Wagmedia

On the move....

2010-09-12T09:11:00.001-04:00

I've moved blogs over to Wordpress. You can find me here now.

Old piece, now online

2010-05-24T14:10:00.002-04:00

Something from a little ways back: Back in ought-six, I co-edited a special issue of the Canadian Journal of Film Studies with my friend and colleague Peter Urquhart I believe it was -- and still is -- the only issue in the journal's' history to be devoted to Canadian television. There are some nice articles here, and Urquhart and I wrote the introduction, which has a few things to say, too. it's all now available online, thanks to the folks at the CJFS.

The CRTC We Hate, the CRTC We Need

2010-04-23T14:21:00.002-04:00

Here is my piece in The Mark about the CRTC -- why we hate it, why people think it should be shut down, and why we probably need it more than ever.

Gatineau rumbles, regulatory lava flows across the Rideau Canal...

2010-03-22T19:01:00.013-04:00

Well, the results are in from Gatineau, where the folks at the CRTC have come down with a ruling on the dispute between broadcasters (well, actually CTV) and the cable and satellite companies (the CBC will be considered separately. For more on the details, see here and here. Oh heck, see here and here, too.

I'll probably end up writing something punchier later, but here are some preliminary thoughts to toss into cyberspace:

This is a single point, not a touchdown for Canadian broadcasters: The CFL's funny scoring system is great for analogies such as this one, isn't it? So, yes, the CRTC ruled that they could negotiate with cable and satellite. Yes, this means they could blackout signals or make it difficult for us to watch shows from the US. But there is a big "but" here, as the matter of whether the CRTC has a right to impose such a system is to be left to the courts.

Now we move to a legal discussion here -- about whether this is something that could fly in the courts, about how courts have handled similar issues in previous cases, about what legal concepts would be deployed as part of the legal process, such as copyright. So go to your lawyer-friend for insights as to how this might play out. That's where I'm going to go.

Remember something else: If the courts do not agree that the CRTC has jurisdiction to impose this scheme, it is over. The only way it gets back in play is if the Conservatives amend the Broadcasting Act. Any bets on the likelihood that this is going to happen? Some are saying the Conservatives could overrule the court if it decides that the CRTC has jurisdiction. but I'm not sure about that.

So right now the broadcasters (ahem, CTV) have the CRTC's support to negotiate, which is nice, but that's all they have right now. This is like being told that you have won a prize, only to discover there aren't any prizes left. It's a nice to win, but not if you can't collect the goods.

If you can't beat 'em, group 'em: The CRTC will allow the large mega companies to be licensed together as groups, and will give them the right to spread their Canadian content across their different platforms. Remember, the real problem is media concentration -- but the commission really didn't have much to say about that. In fact, by agreeing to deal with the "mega's" as groups, they all but recognize the validity of concentration. The problem for many is that the CRTC isn't telling broadcasters when to air the Canadian content - to force an "exhibition regime" upon them. But even that is not true, since the evening content requirements remain.

Americanizing the system? There has been discussion that by getting the industry to work it out themselves with a "market-based" solution. In proposing this, the CRTC is mapping an American-style model to the Canadian system. The key words are "based" and "style". Remember "the market" consists of one broadcaster without a distribution outfit (CTV) and three outfits with both (Shaw/Canwest, Quebecor, Rogers). The CBC will be dealt with differently. How will Rogers negotiate with Shaw when both sides are against the regime of negotiating for value in the first place? The CRTC is saying that the industry should work it out for themselves. Given the acrimony between those involved one wonders whether anyone will take them up on that offer.

Goodbye network, hello specialty: With its support for whatever-you-wanna-call-it, the CRTC and the industry have waved goodbye to the network model of television. We are now moving to a specitalty-station model. If approved, we will pay for it At first blush, this makes sense -- this is where the money is in today's television business. At the same time, the decline of the network model is sad to watch, for reasons I won't mention here. Another blog posting for another day, I guess.

On demand, with ads: The CRTC has now allowed providers of on-demand video to be able to insert advertising into their programs, a move that takes away one of the pleasures Canadians enjoyed while watching their television in this way. Such a move is good for distributors and broadcasters, who provide such service to Canadians, allowing them to generate revenue from something they used to offer ad-free.

One of the "C's" in CRTC is for "Content": For me, one of the key lines in the ruling is this one: "the application of regulation must be directed toward the creation of quality Canadian content". Now this isn't really breaking news -- content regulations have been a feature of CRTC regulations since the 1960s. But the emphasis on content underscores the fact that the CRTC doesn't seem to be able to want to do anything about concentration (the other "C", perhaps?). It won't stop concentration from happening, because we still have foreign ownership restrictions which effectively encourage it, whether we like it or not. What it can do is soften the blow, by making those concentrated entities commit, both in content and through contributions to production funding, to the production of Canadian content by the independent production sector. While there are some changes here and there to the amounts and contributions -- changes which affect those working in the industry, to be sure - the essence of that arrangement remains in tact and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The (continued) politicization of genre: Speaking of content, no form of television is more politicized in Canada than the drama. The CRTC's decision continues in that vein, by locating it among long-form documentaries and awards shows highlighting Canadian creative talent as a new regulatory category -- "programs of national interest" - that networks will have to contribute towards production. The term is less an artistic category than an industrial one, referring to serial programs employing enough Canadians to qualify as a Canadian production. The language of the report ensures that we will continue to see the (scripted, serial, enough-Canadians-in-the-production) drama continue to serve as the lightning rod for some of the emptiest rhetoric around culture in Canada - rhetoric that "outs" broadcasters for how much they spend on "foreign" programming; that locates a form of programming as the primary means for telling Canadian stories, and so on. For all that is written about Canadian politesse, discussions around the television promote the most uncivil of discourses. Worse that that, it subsumes discussions about other aspects of television (its aesthetic characteristics, its success or failure to connect with audience expectations, its ability to draw on viewer's previous television watching experiences, etc) in favour of this, more simplistic rendering. The fact that such a discussion comes from various interested lobby groups is understandable -- that is what they are supposed to do. The fact that it continues to represent the dominant discourse around television -- even outside of the policy arena -- continues to be highly problematic. The Internet has served as the platform for some groups -- screenwriters, are one example -- to explain how difficult it is to make (write) television shows given the multiple artistic and regulatory demands placed upon it to audiences outside the profession. We could use more of that in the policy debate, too.

Contraband TV
Judging from the reactions on the old Twitter, it seems that people have had their fill of the CRTC, and may have reached the high point of their price sensitivity regarding the cost of television. The emergence of new technological forms - from DVD's and Youtube to digital antennae to BitTorrent -- allow television to be freed from the box. This means people fed up with the regulatory shenanigans will look elsewhere for their tv. The Chairman acknowledged this yesterday, but did so in the context of negotiations between cable and broadcasters (ahem, CTV). If you don't settle, and start to play games by blocking access to people's tv shows, they will turn elsewhere. That's true, but the CRTC may have something to do with it, too. People have long been frustrated with the way these policies impinge on their television -- now they have the means to go around it altogether.

Conservatives Still Need a Say: It's been very quiet over at the offices of Heritage MP James Moore. A Twitter feed says only that the government values consumers and will look forward to reading the CRTC's report on value for signal tomorrow. Remember: the Conservative government has gone around the CRTC on a few occasions, first with Globalive, then with pushing the CRTC back into the fee-for-carriage discussion after the networks launched their aggressive pr campaign. They have been firm on many issues --including issues that look like taxes or levies, for fear it will stick to them in this, the age of perpetual campaigning. In other words, the issue is not over until either a) the Conservatives get a majority or b) we start again under another government or c) the current government finds a way to blame someone else for higher cable bills like, say, the courts. Stay tuned to see how the folks in charge react over the coming days.

Now what?
One should keep in mind that this is a process and a framework for discussion -- important, to be sure, but not the end of the story. It was good for Konrad von Finckenstein, the commission chair, to talk to the press, to get his point across. Previous commission chairs might not have been so eager to do so on a hot potato topic such as this one. Remember too that the CRTC has it's own rules to follow, rules of process, rules associated with jurisdiction and so on. They cannot just come out and say whatever they want; they are limited by their position within the government of Canada. It is hard to keep this in mind, yet people always seem to want the organization to do things that are either a) outside of its mandate b) impossible to achieve. We all have opinions on the CRTC -- many of them are well-founded -- but few of us are aware of how the commission works and, more importantly, what are the internal dynamics of the commission and its corporate culture. I wish someone -- a future PhD student, perhaps? -- could be able to do a participant observation study of the CRTC -- handled properly, it would make for fascinating reading.

The CRTC needed something on which to base its discussions which those under its regulatory wing when license renewals come up in 2011. They can make changes to frameworks as quickly as they introduce them. In fact, many of these details won't be worked out until the renewal process takes place in 2011 Short-term thinking on the results of one decision -- and of one long and difficult document -- can cause people to say things they probably don't mean. Restrict your temptation to fire barbs at the CRTC and proceed with caution through this one. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and tomorrow is another day.

