BACK IN NOVEMBER, on a regulatory panel at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters final convention, I said then that the broadcasting in new media hearing, which is beginning this Tuesday in Gatineau, was a waste of time.
I qualified it, of course. I do think it’s a good idea that the Commission gather information on what new media is and what it’s doing to the regulated system – and generally be aware of what’s up, on line. But I stand by what I said, especially after seeing some of the submissions.
A hearing by a regulator into something that will forever be impossible for a free, democratic country to regulate? There are better ways for all of us to spend our time (but that doesn’t mean Cartt.ca won’t be covering it though – and we will have a reporter there).
After reading through a few reams of paper, I have trouble seeing what we’re going to accomplish. Most appearing at the hearing say that the 1999 exemption order on new media was, and continues to be, a great idea – as was the 2007 exemption for broadcasting on mobile units. (The mobile one will likely be moot anyway because that market looks like it’s moving to ubiquitous web-based smart phones that access video content via the web and not fed in a channel-lineup format to subscribers like cable has been.)
There is one significant issue at play during the many days of this hearing (which goes from February 17-18, then February 23-27, then March 9-11): whether Canadians should pay an extra fee to their ISPs that would be diverted towards the production of Canadian new media.
But there are other opinions, too.
ACTRA, the actors union, wants to effectively regulate the Internet in Canada like it’s TV, circa 1985.
“The Commission should take an expansive view of the definition of ‘program’ and confirm that all broadcasting over the Internet falls under the Act and its regulatory authority regardless of who created the program, or the extent to which the viewer may interact with it,” reads ACTRA’s executive summary.
So, everyone who is streaming programs from Canada “through the Internet or to mobile receiving devices,” it reads, must “be licensed and subject to rules equivalent to other programming undertakings which broadcast on a fixed schedule.”
Ok, stop the guffaws, because it goes on! The Commission, says ACTRA, should “require that those who are making programs available from Canada, through the Internet or to mobile receiving devices, for viewing at a time and place chosen by the viewer, be licensed, be required to provide a program selection that is predominantly Canadian, required to provide appropriate promotion for their Canadian content, and be subject to other regulations equivalent to other on-demand programming undertakings.”
The mind boggles. Maybe this is parody? They’re actors, right? Maybe they’re just funnin’ us. Alas…
But that bit of “regulate the Internet” kookery will likely be shoved aside and the idea of making us all pay more will probably be the central issue in this hearing because very, very few people beyond our actor friends believe regulating programming on the Internet is even remotely possible – for technical, legal and social reasons. Many individual Canadians actually filed letters in this hearing pleading for the Commission to keep any and all regulation away from the Internet.
So what do we think Canadians appetite will be to pay an extra 3%, to use one example, on our broadband connection to full some new media fund so that there can be more Cancon on the web? That works out to approximately $18 a year on my own bill, and I think Canadians may work themselves into a bit of a snit on this one.
Actually, the submissions requesting more money always ask for the ISPs to pay the 3%, not acknowledging those ISPs get their revenue from Joe and Jane Canuck and the cost will be passed on. Without a recession, Canadians would hate it. In a recession? I can’t fathom the level of anger that would grow – especially since anyone who can point and click can quickly find jillions of made-in-Canada web sites and thousands of hours of Canadian video already there.
One of the reasons why there are funding models and Cancon commitments for the TV system now is that the technology meant it has always been a closed system. There are access rules because few people can get on TV. Not everyone can start a cable company. There are Cancon requirements because it’s always been cheaper and easier to buy foreign programming than make your own – and yeah, most agree that seeing some of our own stories on TV is a pretty good idea.
The web has none of these restrictions – and Canadians are telling their stories there already, in droves, because everyone has access to the web. If I wanted to launch an all-Hamilton-all-the-time-news-and-entertainment-video-site, I could do it tomorrow (and if E!/CH continues on the path it’s going, someone will surely launch such a portal here in the Hammer, but je digress…)
At issue is access to an audience and the revenue that comes with that. Anyone can get on the web of course. Not everyone can attract a crowd beyond their family and network of Facebook friends. THAT is the hard part. But an audience will come with a great story and good promotion and if it happens, success can be global, not just confined to Canada. But, say the producers and actors, they need money from the Canadian ISPs who provide the pathway for that audience.
The ISPs themselves say such a tax isn’t legal anyway and would inhibit growth and innovation, not to mention tick off their millions of customers. “Not only is the idea of taxing Internet access and Internet consumers unfair, particularly in a recession, it could be very harmful to broader policy goals,” reads the Telus submission. “Given virtually unlimited access and a diversity of voices online, there is no justification for the importation of traditional broadcast regulatory tools onto platforms which are already hotbeds of innovation.”
And since in Canada, Internet service has long been classified as a telecommunications service and not a broadcast service, it’s illegal to apply such a tax, possible under the Broadcasting Act, to ISPs. “The simple transport of video and audio programming is not enough to transform an ISP into a BDU,” adds the Telus submission.
While a BDU such as a cable company or DTH provider sets a channel lineup and decides on compression and marketing and prices and myriad other things, an ISP is just a conduit. The consumer picks the content they want to see, from anywhere around the world (that isn’t geo-blocked, that is).
“New media broadcasting is not produced or consumed in the same way as traditional broadcasting and cannot be regulated in the same manner,” says the Rogers submission. “It is consumed differently and it is often produced for a different purpose than traditional media. Traditional regulatory models simply will not work in the new media broadcasting environment.”
The unfortunate part about this is many of the producers of original Canadian content decry how there are so few Canadian voices in new media broadcasting (I disagree with that statement, by the way, because my definition of new media broadcasting is not as narrow as theirs), while saying at the same time they can compete around the world (which I do agree with).
“In a globally connected world, if Canadian stories do not occupy the field, others will. Canadian broadcasting has not kept pace with the international community in creating and promoting new media content,” says the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association submission. “As a result, the world’s largest (mostly U.S.) media brands as well as aggressive new media start-ups are quickly populating the field. Canadian viewers, lacking sufficient Canadian choices, are spending more time visiting American destinations. Overwhelmed by a rising tide of foreign online and mobile content, Canadian voices in new media broadcasting are in short supply and increasingly marginalized.”
The question I hope the Commission panel asks the CFTPA and others harbouring the same opinion is: Where the hell are you guys then? What new media start-ups have you launched? What have been your experimentations and successes? (And I know there are some, btw.)
The CFTPA submission insists that “Canada’s independent producers have the talent, business acumen, and global reputation to lead content creation over all platforms.” So if that’s true, and there are no restrictions on the Internet and opportunity is there, why on earth aren’t they leading?
Says the S-Vox submission: “While there are opportunities in the new media environment, there are also many challenges. The most significant among these is that there is still no clearly sustainable business case for new media broadcasting services.”
Oh yeah. That.
What that means though, is it’s still just early days (despite their millions of users, neither Facebook nor YouTube earn a profit, for example) – and that any new regulatory hammer would forever retard our development in new media as the industry pursues a business plan that works.
This hearing should be 10 days of fact finding with no new regulations.
Greg O’Brien is editor and publisher of Cartt.ca. Agree with what he has to say? Disagree? Let us know at editorial@cartt.ca. We’ll even post your comments on the site, if you like.
