One part pilot in a storm, one part referee in a cage match, it’s sometimes difficult to reconcile the role of CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein.

Certainly, other chairs have faced their challenges, but few have been faced with the very reinvention of media – literally, the repositioning of media within the social framework. In the past several years, media has migrated from being a passive expression of entertainment to something far more integral. We now live digital lives.

With the stakes so much higher, the arguments have become that much more strenuous. (At times, even shrill…) So much more is on the line, and so much of what we once thought of as ‘the future’ is being decided right now.

At the heart of the debates is the CRTC, and presiding over it is the man with either the least or most enviable job in the country, depending on your point of view.

CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein has been in the center of the maelstrom almost since his appointment in January 2007. But it was really in the last year that his slate overfloweth. (Consider just a few of the issues the CRTC faced in 2009: fee-for-carriage, Internet throttling, the birth of the CMF, the questions of regulating new media, the settlement of Part 2 fees, copyright issues…)

Whether or not you appreciate his decisions; whether or not you feel he’s addressed your particular issues; it can’t be argued that von Finckenstein has handled the myriad issues Canada faces with the skill of a diplomat, striking neither an imperious pose nor caving to special interests, all the while shaping the argument and moving towards solutions.

Many of your predecessors have had the luxury of overseeing a relatively stable – albeit always contentious – media sector. How does it feel to be the one overseeing the evolution of Canadian media into… well, whatever comes next?

I enjoy a challenge and feel lucky to be in this position at such a crucial time. The commission has always been faced with the challenge of integrating emergent technologies into the communications system – technologies like cable, satellite radio and cell phones. But the coming-of-age of the Internet is already having a bigger impact than the arrival of television itself two generations ago.

The evolution of the Net and the emergence of wireless are both creating alternate platforms for content and putting more control into the hands of consumers. How can we ensure that Canadians get the best possible use out of the new technologies – including access to a healthy stream of distinctively Canadian programming?

No one knows what game-changing innovation will come next. It is important that all of us involved in communications work together to transform the industry to the benefit of Canadians.

Do precedents still hold in an evolutionary phase? What do you use as your signposts to guide you through these decisions?

At the commission, we examine our previous decisions to see whether they meet the needs of the present day.

When we recently studied the question of broadcasting content distributed over the Internet, we looked at our 1999 exemption order. What was our rationale for exempting new media broadcasting services from regulation? Did that rationale still hold in 2009? What impact is the Internet having on radio and television broadcasters today?

We found once again that there was a very good argument against regulatory intervention, so we decided to extend our exemption order.

Just as the industry is evolving, we cannot be tied to past decisions. The most important thing is to explain our reasoning clearly and in a transparent manner, so that everyone understands how we arrive at our decisions. We will always do everything we can to provide a measure of predictability so that industry knows what to expect from its regulator.

Is it preferable (or tempting) to have the market sort out some issues before they are tied to regulation or legislation? I’m thinking of everything from new media evolution to fee-for-carriage, to copyright… Would it be fair to say that sometimes private players look to oversight bodies to address challenges that they themselves should be addressing?

In many cases we’d prefer to let the market come up with a solution that it can live with, instead of having one imposed by the commission. Industry self-regulation can work very well at times – as with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services.

However, it’s a fact of life that companies cannot always come to an understanding, especially on the more contentious issues. An independent agency like the CRTC must play a role in protecting the public interest and take the lead in creating policies that balance the interests of all stakeholders. And we will intervene if market forces alone are not sufficient to achieve the social and cultural objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.

When the parties come to the table with us, we expect that they’ll put forward concrete ideas and workable solutions. They’re in the best position to provide them because they know the industry inside and out. We’ll get no further ahead if the parties are so entrenched in their positions that they lose sight of the larger picture.

Is there any one area or decision that has been especially difficult due to a lack of precedent, or the uncertainty over what impact a decision now will have on media in the future?

Our recent decision on Internet traffic management practices comes to mind. That decision broke new ground as there were virtually no precedents in Canada or elsewhere. The U.S. is in the process of formalizing its proposed rules, but to my knowledge no other regulator or government has implemented an approach.

We developed a framework to encourage innovation. We gave very careful study to ISP operations, and to the distinctive requirements of the wholesale and retail markets. We established rules for wholesale to prevent ISPs from exercising unjust discrimination or undue preference.

Our new policy makes it clear that an ISP’s best response for dealing with web traffic is to invest in increased network capacity. The second choice is to use market-based economic measures. Traffic-shaping or other technical means should be a last resort, and must be consistent with the rules we’ve set out.

Why did you take this job? What has been its most surprising aspect?

I took this job because I’m a public policy junkie. I love grappling with public policy issues. At the CRTC, I’m able to put to good use my background in government financing, corporate restructurings, trade negotiations and competition issues. The experience I’ve gained from all those areas is relevant to the issues currently in front of the CRTC.