In this case, tomorrow (well, now it's today) is another report - this time by the CRTC to Heritage about this whole mess. So relax, and stay tuned.

Now in The Mark

2010-03-04T12:05:00.001-05:00

You can find my thoughts on the Shaw/Canwest deal -- in print and in audio form -- over here.

Some more thoughts on Canadian television...

2010-02-25T15:22:00.003-05:00

...and about this guy can be found over at in media res.

New publication

2010-01-12T02:23:00.004-05:00

"Log On, Goof Off, and Look Up: Facebook and the Rhythms of Canadian Internet Use", in How Canadians Communicate 3: Contexts of Popular Culture. Eds. Bart Beaty, Rebecca Sullivan, Gloria Filax, and Derek Briton. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press, 2010. pp. 55-77. You can download it -- and the whole book -- for free by clicking the link.

Canadian Television's Two Solitudes

2009-05-27T16:51:00.004-04:00

Another quick post -- more of a link, actually. Here's my article on Canadian TV just published in "The Mark". There is a longer post coming, as I will be taking my sabbatical very soon. It includes a sabbatical from my blog. Given the amount of posting recently, I trust this news will cause few shockwaves in the blogosphere.

Link to pass along

2009-05-18T07:59:00.005-04:00

Here's a link to my column, published in Carleton Now about the panic over "Wikipedia Kids" that was all over the Canadian media a few weeks ago.

Now I have seen everything....

2009-05-09T07:14:00.002-04:00

Now CTV declares it is the champion of local television -- as long as Canadians agree to pay more for it.

Now in print....

2009-04-21T09:54:00.004-04:00

Ira Wagman and Ezra Winton, "Canadian cultural policy in the age of media abundance: New Media, Old Challenges" in Mediascapes: New Patterns in Canadian Communication, 3rd edition. Edited by Leslie Regan Shade. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2009, pp. 61-77.

This is the latest edition of an introductory textbook for students in Communication studies, but it contains an impressive range of articles by a number of scholars working on Canadian media matters. Check out the table of contents here.

This was my first attempt at co-writing with a graduate student, and it defnitely will not be my last. I enjoyed the process very much, and I think both of us got something out of it.

By the way, I love the cover.

Just a series of tubes redux

2009-04-05T11:26:00.002-04:00

A brief presentation from Molly Wright Steenson about communication through pneumatic tubes in the 19th century that reminds us that our modern-day fascination with messages traveling through "dumb pipes" -- something which is at the centre of discussions about net neutrality -- is the latest chapter in a long story.

That much awaited wrap-up on the CRTC hearings is still coming....

CRTC Hearings Wrap Up, Part II

2009-03-24T15:23:00.004-04:00

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.

CRTC Hearings Wrap Up, Part I

2009-03-23T11:45:00.002-04:00

Perhaps now would be a good time to take stock of the highs and lows from the CRTC hearings on Broadcasting and New Media that took place over this past February and March. I was lucky enough to have the participation of two graduate students, Elizabeth Martin and Samantha Burton, in covering a number of days during the hearings. Their reports were posted here earlier. I am grateful to them for agreeing to contribute their reflections on the hearings.

Here is Samantha Burton’s review. I’ll post Elizabeth Martin’s later today and I’ll add my own two cents before the end of the week.
-----
There was a lot of talk about “pipes” throughout the CRTC hearings on Broadcasting in New Media. Many of the questions that emerged at the forefront of debates were connected to the capabilities of the ISP’s so-called “pipes” that connect users and content on the World Wide Web:

• Are the pipes smart enough to distinguish between text and video? CanCon and foreign content? Legal and illegal use?

• Or, are the pipes just dumb tubes indiscriminately facilitating the sharing and transfer of information they know nothing about?

• And, perhaps more significantly, how smart or dumb should these pipes be?

Throughout the proceedings, ISPs played the dumb card. This was largely to combat the proposed ISP levy, which will undoubtedly play out in court if the Commission decides to go this route. “We don't know what you're downloading . . .” says Ken Engelhart, a senior vice-president at Rogers, “so how can we be responsible for the content?” (Chianello)

Of course, what ISPs neglect to mention is that they could know, if they decided to take a look.

We can see this by going back to the 1999 technical white paper from Cisco Systems, which boasted a new router that would allow broadband providers to

“…identify each traffic type—Web, e-mail, voice, video… [and] isolate network traffic by the type of application, even down to specific brands, by the interface used, by the user type and individual user identification, or by the site address… The [network’s capabilities] allow you to specify the user access speed of any packet by allocating the bandwidth it receive… you can . . . limit subscriber access speed to [a] service . . . to discourage its use. At the same time, you could promote and offer your own or partners’ services with full-speed features to encourage adoption of your services.” (Cisco Systems)

This is the system that was integrated into networks used by AOL/Time Warner, AT&T, Bell Canada, Cable & Wireless, Cogeco, Comcast, Microsoft, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and “160 of the most successful service providers around the world” (Winseck, 806). Further, the recent CRTC-commissioned expert report on deep packet inspection demonstrates that these technologies are already being used by ISPs for both network and content management (Finnie).

So, it would be naïve for ISPs to expect the CRTC or general public to actually buy into their “dumb pipe” argument; we can see from experience that ISPs are dumb pipes, except when it’s better business for them to be smart.

Which perhaps explains why the Commission’s line of questioning often ended up at something along the lines of,

COMMISSIONER DENTON: “If bandwidth throttling worked in favour of Canadian content, would you change your mind about it?” (CRTC)

Of all of the questions raised during the proceedings, this is the one that concerned me most. It seems in many ways to be the apex of many issues discussed, as well as foreshadowing of the upcoming summer hearings on net neutrality.

If the CRTC decides to impose a levy on ISPs for the creation of a new media fund, it will need to be coupled with some means of measuring and tracking CanCon as it flows through the pipes. Although the debates about such a method throughout the hearings illustrate that this will be tricky, knowledge of the existing network technologies shows that it is certainly not impossible. Moving from measuring CanCon to privileging it is not much of a stretch, technologically or theoretically, particularly if the Commission isn’t satisfied with the results of those measurements.

I am not by any means arguing that supporting CanCon in new media is unimportant. I would delight in a strong Canadian presence online; in fact, I think that with the multitude of innovators and creators in our country, this presence currently exists, and is growing. So yes, industry professionals should be compensated and supported in their work. But a levy with potential filtering strings attached is not the way to do this. Instead, we should focus on:

a) developing and pioneering new ways to monetize new media (P2P technologies are not going away, so how can traditional media industries take advantage of them?)

b) giving Canadian audiences not only the ability, but the reason to choose CanCon

What is needed for these avenues to be explored is an internet where bandwidth throttling doesn’t work in favour of Canadian content—or foreign content. Or ISP business interests. Or any interests. Given our autonomy, if the CRTC focuses on making sure that what Canadians are producing is the best—and ensuring that we know about it—chances are we’ll choose CanCon.

The sometimes waning popularity of Canadian content within Canada is not a new issue, nor is it unique to new media. I don’t know how to solve that problem. But I do believe that narrowing the Canadian audience’s content and technological options is not the answer: instead, the first step should be Canadian net neutrality legislation.

Although the CRTC’s February hearings were centered on broadcasting in new media, the proceedings demonstrated how this issue is inexorably tied to the issue of net neutrality. Although the Commission can argue that it does not see the connection between the February and July hearings, the connection will be made nonetheless when decisions rendered about ISP levies, ISPs vs BDUs, and measuring CanCon in new media impact the way Canadians use the Internet writ large.

Works Cited
Chianello, Joanne. "Canadian content available online may be regulated." Ottawa
Citizen (February 16, 2009) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/story.html?id=1295126.

Cisco Systems. White Paper: Controlling Your Network - A Must for Cable Operators.
(1999) http://www.democraticmedia.org/files/Cisco1999WhitePaper.pdf

Finne, Graham. Report ISP Traffic Management Technologies: The State of the Art.
(January 2009) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8646/isp-fsi.htm.

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. Transcript of
Proceedings: Canadian broadcasting in new media. (February 24, 2009) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/2009/tb0224.html.

Winseck, Dwayne. “Netscapes of power: convergence, consolidation and power in the
Canadian mediascape.” Media, Culture and Society (24:6, 2002).

Week 3

2009-03-15T21:48:00.002-04:00

The final week of the CRTC hearings on Broadcasting in New Media wrapped up last week. Here is the transcript from Monday's hearings. Below you will find a summary of Tuesday's hearing, courtesy of Samantha Burton, an M.A. student in Communication Studies at Carleton University. For more on Tuesday's hearings, see the review by Yael Wexler at Michael Geist's blog. Michael also posted a summary of Wednesday's hearings, thanks to Greg O'Brien at cartt.ca. You can find that here. Many thanks to Michael Geist for the extra assistance this past week.

I'll be back shortly with a review of Week 3 and a summary of the hearings. You will also find thoughts and impressions on the hearings by two of my students, Elizabeth Martin and Samantha Burton, in the coming days.

