2017
DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thematic Analysis of Eight Canadian Federal Broadband Programs from 1994 to 2016

Abstract: This article provides a historical and thematic analysis of eight Canadian federal government broadband programs. Examination of program documents led to the identification of several themes. These themes formed the basis for understanding and revealing trends in federal programs over time. Analysis of the trends, informed by Dwayne Winseck's approach to political economy, reveals that in general federal broadband programs have not fully realized the democratic potentialities of broadband. Furthermore, there i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the information Highway advisory Council (1994Council ( -1997 to the National Broadband task Force (2001) and the telecommunications Policy review Panel (2005Panel ( -2006 to Digital Canada 150 (2010, it seems as though federal consultations pertaining to digital strategy continually revisit recommendations emanating from the same general regulatory framework, devised through similar processes. Generally speaking, this framework reinforces what might be called a broadly neoliberal stance that the internet is primarily conceived of in terms of economic growth, and, as such, the government's primary role should be to support the corporate development of digital technology (Crow & longford, 2000;McNally, rathi, Evaniew, & Wu, 2017). it is important to consider past policymaking processes in terms of how they have influenced the way a national digital strategy continues to be articulated in chiefly economic terms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…From the information Highway advisory Council (1994Council ( -1997 to the National Broadband task Force (2001) and the telecommunications Policy review Panel (2005Panel ( -2006 to Digital Canada 150 (2010, it seems as though federal consultations pertaining to digital strategy continually revisit recommendations emanating from the same general regulatory framework, devised through similar processes. Generally speaking, this framework reinforces what might be called a broadly neoliberal stance that the internet is primarily conceived of in terms of economic growth, and, as such, the government's primary role should be to support the corporate development of digital technology (Crow & longford, 2000;McNally, rathi, Evaniew, & Wu, 2017). it is important to consider past policymaking processes in terms of how they have influenced the way a national digital strategy continues to be articulated in chiefly economic terms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Finally, the limited broadband available in these areas is expensive, especially when data caps are taken into consideration. Co-developing digital inclusion policy and programming with Indigenous partners: interventions from Canada "Market forces" have failed to drive incumbent private sector telecommunications companies to develop broadband infrastructure and services in these regions, with the result that various government agencies have established subsidy programmes to encourage deployment (CRTC, 2015;McNally, Rathi, Evaniew, & Wu, 2017). Rajabiun and Middleton (2013) parse these programmes into two main types: urban-rural cross-subsidies drawn from the revenues of telecommunications providers and managed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); and budgetary contributions established through government funding initiatives.…”
Section: Introducing the First Mile Connectivity Consortiummentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous studies on communications-, media-, creative-and cultural industries policy have employed it as a method (see e.g. Blomkamp, 2014;Darchen & Tremblay, 2015;Herzog & Dias Osório, 2018;Herzog & Karppinen, 2014;McNally et al, 2017;2018;MacLean, 2011;Potschka, 2012;Ruhode, 2016;Stover, 2010). However, when compiling the literature review, which served as a basis for this chapter, it became clear that in the majority of these studies there is little explicit discussion of the empirical methods employed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%