trudeau government defends its proposed changes on the grounds that workers must “consent” to having their pensions converted to the new riskier format.

But this is like the “consent” given by women who get groped by a powerful boss; employers can get their unionized workers to “consent” by locking them out if they don’t agree to the pension change at the bargaining table.

Certainly, Trudeau and Morneau seem comfortable with today’s corporate mantra that workers can no longer count on things in the new economy. Learning to live with risk is the new black.

The corporate keenness to foist riskier pensions on their workers is not driven by necessity. Corporate profits have risen significantly in recent years, even as companies have switched to the stingier pensions that transfer all risk to employees.

Even fabulously rich corporations are adopting the new pensions — not because they can’t afford to pay workers fixed pension benefits like they used to, but because they’d rather not be obliged to do so.
...
Risk may be good for those lower down the ladder, but for those at the top, guaranteed lifetime abundance still apparently has its place in the global economy. 

- And Cristobal Young points out that a look at actual evidence strongly challenges the claim that high-wealth individuals will leave jurisdictions with more progressive tax structures.

- Nick Hopkins notes that the UK Conservative government is choosing not to crack down ton tax avoidance, preferring instead to inflict austerity measures on the people with the least. And Jim Tankersley discusses a union-led push to test whether corporate tax giveaways will be passed along in the form of wages as claimed by Donald Trump and his band of merry looters (in the full knowledge that there's no plausible reason to think they will).

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board discusses why net neutrality is essential for consumer and business fairness, while Colin Horgan writes that the U.S.' policies may have a profound influence far beyond its borders. And Michael Byers makes the case that Canada should ensure the protection of net neutrality as part of its NAFTA bargaining position.

- Finally, Jonathan Thompson maps out the U.S.' hundreds of pipeline spills over just the last two years. And Erik Heinrich notes that it's far from clear who will ultimately foot the bill for spills in Canada - and that even pipeline proponents may have no interest in going ahead with projects if faced with the environmental risk.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading...

- While I agree with Murray Dobbin's latest to a point, I'd think it's worth clarifying exactly what kind of fight we can and should expect from the NDP over the next four years.

To the extent one considers a "culture war" to mostly involve the U.S. issues normally linked to the term (abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.), I'd think the deciding factor in the NDP's strategy will be the Cons' actions. And while any attempt at backsliding in those areas needs to be met with a furious response, I wouldn't see the NDP getting any further than the Libs if it tries to focus on them at the expense of what's being discussed by the Cons and the media.

Which means that for the sake of clarity, I'd think the better term for the NDP's ideal plan is a "values war" - consisting of a clear clash of ideas including, but not limited to, what's normally considered to be cultural conflict. And I'll certainly agree with Dobbin that the measure of the NDP's success will be its ability to build a movement to overcome the one the Cons have developed on their side of the spectrum.

- Will Verboven highlights some of the extra costs of tearing down the Canadian Wheat Board:

The privatization of the Australian Wheat Board has set a bad precedent of what might happen once monopoly powers are removed. That marketing entity couldn't compete, was subsequently sold to private companies and has disappeared. Most anticipate a similar fate will face the CWB once its monopoly powers are removed.

Time will tell if eliminating the CWB monopoly will put an extra dollar in a grain grower's pocket. Those located far from the U.S. border and seaports will find their grain shipping costs dramatically increased. And as with so many surplus farm commodities, producers may well find themselves competing for the lowest price. At least the CWB was able to mitigate and average out that all too usual practice.

The surefire loser in this change will be the taxpayer. When the U.S. launches its inevitable trade actions against an anticipated flood of Canadian grain into American border grain elevators, it will be the Canadian government that will have to pay the bill to fight those actions, not the diminished CWB.

The CWB also carries liabilities of millions on past sales that went bad, and of course, it carries employee pension and severance liabilities that could exceed $100 million. The government may try to prop up a new CWB to avoid facing those realities, but somehow you just know the taxpayer will be on the hook. I guess for a few, it's a small price to pay for one of the founding ideological goals of the Reform and Conservative parties.

