10 Not-so-random Things to Look for When the Hearings Begin

With the CRTC hearings on broadcasting in new media beginning this Tuesday, here is a list of 10 things to keep your eye on over the next few weeks.

1. Framing
Remember that we are still in the infant stages of the development of broadcasting in new media. Also keep in mind that because of this we also have a) an industry that doesn't know what to do with new media b) professional unions that are unsure of how to assert their rights in the digital domain, and c) a regulator in search of repositioning itself for something it once claimed it had no need to regulate, and d) audiences just learning to access this material and to play it -- if they can -- across different platforms. Therefore, what we are about to see is an elaborate and delicate exercise in framing. How will the CRTC assert its jurisdiction over the activity it is going to regulate? How will the "need to regulate" be articulated? How will "broadcasting" be defined? Why will content regulations -- if they are to be introduced -- be necessary here? The answers to these questions are vital because they will show how digital distribution becomes conceived of as a matter in the national interest and how all of the various players affected by that characterization -- industry players, lobby organizations, and audiences will be considered within a policy framework. They will also show the extent to which models for old media systems become mapped onto new media. For me, this will be the most fascinating aspect of the hearings.

2. New Media Literacy
We are going to hear a lot of talk about the ways in which the media world has been affected by the arrival of various new media platforms. The question we need to ask is the following: What evidence is used to support these claims? What characterizes our understanding of new media is how little we know about it. As I said, this isn't going to stop the posturing (see #1 for the reasons why), but as observers we should try to keep in mind the level of new media literacy of those making the decisions about how it will be shaped. When I attended the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters earliier this year I was not overly convinced that the level of NML was all that high. I don't see any reason why that will change in the months since those meetings.

3. Arpin Carryover?
Speaking of the issue of "media literacy", one has to wonder if there's going to be any backlash from the reports which surfaced a little while ago about commissioner Michel Arpin. In an interview with industry publication Playback, Arpin was quoted as saying that he prefers novels to "televised fiction and feature films", sparking an outraged response from some in the creative community (here's a good example) that the person deciding the future of broadcasting should show more interest in the medium. John Doyle in the Globe and Mail ratcheted it up a little by calling it "disgraceful", which is laying it on a little thick. Impolitic, yes, but "disgraceful"? Please. So, what happens next? Will that come up at all over the course of the hearings? I wouldn't bet on it, but stranger things have happened.

4. Remember Radio
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this is about television, but I remind you that this is about broadcasting, which also includes radio. Radio is important here for a few reasons: a) for the private stations it has been lucrative b) many of the private television networks that have been struggling also own profitable private radio stations c) that the future of satellite radio in both Canada and the US is in Sirius, ahem, serious, trouble. Keep the future of radio in mind as the hearings unfold.

5. Content Categories
Discussions about program genres have been a major part of debates about broadcasting policy in this country. Much ink is spilled about the state of the "drama"; both The Globe and Mail and the National Post ran stories this week about the changing fate of the regulations that govern "hit" music on AM and FM radio. We also know that some of the most popular content that streams both on computers and cellular phones is short, like comedy sketches or music videos. Will a new kind of program category have to be invented to cover the kind of content the Canadian broadcasters plain to stream online? Is the use of "emerging artists", which exist in radio, foreshadowing similar rules for online content, since it signals stage of artistic career rather than style of program? This could get very messy.

6. YouTube
In the announcement for public hearings the CRTC mentioned that it was not interested in regulating user-generated content. This was, to some degree, a nod to the popularity of YouTube as a platform for distributing that kind of content. However, what about when broadcasters use YouTube as a platform for their content? Would the content regulations apply in the same way as if they were applied to, say, a broadcaster's web site?


7. ISP
Well, this is the big one, isn't it? The question of what role -- if any -- internet service providers should play in ensuring access to Canadian content online. If you're Eli Noam from Columbia University, who produced a report for the CRTC in advance of these hearings, you're of the position that the CRTC should levy an excise tax on ISPs which would go into programming funds. This would mean a hike in Internet access rates, since those fees would be passed along to consumers. This would also mean characterizing ISP's as broadcasters, another important conceptual shift. The fate of the ISP as an object for policy intervention is up for grabs during these hearings. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

8. Stability
Ensuring economic stability with the broadcasting sector has been an overarching concern for CRTC policies in broadcasting and regulations. This is a function of the Broadcasting Act, which makes safeguarding the "cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of Canada" one of the main objectives of broadcasting policy. It is also a function of the CRTC's other key policy objective -- Canadian content regulations. You need strong players in order to ensure that those players will be able to earn enough revenue to devote a percentage of it to funds for the creation of Canadian programming. In other words, Canada's broadcasting policy relies on a healthy and stable broadcasting system -- which means stable Canadian media companies -- for the rest of the "cogs" to work. As we know, however, the industry is undergoing considerable upheaval. We also know that the CRTC would rather work with people it already knows rather that create "instability" in the marketplace. If the CRTC is going to expect that broadcasters commit to some kind of content restriction in new media, what will be given in return will have to provide stability. This may be fee-for-carriage, it may be shortening the license renewal process, it may be something else, but ensuring stability could well be part of any policy measures the CRTC takes in regulating broadcasting in new media.

9. USA
I'll be fascinated to see how ideas about "American influence" circulate over the course of the hearings. The key word here is "how", since the issues here are different than with previous media forms. For radio and television, the issue was about scarcity. Now the challenge is about abundance. Canadians have more access to more content from places aside from the United States than ever before. Furthermore, much access to American content is impossible anyway; many Canadians cannot watch hulu, stream content from American broadcasters. In fact, one might argue that on the Internet, Canadian broadcasters have never had it so good when it comes to competing with American entities. Will the cultural threat be conceived in a different way this time around or will the rhetorical power of "America" remain front and centre ?

10. KvF
This stands for Konrad von Finckenstein, the (relatively) new Chairman of the CRTC. Up to now, most of the work done by the CRTC was cleaning up the old business already put in place by the previous regime. These hearings are part of a suite of policy hearings -- from reviews of internet throttling to possible changes to the license renewal process for broadcasters -- that will represent KvF's imprint onto the commission. What he says says during these hearings will say a lot about what his legacy -- and that of the CRTC in the digital age-- will be.

For more perspective on two other issues -- the question of content on mobile devices and set-top boxes, see Bram Abramson's interesting piece on the media@mcgill web site. And we'll see you back here when things get going on Tuesday.