In the meantime, here's Samantha's summary from Tuesday's hearings:

Astral Media
In their opening remarks, Astral described the ways in which they are currently taking advantage of new media, and the internet in particular, highlighting the fact that they are utilizing it primarily as a re-broadcasting tool. As a major Canadian bilingual broadcaster, Astral stated that new media help to increase the time audiences spend with their brands, and allow for the creation and retention of communities of interest around their products. New media is already used extensively for promotion, they stated, and there is an established reciprocal relationship between new media and traditional broadcasting.

They rejected the idea of regulating the content of new media, stating that in the new media environment, they are entered into nontraditional forms of competition; for instance, on the internet, they are competing with foreign media, regulated and unregulated media, other media industries (such as newspapers) and social networking applications. However, Astral was confident in their ability to compete in this environment, but expressed concerns that the imposition of CRTC content regulations would in fact limit their ability to do so. Consequently, they argued, the CRTC requires a broader, global conception of what is happening online in general, before looking to regulate broadcasters in particular.

Astral also spoke against the idea of an ISP levy, stating the ISP funds should instead be put towards improving their networks to allow more Canadian access, something they and other ISPs are already doing. An ISP levy, they stated, would also hinder their ability to compete in this new market populated by non-traditional players. However, they did suggest a number of alternate industrial measures, such as adjusting the Copyright Act to allow for a fair and speedy process to facilitate access to protected content online. Recognizing that some of their suggestions fall out of the realm of the CRTC, Astral suggested that the Commission should continue their dialogue with other institutions such as Heritage Canada in order to ensure that a broad picture is formed of the new media and used to inform policy, which might include some of the measures they suggested.

Astral stated that they do not believe it is feasible or valuable to impose a measurement system such as ICAN at this point, as raw volume is not an indication of user engagement or content value. Since there is no business model that is currently able to make new media profitable for broadcasters, they advocated for the continuation of an open market and the extension of the CRTC new media exemption order. However, they stated that the CRTC should continue to monitor new media developments and that measurement may become feasible in the future.

During the question period, the Commission first made clear that it was not their intention to simply transfer existing measurement strategies from traditional media to new media. They said that the question they are concerned with in whether measurement of CANCON is possible on new media platforms. The Commission was under the impression that every BDU is able to measure how much traffic goes to consumers and how much of this is video. As they understood it, the ICAN number would allow BDUs to track how much of this is Canadian content online.

However, Astral responded that the technicalities of the ICAN system actually do not allow ISPs to access the ICAN watermark. Without getting too technical, information packets sent over the internet consist of a header (which the ISP can read, and uses to direct the package appropriately) and the data itself (which is not assembled until it reaches the end-user and is often encrypted). Since the ICAN number is embedded in the data itself and not the header, the ISP cannot read it; it will not be visible until the information is reassembled at the end-user point.

Even if they were able to access the data being transmitted, Astral contended that this raises huge questions in terms of privacy. Further, although the header would tell the ISP whether the site being transmitted has a .ca address, which the Commission proposed could serve as a proxy measurement, Astral was adamant that a .ca address could just as easily contain foreign content as Canadian and, furthermore, that many Canadian broadcasters utilize .com addresses. As a result, Astral made clear that they did not see the ICAN number as a viable means for measuring CANCON online, and alluded that using it could lead to misleading results.

The Commission then posed a series of questions related to the impact of online radio on traditional radio, asking what they had observed as an important bilingual Canadian broadcaster. Overall, the question they were asking was: is traditional radio threatened by web-based radio? Astral answered that of course there is competition, but that they do not see exclusively web-based radio stations as a significant threat to traditional radio. Radio programming online is in fact more costly for broadcasters, which have to pay for the bandwidth to host online content; this is the case both for traditional broadcasters reproducing content online and for purely online radio. When the CRTC expressed concern that exclusively web-based radio stations may increase in order to circumvent regulation under the current system, Astral stated that not only do they have no intention to do so, but also they saw few reasons for any other companies to embark on such a venture. Web-based radio is a very costly, unprofitable model. “Of course people can do it,” an Astral representative responded, “but I would like to say good luck to them.”

Rogers Communications Inc.

Rogers stated their positions on the issues at hand right upfront:
1. Barriers to broadcasting on the internet cannot be remedied by an ISP levy
2. An imposition of ISP levy would harm growth and development of internet access in Canada
3. The imposition of an ISP levy would be unlawful
4. They have an alternative proposal: Rogers Broadband Video. They will illustrate how this will solve many problems that exist today for broadcasters

The first point they outlined is that there is little video produced solely for online purposes (ie. webisodes), in Canada or elsewhere. This is because there no evidence that there is a business case for this type of programming, primarily because there is no evidence that viewers are interested in it. Consequently, there is no viable market-based case to establish a levy that would create Canadian fund devoted to producing exclusively web-based content.

“The internet is nervous system of economy,” Rogers stated, “and broadband is the future.” Canadian broadband activity exceeds that over every other G8 country, and is growing at approximately 50% a year; as a result, funding is needed to increase the speed of pipes. Rogers argued that a levy would only frustrate this goal, and raise costs for users.

Rogers also briefly presented the argument that an ISP would be unlawful. “ISPs are pipes, not broadcasters,” they stated. Rogers contended that they only route data packages from source to destination and do now have any knowledge of the contents. Rogers and other ISPs cannot be subject to both the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act at the same time, or for the same activity.

Primarily what is being done online at this time is re-broadcasting, and so Rogers argued this should be the focus; furthermore, advertisers prefer to pay for online spots associated with established audiences, which compounds the business viability of re-broadcasting. As a result, the focus should be on increasing accessibility to television content online.

Rogers stated that are three major barriers to posting traditional TV content online:
1. Cost
2. Cannibalization: broadcasters' concern that they will lose subscription TV revenues if the same content is available online, for free
3. Discovery: how to ensure that viewers can find content online?

To address these issues, Rogers introduced its new Rogers Broadband Video Service (BVS). This is a platform they are in the process of developing, which would provide an online video-on-demand service devoted to their exiting client base. Rogers BVS would be designed to compliment their existing television subscription packages. Basically, the idea is that whichever cable or satellite television package an individual subscribes to through their traditional Rogers TV service would also be available online. For example, if you currently subscribe to Rogers Basic Cable and have added The Movie Network to that package, BVS would automatically permit you to access to all of the channels these packages include online as well. No additional user costs would apply (the cost would be covered by your existing Rogers cable fees), you could access the web-based content regardless of your ISP, and there would be a screening system (such as password-protection) that would recognize you as a user and give you access to the content you are subscribed to.

Rogers stated that their BVS is the most viable way to support CANCON online, enhance the ability of broadcasters to reach audiences, and also make internet broadcasting profitable. It would address the three major barriers to posting traditional TV content online by:

1. Reducing distribution and promotion costs. Rogers will provide servers to content producers at a reduced cost, which will allow even the most niche content to be distributed. They would also promote the service heavily, not only saving content producers those costs but also ensuring a wide visibility of the product and content, making it easy for users to find.

2. Solving cannibalization. Content producers would know that only customers who have paid to receive their content on traditional TV service would be able to access it online. This would result in increased viewership instead of cannibalization.

3. Even more importantly, Rogers posited that this arrangement would further the goals of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, without any need for more regulation. Since their proposed online portal would mirror cable service, it would also contain the same levels of CANCON. Rogers also said that it would specifically promote its Canadian content, because it is what makes the service unique. Overall, Rogers presented this new service as a win-win-win breakthrough for broadcasters, BDUs and users.

The Commission was very interested in Rogers' proposed Broadband Video Service, and probed the panel during the question period to gain further insight into the plan. Their larger questions related to user privacy and possibly making such service provision mandatory for broadcasters. Rogers responded that the BVS would not be a violation of privacy, as the service would be an extension of existing TV billing relationships.

Rogers also made clear that this is not a practice they want to see made mandatory, but that they saw it as extremely likely for other broadcasters would create similar portals; as a result, they suggested that in three or four years, if their BVS system is successful, then perhaps the Commission should look into why other broadcasters may not have not adopted a similar strategy. Furthermore, they emphasized that the BVS is a not an ISP service; they envisioned other providers such as StarChoice and ExpressVu creating similar online portals. Rogers said that they would want to do this even if they did not own an ISP, in order to give users access to content they have already paid for.

Rogers stated that the high cost of posting video content online is extremely prohibitive to niche CANCON producers who want to make their content available. They stated that their BVS would allow these producers to make their content available online at a reduced price, because the focus of their new service would be not on profit. Instead, their focus would be on extending TV viewership relationships and take advantage of their existing infrastructure; therefore making niche Canadian content available online would be far more viable than it is now.

