CRTC Hearings Wrap Up, Part II

As promised, here is Elizabeth Martin's summary of the CRTC hearings:

We saw over the several weeks of hearings several genuine attempts to provide answers to the CRTC’s original questions over broadcasting in new media. But while the CRTC may have been hoping for a platter of creative solutions from which to devise an operable plan, it was hard not to notice the number of pleas from interveners for the CRTC to revisit its framework for understanding new media broadcasting in light of broader principles. As Ira Wagman alluded to in an earlier post, separating the issues of new media broadcasting from questions of net neutrality—as the CRTC has done by choosing to consider the latter theme later this year--perhaps creates more knots than it untangles. This sentiment is indicative of a recurring theme across the hearings: urging for a reconceptualization of new media broadcasting regulations from perspectives other than that of the creative and industrial concerns for prioritizing Canadian content.

A number of presenters iterated a desire for a national digital media strategy. The general sentiment was that the current hearings needed to be taken in light of broader issues arising out of new media, and that a decision to levy ISPs could not be made independent of consideration of other new media issues such as net neutrality. This was a suggestion that was, each time, received with approval and an expression of support from Chair von Finckenstein. But just as quickly as it received approval, discussion of the suggestion was promptly quashed with the Commission’s explanation that the present hearings were meant to deal only with the issue at hand in the absence of a comprehensive national digital strategy.

In spite of the CRTC’s reluctance to directly address this proposition, positions favouring a comprehensive approach and a reconceptualising of definitions weaved their way through the ten days of proceedings. Various presenters raised concerns over defining what constitutes online broadcasting and audio-visual media. Interactive media and gaming representatives pointed out a need to fairly consider the position of their content in new media platforms. MoboVivo iterated its unique stance as a retailer of content and urged that the Commission be mindful of the unintended consequences of regulation. Cogeco’s representatives urged the Commission not to base its course of action on an assumption that the internet is leading to the decline of television and traditional broadcasting, implicating a popularly held position among ISPs and WSPs that a levy on their services is akin to punishment for the realities of an “evolving” broadcasting environment.

Cogeco, like others, urged the CRTC to consider the “big picture,” and it’s difficult not to agree with this line of thinking. But the CRTC, in its zeal to uncover what measurement devices and strategies are available to measure digital media content online, seemed to have a much narrower agenda. As some presenters intimated, regulating broadcasting on the internet should not be contingent solely on any quantified knowledge gleaned from attempts to measure amounts of Canadian content and viewership across new media platforms. A more comprehensive strategy would consider the shortcomings of such measurements and the implications of regulation tailored to such measurements. A comprehensive strategy would address the impact of regulation, such as levies on ISPs and WSPs, and how these would affect access to and use of new media broadcasting, or what implications there may be for future and existing infrastructure.

Interveners didn’t always provide concrete solutions to the Commission (indeed, they seldom did) but interveners did urge for a broader conceptualizing of the issue, including revisiting guiding principles of net neutrality and fair access. Perhaps calling for a “national strategy” may be an eloquent way of acknowledging that a best solution cannot be discerned without further study, but maybe a comprehensive re-assessment of the Commission’s intentions is needed in the absence of a best solution.