CRTC Hearings Day 4, Part II

More from Day 4 of the CRTC Hearings on Broadcasting in New Media, courtesy of Samantha Burton, an M.A. student in Communication Studies at Carleton, who attended the hearings and wrote this report.

Campaign for Democratic Media (CDM)
Early in their statement, the CDM expressed support for four primary points: 1) the recognition of the importance of support for Canadian content in the new media context, 2) the creation of an internet broadcast fund, 3) the significance of continuing to focus on public and local community elements in broadcasting on new media platforms, in accordance with the Broadcasting Act, and 4) the “critical importance” of non-commercial new media broadcasting services in supporting those public and local voices in new media.

The CDM stated that the lack of production and availability of local news and cultural reflection has been “a persistent difficulty” in traditional broadcasting, and commercial broadcasters have consistently requested the removal of obligations to provide this sort of programming because of economic constraints. Due to this trend, the CDM stated that regulatory support would be required to ensure the viability of such productions on new media platforms.

Further, they argued that new media presents the opportunity for such content to flourish with the development of what the CDM termed “the non-commercial broadcast service”: content producers who produce high-quality news programs specifically for online distribution. The CDM argued that this content is distinct from user-generated content because it adheres to standards of selection of production, has editorial requirements and operates within usually expressed journalistic standards; consequently, the CRTC would have jurisdiction over these broadcasters.

CDM offered examples of existing non-commercial broadcast services, such as The Real News Network, Isuma TV and Rabble TV, and suggested that since these producers are attempting to fill a long-recognized gap in traditional broadcasting, the CRTC should encourage and support their efforts by to produce local, diverse Canadian content by making funding mechanisms available to these broadcasters. Specifically, the CDM recommended the creation of an internet broadcast fund, which would be created through a small levy from ISPs.

Another issue migrating from new to traditional media is that of access, with the CDM providing statistics to the effect that 37% of Canadian communities do not have broadband access. The group proposed that a possible solution would be to allocate part of the levy-created fund to expanding the infrastructure required to extend broadband access to such communities.

The CDM went on to speak about the broader issues being addressed at these hearings, namely the place of discussions about Canadian content on and Canadian access to new media platforms. Citing the Broadcasting Act’s suggestion that the Canadian broadcasting system should “enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” The CDM stated that the CRTC must keep this wider context in mind during these hearings and while shaping policy related to new media.

The CRTC Chair responded to the CDM’s statement by requesting clarification regarding the precise size of a levy that the organization would endorse. The organization stated that they were asking for a 2.5% levy, referencing the report done by Peter Grant called "Reinventing the Cultural Toolkit." There was some confusion as to whether the CDM was endorsing the precise model proposed by Grant in the report, yet after further discussion it was established that CDM agreed with the figure of 2.5% but disagreed with the funds being designated specifically for content creation, returning to their argument that a portion should be dedicated to increasing access to broadband internet services as “without broadband access, a lot of what is being discussed at the hearings becomes irrelevant.”

Commissioner Simpson followed up by referencing a statement on CDM’s website that indicated the organization’s support for the abolition of what it terms “big media.” He asked if the proposal to encourage existing broadcasting platforms—the topic of the hearings in general, as well as a requirement of CDM’s proposed levy—did not then contradict the expressed support for the dismantling of large media conglomerates. Although the CDM representative was unfamiliar with the particular wording the Commissioner extrapolated from the website, he stated that the organization’s primary position is that media concentration is a significant barrier to accessing the diversity of Canadian voices and that that their main goal is to explore methods of expanding diverse Canadian participation across a variety of broadcasting platforms.

The Commissioner next raised the question of how accurate and fair communication can be ensured if non-commercial media proliferates or “big media” dissipates. CDM responded that questions of journalistic integrity and corrupt or biased reporting already exist in the era of “big media” and expressed faith in the decision-making capabilities of the general public, stating that “we are always engaged in a constant reassessment and assessing of what is going on around us, and the more voices we have access to, I think, the more robust our decisions will be.” Both the Commissioner and the CDM also agreed that, in order to allow non-commercial journalists access to levy-generated funding, a definition of who would fall under the category of “professional journalist” would be both necessary and challenging.