The CRTC's main question was, if BVS is hosting online content in almost the exact way that it is already available on TV, should it not then be licensed? Rogers' response was that the model they are proposing is attempting to replicate TV platform, for their own business purposes. Therefore, the online service would mirror existing CRTC television regulations without the Commission having to regulate new media specifically. If you regulate Canadian online services, Rogers argued, you would be setting Canadian businesses and creatives up for failure, because they will not be able to compete against unregulated online entities.

With regards to the other questions at issue, Rogers agreed with Astral that neither an ICAN-esque or .ca data flow measurement technique would be an accurate proxy for measuring, tracking or speeding up the flow of Canadian content online. As an example, they noted that in their CBC content is backhauled from American servers, as per a Rogers' business deal with Yahoo, which would make CBC content appear to originate in the United States.

With regards to exclusively online content usurping traditionally distributed content, Rogers stated that up to this point they do not see it as a problem. Although they stated that it could be a threat, their overall conclusion was that if they run their business properly and the CRTC keeps their regulations flexible to allow them to do so, the internet can be a complimentary service for traditional media.

The CRTC declined to discuss the questions of legality regarding the ISP levy; they stated that the issue is unclear and would be left to the courts to decide, if the CTRC did choose to impose an ISP levy.

Cogeco Cable Inc.
Cogeco began their address by outlining clearly what business enterprises they are involved in, stating that they do not market or produce products for the internet. “In short, we transmit bits and bytes.” They echoed Rogers' contention that the imposition of an ISP levy would not be legally permitted under the existing Broadcasting or Telecommunications Acts. However, they stated that the question goes far beyond a legal one; the cost of a levy would be passed down the users, and it is unclear exactly what need such a fund would fulfill—nor exactly how a fund would fulfill such a need.

Cogeco agreed that there are some broadcasting elements in new media, but that broadcasters have by and large adopted strategies similar to those the CRTC is suggesting without regulation. As a result, introducing regulation would be detrimental to broadcasters’ ongoing efforts.

With regards to measurement tools for CANCON online, Cogeco made it clear that this was not something they favoured. The internet is fundamentally versatile, they argued, and the absence of standardized tools raises serious questions of the viability of measurement development and implementation. They said that the internet is not to blame for financial difficulties faced by the television industry at present; traditional TV is suffering more from the consequences of audience fragmentation, decreased advertising revenues and broader global structural economic factors that are arising with the recession. It is naive, Cogeco argued, to believe that the scale of these complex structural problems would be solved by a relatively small-scale regulation on new media platforms.

Cogeco also supported Rogers' contention that there is no proven need to produce specifically new media content, and went further to contend that such a development strategy would not only fail, but also be harmful to the multi-platform business strategy of broadcasters. The exemption model for broadcasting in new media remains appropriate and justified, Cogeco argued, it makes no sense to begin a regulatory intervention unprecedented in the world in order to address fears based on speculation rather than real problems.

The Commission first asked for Cogeco's view on Rogers' proposal presented earlier in the day. Cogoco's response was that it was too early to say. They stated that they have been closely following Rogers' movement forward with this, as well as other applications in the more mature US market, but that more research needs to be done into how such a business model would be structured. They spoke strongly against making such a model mandatory, suggesting that it is not productive to try and make rules when a particular type of activity is at the concept stage and has yet to prove itself.

The CRTC then asked for Cogeco's reaction to yesterday's announcement by the Heritage Minister regarding the consolidation of the Canadian Television Fund and the Canadian New Media Fund. Cogeco stated that they were pleased with the announcement, and that they absolutely think funding support for professionally produced Canadian content should be directed to multiple platforms. However, they also emphasized that communication needs to occur between platforms in order to address the challenges that may be faced by the fact that they will often be carrying similar, and at times identical, media products.

The question of how to address piracy was raised next, to which Cogeco's immediate response was that it is important to recognize that not only content producers are impacted by this, but broadcasters as well; for instance, they cited the over 1 million unauthorized satellite users across Canada. Cogeco argued that ISPs are not profiting from illegal downloading of creative products, and furthermore have no way of tracking who is performing these activities. As a result, it was Cogeco’s view that they should not be held responsible ethically or financially for internet piracy.

Overall, Cogeco argued that what is required at this point is a comprehensive look at the variety of new media related issues—the broader picture instead on individual pieces of the puzzle—in order to construct a Canadian national digital strategy that will provide the appropriate construct to move forward in the digital age.

Shaw Communications
Shaw opened their introduction with an unequivocal statement of their position: “Canadians have clearly stated that there is no need for this proceeding... some of the best and most popular websites in Canada are Canadian.”

Their position against an ISP levy was clearly articulated, as they argued that such a measure would serve only to anger consumers, stifle innovation and slow the expansion of infrastructure needed to provide broadband services. With 70% of household having broadband access, Shaw stated that Canada's internet penetration rate is one of the greatest in the world and that competitively priced access to broadband services is the backbone of Canada's information economy. The proposed ISP levy would also reduce companies' abilities to invest in building a world-class new media network for their customers, as Shaw illustrated they have already done.

In addition, the assumption that a subsidy is necessary to produce new Canadian content online is false; citing several examples pulled from statistics provided by large companies such as Apple and Google, Shaw stated that there is already a proliferation of CANCON on the internet and that regulation would not only be unnecessary, but also harmful by introducing new barriers to entry.

Shaw said that the oft-quoted “if we build it, they will come” works in the reverse in the case of the internet and new media; the content producers are already coming, they argued, and Shaw needs to have the funding and flexibility to provide the advanced infrastructure necessary to support their arrival.

The question period was a lively, and at times heated, debate between the CRTC and Shaw, where questions relating to regulating the internet writ large continued to surface, despite the Commission’s attempts to keep the focus on the particular issue of the new media exemption that the hearings were meant to address.

Shaw's conflation of online broadcasting and audio-visual media content in general on the internet was in may ways reflective of some of the broader issues of definition the CRTC faces when dealing with new media. It could also be a sign that the way in which the CRTC means to distinguish between the two is unclear to the wider public.

The Commission asked for Shaw's opinion on what came to be called the Rogers Model (that is, Rogers’ proposal of a Broadband Video Service), to which they replied that such a model does not make much sense in the current environment. However, there seemed to be some confusion over whether the Rogers Model was a reappropriation of the “walled garden” approach. Shaw thought that it was, and argued that since such approaches had been unsuccessfully attempted in the past, it was even less likely that they would work today. Conversely, the CRTC said that the Rogers Model was not the same as a “walled garden,” and therefore may have viability. It seems that there needs to be a clearer articulation of precisely what Rogers is proposing, to be shared among the various broadcasters. This should happen before broadcasters are asked to give their formal opinion, as it seems that, at least in the case of Shaw, today was the first that many companies had heard of the model. As a result, the group had not had time to fully analyze or respond to the proposition, which led to these miscommunications between Shaw and the CRTC on this topic.

CTVGlobemedia
CTVGlobemedia stated outright that new media broadcasting was a small part of their business, used primarily at this point as a promotional tool intended to complement their traditional television programming model. They use the internet mainly to promote their TV programs and provide a vehicle for audiences members to catch up on episodes they may have missed; CTVGlobemedia's focus is therefore on traditional media and it was their view that, if their content on that platform were strong, audiences would naturally flow to their new media options.

The panel gave numerous statistics illustrating their powerful online position, as well as the success of their new media ventures. For instance, CTV online is the #1 Canadian-owned video destination. They have also been recognized by American partners as being leaders in new media design innovation, and are experimenting with user generated content such as the “Upload Yours” feature related to The Comedy Network.

CTVGlobemedia cited their ability to be nimble and act quickly as the crux of their success on new media platforms; consequently, regulating these platforms would not only be impractical, but also inhibit CTVGlobemedia's ability to develop competitively as platforms shift and change.

Continuing the exemption order, CTVGlobemedia stated, is the only practical choice in this context. Imposing levies or regulations on ISPs or broadcasters would only serve to create a two-tier system where regulated broadcasters would compete with unregulated, nontraditional competitors online. This would seriously inhibit the growth of Canadian new media in what is an inherently a rapidly-changing, global system.

The CRTC’s first question asked whether CTVGlobemedia could see a day in the future where their media products would be transmitted more through the internet and related new media services than through traditional broadcasting mechanisms, such as television. This was a concern the Commission related to the request to continue the exemption order; if new media continues to be exempt from regulation, would companies not then migrate their services away from traditional media in order to avoid these restrictions? CTVGlobemedia did not view this as an inevitability; although “no one has a crystal ball,” they said that at this point in time conventional and specialty TV continues to be very relevant.

The Commission then moved on to pose the question of CTVGlobemedia’s view on the Rogers model. CTVGlobemedia had in fact heard of the platform prior to today, saying that they had held meetings with Rogers previously to discuss it. They stated that they saw it as a possibility, however clearly outlined that in order for it to work, the model would need to be adopted universally. This is because not to have all distributors participate would foil BVS before it even got off the ground; at the moment, CTVGlobemedia offers many of its programs streaming online for free, and so it would make little sense for some subscribers to pay to get that same content through Rogers BVS. As a result, despite the potential the idea has, CVTGlobemedia saw many practical issues that needed to be addressed before a decision could be made.