- Michael Geist continues his coverage of the CRTC's net neutrality/UBB hearings with this observation:

While the arguments about network congestion from dominant providers such as Bell remained much the same, as the week wore on it appeared the commission was beginning to realize that congestion claims may be overstated and being used to mask fears of competition from the independent ISPs.
...
The CRTC commissioners appear to have recognized that proposals based on limiting the volume of Internet use are not only bad policy — discouraging Internet use benefits no one — but are ineffective in dealing with network congestion. The reason is that the amount of data consumed has very little to do with whether the network is congested.

Consider a four-lane highway that can comfortably accommodate 24,000 vehicles per day. If the vehicles are spread evenly at 1,000 per hour throughout the day, there is no traffic congestion. But if 20,000 of the vehicles attempt to use the highway over a four-hour period, the highway becomes very congested during that time frame. The aggregate volume of traffic may be the same, yet the congestion implications are very different.

The same is true of networks, which can be used to capacity without congestion concerns.

It is only when there is simultaneous demand — called peak periods — that there is the prospect of congestion and the need to augment the network. Pricing to peak periods is precisely what the independent ISPs have proposed, noting that volume pricing hurts their competitive flexibility and does little to address congestion.

After years of debate, that message may finally have resonated. In her questioning of Bell, CRTC Commissioner Candice Molnar said, “We all, I think, can hopefully agree that there is no marginal cost to using the network when you are not causing augmentation.”

- Finally, Erin picks up on the fact that the TILMA which the Wall government promised not to sign is has been entirely rolled into Wall's WEPA.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Kai Nagata's post on why he quit his job as a reporter is well worth a read in full. But let's particularly note his observations which may apply just as much to many other jobs as to positions in the media (even if the restrictions on public speech likely aren't spelled out as clearly):

I have serious problems with the direction taken by Canadian policy and politics in the last five years. But as a reporter, I feel like I’ve been holding my breath. Every question I asked, every tweet I posted, and even what I said to other journalists and friends had to go through a filter, where my own opinions and values were carefully strained out. Even then I’m not sure I was always successful, but I always knew at the CBC and subsequently at CTV that there were serious consequences for editorial. Within the terms of my employment at CTV, there was a clause in which the corporation (now Bellmedia) literally took ownership of my intellectual property output. If I invented a better mouse trap, they owned the patent. If I wrote a novel, they got a cut. Rhymes on the back of a napkin? Bellmedia is hip to the jive, yo. And if I ever said anything out of line with my position as an “objective” TV reporter, they had grounds to fire me. I had a sinking feeling when I first read that clause, but I signed because I was 23 and I wanted the job. Now I want my opinions back.

- Erika Shaker points out how a lack of precision in defining the middle class has eased the way for policies which promote inequality at the expense of people who likely self-identify with the term:

The distribution of wealth has shifted, but the self-identification as middle class has not; if anything, identification of and with the middle class has expanded to include more people than ever. And rather than political leaders addressing the vast disparities across the economic spectrum, we hear how their policies will benefit the “middle class” when even a cursory analysis reveals the real beneficiaries of many of these policies are those with much higher incomes (the very upper crust of the middle, so to speak).

So, for example, we’re told the middle class will be the beneficiary of income splitting, when they really mean families (with kids) making over $125,000 a year—the richest 20%–who still self-identify as middle class.

In spite of the “middle class” framing, tax policies are being used to help enrich the already most affluent. Meanwhile, everyone else labouring under the false impression that they are part of the middle class that politicians are talking about is left wondering why at the end of the day the so-called middle class-friendly numbers don’t seem to add up for the people who need the most help.

- Michael Geist highlights the CRTC's continued ineffectiveness in enforcing the principle of net neutrality:

The Commission unveiled its Internet traffic management practices in October 2009, establishing enforceable guidelines touted as the world’s first net neutrality regulations. Where a consumer complains, Internet providers are required to describe their practices, demonstrate their necessity, and establish that they discriminate as little as possible. Targeting specific applications or protocols may warrant investigation and slowing down time-sensitive traffic likely violates current Canadian law.

