THE START OF GOOGLE’S submission to the Broadcast and Telecom Legislative Review panel may be just be a boilerplate presentation of what they do (“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”), but when it gets to the subject at hand, boing!
The digital giant’s submission calls out the discrepancy between the Creative Canada Policy Framework (former Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly’s pet project) and the policy objectives in Broadcasting Act (the Principles).
“Most of the policy objectives articulated in the Broadcasting Act are primarily focussed on cultural policy, namely the protection and preservation of ‘Canadian culture’ by excluding non-Canadian influences from the Canadian market,” reads the submission.
“However, both the Principles and the Framework clearly shift the emphasis from protectionist cultural policy to economic policy, which focuses on supporting Canadian culture by ensuring creative industries are economically sustainable. For instance, the Framework expressly states that ‘creators, broadly defined, must be at the centre of our new approach for the creative industries,’ and that ‘the intent is to recognize their role as employers and producers in the creative economy,’ and proposes to achieve this by 1) investing in Canadian creators, cultural entrepreneurs and their stories, 2) promoting discovery and distribution at home and globally, and 3) strengthen public broadcasting and supporting local news.
“By placing creators and creative industries at the heart of their approach, the Government is clearly prioritizing the contributions of creative industries and creative jobs to the Canadian economy over the production of Canadian cultural products,” the Google submission astutely notes.
Therefore, this not a cultural policy, but an economic one. “The strong emphasis on supporting exports also makes this shift very clear, as exporting cultural goods and services is effectively irrelevant for the purposes of cultural policy (which is concerned about Canadians having access to Canadian content reflecting Canadian values, not on communicating to non-Canadians). In fact, protectionist cultural policy is antithetical to a strong export strategy as market access is reciprocal and promoting sales of cultural products in non-Canadian markets while simultaneously discriminating against non-Canadian cultural products domestically is not a sustainable position,” reads the digital giant’s pitch.
“Some stakeholders, notably participants in and beneficiaries of the closed broadcasting model, have argued we should simply expand the existing broadcasting regime and apply the old rules of terrestrial broadcasting to the new, borderless digital world. In our view, that is not the path forward, and moreover, would not be consistent with the Principles, the Framework, or the shift from cultural to economic policy objectives.” – Google
“Some stakeholders, notably participants in and beneficiaries of the closed broadcasting model, have argued we should simply expand the existing broadcasting regime and apply the old rules of terrestrial broadcasting to the new, borderless digital world. In our view, that is not the path forward, and moreover, would not be consistent with the Principles, the Framework, or the shift from cultural to economic policy objectives,” Google argues, adding, “we strongly agree that any new model must support the creation of content that focuses on the audience rather than attempting to force consumers to experience a certain type of content (e.g. CanCon).”
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority CIRA
The organization in charge of Canada’s domain names (among other important things) launches its submission with a statement as obvious as it is, we often forget. “We have reached an inflection point where the internet is seen as not only a bastion of progress, but also a challenge to long-held government policy objectives. The paradigm shift is evident in recent battles fought by policymakers around the world. In the United States these battles have taken the form of the repeal of net neutrality and the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In the European Union, the challenges are evident in the controversial Copyright Directive and the recently implemented General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),” reads the CIRA submission.
“While bandwidth intensive, audio-visual constitutes only a small portion of the applications Canadians access over the internet, therefore broadcasting interests must not be permitted to steer telecommunications legislation.” – CIRA
We are again reminded that we shouldn’t confuse the Internet with the applications which ride upon it. “The internet is a general-purpose, neutral conduit over which many applications run. It is imperative that we distinguish clearly between the applications that run on top of the internet, and the internet itself. While bandwidth intensive, audio-visual constitutes only a small portion of the applications Canadians access over the internet, therefore broadcasting interests must not be permitted to steer telecommunications legislation…
“This joint review of legislation seeks to accomplish two difficult and possibly conflicting priorities. The first is determining how to continue funding Canadian content creation in the globally interconnected digital economy. The second is achieving universal access to high quality, affordable broadband. In pursuit of the first goal, some have proposed that internet service providers ought to contribute to Canadian content creation,” CIRA’s pitch continues.