Another line of questioning related to the popularity of certain TV genres online, and the fact that CTVGlobemedia was profiting from some of these services. When asked whether unscripted programs were more popular than scripted programs, CTVGlobemedia said that this was not necessarily the case (although TSN and MTV are two of their most highly trafficked streaming channels); however the difficulty in providing online access to scripted dramas is in the fact that they have to require the rights, which adds to the cost of providing these shows online. Even so, CTVGlobemedia said that both varieties of programming were popular, and in either case the company is the “victims of their own popularity,” as when the number of users of a particular streaming video rises, so too does the cost to provide that content.

With regards to making money off of their new media ventures, CTVGlobemedia stated that they are making a “modest, modest” profit online, but that this is only enough to support existing platforms, along with some experimentation and expansion. Again, with video being the most expensive to produce and host, they stated and the majority of money earned goes back into the system to keep it going. One of the major problems they are facing in terms of monetizing their online media is in their lack of ability to measure audiences, which is required primarily in order to sell time and space to advertisers; CTVGlobemedia stated that in their last evaluation, which used both internal and external metric applications, the discrepancy between the results was too wide to extrapolate a viable estimate of audience traffic and usage. Consequently, they stated that more accurate means of measurement need to be developed and implemented for these purposes before additional measurement systems (ie. ICAN) can be discussed.

Canadian Cable Systems Alliance
As the representative body for Canada’s smaller ISPs, the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA) offered a perspective distinct from those of the larger companies that preceded it.

CCSA’s main contention was that the provision of retail internet service is key element of small systems' continual commercial viability. Even as the costs of providing cable TV rise, Canada remains a world leader in broadband services. CCSA companies have been very active in this process of facilitating the growth of Canada’s broadband network; however, without the freedom to develop in flexible directions that they have had over past decade, many of these small companies would have disappeared.

In many cases, small companies are the only internet service providers in their communities. Since the entire debate regarding availability and funding of CANCON online is based on access to broadband internet, CCSA argued that any regulation or levy that the CRTC might choose to impose must not impair the ability of these small companies to provide internet access to smaller communities across Canada.

Recognizing that the challenge with regulation will be devolving and measuring Canadian content online, CCSA stated that it would support the CRTC if it decides to institute such a system, so long as no intervention by ISPs would be required. Therefore, the CCSA requested that if an ISP levy were to be instituted by the CRTC, small ISPs should be exempted from it. They stated that the reason for this position was that the small ISPs they represent could not afford to invest the funds necessary to inspect or report on the content of the traffic their “pipes” facilitate; while a 3% levy might be “peanuts” to a large conglomerate, small operators would be greatly impacted by this loss of revenues.

However, CCSA followed this by speaking out against the idea of an ISP levy in general. The group said that ISPs just provide the pipe, which permits new media broadcasting to happen, but that no one has up to this point found a way to effectively monetize the content flowing through the pipe. Further, Canadians have already excelled at telling their stories through new media platforms, stories that are easily made available online. CCSA identified the power of the internet as the wealth of resources available, catering exclusively to the user’s demands. Their view was that imposing a levy on ISPs would not be an effective or appropriate response to challenges faced by producers of Canadian content by the growing prevalence of new media. Since CCSA sees the internet as a fundamentally democratic medium, which belongs to the people, the current exemption orders should be maintained as they are, and continue to provide the great opportunities for creators and investors that they already offer.

The Commission began by noting that, based on their past actions and decisions, their support of CCSA’s call for an exemption from any levy for small broadcasters is implicit. The CRTC then asked the now-familiar question, requesting an opinion on the Rogers model. CCSA responded that today’s hearings were the first they had heard of the idea. Even so, at first glance it seems promising, although if the intention is to cost-share, that might not be a viable option for the smaller ISPs CCSA represents.

The CRTC’s other primary inquiry was whether all of CCSA’s members are currently internet broadcasters, and what the demand is like for broadband access in the communities where these companies are located. CCSA said that not all of their members provide internet access, but that there is definite interest in expansion into this service. Further, there is always demand for access in small communities, and that demand is only increasing as the number of high-bandwith users rises steadily.

Week 2 in Review

2009-03-08T18:38:00.004-04:00

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.

Back shortly...

2009-03-04T16:32:00.004-05:00

...with a review of Week 2 at the CRTC hearings. In the meantime, consider an article I wrote way back in 2007 for Geist magazine which suggested that, with its decision to draw inspiration from programs showcased on Canada's private broadcasters, CBC's television service was on the verge of self-destruction. The horrible economic conditions that are now crippling Canada's media industries (as well as those in other places) has simply exacerbated a problem that was going to bubble up eventually.

The argument wasn't that reality programs were bad television; the argument is the CBC doesn't do reality television all that well and that in a market characterized by abundance and choice, the public broadcaster could now free itself from having to be "everybody's broadcaster" and could focus on content that doesn't exist in the marketplace -- a perfect blending of niche marketing and the satisfaction of a public mandate.

Threatening to air more American programming isn't going to help its cause, either, not because that content isn't interesting but that, like its programming choices, the CBC's arguments for its continued existence are similar to those of the private broadcasters.

It also represents the CBC's biggest problem: It has become more and more difficult for the CBC to make the "distinctiveness" argument that it could once hang its hat on, leaving it twisting tenuously on the brink with few solid cases to justify its existence left in its arsenal. There are definitely good arguments to make for the continued presence of public broadcasting in Canada. However, they require more vision and creativity than that offered by the CBC's current management team.

One hopes they come up with something better to say -- and fast.

CRTC Hearings Day 7

2009-03-01T09:23:00.003-05:00

Day 7 of the CRTC Hearings on New Media featured some very interesting proposals by Sirius Canada as well as appearances by new media and one of Canada's broadcasters of adult content. Here is a summary of the day's events. Thanks again to Elizabeth Martin, an M.A. student in Communication Studies at Carleton University, for attending the day's hearings and preparing this report. I will be back next week with a review of week 2.

Sirius Canada, Inc.
Representing Sirius Canada, Inc., one of Canada’s two satellite radio providers, was Sherry Kerr, the company’s vice president and general counsel. Kerr stated that she was there to outline the unique concerns of satellite radio pertaining to unregulated audio broadcasting over the internet. Sirius has been regulated since it was granted a license to broadcast in 2005, but it has yet to turn a profit due in part to its close competition with internet radio. Internet radio is a direct substitute to satellite radio, she claims, and its reach is expanding by providing wider options than satellite. “Internet radio is a category killer,” Kerr proclaimed, “and the category it will kill is satellite radio.” That fate is not likely to become of terrestrial radio due in part to terrestrial radio deriving a large portion of its revenue from advertising, rather than subscriptions as with satellite. Kerr pointed to the absence of presentations from terrestrial radio at these hearings as an indication of its relatively secure position.

Kerr claimed that the two satellite radio companies in Canada contribute more to Canadian content development than any terrestrial radio company. Further, Sirius plays materially more Canadian content on its channels than does terrestrial radio. Kerr claimed that Sirius’ 65 channels play more CanCon (at 85%) than 65 regular radio channels because it has no commercials and is on the air 24 hours a day. Internet radio, on the other hand, faces no such obligations to satisfy content requirements. Essentially, this is an unfair situation which hurts satellite radio and does little to achieve the goals of Canadian content. Kerr asked the CRTC to question how regulating the tiny satellite radio element of broadcasting satisfies these goals.

Satellite radio is primarily concerned with the situation where users have unlimited access to content. Traditional broadcasting is relatively closed and limits the user’s access to non Canadian content. This excludes a great deal of content and shapes the listening experience of the user. Kerr admits that any effort to establish symmetry between internet audio broadcasting and traditional broadcasting in the content that is delivered to users would “thrill” satellite radio. The best case scenario for satellite radio would be one where internet audio providers were required to geo-block non-Canadian content. In fact, Kerr said glibly, if such an unlikely course of action were to be taken by the CRTC, Sirius would likely “throw a party” in celebration. Kerr added, however, that she realizes such an approach flies in the face of the principle of an open and neutral internet. But in suggesting such a course of action, Kerr wanted to highlight to the CRTC the dangerous situation that is immediately facing satellite radio.

To remedy this unfavourable situation for satellite radio, Kerr proposed that wireless providers and ISPs acting like BDUs should be regulated like other conventional BDUs. Kerr argued that it is necessary to capture those providers that to any degree control what users have access to. The more that wireless providers act like gatekeepers to content, the greater is the need to regulate and the more they should be treated like any traditional broadcaster.

A practical solution, Kerr offered is that a levy be placed on the revenues of ISPs that are derived from or related to broadcasting. The levy should be placed on all eligible parties and should be similar to the one already in place for traditional audio broadcasters. Kerr recognized that with this option, the asymmetry of content offerings between satellite and internet radio would persist because of the sheer amount that the internet offers, but at least it would level the playing field to some degree. When asked where Sirius felt the money derived from levies should go, Kerr said that there was no reason to change the current system. Sirius thinks it is wise to keep the current scheme which directly supports artists. She also asked the CRTC to consider lightening satellite radio’s current obligations, which she argued are even more demanding than those for terrestrial radio.

