|
Tuesday July 05, 2011 |
As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
concludes its hearing on the consolidation of the Canadian
communications market into a handful of corporate giants (so-called
vertical integration) and embarks on a "fact-finding exercise" on the
impact of online video services (today is the submission deadline), my
weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes the only obvious conclusion from the
hundreds of submissions and hours of debate is that Canada’s broadcast
law framework is broken.
The Commission’s struggle to make sense of the changing corporate and
technological landscape - alongside lobbying for new industry codes of
practice and Internet regulations - is rooted in a regulatory framework
premised on scarcity rather than abundance. When the law was crafted,
broadcasters occupied a privileged position, since the creation of
video was expensive and the spectrum needed to distribute it scarce. As
a result, the government established a licensing system complete with
content requirements and cultural contributions designed to further a
myriad of policy goals.
Yet among the more than 40 policy goals found in the current
Broadcasting
Act, the word "competition" does not appear once. The
absence of competition may have made sense when there was little of it,
but in today’s world of abundance featuring a seemingly unlimited array
of content and distribution possibilities, fostering competition among
broadcasters and broadcast distributors such as cable and satellite
companies might hold the key to reforming the system.
What might a competition-focused broadcast policy look like?
broadcast, crtc, ott Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday July 05, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday July 05, 2011 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on July 3, 2011 as Why Competition Holds the Key to
a Broken Broadcast System
As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
concludes its hearing on the consolidation of the Canadian
communications market into a handful of corporate giants (so-called
vertical integration) and embarks on a "fact-finding exercise" on the
impact of online video services, the only obvious conclusion from the
hundreds of submissions and hours of debate is that Canada’s broadcast
law framework is broken.
The Commission’s struggle to make sense of the changing corporate and
technological landscape - alongside lobbying for new industry codes of
practice and Internet regulations - is rooted in a regulatory framework
premised on scarcity rather than abundance. When the law was crafted,
broadcasters occupied a privileged position, since the creation of
video was expensive and the spectrum needed to distribute it scarce. As
a result, the government established a licensing system complete with
content requirements and cultural contributions designed to further a
myriad of policy goals.
Yet among the more than 40 policy goals found in the current
Broadcasting Act, the word "competition" does not appear once. The
absence of competition may have made sense when there was little of it,
but in today’s world of abundance featuring a seemingly unlimited array
of content and distribution possibilities, fostering competition among
broadcasters and broadcast distributors such as cable and satellite
companies might hold the key to reforming the system.
What might a competition-focused broadcast policy look like?
First, rather than erecting barriers to new entrants with proposed
fees, regulations, or investment restrictions, Canadian law would seek
to create a level playing field that encourages more competition. This
would mean recognizing that video can be distributed across many
platforms from broadcast television to the Internet to software games,
but that broadcast regulation is not needed where there is no scarcity.
While some argue for the regulation of services like Netflix, the
reality is that there is nothing to stop any Canadian company from
establishing a competing service. The best way to beat Netflix is in
the marketplace, not a CRTC hearing room. Conventional broadcast may
still require some regulation (spectrum is still relatively scarce),
but new online competitors do not.
Moreover, encouraging greater competition means inviting new
competitors into the marketplace. Canada maintains some of the most
restrictive rules for foreign investment in the communications sector
and this would change under a competition-focused broadcast policy.
Second, broadcasters and broadcast distributors should be forced to
compete more aggressively for viewers and original Canadian content. In
the current environment, cable and satellite companies package hundreds
of channels together in a confusing manner that leaves consumers
frustrated with ever-increasing bills, while broadcaster competition is
largely limited to outbidding one another for Hollywood hits.
Injecting competition into this environment would include establishing
a pick-and-pay option for consumers that would allow them to pay only
for those channels they actually want and removing the simultaneous
substitution policy that grants Canadian broadcasters the lucrative
ability to substitute their feed (commercials included) over the same
U.S. feed. Dropping simultaneous substitution, which has turned some
Canadian private broadcasters into little more than U.S. affiliates,
would force the broadcasters to compete with their own original content
and help to ensure that Canadian content is made to be watched, not
just made to comply with regulatory requirements.
Third, a competition-focused approach would ensure that the vertically
integrated giants do not leverage their controls across multiple
platforms to stymie new entrants or independently created content. That
would require guidelines on the implementation of Internet data caps
(since ISPs can use the caps to hamper online video competitors),
enforcement of net neutrality rules to foster different modes of video
distribution, and restrictions on the use of exclusivity by ensuring
competitor access to content on reasonable terms.
The result would be a sea-change in the Canadian broadcast landscape –
broadcasters competing on the quality of their original programming,
broadcast distributors on the basis of the value they provide to
consumers, and creators on their ability to find an audience in a world
of abundance.
