Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommuications canadiennes
180px
The current CRTC logo
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière is the headquarters of the CRTC
overview
Formed	1968 (1968)
Preceding	Board of Broadcast Governors
Jurisdiction	Canada
Headquarters	Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
Minister responsible	Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry
executive	Konrad von Finckenstein, Chairman
Parent department	Industry Canada

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC, French: Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes) is a public organisation with mandate as a regulatory agency for broadcasting and telecommunications. It was created in 1976 when it took over responsibility for regulating telecommunication carriers. Prior to 1976, it was known as the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, which was established in 1968 by the Parliament of Canada to replace the Board of Broadcast Governors. Its headquarters is located in the Central Building (Édifice central) of Les Terrasses de la Chaudière in Gatineau, Quebec.^[1]

History[link]

The CRTC was originally known as the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. In 1976, jurisdiction over telecommunications services, most of which were then delivered by monopoly common carriers (for example, telephone companies), was transferred to it from the Canadian Transport Commission although the abbreviation CRTC remained the same. On the telecom side, the CRTC originally regulated only privately held common carriers, such as B.C. Tel (now part of Telus), in which a U.S. company (GTE) had a substantial stake; Bell Canada, which served Ontario, most of Quebec, and part of the Northwest Territories; and operations in Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Yukon and northern B.C. Other telephone companies, many of which were publicly owned, were regulated by provincial authorities until court rulings during the 1990s affirmed federal jurisdiction over the sector, which also included some fifty small independent incumbents, most of them in Ontario and Quebec.

Jurisdiction[link]

The CRTC regulates all Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications activities and enforces rules it creates to carry out the policies assigned to it; the best-known of these is probably the Canadian content rules. The CRTC reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for the Broadcasting Act, and has an informal relationship with Industry Canada, which is responsible for the Telecommunications Act. Provisions in these two acts, along with less-formal instructions issued by the federal cabinet known as orders-in-council, represent the bulk of the CRTC's jurisdiction.

In many cases, such as the cabinet-directed prohibition on foreign ownership for broadcasters^[2] and the legislated principle of the predominance of Canadian content,^[3] these acts and orders often leave the CRTC less room to change policy than critics sometimes suggest, and the result is that the commission is often the lightning rod for policy criticism that could arguably be better directed at the government itself.

Complaints against broadcasters, such as concerns around offensive programming, are dealt with by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), an independent broadcast industry association, rather than by the CRTC, although CBSC decisions can be appealed to the CRTC if necessary. However, the CRTC is also sometimes erroneously criticized for CBSC decisions — for example, the CRTC was erroneously criticized for the CBSC's decisions pertaining to the airing of Howard Stern's terrestrial radio show in Canada in the late 1990s, as well as the CBSC's controversial ruling on the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing".^[4]

The commission is not fully equivalent to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which has additional powers over technical matters, in broadcasting and other aspects of communications, in that country. In Canada, the Department of Industry is responsible for allocating frequencies and call signs, managing the broadcast spectrum, and regulating other technical issues such as interference with electronics equipment.

Regulation of broadcast distributors[link]

The CRTC has in the past regulated the prices cable television broadcast distributors are allowed to charge. In most major markets, however, prices are no longer regulated due to increased competition for broadcast distribution from satellite television.

The CRTC also regulates which channels broadcast distributors must or may offer. Per the Broadcasting Act^[5] the commission also gives priority to Canadian signals—many non-Canadian channels which compete with Canadian channels are thus not approved for distribution in Canada. The CRTC argues that allowing free trade in television stations would overwhelm the smaller Canadian market, preventing it from upholding its responsibility to foster a national conversation. Some people, however, consider this tantamount to censorship.

The CRTC's simultaneous substitution rules require that when a Canadian network licences a television show from a US network and shows it in the same time slot, upon request by the Canadian broadcaster, Canadian broadcast distributors must replace the show on the US channel with the broadcast of the Canadian channel, along with any overlays and commercials. As Grey's Anatomy is on ABC, but is carried in Canada on CTV at the same time, for instance, the cable, satellite, or other broadcast distributor must send the CTV feed over the signal of the carried ABC affiliate, even where the ABC version is somehow different, particularly commercials.^[6] (These rules are not intended to apply in case of differing episodes of the same series; this difference may not always be communicated to distributors, although this is rather rare.) Viewers via home antenna who receive both American and Canadian networks on their personal sets are not affected by sim-sub.