Kerr’s presentation was met with a favourable response from the CRTC, particularly from those on the commission who admitted to being Sirius customers and happy with the service. Members of the commission were particularly interested in understanding the technological differences that are making wireless audio broadcasting more desirable than satellite. Kerr explained that the newest vehicles are equipped so that users may hook up iPods and mobile devices that can play internet radio wherever there is a wireless signal. Also advantageous to internet radio are the facts that internet provides so many more options for listeners; that these stations can be listened to anywhere across Canada; and that these stations are still deriving revenue from advertising.

MoboVivo, Inc.
Based in Calgary, Alberta, MoboVivo, Inc. provides online distribution of TV content as a retail service. All content offered by MoboVivo is professional content intended for broadcast, and it offers a wide range of Canadian programs, four of which rank in the top ten of MoboVivo’s sales.

Alan Sawyer, representing MoboVivo before the CRTC, outlined the company’s wish for the CRTC to establish a clear, unambiguous, long-term policy directed at new media. Sawyer emphasized that while there is broadcasting going on in new media, the CRTC needs to be careful in its distinctions between broadcasting and non-broadcasting activities. In particular, Sawyer clarified for the CRTC the difference between retail sales of content, which are non-broadcasting activities (which MoboVivo is engaged in) and video-on-demand, which is broadcasting. Download –to-own is not analogous to BDU offerings of temporary viewing of content. Rental is similar to BDU video-on-demand, but they are not the same and rental cannot be thought of as broadcasting.

MoboVivo argues that retail and rental of content should be excluded from regulation. Diligence must be applied in creation of new policy so it doesn’t inadvertently include these activities, which Sawyer pointed out will not be a simple task. Some broadcasters, he says, insist on acquiring all new media rights to the content they provide, which can include the rights to retail and rental in addition to broadcast rights. Sawyer claims that these practices “trample on” the business of other content distributors. Sawyer reiterated the “use it or lose it” approach to new media rights previously proposed by groups including the CFTPA. Broadcasters should have to demonstrate their use of the content they have rights to; if they can’t, the rights to the content should revert to the content owner. When deals are made that lock up the rights to content but do not actually deliver the content to users, piracy flourishes; “use it or lose it” is a way to combat this.

Sawyer argued that services like MoboVivo add diversity to the overall ecosystem and the CRTC should ensure that they are not regulated out. Sawyer warned that regulation should ensure that unregulated content suppliers are not put at a competitive disadvantage in the new media environment, and should be protected from potential unintended consequences. Sawyer proposed that the CRTC should continue to recognize retail and rental as outside of broadcasting, and to recognize their importance to broadcasters as promoters of content.

The commission asked Sawyer to comment on Deep Packet Inspection as a means of identifying and prioritizing Canadian content, to which Sawyer cautioned that many factors, in his opinion, make DPI a cumbersome process. He argued that digital rights management encoding can make it difficult to inspect some of the content being transmitted, and that there is also no one standard form for transmitting video content. At the commission’s urging, Sawyer agreed to read and later comment on the submission to the CRTC on Deep Packet Inspection by Robert Hester.

TEN Broadcasting Inc.
Stuart Duncan and Ronald Renner presented on behalf of TEN Broadcasting Inc, which operates two adult entertainment Category 2 specialty television services in Canada. Adult entertainment on the internet is a huge success story, and TEN Broadcasting increasingly faces competition from services offered online. To maintain its competitive place in the market, TEN Broadcasting has plans to launch internet services that will promote its existing specialty channels.

TEN Broadcasting supports the continuation of the exemption order for new media broadcasting. It currently offers a variety of subscription choices—including by-the-minute or by-the-scene purchasing—and regulation of these different activities would require spending a lot of money to monitor practices. The presenters argued that the existing exemption orders are essential for continued success of new media. Taxes on internet broadcasting would impair new enterprise in this area. Furthermore, a tax or levy cannot be justified to support the wants of special interest groups. It is not in the interest of Canadians to have certain groups benefiting from the revenues of a successful industry. The presenters expressed discontent that groups like SOCAN and the CTF currently enjoy some of the broadcaster’s revenues, despite contributing in no way to the programming featured on TEN’s services.

TEN Broadcasting is concerned that the hearings thus far have seemed to be generally receptive of some limitations in new media, which the presenters objected to. They argued that regulation will create virtual online monopolies, which only benefits those interest groups reaping contributions from levies. A fair system would be one requiring all broadcasters to carry Canadian content, but even this isn’t happening under current regulation. Currently, there are inequities in Canadian content requirements that the CRTC should be considering; new regulations for unlicensed broadcasting will not remedy the current problems.

The commission asked the presenters how they envisioned the market playing an important role in maintaining competition when currently more than 80 per cent of internet traffic is supervised by five players. The presenters admitted that under the current system, consumers have little choice over the services they receive; they also maintained their argument that it should not be the responsibility of the ISPs to monitor and ensure minimum amounts of Canadian content in internet broadcasting.

CRTC Hearings Day 6

2009-03-01T09:12:00.003-05:00

Another full slate of witnesses at Day 6 of the CRTC Hearings on Broadcasting and New Media. It was my turn to attend the hearings, so here is the rundown (the full transcript can be found here).

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The CBC went out of its way to position itself as the most new media friendly of Canada’s radio and television broadcasters. In their opening statement, the CBC referred to themselves as “new media broadcasters”. “New media broadcasting enables us to enhance accessibility, engagement and exposure to our content.”, said one of the CBC’s representatives. “We are truly in a dialogue with our viewers.” The CBC then took the smart position that in a new media environment that is global in scope, having an all-Canadian, high-quality option is not only part of the CBC’s mandate, but an essential element of its positioning in the marketplace. They admitted, however, that successful business models for “new media broadcasting” have yet to be determined. In their brief to the commission, the CBC appeared to be arguing for a stronger set of remedies, including the following:

"Licensed and off-air broadcasting services should be required to ensure the services are not being made available to Canadians by new media content aggregators unless such aggregators (read: Joost, JumpTV) agreed to comply with obligations established by the Commission for such entities."

However, in their opening presentation and in their response to questioning, they appeared to back away from those suggestions, arguing later that it was “not exactly their position” instead arguing that an ISP levy was the only “reasonable and effective funding approach”.

Some highlights from the Q and A. Much of the questions and answers seemed to pick up on the CBC”s positioning as a ‘new media broadcaster”, by asking its representatives to explain both how they imagine operating as the digital world evolves. Among the CBC’s answers were its suggestions that its presence in new media gives it a decided advantage when it comes to covering more regional stories. Two areas attracted the most interest: the question of how much of the Corp’s archives would be available online, and what the terms of trade were between the CBC and independent producers. Commissioner Michel Morin wanted to know why “The National” and “Le Telejournal” are not available online. Commissioner Tim Denton asked CBC representatives if they had ever gone directly to the public for funding, a la PBS.

A couple of other interesting statistics worth mentioning here. The CBC claimed that in the last month, it has seen a 47% increase in page use (I’ll have to look up what that measurement entails) and, for added effect, claimed that last month Canadians spent 99 million minutes online with the CBC. They also indicated that they have been experimenting using PPM measurements in Quebec, with the idea of expanding the use of this measurement tool to English-Canada, even though there are problems with this methodology. CBC’s head of research indicated that the IAB was on the verge of developing a standardized methodology for audience measurement in new media in Canada. Some other things to pass along. CBC representatives indicated that downloading podcasts is less popular a practice in Quebec than it is in English-speaking Canada. They also indicated rights issues have hindered the availability and distribution of what they call “straight entertainment programming”.

One other interesting thing. The CBC explained that they were allotted a certain amount of bandwidth by Akamai to stream the inauguration. It was the second time, they claimed that they have had “negotiated cap” rates with Akamai to regulate bandwidth and ensure that the system didn’t crash.

l'Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)
The primary voice for Quebec’s recording industry, ADISQ argued for the CRTC to regulate in a way that was described as “moderate”, “constructive”, and “resolute”.

Claiming that the music industry has been most directly affected by new media – and the illegal activities that take place on it – ADISQ argued that the CRTC should be guided by the lessons from the past. Further, they argued that “the implementation of regulatory guidelines for broadcasting in new media will promote the harmonious development of our culture and the new media companies, for the greater benefit of the general public”.