The final “$64,000 question” the Commission posed to CDM was whether the organization was calling for the CRTC’s active regulatory participation in the migration of protocols from existing broadcasting structures to new media (as in their submission), or a total hands-off approach (as seemingly advocated by the CDM’s other campaigns such as “Save Our Net”). The CRTC suggested that in practice, at these hearings, what the CDM is not a campaign for a democratic media, but a campaign for a regulated media.

The CDM responded that the CRTC’s impression that they are advocating for a total hands-off approach is what is misleading; although they are absolutely against such practices as traffic throttling or prioritization, they do not see democracy and regulation as opposed. The CDM suggested that, if anything, democracy has in fact emerged in part due to an enormous amount of regulation: “clearly, [regulation] is an extremely important part of how the Canadian broadcast system has become what it is.”

Regroupement des Producteurs Multimedia (RPM)
RPM represents multimedia producers of Quebec, who are active participants in the production of content for new media platforms. Of particular concern to them and their membership is the creation of a climate favourable to the development and growth of multimedia production in Quebec.

Reiterating its positions on new media production, RPM stated that there exist a significant number of individuals and businesses who specialize specifically in the production of content for new media. Despite the undeniable development of their expertise in content creation for new media environment, companies and individuals who concentrate in this area are in general small and employed on a contractual basis, which provides little financial stability because they are dependent on other groups’ needs.

Consequently, the RPM argued that there was a pressing need for the establishment of policies that would provide valuable financial support for this emerging industry. For example, the RPM suggested that incentives for creators, promotion of Canadian content on new media platforms and/or the direct financing of original productions through ISP levies were all viable options. In terms of the latter suggestion, the organization stated that the exact sum of such a contribution by ISPs or precise methods of fund distribution were difficult to determine at present, but that RPM believes that such a contribution would undoubtedly have a broad positive effect on of production and availability of CANCON in new media. Furthermore, such a fund would also have to ensure a strong and active presence of the French language in new media content.

RPM them proceeded to respond to the questions outlined by the CRTC in the call of submissions. They stated that they believe it is indeed possible to measure the quantity and consumption of CANCON available in new media, and that they have offered examples of existing services that illustrated methods that could be adapted for this purpose. With regards to the Commission’s question of how to define broadcasting content in a new media environment, they emphasized the importance of including non-linear and interactive content in addition to linear audio-visual content. They also drew attention to the increasing trend of consuming media simultaneously across several platforms.

The RPM stated that costs linked to producing new media are not the same as those linked to producing traditional broadcasting content, as they can range from quite low to very high. However, they also stated that the lack of financial support for new media content is also a reason why higher-cost productions are currently rare; consequently, RPM concluded that the CRTC exemption for new media is no longer beneficial. Even so, they also expressed an opposition to setting up strict regulatory systems or restricting access to foreign content, emphasizing that the production and promotion of CANCON online to a global audience should be the focus of regulation.

RPM also highlighted their strong desire to ensure that the importance the creation of content for the French-speaking communities in Canada—and the providence of Quebec in particular—not be overlooked. Therefore they recommend that the system of broadcasting in new media be fashioned as so to reflect and encourage the diversity of voices present in Canada. A new media broadcasting system should promote the production and consumption of Canadian content, embrace the bilingual character of our country and recognize the distinctive characteristics of audio-visual and interactive new media content.

The Commission was concerned that RPM may have misinterpreted the question about measuring content, as the CRTC is currently not as focused on end-user habits as how to first identify and then to track Canadian content online. The Comission then moved on to ask if RPM could provide assistance with this problem, with references made to ISAN and the Digimark as suggestions brought forward by earlier groups. A somewhat technical discussion followed, during which RPM suggested some tools they were aware of which could be of use (such as comScore) and said that the technology exists to provide the services they are seeking, but incentives will also be required to ensure that broadcasters conform with the collecting and disclosing of such data.

RPM was then asked to elaborate upon its contention that the current levels of French-language content production for new media are insufficient. RPM responded that there still exist significant difficulties in traversing language barriers on new media platforms. For example, the "Mission Antarctic" website was enormously popular in Quebec but never succeeded in piercing English-speaking markets, despite having an English site. On the other hand, they stated, YouTube is the most visited site in Quebec yet offers few French options, while illustrated their concern both about a dominant American influence and targeting young, French-speaking Canadians. As a result, RPM expressed a serious concern that an insufficient development of French content for new media platforms could result in the erosion of French-Canadian culture and identity.