The goal of this policy is to create a market in which Canadian networks can realize revenue through advertising sales in spite of their inability to match the rates that the much larger American networks can afford to pay for syndicated programming. This policy is also why Canadian viewers do not see American advertisements during the Super Bowl, even when tuning into one of the many American networks carried on Canadian televisions.

Regulation of the internet[link]

In a major May 1999 decision on "New Media", the CRTC held that under the Broadcasting Act the CRTC had jurisdiction over certain content communicated over the internet including audio and video, but excluding content that is primarily alphanumeric such as emails and most webpages. It also issued an exemption order committing to a policy of non-interference.^[7]

In May 2011, in response to the increase presence of Over-the-Top (OTT) programming, the CRTC put a call out to the public to provide input on the impact OTT programming is having on Canadian content and existing broadcasting subscriptions through satellite and cable.^[8] On October 5, 2011 the CRTC released their findings that included consultations with stakeholders from the telecommunications industry, media producers, and cultural leaders among others. The evidence was inconclusive, suggesting that an increased availability of OTT options is not having a negative impact on the availability or diversity of Canadian content, one of the key policy mandates of the CRTC, nor are there signs that there has been a significant decline of televisions subscriptions through cable or satellite. However, given the rapid progress in the industry they are working on a more in depth study to be concluded in May 2012.^[9]

The CRTC does not directly regulate rates, quality of service issues, or business practices for Internet service providers. However, the CRTC does continually monitor the sector and associated trends.^[10]

Regulation of telephone service[link]

The commission currently has some jurisdiction over the provision of local landline telephone service in Canada. This is largely limited to the major incumbent carriers, such as Bell Canada and Telus, for traditional landline service (but not Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)). It has begun the gradual deregulation of such services where, in the commission's opinion, a sufficient level of competition exists.^[11]

The CRTC is sometimes blamed for the current state of the mobile phone industry in Canada, in which there are only three national mobile network operators – Bell Mobility, Telus Mobility, and Rogers Wireless – as well as a handful of MVNOs operating on these networks. In fact, the commission has very little to do with the regulation of mobile phone service, outside of "undue preference" issues (for example, a carrier offering a superior rate or service to some subscribers and not others without a good reason). It does not regulate service rates, service quality, or other business practices, and commission approval is not necessary for wireless provider sales or mergers as in the broadcasting industry.^[12] Moreover, it does not deal with the availability of spectrum for mobile phone service, which is part of the Industry Canada mandate, nor the maintenance of competition, which is largely the responsibility of The Competition Bureau.

Transfers of ownership/foreign ownership[link]

Any transfer of more than 30% of the ownership of a broadcasting licence (including cable/satellite distribution licences) requires advance approval of the commission. One condition normally taken into account in such a decision is the level of foreign ownership; federal regulations require that Canadian citizens ultimately own a majority of a broadcast license. Usually this takes the form of a public process, where interested parties can express their concerns and sometimes including a public hearing, followed by a commission decision.

While landline and mobile telephone providers must also be majority-owned by Canadians under the federal Telecommunications Act, the CRTC is not responsible for enforcement of this provision. In fact, the commission does not require licences at all for telephone companies, and CRTC approval is therefore not generally required for the sale of a telephone company, unless said company also owns a broadcast licence.

Controversial decisions[link]

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (August 2009)

Since 1987, the CRTC has been involved in several controversial decisions:

• Milestone Radio: In two separate rounds of license hearings in the 1990s, the CRTC rejected applications by Milestone Radio to launch a radio station in Toronto which would have been Canada's first urban music station; in both cases, the CRTC instead granted licenses to stations that duplicated formats already offered by other stations in the Toronto market. The CRTC finally granted a license to Milestone in 2000, after a cabinet order-in-council directed the commission to license two new radio stations that reflected the cultural diversity of the Toronto market, and CFXJ-FM launched in 2001.^{[citation needed]}