Does the broadcasting industry parallel any aspects of the banking or airline industries, both of which you were involved with while at the Competition Bureau?

All three of these industries have gone through waves of consolidation. At the Competition Bureau, we reviewed the Air Canada/CP merger as well as proposed mergers in the banking industry. Soon after I joined the CRTC, we received applications regarding CTV’s purchase of CHUM, Astral Media’s acquisition of Standard Radio, and Rogers’ purchase of the Citytv stations.

In reviewing transactions, whether from a competition or a communications policy perspective, we have to balance the economic efficiencies that come from greater consolidation with the need for diversity and different competitors.

Are there lessons to be learned from your earlier experiences in those industries?

The main lesson is that it’s impossible to deal with issues in isolation. There are many lateral connections to other issues that need to be taken into account. So you have to keep your eye on the big picture in order to serve the public good.

Also, every decision can have unintended consequences, and as much as one focuses on the desired outcomes, one has to be on the lookout for them.

When I visit public forums (cbc.ca, for example) or some websites (dissolvethecrtc.ca), I’m often struck by the irony that so many use free and open media to call for the dismemberment of a body whose purpose is to protect their culture and media. Can any oversight body prevent what looks to be the inevitable dissipation of localized culture, and the globalization and consolidation of media ownership and control?

I don’t agree that the dissipation of localized culture is inevitable. Canadians are interested in global culture, but they also have an appetite for local content. We have seen, in our recent proceedings, a renewed pride in their local identity and expression. The media has to address both these needs. Radio has found its niche by focusing on local programming. Conventional TV stations, on the other hand, have not yet found the right model to respond to the needs of their audience.

How can/should the CRTC evolve to serve Canada as the country continues to open up to a global media community?

For some time now, digital technologies have been driving a convergence between the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. The CRTC, however, must regulate these two industries separately under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. I believe that Canada must do as other countries have done: bring regulation of the whole communications industry under a unified legislative approach.

But that’s only one part of the answer. What is needed is a national digital strategy, as advocated by the National Film Board. We saw some encouraging developments over the summer. The University of Waterloo’s Stratford Institute sponsored the Canada 3.0 Forum and the minister of industry hosted a one-day forum on Canada’s digital economy. Independent think tanks, such as the Nordicity Group, have also published discussion papers and reports on this topic.

I hope that Canada will soon adopt a national digital strategy and, of course, the CRTC will make its contribution in the design and implementation of such a strategy.

A recent study by Harvard’s Berman Center for the Internet and Society ranked Canada 22nd out of 30 countries based on several factors related to Internet service and adoption. (For example, Canada ranked 16th on broadband adoption, 20th on speed and capacity, and 25th on price.) Assuming this study is an accurate reflection of the current landscape, why do you think Canada is lagging behind comparable nations in this area? What can/should we be doing to address this deficit?

The CRTC has trouble understanding the study’s results. Our numbers do not correlate with those of the Berman Center. We are looking into it, so I can’t offer any other comment at this point in time.

You’re a little over halfway through your mandate – can you predict what will likely occupy the preponderance of your time for the rest of your term? Are there any issues you were hoping to address that you might not have time for?

There are two issues that will most likely dominate the rest of my mandate. In broadcasting, the dominant issue will probably be the transition to digital television, which is less than two years away. In telecommunications, the use of next-generation networks will likely be the biggest issue. Our key role in both will be to balance the interests of the various stakeholders with good public policy while ensuring that consumer needs are properly addressed.

What achievement at the CRTC, or in other professional experience, are you most proud of?

The diversity of voices decision is notable for two reasons. First, it clearly set out a framework to deal with future mergers and created a predictable environment for the industry. And secondly, it anticipated future developments in the industry. The diversity of voices decision was taken before events came to a head and thus avoided us dealing with the issue in the middle of a crisis.

Who are your role models? Who has the greatest influence on you?

Kevin Lynch probably shaped my thinking and approach to public policy more than any other person I’ve worked with. He was my deputy minister at Industry Canada for many years and went on to serve as clerk of the Privy Council. I enjoyed working with him tremendously.

To what extent does the CRTC take on the personality of its leadership? Should the chair help shape and direct the debate, or should the chair strictly weigh in on issues as they are brought?

While the chairman can lead discussions and set priorities, the CRTC’s decisions and policies reflect the collective – that is, the input of all members. The decisions may reflect the communication style of the leader but the substance reflects the thinking of all.

Do you think the broadcasting landscape will bear any resemblance to the one we have now in five years? Ten years?

No one really knows what shape the broadcasting landscape will take. The only sure bet is that it will likely be completely different than what we plan for or expect.

What would you be doing if you weren’t doing this?

I’d probably be playing golf in the summer and skiing in the winter.