ADISQ argued that “non-interactive” music programmers (ie: online services provided by commercial radio stations) should be subject to the same rules that govern their activities on the airwaves. They also argued – without providing examples -- that the CRTC should establish “a formal framework for discussion to encourage dialogue between companies that provide an Internet access service and the community producing Canadian cultural content” with the hopes of coming to some kind of agreement “about the obligations that the companies providing an Internet access service would agree to undertake”

During the Q and A component, commissioners indirectly took up the question of dialogue ADISQ mentioned in its presentation by asking about the question of filtering. On that subject, ADISQ’s representative, Solange Drouin, argued that ADISQ didn’t believe that the CRTC should “force Canadian content” on its citizens; however, she also addressed the issue in such a way that would seem to indicate that one possibility would be to make the Canadian content “faster” to access (translation double-checked from the CPAC feed):

Everything is possible in terms of filtering and control – everything that goes through the pipes is possible. Everybody would be a volunteer to control pornographic sites or access….but if we ask is it possible to have a way of managing Canadian content in a different way so that it would be faster or broader and all of a sudden it is impossible. I believe it is clear that we could maybe think with ISPs about a way of giving priority to Canadian content or services without saying it’s the only supply.

Commissioner Michel Morin referred to a report tabled with the CRTC, “New Media Deep Packet Integration and Canadian Content” which appeared to make the suggest that DPI technologies could be used to prioritize Canadian content. He asked if ADISQ had read the report; they mentioned they did not but would consult it for their final submissions.

Shaw Rocket Fund
A not-for-profit corporation that provides equity financing to Canadian children’s and youth programming, the Shaw Rocket Fund appeared before the CRTC “as a voice for children under 18”. They argued that such groups deserve to be heard because “what these early adopters are doing is valuable in that it is what adults will be doing five years or so in the future”. Shaw Rocket Fund officials pointed to the fact that Canadian young people are “starting to move towards a self-defined identity of being Canadian”, a development they site as different from the previous generation. That said, they argued that investments in programming for young people has declined and that the dominance of Corus and Astral in the youth market is troubling for diversity. They argued that the CRTC should make Canadian children a priority in the broadcasting system; that the Shaw Rocket Fund, restricted in its investments to television programming, move into new media program financing; and that Canadian content for children’s programming is appropriately resourced.

Alliance for Children and Television
The ACT is an organization comprised of various parties – producers, broadcasters, and individuals – that are committed to the development of quality children’s television programming. The organization argued that the CRTC should take the appropriate steps necessary to ensure the proliferation of quality children’s television in the world of new media, including supporting the production of programming specifically for new media platforms, and to encourage contributions from internet and mobile communication providers.

Corus Entertainment
A major player in Canada’s entertainment industry – from its broadcasting holdings to those in publishing and television production, Corus offering a decidedly different perspective to the day’s hearings, The company argued that competition is the major challenge facing Canadian media companies, and argued that the CRTC could improve this situation by allowing Canadian media companies to become larger (and thus, globally competitive); to have investments in digital rights management be considered as eligible for tax credits that exist in broadcasting policy measures; and that the current exemption orders for new media should remain in place and that “the commission should make no attempt to regulate the new media activities of Canadian broadcasters”.

The first set of questions from Konrad von Finckenstein had to do with measurement – how to measure the amount of Canadian content online. KvF asked Corus representatives if they were participating in the ISAN project, a kind of digital watermarking for a/v content, which could be used to track Canadian content online. Corus argued that while ISAN numbers might be helpful in identifying inventory, it would not be useful to assess consumer demand for Canadian content.

A few other tidbits: Corus claims that 80,000 people have downloaded the application for iphones and ipods that gives users access to Corus radio stations. Corus also claimed that ComScore and HitBox, two audience measurement techniques, don’t appear to correlate to each other. One other thing: for those interested in the circulation of ideas, Chris Anderson’s book The Long Tail and Lawrence Lessig’s concept of “the hybrid economy” were both deployed by Corus during their testimony before the commission.

CRTC Hearings Day 5

2009-02-26T12:01:00.003-05:00

Here's a summary of Day 5 of the CRTC hearings on broadcasting and new media. Special thanks to Elizabeth Martin, an M.A. student in Communication Studies at Carleton University for attending the hearings and preparing this report. A summary of Day 6 will appear here some time tomorrow.

Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA)
Bernard Lord, President & CEO of the CWTA, started off the day’s proceedings. Lord immediately emphasized that his members, who provide mobile services to consumers, believe the CRTC’s Mobile Broadcasting Exemption Order of 2007 should be maintained in the current situation. Lord argued that while some broadcasting does happen over mobile devices, there is little evidence from the two years since the exemption order to suggest that mobile services have had any significant impact on traditional broadcasting. In the absence of any threat to traditional broadcasting, and given that the wireless industry has flourished in the absence of regulation, there is no need to regulate mobile broadcasting.

Wireless technologies and mobile broadcasting must be understood as being part of an evolving, nascent industry, Lord argued. It is very difficult to determine the direction of mobile broadcasting for a number of reasons:

• Mobile broadcasting technology is still developing and adapting to consumer demands.
Presently, not all handsets are even capable of mobile broadcasting.

• Research shows that mobile broadcasting is not yet widely used.

• Mobile broadcasting is available, despite its slow adoption, mainly because of enthusiastic investors who heavily subsidize new technology and improvements to networks.

Lord was adamant in the CWTA’s position to oppose a levy on ISPs. Explaining that revenues derived from mobile broadcasting are extremely modest given the tremendous investment involved, he argued that a levy on wireless providers’ percentage of revenue would amount to little more than a “cash grab for revenues wholly unrelated to broadcasting.” He also argued that mobile broadcasting represents a success story for Canadian broadcasting, citing that much Canadian content has been made available to consumers on new platforms. Lord suggested that new media is potentially complementary to other broadcasting and it is meeting the needs of Canadians by increasing their ability to access Canadian content. Taxing mobile broadcasters would penalize the success of the industry.

When asked why the CWTA would oppose a levy based on percentage of revenues, which would be minimal if the industry’s revenues were indeed as modest as Lord suggested, Lord replied that it was the principle of the matter to which the CWTA is opposed. A levy on gross revenues is “an attack on an entire industry,” and the matter of the levy being a small amount of money does not make it acceptable.

The Commission expressed concern that the push toward converged service providers results in closed platforms where broadcasting offerings are limited. To this concern Lord responded that the trend among mobile services providers actually seems to be moving toward an open platform system. The industry is striving to meet the needs of consumers, and consumers want freedom to choose their content. However, Lord thought it important to note that consumers are also demanding increased choice, speed and mobility not just for video or broadcasting content, but for a variety of services available to them online. As technology develops, it is unclear how consumers will use the technology, and it is the CWTA’s position that consumers should be permitted to direct the evolution of this industry.

Further questions from the commission expressed interest both in the technological intricacies of the wireless industry, and in the economic viability of the industry. To these concerns, Lord drew from his opening remarks about the difficulty in anticipating the direction of the industry and reiterated that it is to the benefit of the industry and consumers that mobile broadcasting remain exempt from regulation.

Digital Media Association
General Counsel Lee Knife presented on behalf of the Digital Media Association (DiMA), a Washington, DC-based organization representing companies that provide or support new media. Knife argued that the current media exemption is effective and should be maintained. New media is already developing at a rapid pace in the absence of regulation, and it should be encouraged to expand, free of regulation.

Knife outlined some problems with imposing regulation on new media:

• Regulations will be difficult to comply with and enforce.

• Levies will ultimately hurt the consumer, and in turn, this negatively affects the creators of
content

• Consumers will try harder to circumvent controls and will turn more to illegal sources of content

• Regulation will harm creators who compete with unregulated international content.

Knife argued that new media cannot be regulated the way traditional broadcasters are. While many broadcasters have established relationships with major content creators, this is not the case with new media providers, who depend on many independent producers of content. Furthermore, new media does not face the same constraints that traditional media do when it comes to making Canadian content available. New media providers can easily deliver a large amount of Canadian content if it is in demand. The lack of regulation has allowed new media programmers to be more adaptable and responsive to consumer demands.

Knife expressed his concern that regulation would be chilling to innovation and investment in new media industries. On a personal level, he expressed his own concern that deciding on the kinds of media that required a levy stripped that media of its artistic merit, reducing it solely to a commodity.

Knife cautioned that if Canadian regulations made it difficult for American businesses to market to Canadians, his member companies, on an individual basis, may be forced to reconsider their business dealings with Canada. This would further limit choices for Canadian consumers.

Commissioner Poirier pointed out that regulations have helped Canadian broadcasting, and she questioned the presenter as to what makes new media so different that it would not be helped by similar regulations. Knife stressed that it is the environment of the internet that is fundamentally different from that of traditional media. In the traditional media environment, broadcasters control what listeners watch or listen to, so it may be appropriate to regulate broadcasters in that scenario. But the nature of new media is to respond directly to consumer demand, and providers should be permitted to do this. New media provides as much content as possible to as many users as possible, which differs from traditional broadcasting; therefore, it is not appropriate to require new media to subsidize content production. Knife also illustrated that the internet provides many innovative opportunities for bringing Canadian content to consumers who are not necessarily even seeking it. Knife suggested that the existing exemption order can help prevent the flourishing of piracy. On the other hand, additional taxes will make it more difficult for DiMA’s members to provide their services to consumers, due to the associated costs; as a result, consumers may turn to other sources to find these services elsewhere—including illegal sources.

