OTTAWA – As long as mobile TV services maintain their current unicast model, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters say they don’t need to be regulated, according to a submission made Friday to the CRTC.
But, that exemption should remain only if the mobile TV services currently offered by Rogers Wireless, Telus and Bell Mobility keep their one-to-one technological model, where a wireless subscriber has content streamed to them individually via their cell phone or other mobile device, says the broadcasters’ lobby group.
The submission was made in response to the CRTC’s call for comments on its decision to exempt mobile TV from regulation. The deadline to comment was Friday.
Many CAB members are already providing content – either full TV channels or other packaged video – to wireless providers. "Canadian producers and broadcasters are creating drama and comedy ‘mobisodes’ (anywhere from seconds to minutes of programming) and other content specifically for these platforms, as well as repurposing existing television content," says the CAB submission.
However, given the ongoing developments in Europe and Asia, where wireless technology being deployed looks more like a digital cellular broadcast than a unicast, the Commission should reserve its exemption only for the current technology here in Canada, say the broadcasters.
The CAB proposes that the Commission exempt telephony-based mobile television broadcasting services that meet the following criteria:
• That they will be subject to the Canadian ownership and control rules for BDUs.
• That video and audio delivered to customers must share capacity with the telephone voice signals offered to the subscriber, that the majority of the spectrum capacity is used for telephony, and that each receiver require the use of a separate stream of broadcast video and audio (unicasting).
• That the service provides a majority of Canadian services in the television service accessed by each subscriber.
• If the wireless company distributes existing programming services (rather than specialized content created specifically for the mobile platform), the company must source the services from licensed Canadian programming services or from non-Canadian services authorized for distribution in Canada (i.e. no ESPN on your Telus mobile, for example).
• Wireless companies must get prior consent from the broadcaster for the retransmission of its signal.
As for radio stations on mobile phones? They "must only be carried under the frameworks for subscription radio and commercial radio, not under this exemption order," says the CAB.
The CAB wants the exemption order limited in this way because new wireless developments elsewhere in the world offer too much flexibility as they are based on a one-to-many broadcast model.
"Broadcast-based mobile television services… closely resemble digital broadcast technologies in every respect and can readily serve as substitutes for existing services," says the CAB. "A mobile receiver based on such technology can effectively act as a set-top box, feeding good quality digit television signals to stationary, in-home receivers. The potential for negative impact on the obligations for existing licensees is clearly present."
However, "the CAB submits that it is too early to determine the appropriate regulatory framework, whether licensing or exemption, for these advanced broadcast-based mobile television services. It is the CAB’s view that it is premature to conclude that licensing will not contribute materially to the success of Canadian content and services on these new platforms, and it is premature to conclude that exemption will not negatively impact the ability of existing licensees to make their contributions to the goals of the Broadcasting Act," reads the submission.
As for SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, the exemption the CRTC has granted for mobile TV is wrong and that the entire new media exemption order (which this mobile TV decision falls under) of 1999, where the Commission decided not to try to regulate the Internet, has to be reopened and public hearings called.
"The fact that the technological means or media may have changed does not mean that the Commission should abandon its regulation of content. When new technologies communicate content, which is now subject to regulation by the Commission, then these new means of communication should also be regulated by the Commission," says SOCAN’s submission.
Reply comments are due June 23rd.
– Greg O’Brien