The organization reemphasis its point by adding: “The tools of the Broadcasting Act… include preferential treatment for Canadian programming. This is diametrically opposed to the concept of an ‘open internet.’ CIRA submitted views on the issue of blocking in response to the 2018 FairPlay Coalition Application to disable online access to piracy websites. CIRA does not see limiting the openness of the internet as sacrosanct, but as a measure that should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances such as in cases of child abuse and infrastructure abuse (e.g. distribution of malware, denial of service attacks). Preferential treatment of Canadian programming would not qualify as one of these exceptions. “
Essentially: Don’t touch my Content Delivery Network (CDN): “For the purposes of this legislative review, it is worth noting that content delivery networks are dominant players in the internet ecosystem. Their service territories are global, and their networks are unregulated by both telecommunications and broadcasting law. This is not to say that these private networks ought to be regulated under telecommunications legislation. There is no apparent market failure.”
SSI Micro
SSI Micro is an independent network operator which is making a go of things in the Far North. It’s a facilities-based telecommunications common carrier, a local competitor (CLEC), a spectrum licensee, a provider of broadband service, and thus an internet service provider and an over-the-top deliverer of local content in Northern communities. Soon, the company wants to go in the radio business.
Of course, many of its recommendations stem from their experience in these regards and differ from we normally hear. Here are a few examples:
- Implement more effective separation of the policy setting and policy-implementation functions across all three Acts with a view to improving their enforceability.
- Ensure that Ministerial and Cabinet discretion applies only to policy-making functions under all three of the Telecommunications Act, Radiocommunication Act, and Broadcasting Act.
- Ensure that all policy implementation functions are subject to effective enforcement mechanisms, such as transparent internal review and judicial review.
- Ensure that the implementing agencies (such as the CRTC) are properly resourced to carry out all of their policy implementation functions.
We are used with more comprehensive intervention from the Bureau. Of course, it has been on the record on many proceedings, so the Bureau’s views are already well known to the Panel.
“Canadian content is advanced through a combination of subsidies, both from general revenues and through contributions from broadcasters, and by requiring broadcasters to carry a certain amount of Canadian content as part of their offerings,” its submission reminds.
“These regulatory measures may be needed because market forces alone are unlikely to produce the amounts of Canadian content that policy-makers determine are socially and culturally optimal. Regulations should strive to maintain competitive neutrality between service providers; that is, firms should compete on the merits and should not benefit from undue advantages due to their business model, ownership, nationality, or other factors not related to performance. Subjecting OTTs to a different set of regulatory requirements than traditional broadcasters may lead to distortions in how these companies compete in the market,” it argues.
The social media giant’s submission is slim compared to most, probably due to the fact that it might not have wanted to participate. As they note in their preamble, it was the Panel which recommended that Facebook make a submission.
The company’s document mostly recommends the BTLR panel undertake research on a variety of subjects including: Quantifying the economic and social benefits that online platforms enable in the Canadian cultural sector, on the impact of misinformation, the economical value of data does not come from data itself, but rather how it is processed and how it is used.
We do not expect the panel to make that research, if attempted, available.
Facebook also warns the Panel to be: “Mindful of the challenges of having the governmental entities play a role in regulating opinions, views, and speech online.”
Finally, Facebook promotes the addition of Intermediary Liability Protections to law in order to allow individuals to communicate freely online. “Given that the vast majority of content on Facebook are communications from individuals, online platforms are actually more akin to virtual extensions real-world communications and speech between people, than traditional newspapers or broadcasters.
The company also noted the USMCA (the yet-to-be-ratified U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade deal) includes Intermediary Liability Protections for online platforms.
We will have more to come as we continue to read and analyze the now 32 submissions we have received after asking the companies or groups. Those who have told us no, we’re not sending our submission? Bell Canada, Corus Entertainment and SaskTel. Those from whom we haven’t yet heard an answer? Amazon and Netflix. Those whose submissions we’re still reading? CMPA, Pelmorex, ACTRA, Iristel, ATN and a few others.
Click here then here and then here for the prior three stories we've published on the submissions. We also did separate stories on the CRTC and CBC submissions.
We also intend to break down the submissions in more detail by the issues, and not just by companies/organizations, in the coming weeks. Please email us directly if you have any story ideas or angles you think we should be pursuing on this topic. Your email will be kept confidential.
Original artwork by Paul Lachine, Chatham, Ont.
