The second week of the CRTC hearings on broadcasting in new media featured presentations from a range of different voices, from the CBC to representatives from Canada's adult broadcasting sector; and from groups that represent children's programming to those that represent satellite radio, Quebec's sound recording industry, Canadian songwriters, and private broadcasters. How to assess what went on in week 2?
For me only one big theme came to the forefront-- what I'll call throttling in the name of cultural sovereignty.
How does that work? You take the arguments from the first week of the hearings about the need for the CRTC to ensure "shelf space" for Canadian content broadcast programming. Then you use the ISPs capability to manage traffic and you have a system in which one can manage traffic to ensure that Canadian content is prioritized over other kinds of content.
This is what was behind the CRTC's questions about "deep packet identification" (links here and here), which is another way of talking about bandwidth shaping. Commissioner Michel Morin asked a number of different intervenors about deep packet identification over the course of the week. The CEO for Glassbox (a recent recipient of a digital cable license for TrekTV) started off the week saying that "front of aisle content shelf space" was better than "general shelf space", but that the commission should be more careful with how it proceeds in this area (note: see slight clarification in the comments section).
Others appearing before the commission were not so subtle. As reported here the Director-General of ADISQ, Solange Drouin, seemed to take the same line of logic, arguing that while the organization doesnt want to restrict access to foreign content, it does want to give Canadians a chance to access their content. She seemed to indicate that methods that would make the Canadian content "faster" than other content would be an interesting option to explore (see quotation from the round-up of Day 6) . Then Sirius Radio Canada attracted a lot of attention from the commission by arguing that, in a perfect world, ISPs and wireless providers would be required to geo-block "audio content that does not comply with CRTC-imposed Canadian content requirements" (from Day 7 transcript). In one case the non-Canadian content would be slower; in another it might not be accessible at all.
What's interesting about this argument is not that it represents an aggressive attempt by segments of the cultural sector to try and significantly manage how Canadians actually access the internet, but how such thinking is not only shared by those working under a rhetoric of cultural nationalism. Last wek Ars Technica reported that a new streaming video service, ZillionTV is saying that they will be offering high quality television service through a set top box that has to be purchased from one's ISP. To ensure the service is of high quality, the article in AT reports that this might mean ensuring that ZillionTV service is guaranteed crisp delivery, perhaps at the expense of other kinds of things streaming through the wires. Others, like Wired, have reported that such activities might attract a lot of attention from the FCC, but up here perhaps the CRTC could take the position that, if other companies are going to do this to bring foreign content to the front of the line, why not prioritize the Canadian stuff?
There is a lot to say about this, but for now I can only point to the fact that it throws another wrench in the CRTC's argument that discussions about net neutrality should take place independent of discussions about the CRTC's efforts in new media broadcasting. How the CRTC decides to address this issue -- if at all -- may play a significant role in how it deals with issues of traffic shaping when those hearings begin later in the year.
It will be very interesting to see what happens to this discussion as we enter the final week of the hearings, which begin in earnest tomorrow. Stay tuned to this blog -- and of course, to the one under the stewardship of Michael Geist -- for summaries, analysis and a final wrap-up when things, you know, wrap up.
2 comments:
This is what was behind the CRTC's questions about "deep packet identification" (links here and here, which is another way of talking about bandwidth shaping. Commissioner Michel Morin asked a number of different intervenors about deep packet identification over the course of the week. The CEO for Glassbox (a recent recipient of a digital cable license for TrekTV) started off the week saying that "front of aisle content shelf space" was better than "general shelf space", but that the commission should be more careful with how it proceeds in this area.
For accuracy, it is probably worth noting that all discussion of "front of aisle", etc. by Glassbox was only in the context of locked hardware devices -- and never in the context of the open Internet.
2817 COMMISSIONER KATZ: So is that what you are talking about when you talk about closed platforms or lack of shelf space on closed platforms, the fact that these distributors, if I can call them that, wireless distributors, are limiting what their customers can have access to and to the extent that there is better opportunity, I guess, in foreign websites and foreign access, they are preferring them over Canadian?
2818 MR. KHANNA: Yes. I think it's not just shelf space. I think, as you have said in the sort of materials for this hearing, that ultimately shelf space in sort of this type of platform is unlimited.
2819 That hasn't turned out to be exactly true in the mobile space yet, but I can see that coming.
2820 What really comes at you, for example in your phone, if you subscribe to a TV service on your phone, I mean this is a very small device, it's limited in that quality -- front-of-aisle shelf space is limited.
2821 You might be able to search and find anything in the catolgue -- in fact, there might be 80 percent Canadian content in that database and only 20 percent American, yet that 20 percent foreign content might be what is driving 100 percent of the usage, if that is all that is promoted on that front page -- on the front little screen.
2822 I think that is what we are getting at.
2823 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Do you see a need for the Commission to look at the access, the availability of ".ca" websites, if I can call them that, over "." any other universe website as a priority or a proprietary need?
2824 MR. KHANNA: We are trying to make a very clear distinction between the open internet and these tethered services.
2825 We are not, in any way, advocating that the open internet is regulated in any way, so any ".ca" domain, any website, even if operated by a BDU --
2826 If it is just a website and it has video or audio on it, that's great. I hope that everyone here can appreciate the overwhelming challenge in trying to even think about regulating that space. We certainly don't think it is possible.
2827 However, in the specific, limited instances of tethered services where you are, for example, paying for a subscription for a TV service on your mobile phone, or as mentioned, where you are getting access to a web portal from your satellite provider as part of your subscription to television services, the same shelf space and Cancon rules and BOD rules that we apply to one property should apply to the other, because to the user, again, it makes no difference.
Many thanks for that clarification, Anonymous!
Post a Comment