OTTAWA – Turns out that creating actual public policy is far more complicated than a few easy sound bites about choice and protecting jobs.
While the federal government last week demanded a report from the CRTC on letting Canadians break up their subscription TV bundles by April 30th, the written direction to the CRTC from the Privy Council shows an argument that is far more complex than the throw away sentences about “protecting consumers” which were a part of the Speech from the Throne on October 16. It seems to be demanding a report on providing pick and pay without actually providing full pick and pay.
Heritage Minister Shelly Glover said last week “Canadian families should be able to choose the combination of television channels they want. This decision is an important step in defending Canadian consumers, who want choice and flexibility in their television services. Our request will ensure that the CRTC develops a more complete roadmap to unbundle TV channels.”
Great. Sounds straightforward, right? Choice is good, so let’s do it. Well, the road there is full of bumps, twists and turns, potholes, U-turns and dead ends, as the official Privy Council order if not the Minister’s press release, encapsulates.
After all the typical “whereases” outlining the stated reasons behind the order, the Privy Council told the CRTC it must report:
“On how the ability of Canadian consumers to subscribe to pay and specialty television services on a service-by-service basis can be maximized in a manner that most appropriately furthers the implementation of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in subsection 3(1) of the Act while having regard to the objectives of the regulatory policy set out in subsection 5(2) of the Act; the report is to set out the steps that the Commission intends to take in that respect, having particular regard to the following considerations:
(a) the effect of those measures on consumers and, in particular, their affordable access to a variety of pay and specialty television services, including niche programming;
(b) the effect of those measures on
(i) Canadian pay and specialty television services, including the cost of program acquisition
(ii) distribution undertakings
(iii) the Canadian independent production sector
(iv) programming that reflects the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, and
(v) English and French linguistic minorities; and(c) the manner in which those measures would ensure that
(i) the majority of programming services received by subscribers remain Canadian, and
(ii) the carriage by distribution undertakings of Canadian programming services, particularly local Canadian stations, continues to be given priority.
Section 3(1) of the Act, for those who have never read it, or at least not recently, is extremely comprehensive, with far more to it than the a, b, and c noted in the demand from the Privy Council. It actually goes all the way to t.
So, whereas the industry is already moving in that direction a little with Videotron, Cogeco and EastLink offering a-la-carte – and whereas the CRTC is already examining all this with the just-launched TV Review, what the federal government is now asking for is a report on how Canadians can be offered a pick-and-pay, or a-la-carte subscription TV environment, without actually giving them full pick-and-pay. Right where the Order asks the CRTC to report on how a new pick and pay regime it wants to know how the Regulator would ensure the majority of programming services RECEIVED by consumers here are Canadian and that Canadian channels, particularly local or niche Canadian stations, continue to be given priority by carriers.
(Ed note: Here’s an idea for the Conservative government: Why not let the market evolve the way it will, because it’s clearly moving to a-la-carte on its own, and let the CRTC, which oversees the business, do its job without this pointless political interference?)
So, while sound bites are easy for blithe politicians, the real work is hard, complex, nuanced and will be hammered out by the industry and its Regulator.