• CHOI-FM: The CRTC announced it would not renew the licence of the popular CHOI-FM radio station in Quebec City, after having previously sanctioned the station for failing to uphold its promise of performance and then, during the years following, receiving about 50 complaints about offensive behaviour by radio jockeys which similarly contravened CRTC rules on broadcast hate speech. Many thousands of the station's fans marched in the streets and on Parliament Hill against the decision, and the parent company of CHOI, Genex Corp., appealed the CRTC decision unsuccessfully to the Federal Court of Canada. The station was later sold to RNC Media, but instead of renewing its license the CRTC issued RNC a license to launch a new radio station on the same frequency.^{[citation needed]}

• CBC Newsworld: The CRTC licensed the CBC on November 30, 1987 to provide a national all-news television network. Its competitor applicant, Alberta-based Allarcom, appealed this decision to the Canadian House of Commons. It was overturned and there were questions of whether federal politicians should meddle in CRTC decisions. Because of this the network launch was delayed from September 1, 1988 to July 31, 1989.^{[citation needed]}

• RAI International: In Summer 2004, this Italian government controlled channel was denied permission to broadcast independently in Canada on the grounds that it had acted and was likely to act contrary to established Canadian policies. RAI International's latest politically appointed President (an avowed right wing nationalist and former spokesperson for Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the post-fascist party of Italy) had unilaterally terminated a 20-year-old agreement and stripped all of its 1,500 to 2,000 annual hours of programming from TLN Telelatino, a Canadian-run channel which had devoted 95% of its prime time schedule to RAI programs for 20 years since TLN was founded. All Italian-Canadians were denied RAI programming by RAI International's removal of its programming from the Canadian marketplace, a move intended to create a public outcry and a threat that Canadians would resort to using satellite viewing cards obtained via the US in order to watch RAI, even though these cards were either grey market or black market, according to different analyses (see below). Following unprecedented foreign led and domestic political interference with the CRTC's quasi-judicial independent regulatory process, within 6 months of its original decision, an abrupt CRTC "review" of its policy on third-language foreign services determined to drop virtually all restrictions and adopt a new "open entry" approach to foreign controlled "third language" (non-English, non-French) channels.^{[citation needed]}

• Al Jazeera: Was approved by the CRTC in 2004 as an optional cable and satellite offering, but on the condition that any carrier distributing it must edit out any instances of illegal hate speech. Cable companies declared that these restrictions would make it too expensive to carry Al Jazeera. Although no cable company released data as to what such a monitoring service would cost, the end-result was that no cable company elected to carry the station, either, leaving many Arabic-speaking Canadians using free-to-air satellite dishes to watch the station. The Canadian Jewish Congress has expressed its opinion over possible anti-Semitic incitement on this station and that the restrictions on Al Jazeera are appropriate, while the Canadian B'nai Brith is opposed to any approval of Al Jazeera in Canada. The CRTC ruling applied to Al Jazeera and not to its English-speaking sister network Al Jazeera English, which was launched two years after the ruling.^{[citation needed]}

• Fox News: Until 2004, the CRTC's apparent reluctance to grant a digital licence to Fox News under the same policy which made it difficult for RAI to enter the country - same-genre competition from foreign services - had angered many conservative Canadians, who believed the network was deliberately being kept out due to its perceived conservative bias, particularly given the long-standing availability of services such as CNN and BBC World in Canada. On November 18, 2004, however, the CRTC approved an application by cable companies to offer Fox News on the digital cable tier. Fox commenced broadcasting in Canada shortly thereafter.^{[citation needed]}

• Satellite radio: In June 2005, the CRTC outraged some Canadian cultural nationalists (such as the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting) and labour unions by licencing two companies, Canadian Satellite Radio and Sirius Canada to offer satellite radio services in Canada. The two companies are in partnership with American firms XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio respectively, and in accordance with the CRTC decision will only need to offer ten percent Canadian content. The CRTC contends that this low level of Canadian content, particularly when compared to the 35 % rule on local radio stations, was necessary because unlicenced U.S. receivers were already flooding into the country, so that enforcing a ban on these receivers would be nearly impossible (see below). This explanation did not satisfy cultural nationalists, who demanded that the federal cabinet overturn the decision and mandate a minimum of 35 % Canadian content. Supporters of the decision argue that satellite radio can only be feasibly set up as a continental system, and trying to impose 35 % Canadian content across North America is quite unrealistic. They also argue that satellite radio will boost Canadian culture by giving vital exposure to independent artists, instead of concentrating just on the country's stars, and point to the CRTC's successful extraction of promises to program 10 % Canadian content on satellite services already operational in the United States as important concessions.^[13] Despite popular perception that the CRTC banned Sirius Canada from broadcasting Howard Stern's program, this is not the case. Sirius Canada in fact initially chose not to air Stern based on the possibility of a future issue with the CRTC, although the company reversed its decision and began offering Howard Stern in 2006.

