Canadians say no to Big Telecom, demand a say on the future of Internet

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

In early February, received word that the CRTC was planning a set of invitation-only meetings on March 23-24 in Ottawa. Entitled "Shaping Regulatory Approaches for the Future," the forum was meant to bring together the "stakeholders" of Canadian telecommunications for "meaningful discussions" on modern regulatory approaches to the telecom industry in Canada. In other words, the meeting was set to be a consultation on the future of Internet in Canada.

OpenMedia criticized the invitation-only and closed structure of the forum and pressured the CRTC to invite the real "stakeholders" in the future of the Internet -- Canadian citizens. The CBC picked up on this message and put the issue to the CRTC. In response, on March 14th, the CRTC expressed its desire to "open up" the forum and invited me to attend.

The CRTC refused to video or audio stream the meeting and imposed Chatham House Rule, which prevents attendees from attributing comments. The forum's organizers argued these rules would better allow invitees to "speak freely" and discuss issues openly. This in itself is telling of the kind of "stakeholders" invited to attend. If the CRTC felt that invitees would pontificate and perform in favour of their special interests, perhaps the commission should question their motives in influencing Canada's digital regulatory future in the first place.

At the meeting, innovators were certainly underrepresented, especially given the topic at hand. It seemed that the discussion could have used more voices from innovative services like Hootsuite and online media projects like OpenFile or The Tyee. It's interesting that this sector was the least represented at the forum, since this is where the most innovation, entrepreneurialism, and economic development is happening.

Though it depends on how you define ‘public interest,' by my estimates, the public was represented by only six people out of just over seventy in attendance. I think organizations that represent the public should be the most represented category, considering we're talking about regulations that will fundamentally shape the way the public uses the Internet.

At one point during the forum, I spoke to a telecom rep that said they had previously worked for the CRTC. This is probably not unique and is evidence of the revolving door between industry and the commission. What was interesting is that, after I tweeted this fact and it caused a stir, people seemed so shocked that I would indelicately point this out to the public. Really, this is the kind of stuff that needs to be publicized.

We can't fix the CRTC's structural problems without finding the cause of those problems. The CRTC's insulation is clearly a problem and the antidote is to ensure its meetings are more transparent and its processes more open and accessible.

This past week, the CRTC wrapped up a landmark public hearing on Internet Metering -- an issue that nearly half-a-million Canadians have spoke out against by signing petition. I attended the hearing and presented before the commission twice. I'm happy to report that at the hearing, I witnessed the beginning of what looks like a shift towards a more citizen-centric approach at the CRTC.

The commission had more individual Canadians make presentations than at any previous hearing. The testimony was authentic and personal, but also remarkably consistent. Canadians want the commission to break the stranglehold big telecom companies (i.e. Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Videotron) have on the Internet in this country. It's time to ensure the Internet is more open and affordable by enabling access to the Internet independent of big telecom.

It's too early to say, but I believe the hearing showed a break in the CRTC's longstanding practice of shielding big telecom at the expense of the Canadian public. The commission finally admitted that there is an Internet affordability problem in this country, and that change is required to fix this dire situation. It appears that when the CRTC takes the time to listen to Canadians, they see things clearer.

We'll have to keep a watchful eye on the CRTC to make sure their rhetoric is backed up by action. But one thing is clear: the best way to safeguard the open and affordable internet is for Canadians to stay informed, engaged and active on these issues. It's working.

Steve Anderson is the Executive Director of

Reach him at:

Media Links is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. You must attribute this work to Steve Anderson, Common Ground,, TheTyee, VUE Weekly, OpenFile Vancouver.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.