While there was a lot to like about the CRTC approach, the immediate concern was absence of an enforcement mechanism. Much of the responsibility for gathering evidence and launching complaints was left to individual Canadians who typically lack the expertise to do so. Nearly two years later, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) posts an investigation into the system that reveals those concerns were well-founded.

Although the CRTC has not publicly disclosed details on net neutrality complaints and the resulting investigations, I recently filed an Access to Information request to learn more about what has been taking place behind the scenes. A review of hundreds of pages of documents discloses that virtually all major Canadian ISPs have been the target of complaints, but there have been few, if any, consequences arising from the complaints process. In fact, the CRTC has frequently dismissed complaints as being outside of the scope of the policy, lacking in evidence, or sided with Internet provider practices.

- Finally, Cracked's article on the most disturbing examples of corporate capture is well worth a read.

Monday Evening Links

Content goes here.

- Andrew Jackson notes that there's more than one way to eliminate a budget deficit - and that the NDP is on the right track in its choice of ways to get there:

As Mike McCracken says in a short note included in the NDP platform, major changes in the mix of spending compared to the current fiscal plan would likely give a boost to job creation. The big items in terms of job creation are significant tax credits to business for job creation and real investment in place of no strings attached tax breaks; the major green jobs package; and modest funds allocated to child care and other services which would create new jobs while meeting caring needs.

While it is fiscally cautious, the New Democrat platform does point to a better way to bring down the deficit, through job creation rather than through spending cuts.

- Robert Silver nicely sums up the reality surrounding the Cons' attempts to pretend that some undisclosed and inaccessible auditor general's report will rebut the thoroughly damning draft released today:

Stephen Harper’s spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, among other Conservatives, alleges that the final report tells a very different story.

In the midst of an election campaign, this is what we call all-in poker. If Mr. Soudas et al.’s version of events is accurate and the report exonerates entirely the Conservative government, there is zero chance that the report will not be leaked by the Harper camp today. What, is Stephen Harper suddenly paralyzed by Parliament and its rules? Really? “Oh, I would really, really like to release a report that I have a copy of that exonerates me and saves my now-floundering election campaign; but damn, those rules of procedure won’t let me.” Yes, this sounds like the Stephen Harper that we all know and love.

Or – and it is kind of binary with these Conservatives – the final report is bad news for Mr. Harper just like the draft report is. It doesn’t exonerate the Tory Leader at all. If that’s the case, then not only does Mr. Harper have the substance of the report to deal with but the subsequent spin that will make it so much worse for him.

- It never hurts to give voters a low-effort way to participate in the election campaign. And the NDP's Spot a Senator project should nicely serve to harness the power of public interest to call attention to unelected nonrepresentatives using our money to boost their parties.

- Jesse Brown asks whether any Canadian political party is appealing to the tech-savvy voter. Cory Doctorow provides the answer.

- And finally, Murray Dobbin discusses how the Harper Cons' brand of consumer-based and cynical politics builds on decades of efforts to distance citizens from the governments who are supposed to respond to their interests.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your mid-week reading.

- Today's wild guess: the word from Tony Clement's birthday party is in fact a shrewd bit of reputation management, with the hoped result of ensuring that future searches for "'Tony Clement' + 'census' + 'bad joke'" don't turn up the likes of this. We'll find out soon what scenario the Cons' spin-meisters come up with to take the sting out of "wet-lipped halfwit".

- Meanwhile, the war on accurate data continues, as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute echoes another of the Cons' rightly-derided positions in complaining that StatsCan bases its numbers on crimes actually reported rather than making up higher and scarier figures.

[Update: pogge has more.]

- Yes, it's possible for a political party to stand up to the latest in dumb-on-crime policymaking. And for its MPs to offer up useful proposals on the issues Canadians care about most. You just won't tend to hear much about it.

- Finally, Tim Wu nicely sums up why we shouldn't buy the big telecoms' argument about wanting to limit bandwidth use through usage-based billing:

The knowledge that penalties await heavy Internet usage does something quite terrible: discourage desirable behaviour. Most of Bell’s arguments for treating consumers as wrongdoers rely on the villainization of “bandwidth hogs” who use up everyone else’s bandwidth and generally bring misery to the land. But there are better words for big users of the Internet: “pioneers” and “innovators.” A nation that spends its time worrying about bandwidth caps is not a nation that leads.

