telecommunications and culture--Canada and United States, cultural identity--Canad

Robinson, J. Michael

English

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Canada-United States Law JournalVolume 26 | Issue Article 47January 2000Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture:Transborder Freedom of Information or CulturalIdentityJ. Michael RobinsonFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cusljThis Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons.It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School ofLaw Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationJ. Michael Robinson, Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture: Transborder Freedom of Information or Cultural Identity, 26 Can.-U.S. L.J. 299 (2000)Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/47INTRODUCTION: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE:TRANSBORDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ORCULTURAL IDENTITY?J. Michael Robinson*Thank you for staying so late on a Saturday evening after a good dinner. Iam Michael Robinson from Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin in Toronto.It is my pleasure to be the referee. We always describe the presidingperson as a referee whenever we are discussing Canadian culture betweenAmericans and Canadians, because of course, Canadian culture is sort of anoxymoron in the United States. Here "culture" means the entertainmentbusiness, with a big "B" in business. Really there is a lot of difficulty inunderstanding what it is that Canadians mean when they discuss culture.Canadians, of course, are not sure what they mean by culture, but they willfight all you Yanks to the death and certain others, too, to defend their rightto protect it, which adds to the confusion. We will even take on that shortsilver-haired Jack Valenti fellow, although not when he says he is going tobring out the F-16s. I am sure you all heard his famous quote that he said onthe Hill.' He was unhappy about some Canadian cultural move and he saidthe United States was going to bring out the F-16s, and the Minute Men,and whatever else it takes to stop these terrible people, the Canadians. Jack,of course, wanted to make sure that nobody would try to stop him fromtaking the last five percent of Canadian screens that the United States did notalready control.We have analyzed and debated here at this Institute many times Canada'sright to defend Canadian culture. This evening we are furthering ourperspective on it with a particular emphasis on cable television andtelecommunications. The last time we talked about this was, I think, arestrained debate between John Ragosta and myself? One thing that hashappened since then, which was creeping up on us then: technology.Here is a recent example. This Monday, the Canadian Radio Televisionand Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) received 452 applications inone day for new cable television licenses for the new digital channels. I seeRobinson bio.See J. Michael Robinson, The Information Revolution - Culture and Sovereignty - ACanadian Perspective, 25 CAN-U.S. L. J. 147, 151 (explaining remarks made by Jack Valenti,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America,regarding Canadians and their culture).2991Robinson: Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture: Transborder FreedomPublished by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons, 2000CANADA-UNITED STATES LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 26:299 2000]my American friends are looking quizzical and are asking what the heckcable television has to do with culture. Well, in Canada, cable transmissionis, in fact, television broadcasting; and we think television is certainlyculture. So we regulate the bejesus out of it. You do not regulate it in theUnited States. It is easy to understand why Canada regulates it, being ahighly regulated jurisdiction. You might recall that the Canadians virtuallyinvented the practice of stealing television signals for re-broadcasting oncable without payment, of course, to the signal originator back in the 1950s.Almost all Canadians live within 200 kilometers of the U.S. border, sothat means we can grab these signals easily. And when we only had onenetwork, which was our public broadcasting network, the CanadianBroadcasting Corporation, it was very lucrative to steal the three U.S.network signals and then sell them to the Canadian public. I do not think thenetworks thought it was a great idea, but they could not really do anythingabout it because this was happening in another country.I do not want to take the time allocated to the speakers, Henry will do thatwell enough. So let me just end by circling back to the 452 applications tothe CRTC and technology. I think the Canadian regulators are losing controland will probably lose what little control they have left. There are 452 digitalbroadcasters, many now are also program originators, who want access to thecommunications facilities. The CRTC may explode or implode trying tohandle this volume. It strikes me like King Canute trying to stem the tide.Now, I think we will let the experts tell us what is really happening onboth sides of the border. I am sure there will be some interesting, differingpositions. Ken Stein is going to speak first. He is Senior Vice President ofCorporate and Regulatory Affairs at Shaw Communications. He is a boardmember of the Canadian Cable Television Association. He is Chairman ofthe Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT), which is adollar-a-year advisory role to our Department of Foreign Affairs. I am surehe is delighted to have that.These industry organizations are very important. I remember when theywere set up; I called my friends in Ottawa and asked if they were going toneed lawyers on those. They said, "Absolutely not." The reason they exist isso the government hears from the business people. They do not want anylawyers on the committee. I do not think there is a lawyer on any one of theSAGITs. But, since they were only paying a dollar a year, we were not tooupset.Ken, in his previous life, was a long-time former government official inthe Department of Finance, and other places, and worked on policy issuesaffecting broadcasting, telecommunications, privatization, and even fish.2Canada-United States Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2000], Iss. , Art. 47https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/47Robinson-INTRODUCTIONHis education is, for a nice change, relevant to the subject. He is anelectrical engineer, a Bachelor of Science rather than just a J.D. and he, ofcourse, has the compulsory advanced management training at Harvard.Hamilton Loeb is in private practice at Paul Hastings, et al., inWashington where he runs the local office there and he heads theirInternational Trade Communications and Practice Group. He co-chairs theABA International Trade Committee. And he is Secretary of the ABAInternational Law Section, where this morning he was trying to keep theminutes of a debate on what the ABA was going to say about that littleCuban kid down in Florida. I cannot remember his name. We are not tooworried about that, because we have lots of Cuban kids in Canada, and a lotof Canadians in Cuba.Hamilton was an advisor to Canada on the World Trade Organizationnegotiations. I hope that will not affect his ability to take a vigorous U.S.position here in contradiction to what Ken will say. His education was atHarvard, magna cum laude. Of course, he was law review editor.Now, we are going to hear from Ken first, and then I will take thequestions afterwards.3Robinson: Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture: Transborder FreedomPublished by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons, 20004Canada-United States Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2000], Iss. , Art. 47https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/47

Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture: Transborder Freedom of Information or Cultural Identity

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1506&amp;context=cuslj

Introduction: Telecommunications and Culture: Transborder Freedom of Information or Cultural Identity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Case Western Reserve University School of Law