• 2008 Ottawa radio licences: On November 21, 2008, federal Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages James Moore issued a statement calling on the CRTC to review its approval of two new radio stations, Frank Torres' CIDG-FM and Astral Media's CJOT-FM, which it had licensed in August 2008 to serve the Ottawa-Gatineau radio market. Moore asked the commission to assess whether the francophone population of the Ottawa-Gatineau area was sufficiently well-served by existing French radio services, and to consider licensing one or more of the French language applications, which included a Christian music station, a community radio station and a campus radio station for the Université du Québec en Outaouais, in addition to or instead of the approved stations.^[14] The review ultimately identified a viable frequency for a third station, and CJFO-FM launched in 2010.

• Bell Canada usage-based billing: On October 28, 2010, the CRTC handed down its final decision on how wholesale customers can be billed by large network owners. Under the plan which starts within 90 days, Bell will be able to charge wholesale service providers a flat monthly fee to connect to its network, and for a set monthly usage limit per each ISP customer the ISP has. Beyond that set limit, individual users will be charged per gigabyte, depending on the speed of their connections. Customers using the fastest connections of five megabits per second, for example, will have a monthly allotment of 60 GB, beyond which Bell will charge $1.12 per GB to a maximum of $22.50. If a customer uses more than 300 GB a month, Bell will also be able to implement an additional charge of 75 cents per gigabyte. In May 2010, the CRTC ruled that Bell could not implement its usage-based billing system until all of its own retail customers had been moved off older, unlimited downloading plans. The requirement would have meant that Bell would have to move its oldest and most loyal customers. The CRTC also added that Bell would be required to offer to wholesale ISPs the same usage insurance plan it sells to retail customers. Bell appealed both requirements, citing that the rules do not apply to cable companies and that they constituted proactive rate regulation by the CRTC, which goes against government official policy direction that the regulator only intervene in markets after a competitive problem has been proven. In Thursday's decision, the CRTC rescinded both requirements, thereby giving Bell the go-ahead to implement usage-based billing. This ruling according to Teksavvy handcuffs the competitive market.^[15] This has been asked by Stephen Harper and Parliament to have the decision reviewed. According to a tweet by Industry Minister Tony Clement, unless the CRTC reverses this decision, the government will use its override power to reverse the decision.^[16]

Reception of non-Canadian services[link]

While an exact number has not been determined, thousands of Canadians have purchased and used what they contend to be grey market radio and television services, licensed in the United States but not in Canada. Users of these unlicensed services contend that they are not directly breaking any laws by simply using the equipment. The equipment is usually purchased from an American supplier (although some merchants have attempted to set up shop in Canada) and the services are billed to an American postal address. The advent of online billing and the easy availability of credit card services has made it relatively easy for almost anyone to maintain an account in good standing, regardless of where they actually live.

Sec. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act creates a prohibition against all decoding of encrypted programming signals, followed by an exception where authorization is received from the person holding the lawful right in Canada to transmit and authorize decoding of the signal. This means receiving the encrypted programming of DishNetwork or DirecTV, even with a grey market subscription, may be construed as unlawful (this remains an unresolved Constitutional issue).

Notwithstanding, possession of DishNetwork or DirecTV equipment is not unlawful as provided by The Radiocommuncation Act Section 4(1)(b), which states:

"No person shall, except under and in accordance with a radio authorization, install, operate or possess radio apparatus, other than (b)a radio apparatus that is capable only of the reception of broadcasting and that is not a distribution undertaking. (radio apparatus" means a device or combination of devices intended for, or capable of being used for, radiocommunication)."