What’s worse, it’s all quite unnecessary. Different people do use the Internet in different amounts. And there are, in fact, perfectly reasonable ways to deal with variable demand. Operators can offer faster connections for those who want more and offer discount plans for light users. An ongoing bandwidth limit is much preferable to a monthly cap. But Bell has shown interest in none of the reasonable solutions to its so-called congestion problem. Rather, it wants a system of penalties, and wants its wholesalers to be forced to go along with the scheme. Like credit-card companies, it actually wants customers to make mistakes.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Pogge rightly calls out the "supportive stakeholders" who are eagerly giving up any credibility in order to serve as spokesflacks for the Harper Cons:

At least three major business organizations -- the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Trucking Alliance -- quickly issued statements praising the framework agreement Friday.

So these three groups aren't just self-interested lobby groups. They're quite happy to collude with the Conservatives to keep secrets from us. That pretty much confirms their willingness to be dishonest in their dealings with the Canadian public and eliminates any credibility they may have left. Don't be surprised to see me link back to this post any time that John Manley of the CCCE or Perrin Beatty of the Chamber of Commerce open their mouths in public. I'll assume from now on that any public statements they make are part of another conspiracy to deceive us.

- For all the justified criticisms of the Cons' plan to axe per-vote party funding, I don't see much reason to think Nik Nanos is right in theorizing that the result would be a two-party system. Instead, based on the historical information which Alice has already assembled, the main effect would look to be a very slight expansion of all of the current gaps between the national federal parties - which is much of the reason why I don't see it making sense for any of the opposition parties to go along with the plan unless it's more focused on fighting off the parties in the rear-view mirror than trying to advance its standing.

- Shorter Sun editorial: we must prove our independence from the U.S. by taking its orders to buy F-35s!

- Though in fairness, the Cons' stubbornness is at least resulting in some winners in Canada.

- Finally, David Beers points out one of the largest problems with the current usage-based billing debate:

This week, we heard small Internet service providers say that what the big telecoms want to charge for “extra” gigabytes used is 10, even 100 times more than the actual cost. Big telecoms also have other motivations to discourage you from downloading Netflix – by charging a lot, they can then offer a discount on their own movie download products. Or nudge you back to their broadcast television properties.

So how much is too much to charge? Sadly, as we’ve learned, the CRTC itself can only base its decisions on cost estimates provided by the big telecoms, because there is so little independent auditing in this area. We won’t know until what a Globe and Mail editorial called the “black box” of Internet infrastructure costs is opened to public view. Then maybe we’ll know why South Koreans pay a fraction of the cost for 10 times the bandwidth we get here.
...
The very way in which we address these issues needs profound reform, to be opened to the light of debate and scrutiny. Until then, the regulators of Canada’s digital future have lost the public trust.

On responsibilities

Iain Marlow comes close to the point when it comes to usage based billing. But let's push forward to a full recognition of what we should expect when the CRTC sets its policies:

Lawrence Surtees, the lead telecom analyst at research firm IDC Canada, points out that the cost to transport each byte is constantly falling – especially on fibre cables, buried in bundles of multiple strands. Of the CRTC’s average monthly download rate, which companies argue could strain their networks, Mr. Surtees says, “That’s nothing; one fibre strand can carry more than that per second.”

And this is where the question of Internet metering hits a logical brick wall that most people tend to forget. Internet service providers are for-profit, publicly traded companies with responsibilities to their shareholders. CEOs of the country’s phone and cable companies would be fired if they didn’t capitalize on exploding bandwidth usage. Not forcing metered use on their small rivals, something they already do on their own customers, would inevitably hemorrhage customers to their rivals.

Even as Mr. von Finckenstein said he would review their decision, he stood by the idea of a metered Internet. “Usage-based billing is a legitimate principle for pricing Internet services,” he told the MPs. “We are convinced that Internet services are no different than other public utilities.”

But unlike gas and electricity, which are consumed and disappear, the amount of bandwidth being used simply swells and contracts in the carriers’ pipes. The cost to transport a gigabyte can be lower than a penny, though Bell charges between $1.50 to $2.50 for each gigabyte you go over your plan – a fee that varies not by time of day, but whether you are in Ontario or Quebec.

