Changing the Channel on Canadian Communications Regulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canada’s communications and broadcasting world has changed dramatically in recent decades. And more changes are coming. But our communications and broadcasting statutes and regulations have not kept pace. Technology changes have enabled new services like Netflix that are changing fundamentally how Canadians watch TV. Various technologies now provide broadband access to a worldwide ocean of Internet content, with different wireless and wireline platforms competing for subscribers. Yet Canadian regulation of the communications sector still rests on a model born in an earlier era of over-the-air television broadcasting and technological constraints that inhibited competition among communications carriers. A recently announced federal government review of Canadian communications and broadcasting policies should ask specific questions about current policies: Does the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication’s (CRTC’s) regulatory approach intensify competition or merely help individual companies or interest groups? Does the framework for mandating access to essential facilities encourage investment in innovative communications technologies? What, if anything, should the federal government do to put Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field with international competitors? What role, if any, should Ottawa play to ensure that Canadians have a choice of compelling TV viewing options that tell Canadian stories? This Commentary argues that the federal government review of broadcasting and communications policy should conclude that: • Ottawa should construct a unified policy framework for the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act that recognizes the convergence in conduits for accessing and delivering content; • Ottawa should eliminate the CRTC’s responsibility for Canadian cultural promotion and mandate the Department of Canadian Heritage to assume the role of articulating a policy framework for Canadian content; • To finance Canadian content, government should not impose specific taxes on broadcasters, broadband providers or on content streamed via broadband, such as Netflix. Instead, Ottawa should support Canadian content production directly from general revenues. The federal government should also eliminate exhibition quotas for Canadian TV programming and replace them with subsidies or tax preferences for connecting Canadian audiences to Canadian content; • The CRTC should face more economic and legal rigour in its hearings and defer to the Competition Bureau in countering specific anti-competitive conduct, protecting consumers and reviewing mergers; and • Rather than support new entrants in spectrum auctions, the federal government should eliminate foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian communications companies and maximize the public benefits from the use of spectrum but defer to the Competition Bureau to counter anti-competitive conduct in spectrum acquisition. These reforms would fundamentally change how Ottawa regulates Canadian broadcasting and communication. It is time for federal broadcasting and communications policy to keep pace with changing technology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,033 | 0,027 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».