Satellite radio poses a more complicated problem for the CRTC. While an unlicensed satellite dish can often be identified easily, satellite radio receivers are much more compact and can rarely be easily identified, at least not without flagrantly violating provisions against unreasonable search and seizure in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some observers argued that this influenced the CRTC's June 2005 decision to ease Canadian content restrictions on satellite radio (see above).

Structure[link]

The CRTC is run by up to 13 full-time (including the chairman, the vice-chairman of broadcasting, and the vice-chairman of telecommunications) and six part-time commissioners appointed by the Cabinet for renewable terms of up to five years. Only full-time commissioners can participate in the decision-making process for telecommunications and all commissioners are involved in broadcasting decisions. The acting chairman is Leonard Katz, a former executive with Rogers Communications.

Chairs of the CRTC[link]

• 1968-1975 Pierre Juneau
• 1975-1977 Harry J. Boyle
• 1977-1979 Pierre Camu
• 1980-1983 John Meisel
• 1983-1989 André Bureau
• 1990-1996 Keith Spicer
• 1996-2001 Françoise Bertrand
• 2001-2002 David Colville (interim)
• 2002-2006 Charles Dalfen
• 2007-2012 Konrad von Finckenstein
• 2012 Leonard Katz (interim)

Related legislation[link]

• Accurate News and Information Act
• Bell Canada Act
• Broadcasting Act, 1991
• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act
• Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 - USA
• Telecommunications Act

See also[link]

	Canada portal
	Radio portal
	Television portal
	Telecommunications portal
32x28px	Music of Canada portal

• Category A Services
• Category B Services
• Ontario Telephone Service Commission
• Régie des télécommunications du Québec
• Ontario Telecommunications Association
• Canadian Independent Telephone Association
• Freedom of speech by country
• Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
• fee-for-carriage
• List of telecommunications regulatory bodies
• Music of Canada
• Canadian Content

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Armstrong, Robert (2010), Broadcasting Policy in Canada, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 9781442640962, http://books.google.ca/books?id=v8uRPaM_VoAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Canadian%20Media&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true 
• Edwardson, Ryan (2008), Canadian content: culture and the quest for nationhood, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 978-0-8020-9759-0, http://books.google.ca/books?id=IxVuSFLo8fAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Canadian%20content&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true 

External links[link]

• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
• CBC Digital Archives - Ruling the Airwaves: The CRTC and Canadian Content

v t e Telecommunications (general) History Beacons Broadcasting Communications satellites Computer networks Drums Electrical telegraphs Fax Heliographs Hydraulic telegraphs Internet Mass media Mobile phones Optical telegraphy Photophones Radio Radiotelephones Telegraphy Telephones The Telephone Cases Television Undersea telegraph lines Videophones Pioneers Edwin Howard Armstrong John Logie Baird Alexander Graham Bell Tim Berners-Lee Jagadish Chandra Bose Vint Cerf Claude Chappe Lee De Forest Philo Farnsworth Reginald Fessenden Elisha Gray Guglielmo Marconi Alexander Stepanovich Popov Johann Philipp Reis Nikola Tesla Alfred Vail Charles Wheatstone Vladimir K. Zworykin Media Coaxial cable Free-space optical Optical fiber Radio waves Telephone lines Terrestrial microwave Networks ARPANET BITNET Ethernet FidoNet ISDN Internet Local area Mobile NGN Packet switched Public Switched Telephone Radio Television Telex Wide area World Wide Web Wireless Geographic v t e Telecommunications in Africa Sovereign states Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe States with limited recognition Azawad Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Somaliland Dependencies and other territories Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla / Plazas de soberanía (Spain) Madeira (Portugal) Mayotte / Réunion (France) Saint Helena / Ascension Island / Tristan da Cunha (United Kingdom) Western Sahara v t e Telecommunications in Asia Sovereign states Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia People's Republic of China Cyprus East Timor (Timor-Leste) Egypt Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen States with limited recognition Abkhazia Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus Palestine Republic of China (Taiwan) South Ossetia Dependencies and other territories British Indian Ocean Territory Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Hong Kong Macau v t e Telecommunications in Europe Sovereign states Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales States with limited recognition Abkhazia Kosovo Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Transnistria Dependencies and other territories Åland Faroe Islands Gibraltar Guernsey Jersey Isle of Man Svalbard Other entities European Union v t e Telecommunications in North America Sovereign states Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Dependencies and other territories Anguilla Aruba Bermuda Bonaire British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Curaçao Greenland Guadeloupe Martinique Montserrat Navassa Island Puerto Rico Saint Barthélemy Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saba Sint Eustatius Sint Maarten Turks and Caicos Islands United States Virgin Islands v t e Telecommunications in Oceania Sovereign states Australia East Timor (Timor-Leste) Fiji Indonesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Dependencies and other territories American Samoa Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Cook Islands Easter Island French Polynesia Guam Hawaii New Caledonia Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Wallis and Futuna v t e Telecommunications in South America Sovereign states Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Dependencies and other territories Aruba Bonaire Curaçao Falkland Islands French Guiana South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Michael Allen Geist
Michael Geist in October 2007 (photo by Aaron Swartz)
Born	(1968-07-11) July 11, 1968 (age 43)
Residence	Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Nationality	Canadian
Education	University of Western Ontario, Osgoode Hall Law School, Cambridge University and the Columbia Law School
Occupation	Academic and Canada Research Chair
Employer	University of Ottawa
Website
michaelgeist.ca