Of course, it's absolutely true that the biggest ISP's responsibility is to try to wring every dollar they can out of their networks, even if it means charging completely disproportionate rates to their customers and third-party providers alike.

But it's equally true - and equally important to remember - that it's the job of the CRTC to regulate those same ISPs in the public interest, rather than prioritizing the freedom of big telecoms to wring every cent they can out of their dominant position. And the current outcry over UBB looks to be providing exactly the type of reminder needed to get our public institutions back to that task.

Sunday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Michael Geist rightly points out that the current protests over usage-based billing only scratches the surface of the artificial limitations on Canadian access to the Internet:

While addressing the CRTC decision is a good start, Canadians will be disappointed — some even surprised — to learn that Internet “metering” is already almost uniformly in place. The “caps” are the existing and common provider limits on usage, above which you are billed extra. They are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, what ever the CRTC decides after its review.
...
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that Canada stands virtually alone with near universal use of caps and our cap rates are set lower than those elsewhere. For example, while U.S. giant Comcast has a 250 gigabyte per month cap, some Canadian providers have caps as small as 2 gigabytes per month.

The caps are already having a consumer impact. Bell admits that about 10 per cent of its subscribers exceed their monthly cap (resulting in an extra charge), a figure that is sure to increase over time. The effect extends far beyond consumers paying more. The extra cost has a real negative effect on the Canadian digital economy, harming innovation and keeping new business models out of the country.

- The CCPA's Hugh MacKenzie notes that the political pressure on Ontario's government to focus on deficits rather than jobs figures to have serious ramifications for the province's economy.

- The Cons may be so accustomed to being able to force whatever they want through Parliament as to have forgotten they can't always run rampant over all other interests. But the decision concluding they aren't allowed to ignore the purposes of a law in issuing ministerial edicts looks to be major step in the right direction.

- Finally, Johann Hari's discussion of UK Uncut looks to provide a great model for progressive protest. But it's also worth asking the question of how the same enthusiasm can be channeled at times when there isn't such a strong connection between generous treatment of business and immediate cuts for everybody else.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- Declan's summary of a paper on the structural causes of inequality by Michael Kumhof and Romain Ranciere is well worth a read:

(The authors) posit a shift in bargaining power (think decline in unionization rates, offshoring of jobs, etc.) from a working class (95% of the population that earns its money from wages) to an investor class (5% of the population that owns most of the capital) and then assume that the extra revenue coming to the investor class as a result of their improved bargaining power is lent back to the workers. This allows the workers to maintain their relative share of consumption, and provides an additional source of income for the investor class.

Over time, the debt level of the working class increases and the vulnerability of the system to a debt crisis increases along with it.

The authors find that widespread defaults during a crisis will help by reducing debt levels of the workers, but because the underlying cause is left unaddressed (the lack of bargaining power for the workers), this is a weak and short-lived solution, with crises repeating regularly. The quicker, more sustainable solution is measures to restore the bargaining power of the workers so that the incentive for workers to borrow and investors to lend is removed or at least reduced.

- And Ralph Surette joins the crowd looking to get started in rebalancing the relative power of the public and the corporate elite:

(M)any a credulous, manipulated or ideologically driven government has ruined its public finances by chowing down on neo-con propaganda about tax cuts that date back to the Reagan-Thatcher era. New Brunswick is one. So are the U.S and Ireland, to name a few. Need we all go over the cliff?

But this is not just about the best way to stimulate the economy. It’s about whom our governments serve — the public interest of democratic nations, or that of a swiftly rising global aristocracy of money. This new nobility’s power and reach was revealed in the U.S. recently as even the outrageous Bush tax cuts couldn’t be allowed to expire, thanks to a "grassroots" political movement actually funded by right-wing billionaires.
...
In terms of the dynamics of the upcoming budget and whether the opposition should or will defeat the government on it, that falls into the ambiguous muddle of our minority politics. The best solution for the moment would be for the Harper government to back off and suspend the cuts. But good luck with that. According to the latest news, the Conservatives are gearing up to spend $6.5 million to promote their tax cuts.

