My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the CRTC's upcoming diversity of voices proceeding. The column notes that the initiative should be seen as part of the larger new media challenge, which CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein has described as "the defining challenge of our time in broadcasting. There is no more important matter facing the Commission, nor does any other matter have such long-term consequences."
The CRTC has launched the New Media Project initiative will analyze whether new media should be regulated and assess its impact on the creation and distribution of Canadian content. The initiative will also consider critical access issues including network neutrality (described by von Finckenstein as "Internet traffic prioritization") and whether access to high-speed broadband networks should be elevated to a core policy objective. A final project report is not expected until March 2009, however, the CRTC has a second initiative that will cover some of the same terrain much sooner – the Diversity of Voices proceeding.
The Diversity of Voices proceeding comes in response to the growing consolidation of Canadian media and seeks commentary on whether the changing corporate landscape has had a negative impact on the diversity of perspectives within the Canadian broadcasting system. The CRTC’s interest in the issue arises directly from the Broadcasting Act, which includes a statutory objective that Canadian broadcasting "provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern."
The need for an open consultation on media diversity is long overdue.
Canadian media consolidation includes both horizontal integration, where the same corporation controls television, radio, and print outlets in a single market, as well as vertical integration, where a single corporation controls both the production and distribution channels for new content. The Canadian market has featured creeping consolidation in recent years, leaving four companies – CTVGlobemedia, Canwest Global, Quebecor, and Cogeco – with dominant control over the television market (Rogers is rapidly emerging as the fifth player and Astral is a key player in specialty channels). Four companies similarly dominate the radio market (Corus, Astral Rogers, and CTVGlobemedia) and five companies lead the newspaper market (Canwest Global, Quebecor, Torstar, Power Corp., and CTVGlobemedia).
Since many of these same companies also control some of Canada’s most trafficked websites, the consultation rightly asks about the impact of cross-ownership of conventional broadcast platforms and new media. Yet it fails to make the more important connection – many of the dominant media companies play a key role in the Internet service provider market, which is also highly consolidated with the six leading Canadian ISPs (Bell, Telus, Rogers, Shaw, Quebecor, and Cogeco) controlling well over 70 percent of the market.
Many of the major media companies are likely to argue that new media, particularly the Internet, provides a strong counterbalance to consolidation in the television, radio, and newspaper sectors since Internet video, podcasting, and blogging deliver similar content from a diverse array of sources. The companies fail to acknowledge, however, that the counterbalance is dependent upon Canadians' ability to access new media content without interference or prioritization. Indeed, in a world where the same companies, such as Rogers, Quebecor, and Cogeco, control both content and carriage of content, there is a real danger that the carriage side of the business may prioritize its own offerings at the expense of the diverse, third-party content.
Safeguarding against this form of content discrimination requires considering structural separation of carriage and content as well as network neutrality rules that would require carriers to treat all Internet content and applications in an equal manner regardless of its source. The CRTC has identified the need to consider network neutrality within the new media context, but the same concern must surely be addressed as a question of sustaining the diversity of Canadian voices.