Michael Allen Geist (born 11 July 1968) is a Canadian academic, and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Geist was educated at the University of Western Ontario where he received his Bachelors of Laws before going on to get his Masters of Laws at both Osgoode Hall Law School and Cambridge University. After that, he attended Columbia Law School where he got his Doctorate in Law.^[1]

His weekly columns on new technology and its legal ramifications appear in the Vancouver Sun, Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen. He served on Canada's National Task Force on Spam and is the founder of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. Geist is active on many boards, including the CANARIE Board of Directors,^[2] the CanLII Board of Directors,^[3] the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's Expert Advisory Board,^[4] the Electronic Frontier Foundation Advisory Board,^[5] and on the Information Program Sub-Board of the Open Society Institute.^[6] He was also a board member of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the dot.ca domain, for six years.

Geist was named one of Canada’s Top 40 Under 40 in 2002.^[7] In 2010, he was listed globally as one of the top fifty influential people in regards to intellectual property by Managing Intellectual Property.^[8]

2007 Canadian copyright legislation[link]

Geist received widespread public attention from mainstream and citizen media in the winter of 2007 for leading the public response to proposed Canadian copyright changes.^[9]

According to Dr. Geist and many others the Canadian legislation included the worst aspects of the 1998 U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In December, 2007, Geist said the legislation will likely "mirror the DMCA with strong anti-circumvention legislation — far beyond what is needed to comply with the WIPO Internet treaties," and will likely contain no protection for "flexible fair dealing. No parody exception. No time shifting exception. No device shifting exception. No expanded backup provision. Nothing."^[10]

Widespread online and offline support, from activist and author Cory Doctorow to over 30,000 Facebook users, led to the tabling of the copyright legislation by Industry Minister Jim Prentice until 2008.^[9]

ACTA[link]

Michael Geist is considered an expert^[11] about the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which he covers frequently on his blog, criticizing the negotiation process for lack of transparency and warning of possible negative consequences for Internet users.^[12]

Bill C-32 and Bill C-11[link]

In December 2010, he wrote a paper titled “Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion: Fair Dealing and Bill C-32” ^[13] where he summarizes and critically examines some of the main issues of this bill.

Then in October 2011, when the Canadian government began attempts to pass a new bill on copyright reform, which included digital lock rules, called Bill C-11, he wrote “The Daily Digital Lock Dissenter” on his blog.^[14] This was a daily blog entry where he introduced former submissions to the government about how Canadians felt about the restrictive digital lock regulations in regards to Bill C-32 and based on the 2009 national copyright consultation. He argued that while Bill C-11 had some valid points, it was too restrictive because it did not take a balanced approach and it was “primarily about satisfying U.S. pressure, not public opinion”.^[15]

Usage-based billing[link]

