OTTAWA – The Canadian cultural and broadcasting communities say that the new wireless video services now in the market from Rogers Wireless, Bell Mobility and Telus are certainly a form of broadcasting and as such, should be subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Act.
Phase I and II comments were filed recently with the CRTC by all parties and while the wireless providers insist that the service falls under the CRTC’s 1999 New Media Exemption Order, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, its members, and cultural groups like SOCAN, CIRPA and even the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union all say no, it’s broadcasting and must be regulated.
The CRTC called for comments this summer to figure out what to do with cell phone providers which are now delivering video to customers over advanced handsets.
The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (which speaks for the providers in question), while admitting in its submission, “that some parts of the services could be considered ‘programs’ and likely constitute ‘broadcasting’ as defined by the Broadcasting Act,” insists that since the video service is delivered partly over the public Internet, that Mobi TV, which is the American technology all three are offering, falls under the NMEO and should remain unregulated.
In fact, the wireless video service will enhance customer loyalty to the broadcasters’ offerings, says the CWTA.
Yes, say the broadcasters, part of the Mobi TV video content is passed through the public Internet, but that doesn’t mean it falls under the NMEO. “The mobile broadcasting services which are the subject of this proceeding do not ‘broadcast over the Internet.’ The distributors do not act as ISPs, offering all the video available on the Internet to anyone with an Internet connection. Instead, they operate as value-added aggregators who assemble specific broadcast sources through affiliation agreements – in short, as broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs),” says the CAB Phase II submission.
Even Weather Network/Metéomédia owner Pelmorex, which is already providing its two video services to the wireless companies, says the new delivery mode should be subject to regulation.
“While Pelmorex is an enthusiastic supporter of mobile broadcasting services we believe it is critical that the proper regulatory environment be established by the Commission from the beginning,” says the company’s submission, authored by senior vice-president corporate development, Paul Temple.
“The use of terms like ‘storage folder’ ‘TCP/IP over HTTP’, ‘client-server implementation’, ‘java client’ found in the wireless common carriers’ correspondence with the Commission, while undoubtedly accurate, simply serve to obscure the true nature of the services being provided,” continues Temple’s letter. “In simple language, the wireless common carriers, while employing internet technology and the world wide web to transport programming services signals to their ‘head ends’ are using their own distinct wireless networks to deliver the service to their subscribers. It is clear from the filings made by the wireless common carriers that they inject the signals into their own networks, authenticate use and perform all the same functions that cable and satellite BDUs currently perform.”
The wireless industry can’t fathom regulation being placed on this new service, however. The small screen, often choppy delivery, and the fact they say it’s an Internet service all mean it should be exempt.
“I think the broadcasters should take a chill pill here,” Rogers Communications’ vice-president, regulatory, Ken Englehart told www.cartt.ca this summer. “They are so heavily into protectionist mode that they are not thinking clearly on this. (Mobi TV) is absolutely not a threat to the Canadian broadcasting system in any way. They should allow this medium to grow a bit and see what happens – which is precisely the thinking behind the New Media Exemption Order.
Adds the CWTA: “(I)t would be a perverse result if programming received over the Internet via a low-frame video stream on a two inch telephone or PDA screen was to be subject to a higher degree of regulation than programming received over the Internet via a wireline high-speed video stream (via cable or DSL modem) to a 17 inch video monitor,” reads its submission.
However, video quality isn’t mentioned in the Broadcasting Act, points out the CAB. Content, specifically Canadian content, is what matters, not the signal clarity – or lack thereof.
So, the CAB has proposed wireless video be granted an experimental exemption order, which would be revisited in two years, as long as all wireless providers adhere to four conditions:
* The company offering the mobile broadcasting service must be owned and effectively controlled by Canadians.
* The service received by each subscriber shall consist of a preponderance of Canadian signals.
* The company must source its content only from licensed Canadian programming services, or from non-Canadian services previously authorized for distribution in Canada. That content must be related to content carried on the programming service in question.
* The company must contribute 5% of its gross annual revenues derived from its mobile broadcasting service, including transmission or airtime charges for reception of the service, to an appropriate Canadian talent development fund.
The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), was less forgiving in its submission, saying no exemption should be granted to the wireless providers and also called for the NMEO itself to be reviewed.
“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 the SOCAN submission,
“The current lack of regulation of many of these new technologies is diluting the Commission’s effectiveness and creating two classes of broadcasters – those who are subject to Parliament’s Canadian content policies; and those who are not.”
According to the CRTC web site, the Commission has yet to set a date for a hearing on this matter.
