Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

    Blog Archive

    PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
    SMTWTFS
      12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930

    The CRTC's Future of Television Consultation: The Missing Provocative Questions

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Wednesday March 05, 2014
    Last month, I blogged about the CRTC's Talk TV consultation and concerns that the questions were framed in a lopsided manner.  CRTC Chair Jean Pierre Blais was asked about those concerns in Twitter chat and he responded that the questions and answers "were intended to be provocative." I address that response in my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) highlighting both the concerns with the survey and offering some additional provocative questions that the Commission excluded.

    The column begins by noting that regulation of Internet video services and the prospect of pick-and-pay television channels headline the second phase of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's future of television consultation which launched late last month. The "TalkTV" initiative is designed to make it easy for Canadians to participate, featuring six short scenarios followed by a limited number of choices for respondents.


    Tags:
    , ,
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    The CRTC's Simultaneous Substitution Problem

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Tuesday January 28, 2014
    The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications has spent the past year-and-a-half trying to reinvent itself a pro-consumer regulator. On the broadcast front, the most obvious manifestation of that approach is the gradual move toward pick-and-pay channels, which seems likely to emerge as a policy option later this year. Establishing mandated pick-and-pay would  be a political and consumer winner, but there are still reasons for Canadians to vent against the regulator. The retention of simultaneous substitution policies is one of them.

    I made the case for gradually eliminating the simultaneous substitution policy late last year, arguing that the policy hurts Canadian broadcasters (by ceding control over their schedules to U.S. networks) and Canadian content (which suffers from promotion). Moreover, simultaneous substitution will become less important over time as consumers shift toward on-demand availability of programs. There are still supporters of simultaneous substitution, but few come from the consumer community.  Indeed, even the CRTC is hard-pressed to identify consumer benefits in its FAQ on the policy. In fact, its Super Bowl commercial FAQ claims viewers benefit from signal substitution during the broadcast, but the Commission can't seem to identify any benefits.


    Tags:
    , , ,
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    The Case For Cancelling Canada's Simultaneous Substitution Rules

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Tuesday December 17, 2013
    The government's promise to implement a "pick-and-pay" television model that would allow consumers to subscribe to individual channels from cable and satellite providers garnered significant attention this fall. The approach was promoted as a pro-consumer reform that better reflects expectations that the public controls when, where, and on what device they watch broadcast programming.

    Consistent with the government's policy commitment, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will soon report on the regulatory implications of such a reform. Changing cable packages may only be the beginning, however, as CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais has stated that the regulator needs to "develop a regulatory framework that will be flexible enough to be adapted to the new technological reality."

    My weekly technology law column (homepage version, Toronto Star version) notes the unbundling of television packages represents the broadcast distribution side of the changing environment, but the flip side of the coin involves the need for changes to Canadian broadcast policy. If Industry Minister James Moore and the CRTC are prepared to shake up the way Canadians access television, they should also consider changing longstanding and increasingly outdated broadcast rules, starting with the gradual elimination of "simultaneous substitution" policies.


    Tags:
    , ,
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    The Case For Cancelling Canada's Simultaneous Substitution Rules

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Tuesday December 17, 2013
    Appeared in the Toronto Star on December 14, 2013 as It's Time to Let Canadians See Those Super Bowl Ads

    The government's promise to implement a "pick-and-pay" television model that would allow consumers to subscribe to individual channels from cable and satellite providers garnered significant attention this fall. The approach was promoted as a pro-consumer reform that better reflects expectations that the public controls when, where, and on what device they watch broadcast programming.

    Consistent with the government's policy commitment, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will soon report on the regulatory implications of such a reform. Changing cable packages may only be the beginning, however, as CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais has stated that the regulator needs to "develop a regulatory framework that will be flexible enough to be adapted to the new technological reality."

    The unbundling of television packages represents the broadcast distribution side of the changing environment, but the flip side of the coin involves the need for changes to Canadian broadcast policy. If Industry Minister James Moore and the CRTC are prepared to shake up the way Canadians access television, they should also consider changing longstanding and increasingly outdated broadcast rules, starting with the gradual elimination of "simultaneous substitution" policies.

    Simultaneous substitution dates back to 1971, when the CRTC published a detailed policy statement for the nascent cable industry that allowed for the substitution of local commercials for U.S. advertisements where the same program ran on Canadian and U.S. channels at the same time. The effect was to simultaneously impose the Canadian feed on both the Canadian and U.S. channels. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the validity of the policy in 1977, leading to decades of frustrated Super Bowl viewers who are unable to see the U.S. commercials during the game.

    Canadian broadcasters have been big boosters of the simultaneous substitution policy, claiming that it generates significant revenues that can be used to support more expensive and less profitable Canadian programming. The U.S. programs can be licensed for a fraction of the cost of original Canadian programming and simultaneous substitution increases the visibility of Canadian advertising by placing it on multiple channels.

    Yet despite the purported advantages, simultaneous substitution has come at a heavy price to the independence of Canadian broadcasters. Given their reliance on the policy, U.S. broadcasters effectively control the Canadian prime time broadcast schedule since the Canadian priority will be to match whatever the U.S. counterpart is broadcasting. If the U.S. broadcaster moves the time or date of a program, the Canadian broadcaster typically matches the change in order to retain simultaneous broadcast.

    Moreover, Canadian programming invariably suffers as a result since Canadian broadcasters often limit their promotion of domestic programs and can rarely guarantee a steady placement in the programming schedule. U.S. programming also becomes more expensive, since simultaneous substitution increases its economic value.

    The new technological reality suggests that simultaneous substitution should become less and less important over time. Given consumer ability to watch programs through a myriad of non-broadcast avenues such as cable on-demand features, Internet streaming, personal video recorders, or online subscriptions, viewing a program in its designated time slot is increasingly part of a bygone era.

    There is little doubt, however, that broadcasters will fight to retain the policy. Bell Media said earlier this fall that it would support a policy that would block Canadian access to U.S. channels altogether if simultaneous substitution were removed. Alternatively, it favours a non-simultaneous substitution policy that replaces U.S. commercials whenever the program airs.

    Canadian broadcasters may have been content to compete largely on picking U.S. winners in the past, but future success will depend on developing their own original content to sell to a global audience. Simultaneous substitution creates a protected market that delays the inevitable. The policy may have made sense in the 1970s to support the development of the Canadian broadcast distribution system, but if the government is serious about bringing broadcast into the 21st century, it is simultaneous substitution that should face cancellation.

    Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.


    Tags:
    , ,
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
     
    << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

    Results 1 - 4 of 49