In 2011, Geist wrote about usage based billing and its position in Canada in his blog at michaelgeist.ca. Here, he criticized the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) history of inability to foster an atmosphere of competition that would allow third-party internet service providers (ISPs) to gain a foothold in the Canadian market. He did note, with the CRTC's usage based oral hearing on July 19, 2011, that they were making efforts to address this lack of competition and criticized Bell Canada and other major companies for their involvement in limiting smaller ISPs.^[16] Also in 2011, he wrote a study on the true transport costs of a gigabyte for a Canadian consumer from an ISP and concluded it was roughly a total of eight cents per gigabyte but this report was later denounced by the major ISPs, most notably Bell Canada.^[17]

Other activities[link]

In 2008, Geist found that favourable edits to Jim Prentice's Wikipedia article were traced back to Industry Canada computers.^[18]

He maintains the following websites:

• Privacyinfo.ca, Speak Out On Copyright
• Net Neutrality and UDRPinfo.com

Books[link]

• From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (editor)
• Internet Law in Canada
• In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (editor) -- a series of essays regarding Bill C-60

Awards[link]

Michael Geist has received numerous awards for his work including the Kroeger Award for Policy Leadership ^[19] and the Public Knowledge IP3 Award in 2010,^[20] the Les Fowlie Award for Intellectual Freedom from the Ontario Library Association in 2009,^[21] the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award in 2008,^[22] Canarie’s IWAY Public Leadership Award for his contribution to the development of the Internet in Canada ^[23] in 2003.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official website
• Michael Geist at the Internet Movie Database

Videos[link]

• Speech at International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioner's conference 2007 Sept.

PHASE 2 (aka Lonny Wood)^[1] is one of the most influential and well known New York City aerosol artists. Mostly active in the 1970s, Phase 2 is generally credited with originating the "bubble letter" style of aerosol writing, also known as "softies".^[2] He was also influential in the early hip-hop scene.

Graffiti career[link]

Phase 2 is from The Bronx, and attended DeWitt Clinton High School along with a number of other early graffiti artists. Many famous graffiti writers of the early 1970s would meet at a doughnut shop across from the school called the Coffee Shop before heading down to the subway station at 149th Street and Grand Concourse to watch tagged trains on the IRT line pass by.^[3] Phase 2 was mentored in graffiti by his friend and neighbor Thomas Lee aka Lee 163d!, one of the pioneers of graf writing in The Bronx.^[2]

He began writing in late 1971 under the name Phase 2, a moniker which had a rather mundane provenance. As Phase 2 would later recall, "the previous year we'd given this party. We were getting ready to give another one and I said, 'We'll call this one Phase Two.' I don't know why, but I was stuck on the name. It had meaning for me. I started writing 'Phase 2.'"^[4]

Part of the appeal of graffiti writing for Phase 2 was that it allowed him to get his "name" known yet remain anonymous.^[5] He noted later that tagging provided disadvantaged urban teens "the only significant vehicle to represent their 'existence.'"^[6]

It was in late 1972 that Phase 2 first used an early version of the "bubble letter" or "softie", a style of graffiti writing which would become extremely influential and is considered a "giant leap" in the art form.^[2] The puffed-out, marshmallow-like letters drawn by Phase 2 were soon copied by other artists who added their own variations. Phase himself quickly embellished on his original form, creating and naming dozens of varieties of softies such as "phasemagorical phantastic" (bubble letters with stars), "bubble cloud", and "bubble drip."^[7] He is also credited with pioneering the use of arrows in graf writing around this same time.^[8] Hip-hop journalist Jeff Chang has noted that Phase 2's canvasses from 1973 have "been widely recognized as defining the early genre."^[9]

Over time Phase's work become more and more complex, moving far away from the simple tags of the early 70s to "hieroglyphical calligraphic abstraction."^[5] Chang points out that much of Phase's work involved "deconstructing the letter", transforming characters in the alphabet "into hard lines, third eyes, horns, drills, spikes, Egyptian pharaohs and dogs, pure geometrics."^[9] Another New York graffiti artist, Vulcan, remarked that "one of the things about Phase is that he was the only person at the time whose name could roll by ten times and each piece was different. That's what you noticed about his [work]."^[5]

In 1974 Phase 2 joined the newly created United Graffiti Artists, a professional graffiti collective which began to attract media attention. He was featured in an important essay on graffiti art by Richard Goldstein which appeared in New York magazine and inspired a new generation of graffiti artists.^[2]

In the 1980s, Phase 2 began publishing International Graffiti Times, the first zine about graffiti writing.^[10]

Influence in hip-hop[link]

Unlike some other pioneers of New York City graffiti, Phase 2 had a prominent role in The South Bronx hip-hop scene in the early 1980s. He also continues to be referenced in hip-hop songs.

