Shaw’s Internet Pricing Shakeup

In response to ongoing consumer outrage against Canada’s uncompetitive internet pricing market, Shaw Communications Inc. is introducing new data plans that promise to include higher caps, faster service and even new, unlimited plans. Pressure has been mounting from both the public and politicians over the fees Canadians are paying, among the highest in the world, for broadband provision, a service known to cost very little to provide once infrastructure is set up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Apple’s Bid for Musical Cloud Supremacy

Amazon and Google seemed to have the upper hand in the cloud music service, launching their service months and weeks ago, respectively. But in the latest move in the escalating music cloud battle, it seems like Apple may having the last say. Three of the big four music labels, Sony Music, EMI and Warner Music, have agreed to stream music through Apple’s iCloud service, a feat neither Amazon nor Google were able to achieve prior to their own launches. Read the rest of this entry »

Copyright Dogma and the Denied Google Books Settlement

Professor Ariel Katz, IP professor at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, responds to and discusses the implications of Google’s rejected books settlement in more detail here.

Google’s Book Deal Rejected

A US judge rejected a proposed $125 million class-action settlement between Google and book publishers and authors on Tuesday, complicating the company’s attempt to create stronger ties with media companies.  According to Google, “This agreement has the potential to open-up access to millions of books that are currently hard to find in the U.S. today.”  However, US District Court Judge Denny Chin said the deal was “not fair, adequate and reasonable,” and that it would have allowed Google to profit on books without getting the permission of the publisher. Read the rest of this entry »

AT&T and T-Mobile’s $39 Billion Mega Merger

AT&T has just announced on Sunday a definitive agreement with Deutsche Telekom to acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 billion in cash and stocks. The deal has been approved by the Board of Directors of both companies, but will now have to answer to the American regulators, the FCC and DOJ. If the merger receives regulatory approval, the new entity is set to become the largest wireless service provider in the US, with approximately 125 million subscribers, outracing its nearest rival, Verizon’s 95 million. This would dramatically change the field of competition for mobile phone customers. Read the rest of this entry »

SSRC’s Global Media Piracy Report

Great music knows no boundaries, especially pirated music. Canada’s Social Science Research Council has just released the first independent, large-scale study of media piracy and enforcement in emerging economies, focusing on Brazil, Bolivia, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.   Read the rest of this entry »

Two Upcoming Events

Dr. Ignacio de Leon will be speaking on Wednesday, March 9 and Thursday, March 10, as part of a joint speaker series co-sponsored by the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy and the Law and Development Society. For full details, please click through.

Read the rest of this entry »

Usage Based Billing Concerns

The recent CRTC decision on usage based billing (UBB) and viral concern about internet bandwidth caps have sparked both media interest and public anger. Large Canadian internet service providers (ISP’s), including Bell and Rogers, have had data caps for several years. Read the rest of this entry »

Network Neutrality

The internet has always been hailed as the way of the future, facilitating free speech and economic growth like never before. Its openness has never been questioned. Or has it? Comcast’s, not unexpected, takeover of NBC last week marked the latest checkpoint in the escalating open internet debate. While the merger is certain to transform the entertainment industry landscape, there are also deeper issues brewing. What is at stake can be summed up in a relatively new concept called “network neutrality”.

In simple terms, network neutrality is the principle that access to the internet should be granted impartially, without regard to content, destination or source. Net neutrality is sometimes referred to as the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Comcast Corporation is the US’ largest cable and internet service provider, while NBC Universal is one of the country’s largest and oldest content companies. With a content provider and content deliverer merging, together, they have the potential to restrict the internet people have access to. The internet deliverer, Comcast, can decide to give preference to certain content, NBC’s, charging users a fee to access said content. The fear is that, without network neutrality, there is the potential for deliverers to steer their customers towards certain content providers, or for certain content providers to be available exclusively through certain deliverers.   Imagine if you could only access NBC content if you subscribed to Comcast.   If this were to happen, they would essentially be segmenting the internet.

Of course, last week’s merger did not come without conditions to mitigate against such harms to the market. US’ Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) both adopted network neutrality protections, prohibiting Comcast from favoring the distribution of NBC programming online, as well as conditions preventing Comcast from completely refusing to sell NBC content to competing internet media distributors, like Netflix, and run them out of business.

The FCC’s fight in enforcing network neutrality is broader in scope than merger conditions. They first introduced net neutrality rules in October 2009. The rules essentially banned internet service providers (ISP’s) from discriminating against specific applications and required them to be transparent about their network management. Following a backlash by ISP’s over the FCC’s alleged lack of authority over regulating broadband, and a bit of legal gymnastics, the Commission approved of another set of rules in December 2010. The new regulation provides three high-level rules: transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. Yet with the landmark network neutrality rules less than a month old, Verizon Communications filed the first legal challenge just last week with a federal appeals court. As one of the most vocal opponents of network neutrality, Verizon is arguing that the FCC, again, does not have the authority to enact the new rules.

Some common arguments for network neutrality include the claim that cable companies should not be allowed to screen, interrupt or filter internet content without a court order, that net neutrality ensures that the internet remains a free and open technology, and that it creates a level playing field for innovation and competition.

Common arguments against network neutrality include: if ISP’s have the ability to charge for fast internet service, this would encourage telecommunication and cable companies to invest in fiber optic networks. As well, inappropriate legislation could inhibit ISP’s from preventing email spam and Denial of Service attacks.

Clearly, this issue will not be resolved any time soon, if at all. The idea that something like Gmail can be made available only from one ISP, say Rogers, is admittedly alarming. And ISP’s have always had the technical ability to block users from certain parts of the internet. With the ongoing network neutrality debate, and its ongoing legislative struggles, it is yet to be determined how far that muscle can be flexed. Hopefully, not too far.

Click here for an infographic for further background on the debate.

Canada’s Inadequate Drug Patent Protection?

The Canadian Intellectual Property Council is urging Canada to toughen its patent protection for drug makers if it does not want to lose out on lucrative pharmaceutical investment and jobs to the U.S. and Europe.  According to its recent report, the life of a patent in Canada, once the drug is on the market, is significantly shorter than in any other G7 country.  The CIPC urges Ottawa to give patented drug makers up to five years of “restored” patent life to offset regulatory delays, exclusive use of drug trial data for an additional two years and legal tools to fight patent challenges launched by generic manufacturers.

Strengthening patent protection would not be without its problems too.  New drug prices will go up for consumers, insurers and provincial health plans.  The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA) claims that if the patent changes sought by the industry are realized, it would cost Canadians up to $3billion a year in higher drug costs. Canada’s generic drug industry, along with several provincial governments, would also not see such legislation enacted without a fight.

But are drug regulations and innovation necessarily mutually exclusive?  Ariel Katz, Associate Professor at University of Toronto would claim that they are not.   In fact, he argues that a regulatory framework is not only not solely a burden on the industry, but that it also provides them a valuable service.  His full article can be accessed here.