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.
broadcast, competition, crtc Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday July 05, 2011 |
|
|
Friday May 06, 2011 |
CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein gave a speech
to the Canadian broadcasting community yesterday in which he urged
broadcasters and broadcast distributors to speak with one voice for
legislative reform. Von Finckenstein presented his vision of a single
communications statute (rather than separate Telecom Act and
Broadcasting Act) that could include:
- A statement of the economic,
social and cultural objectives of the communications system.
- A structure for the optimum
regulation of the transport of bits, whether by wireline or wireless,
and whether the content is voice or data. This would be the heart of
the Act. The goal has to be a competitive, flexible system that
encourages innovation.
- A clear delineation of the
broad policy choices that are to be left to the government, and the
powers to be assigned to an independent regulator.
- Specific provisions on
timelines and on regulatory powers, such as AMPs [Administrative
Monetary Penalties], mandatory adoption of codes, and the explicit
power to impose arbitration.
- A coherent scheme for the
support of Canadian content, be it by way of exemption, exception or
subsidies—or a combination of all three.
- The obligations,
responsibilities and governance of the public broadcaster, defining its
special role in reflecting Canada’s unique culture and values. This
could be set out in a separate part of the Act—or, as I would
recommend, in a separate statute.
He concluded by stating that Canada needs modern, forward-looking
legislation and that the industry needs to step up to the plate to
lobby for change.
broadcast, crtc, telecom, von finckenstein Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday May 06, 2011 |
|
|
Thursday March 10, 2011 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on March 6, 2011 as Content Rules, Not Canadian
Ownership, Protect Our Culture
In recent weeks, a political consensus has begun to emerge on the
benefits of removing restrictions on foreign ownership in the
telecommunications sector. Implementing such reforms faces at least one
major political stumbling block that is only tangentially related - the
spillover effect onto the broadcasting sector.
As Canadian telecom operators, broadcasters, and broadcast distributors
become single entities - Rogers combined with City-TV, Quebecor’s
ownership of Videotron, Sun Media, and Groupe TVA, Shaw having
purchased Canwest Global, as well as Bell in the process of merging
with CTVglobemedia - the biggest hurdle may well be fears about the
cultural impact of opening up telecom companies to foreign buyers.
While the link between broadcasting and Canadian culture is obvious,
the connection between Canadian broadcasting ownership and Canadian
culture is tenuous at best.
Canadian law currently features both foreign ownership restrictions and
content requirements. The foreign ownership rules generally limit
licensees to 20 percent foreign ownership (up to 33 percent for a
holding company). This covers all types of broadcasters including
television, radio, and broadcast distributors.
The Canadian content requirements apply to television, radio, and
specialty television stations. Television stations must carry a certain
percentage of Canadian content, with additional requirements for
“priority programming” that includes Canadian dramas, documentaries,
music, and variety shows. At least 35 percent of music played on
radio stations must be Canadian in order to meet Cancon requirements.
Many observers appear to assume that Canadian ownership and content
requirements go hand-in-hand, fearing that a foreign owned broadcaster
would be less likely to comply with Canadian content requirements. Yet
there is little reason to believe this to be so.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s
active involvement in setting Canadian content requirements is a direct
result of Canadian-owned broadcasters regularly seeking to limit the
amount of Canadian content they are required to broadcast. Producing
original Canadian content is simply more expensive than licensing
foreign (largely U.S.) content. These fiscal realities - and the
regulations that have arisen as a response - remain true regardless of
the nationality of the broadcaster.
Foreign owned businesses face Canadian-specific regulations all the
time - provincial regulations, tax laws, environmental rules, or
financial reporting - and there is little evidence that Canadian
businesses are more likely to comply with the law than foreign
operators.
Cultural businesses may raise particular sensitivities, but
broadcasters that are dependent upon licensing from a national
regulator can ill-afford to put that licence at risk by violating its
terms or national law.
In fact, a review of other developed countries reveals that many have
eliminated foreign ownership restrictions in their broadcasting sector
but retain local content requirements. For example, Australia has
no foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasters (Canwest was once the
majority owner of one of its television networks), yet employs a wide
range of local content requirements.
The same is true in many European countries - Germany has eliminated
foreign ownership restrictions but retains daily regional programming
requirements, Ireland has no foreign ownership restrictions but
establishes programming requirements for each broadcast licensee, and
the Czech Republic has dropped its foreign ownership restrictions but
relies on broadcasting licences to mandate local programming.
In the absence of content requirements on private broadcasters, some
countries rely more heavily on their public broadcasters to be a key
source of domestic programming. For example, Norway does not have
foreign ownership restrictions but has established regional programming
requirements for its public broadcaster (in addition to local
programming expectations in the licensing process).
Although few are calling for Canadian broadcasting to be opened to
foreign ownership, the reality is that the cultural concerns associated
with greater foreign ownership are vastly overblown. As a growing
number of viewers venture outside the traditional broadcasting system
for their news and entertainment, the cultural community must find
better tools than foreign ownership restrictions to help support the
creation and broadcast of Canadian content.
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.
broadcast, cultural policy, foreign ownership Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday March 10, 2011 |
|
|