The polls tell us that as many as nine in 10 Canadians believe these cuts have gone far enough, if not too far. However, if this view does not move relative support for the parties, leaving the likelihood of a result much as we have now, we have a failure of public will, and the fractured opposition will have no choice but to muddle through as usual. If Harper and his new world order are allowed a free romp on this one, it will be another sad note attached to the state of our democracy.

- And even one of the contributors to Worthwhile Canadian Initiative notes the role corporate taxes can play in minimizing some of the disconnect between corporate interests and public ones.

- Interestingly, the latest Canada/U.S. border security agreement (or at least the council on regulatory issues to the extent it actually turns out as advertised) seems to be more reasonable than most similar announcements, as it actually involves addressing specific identified trade irritants rather than simply assuming that all government measures ought to be outlawed to the extent they might affect profit-making opportunities. But Thomas Walkom rightly notes why it may mean less than the Cons want us to believe - even if he probably overstates the case:

Integrated production — indeed, globalization itself — depends on the ability of companies to ship commodities cheaply over long distances.

In the heyday of NAFTA, energy prices were low enough to allow this. As long as oil was relatively cheap, it made economic sense to truck auto parts from all over North America for assembly in Windsor.

But as economist Jeff Rubin and others have pointed out, in a world of permanently high oil prices this logic no longer holds.

In this new world, it makes more sense to grow food close to where it is eaten and to produce commodities near their end users.

Countries where labour costs are strikingly low, such as China, will still be able to overcome the energy cost barrier.

But in those like Canada and the U.S., where labour costs are roughly similar, long-distance, integrated production is destined to become a thing of the past.

- And finally, Tabatha Southey provides the definitive take on usage based billing:

Overage charges amount to a disincentive to using the Internet. The charges that would been levied once the user surpassed his or her 25-gigabyte data-transfer cap are essentially a “sin tax” on Internet usage – and the problem with that is we’re all about to become big-time sinners.

We all need to become big sinners and e-gluttons at home and in our business, in fact, or other countries without these sin taxes will trounce us while we’re “only checking our e-mail” like Internet puritans. If we really don’t have the infrastructure to support more sinning, then we need to get on that right now.

Telecoms, I don’t think the answer is scapegoating independent ISPs, with their 3-per-cent market share, for your apparent inability to deliver the product you sell. The number of people checking their e-mail and walking away is dwindling. Soon, just using the Internet to check your e-mail will be like turning on the radio only to catch the time signal, as if you were saving up radio for a rainy day.

Either the major telecoms think that Canadians must sharply curtail their Internet use because it’s “everyone panic!” time in Canada – in which case we’re essentially telling the world that we have the equivalent of tech breadlines – or we’re right to be going back to the drawing board.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday.

- Pogge rightly notes that the cover-up coalition of the Cons, Libs and Bloc has successfully managed to ensure that the Afghanistan documents ordered to be produced by Parliament remain safely buried - and points out whose position is looking more and more astute as a result:

May I once again commend Jack Layton and the New Democrats for walking away from this bit of political theatre. After the supposedly historic ruling by the Speaker in support of parliamentary supremacy, the Libs and the Bloc have joined with the Conservatives in turning the whole thing into a farce.

- Abacus' latest message poll looks to provide yet more evidence that the Cons' party line is sounding less and less plausible among the general public.

- Presumably the Cons' MPs are under even an even tighter muzzle than usual (to the extent that's possible). But if a story is going to be based on nothing but finding "signs of rattled nerves" in the absence of any evidence, would it really be that tough to get somebody to talk about defending a vulnerable Con seat as well rather than referring only to opposition parties?

