Look Who it Was Random video

Canada Laying the Groundwork to Silence US! Net neutrality and Bill c10- will Ruin Us on Youtube, FB

608 views · Published 8 December 2017 · 7:49 · Indexed 1 November 2026

Channel: Mike Martins · 2017 · News & Politics

Watch on YouTube

My Opinion : There are Rumors that the Canadian Groundwork is working overtime to silence individual thinkers in Canada ! They have been talking about bill Net Neutrality , but there is something Bigger Bill c10 is Rumored to make it impossible for Canadians to broadcast anything without a licensee or a required permit  . The mainstream Media is loosing to us at a frantic pace !

Bill C-10 also enables a novel application of the “broadcasting distribution undertaking” (BDU) concept (cable television, in everyday parlance) and its related “must-carry” rules. This move sees app stores, such as Google Play and Apple’s App Store, as well as digital platforms, such as Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV and iTunes, operating in a way similar to cable television, IPTV (internet protocol television) and direct-to-home satellite providers (all BDUs in official CRTC-speak).

The idea that these same services should also have limited must-carry obligations when it comes to, for example, CBC/Radio-Canada services, emergency messages, and services oriented toward people with disabilities, or racialized, Indigenous and other communities is a defensible one. Now that capacity issues are largely a thing of the past, and storage and bandwidth costs are marginal enough that they, effectively, cost nothing after the original investments are made, if Canada were to tell Amazon and Apple that they had to carry, say, the CBC, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and OutTV (Canada’s only LGBTQ+-themed network), both companies could make it happen at very little cost.

Of course, doing this would mean that the giant corporations that own and control the digital means of communication would be compelled to carry a range of speech on terms set by the state that they might not otherwise offer. That is fine. Telephone companies, for example, must carry all legal content, and any claims to “free speech” they have made to avoid these common carrier obligations have been dismissed out of hand. That should be the case with respect to a limited must-carry regime for digital platforms as well. Such measures are also consistent with historical precedents that have sought to enable more speech and greater public participation in society and its communications systems, and to use communication and media policy to promote such compelling public interests rather than relying on the exclusive rule of the market.

More from this channel