Phase participated in the legendary hip-hop shows organized by Kool Lady Blue during the summer of 1982 at the Roxy nightclub in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. These shows brought together the top DJ's, MC's, breakers, and aerosol artist from The South Bronx and introduced hip-hop music and culture to the downtown punk and new wave scenes. Phase 2 designed the flyers for these events and often did aerosol pieces live on stage.^[11] He was also part of the first "international" hip-hop tour when stars from the Roxy performances toured in England and France in November of that year.^[12]

Phase 2 was one of the few aerosol artists to be involved in the musical side of hip-hop culture as well. He had a background as a DJ in the very early days of hip-hop, though he never made a name for himself in that role.^[13] In 1982, as part of his involvement with the Roxy scene, Phase released two rap singles. "Beach Boy" was a collaboration with Barry Michael Cooper, who would later co-write the script for New Jack City. "The Roxy" featured the Bill Laswell-led group Material and Grandmixer D.ST, though Phase 2 would later remark that he was disappointed in the song and felt that it "wasn't done properly."^[13][14]

Phase was also an early b-boy and claims that his dance crew pioneered the uprock (or "battle rock") style of dance despite claims that it originated in Brooklyn.^[13] He was thus actively involved in all of the traditional "four elements" of hip-hop culture.

Though he did not have a role in the production, Phase 2 did apparently influence the classic early hip-hop movie Wild Style. In the DVD commentary for the film, director Charlie Ahearn explained that, when thinking about the key character named "Phade", he had Phase 2 in mind (either to actually play the part or simply as a model) because Phase was a legendary graffiti writer from the past who was also involved in the hip-hop scene, as was the character of Phade. The role would ultimately be played by Fab 5 Freddy, himself a graffiti artist who along with Ahearn was the major creative force behind Wild Style. Phase 2 did take on an official role in another early hip-hop film when he worked as a graffiti consultant on the 1984 movie Beat Street.^[15]

In his 1995 song "Out for Fame" - an homage to graffiti artists and culture - KRS-One implores his audience "in the name of Phase 2" and fellow Bronx graffiti legend Stay High to "grab your cans and hit the streets." Several years later Mos Def mentioned Phase 2 on his widely respected debut album Black on Both Sides, specifically on the track "Hip Hop", in which he noted that hip-hop itself was "all city like Phase 2" - presumably a reference to the ubiquity of Phase 2's graffiti pieces on trains throughout the city during the early 1970s. In 1996, he appeared in the song I Messaggeri Pt.I contained in italian artist Neffa's album I Messaggeri della Dopa.

References[link]

Works cited[link]

• George, Nelson Buppies, B-boys, Baps & Bohos: Notes on Post-Soul Black Culture. Da Capo Press. 2001. ISBN 0-306-81027-1. 
• Chang, Jeff (2005). Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation. Picador. ISBN 0-312-42579-1.
• Castleman, Craig (1982). Getting Up: Subway Graffiti in New York. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-53051-1. 

External links[link]

• Adam Mansbach interview with PHASE 2
• "Writer of the Storm", Raw Vision interview with PHASE 2

v t e Street art Culture Activism Aerosol paint Culture jamming Direct action Graffiti (terminology use theory) Guerrilla art Hip hop culture Installation art Kolam Murals Propaganda Reverse graffiti Screenprinting Spray paint art Stencil graffiti Sticker art Subway Art Yarn bombing Lists of artists Street Graffiti Poster Stencil Wheatpaste Places Atlanta Berlin (Berlin Wall) Hong Kong (Free Ai Weiwei campaign) Melbourne Philadelphia San Francisco (Balmy Alley·Clarion Alley) São Paulo (pixação) Sydney (Newtown area) Toronto Companies Monstercolors Events Living Walls Related articles Built environment MTA Pixação Public art Public space Psychogeography Rapid transit Street party Urban planning Vandalism