- Finally, the Cons' decision to respond to public pressure by declaring that the CRTC's decision to allow large ISPs to impose usage-based billing on their competitors will be overturned is undoubtedly for the best. But before the issue fades away, it's well worth noting the hilarity in seeing supposed free marketeers like the National Post editorial board claim without a trace of irony that the fact that large companies have traditionally billed in a certain way should serve as evidence that no other options should be available.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On public interests

As the possibility circulates that the Cons might turn the CRTC into the Fox News North Development Agency, Steve Anderson offers a useful reminder of what the agency has done right:

(T)he CRTC recognizes its own limitations within a highly contested space, and feels political pressure from the Conservative government, which is very cozy with big media and big telecom companies. These companies also bombard the CRTC with their own arguments and narratives. Commissioners attend their conferences, the firms have a small army of lobbyists, and indeed there is a revolving door between the CRTC and industry that means many decision-makers come from the industry they are supposed to regulate.

But recent rulings suggest that the CRTC can do the right thing when faced with public pressure. It is our job to engage the CRTC, to be a force within the highly contested space of media policy, so as to give them the energy to push back against industry and the Conservative government that often acts on its behalf. If the public is engaged en masse, the CRTC can be transformed into the public institution it is supposed to be.

Of course, the CRTC's independence in other rulings will all too likely make it even more of a target for the Harper government than it might otherwise have been. So while it's indeed important to be heard by the CRTC as it stands now, it's equally so to make sure that the Cons can't make irreversible changes as part of their effort to destroy Canada's public institutions.

Credit where due

Others have already mentioned the Libs' declaration of support for the principle of net neutrality - and I'll join in giving them full credit for taking a surprising stand on the right side of the issue. But while most of the discussion so far has focused on trying to push the Cons to do the same as the party who holds power, it's worth noting that there's also another available way to enshrine net neutrality in law.

NDP MP Charlie Angus' private members' bill has only passed the first reading stage so far, but looks to have far more chance of making progress with the Libs onside. Which means that even if the Cons continue to ignore the dangers of allowing ISPs to throttle the content available to Internet users, there's still an opportunity to keep Canada's online presence strong and free.

Can we get that in writing?

With the CRTC set to decide on the future of internet regulation in Canada, Rogers and other ISPs are looking to avoid paying into a fund to support the generation of Canadian content. But their explanation for doing so doesn't exactly fit with their past practice:

Broadcasters and cable companies - again, to no one's surprise - oppose any form of regulation.

Cable companies argue it would be illegal to make the Internet service arms of their companies pay for content - and they have official legal opinions that say so.

"We're a dumb pipe," says Ken Engelhart, senior vice-president of regulatory for Rogers Corp. "We don't know what you're downloading . . . so how can we be responsible for the content?"

Now, Englehart's assertion looks downright laughable given Rogers' history of content throttling or traffic shaping. But can we all agree that it would be a reasonable outcome if Rogers and other ISPs avoid any new levies in exchange for their binding agreement to act as "dumb pipes" rather than controlling what content is available to Canadian users?

Time to be heard

John has a great post up on how the U.S. media conglomerates are looking to use the stimulus bill as an opportunity to tighten corporate control over the Internet south of the border. Which makes for an excellent opportunity for a reminder that we're coming up to another deadline for submissions to the CRTC as to whose rules and interests will take precedence in Canada's online community.

Open Net goals

It didn't even rank as the New Democrats' top policy announcement of the day. But for those of us who are concerned about net neutrality it's worth noting that the NDP's commitment to the issue already set out in an earlier private member's bill is now a formal part of the party platform:

Although Mr. Layton said he will create a new minister of protection, it will not come with a ministry. Instead, the new minister will work with a small staff taken from the industry department and ministry. The NDP promised that the measure entails no new expenditures.

Mr. Layton also promised to cap interest rates on credit cards to a maximum of 5 percentage points over prime, expanding on a promise he has made previously.

The NDP leader also said he would implement a “net neutrality” policy -- essentially allowing Canadians to access the web without restrictions.

At last notice, we were still waiting on a final decision from the CRTC to determine whether or not it would bother doing anything about ensuring that the Internet is available for all kinds of traffic rather than leaving the door open for throttling.

But there's every reason for voters to be concerned about leaving the matter to chance - particularly in the hands of a body which didn't bother to take immediate action when first presented with the issue. And of course any positive decision from the CRTC could itself be overridden by any government which doesn't see net neutrality as a priority. Which means that it's a definite plus for voters to know that at least one of the major parties is committed to ensuring fair access.