As a final word of caution, Knife warned of the danger in applying levies to broad-based services like ISPs. Regulation, Knife said, could possibly be applied in the very narrowest form to the most “traditional-like” online services; but as so many internet providers are much more than broadcasters, such a levy would be inappropriate.

The National Film Board
Tom Perlmutter, Commissioner and Chairperson for the National Film Board of Canada, opened with a pronouncement that a “digital revolution” has taken place and we are now in an “internet generation.” He explained that a complex digital communication ecology is evolving, and the framework of traditional broadcasting no longer fits this new environment. With this Perlmutter urged that public policy must not restrict development of a new industry—policy should instead foster growth.

Perlmutter stated that it is not clear thus far that regulating new media in a way that parallels traditional media is feasible in this new environment. While scarcity of resources was an issue justifying regulation in traditional broadcasting, scarcity is not an issue in new media. The real concern, Perlmutter stressed, should be ensuring strong Canadian content featuring Canadian talent and meeting Canadian needs.

Perlmutter argued that because of the immediate and growing importance of new media, action must be taken now to support digital content. He proposed six areas to which support should be directed:

1. Broadcast content: extend existing broadcast content through the creation of supplementary content, particularly in the areas of children’s programming and original drama

2. Original digital content: This is content specifically produced for use in the new media environment. This may be the most difficult to promote, as it is still unclear what users do with this content.

3. Digitization of heritage collections: New media provides great opportunities to make archived collections more accessible.

4. Promotion of digital media: new marketing strategies are needed to capture audience attention in this new environment

5. Training

6. Research and development: Innovation needs to be encouraged in the development of platforms and services in order to compete in the international market. Supporting development in this area will in turn stimulate the creation of CanCon.

Perlmutter stressed that public funding would be necessary to achieve these objectives. The public sector needs to reaffirm its role in the online environment and provide a range of programming that might not otherwise be provided by commercial interests. Francophone, Aboriginal, and minority perspectives need to be represented in the new environment, and this should be the role of the public sector.

To illustrate the value of establishing a fund for new media production, Perlmutter spoke about the NFB’s new role as an online broadcaster. He conveyed strong support for the quick establishment of a new media fund that would differ from the scheme that exists to support traditional broadcasting. When asked how he envisioned this proposed fund, Perlmutter responded that it should be conceptualized “broadly” and that the establishment of a fund need not be thought of as an old solution to new media; international funding models could be looked to for an innovative solution.

Perlmutter added that further to these recommendations, Canada is in need of a comprehensive digital strategy that works to alleviate barriers to access and ensures that infrastructure meets existing and future needs.

Canadian Interactive Alliance
The Canadian Interactive Alliance was represented by its president, Ian Kelso, and executive director, James Lewis. The Alliance, which represents members that include game studios and mobile product developers and distributors, outlined the special concerns of interactive media. In particular, interactive media face competition and difficulties raising capital, and the presenters urged that new investment is needed in interactive media development.

The current approaches to regulating traditional broadcasting, the Alliance suggested, are too narrow to suit interactive audiovisual media—a new approach must be developed. The Alliance argued that the environment is now open to increased competition, and this is putting greater demands on media creators. Like the NFB before it, the Alliance reiterated a call for a national strategy to keep the interactive media sector viable and to keep companies stable. The Alliance spoke of the necessity to provide incentives to spur investment, innovation, visibility of content, and talent recruitment—all crucial to maintaining Canada’s competitive edge in the global market and in a knowledge economy that demands innovation and creativity.

The Alliance concluded its presentation by stating its support for the renewal of the new media exemption, with two conditions:
• that fair access, net neutrality, and the open nature of the internet be preserved to allow independent producers of content to thrive

• that those broadcasters who are regulated do not exert “undue influence” by the powers granted to them as licensees.

CRTC Chair Konrad Von Finckenstein was interested to know how the Alliance would propose to deal with the new media environment in the absence of a comprehensive national strategy, to which the Alliance was not clear in its response but seemed to favour allowing free market forces to determine the evolution of the new environment. The Alliance urged that eventually, a fund should support innovation in content, rather than platforms. When asked where the money should come from to support such a fund, the Alliance felt that ultimately it should be publicly funded, as taxpayers have much to benefit from continued support of industries that contribute to the development of assets crucial in a knowledge economy. While the Alliance was hesitant to be prescriptive of a plan for funding, it did not seem to favour the imposition of a levy on new media content providers. They re-emphasized the need to maintain the spirit of net neutrality and a reconceptualising of audiovisual policy that considers the dynamics and problems of emerging markets and industries.

Aliance Numerique
Alliance Numerique is a non-profit organization created in 2001 that represents Quebec-based digital and interactive media creators. Olivier Champion, Director of Communication for AN, expressed to the commission the group’s vested interest in the challenges and opportunities presented by new media. AN is particularly concerned about ensuring that Quebec’s language and culture is promoted in the internet environment.

Champion argued that governments, both federal and provincial, have a key role to play in promoting Canadian culture. AN supports government incentives that encourage the production of Canadian content in interactive and broadcast media, and they are particularly concerned about promoting content created by small or independent producers, stressing that these creators need to be permitted a place in the market.

AN supports mandatory contributions from ISPs into a fund which would foster the creation of Canadian interactive content. Francophone content in particular, Champion argued, must be supported in order to have a significant presence on internet platforms which are dominated by Anglophone content. Noting AN’s particular interest in supporting the growth of independent interactive media creators, the commission asked whether AN had considered other options for supporting these companies in the absence of a fund. Champion responded that other strategies can be considered, such as cooperation and exchanges with producers in other countries such as Japan. Such activities would permit the exchange of knowledge as well as promoting the work of Canadian interactive media creators. Public broadcasters also have an important role to play in the new media environment, and should ensure that there is diversity in Canadian programming available on new platforms.

Noting that AN seemed to be unique among the presenters in its support for a fund for new media, Champion commented that promoting original Canadian content is a valid concern. Funding and other tools that foster richness and development among small interactive media businesses should be a priority, Champion maintained.

CRTC Hearings Day 4, Part II

2009-02-25T20:05:00.002-05:00

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.

CRTC New Media Hearings Day 4, Part I

2009-02-25T19:44:00.004-05:00

It was a very full Day 4 of the CRTC hearings on Broadcasting in New Media, featuring appearances by a number of influential groups representing creative labour in the cultural industries. Here is Part I of the summary of the day's events. Special thanks to Samantha Burton, an M.A. student in Communication Studies at Carleton University, for attending the hearings and preparing this report.

Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFPTA)
The CFTPA began by stating that new media should be viewed not as a threat, but as an opportunity for unprecedented cultural and economic dividends for Canadians and Canadian companies. However, they cautioned that although there is ample opportunity for Canadian content on new media to fulfill the policy objectives laid out in the Broadcasting Act, it is not currently doing so. Canadian are already creating world-class, award-winning new media content, but not enough is being done to support and promote it; “the window is closing,” they said, and if more effort is not made, foreign productions will move in to close the gap.

As a result, CFPTA stated that “a coordinated digital media strategy and 21st century policy toolkit” is required, and that the CRTC must take “light-handed yet decisive action” to ensure that Canadians have ample opportunity to participate in and enjoy distinctly Canadian broadcasting.

CFPTA identified a tangible economic stimulus as being critical to creations under which Canadian innovation, culture and creativity in new media can thrive; current funding is inadequate to provide independent producers with sufficient funds to compete within the growing but difficult to finance category of new media. Internet service providers (ISPs) and wireless service providers are already increasingly using and profiting from the internet as an extended broadcasting platform. Therefore, the largest of these companies should be required contribute a small amount of their gross broadcasting revenues to an independently-administered fund that is mandated to support high-quality, independently-produced Canadian new media broadcasting content. They emphasized that they supported a contribution policy mirroring the flexible approach that the CRTC currently has for broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), wherein only the largest are required to contribute.

Citing a Nordicity group study, CFPTA argued that the financial impacts on large companies and consumers would be negligible, while potential positive results for the system are exponential. The group also highlighted the importance of fair and equitable terms of trade agreements, which they stated were necessary to restore an increasing imbalance between the digital rights of broadcasters and independent producers by providing the stability and clarity required to unlock the full exploitation of television content across all distribution platforms.

The CFPTA defined “fair and equitable terms of trade” as those that recognize the value of and provide appropriate compensation for multi-platform are integral to stimulating the development of content not only in new media, but across all platforms. CFPTA cited the CRTC’s Changing Channels report, which demonstrated that broadcasters often obtain the rights to digital distribution of products during licensing negotiations for traditional broadcasting windows, but fail to exploit them. Arguing that this missed opportunity causes creative industries to suffer and denies Canadians access to Canadian choices on new media platforms, the CFPTA proposed terms of trade agreements also include a “use it or lose it” provision. Such a provision would delineate a reasonable period of time within which a broadcaster would have to utilize a given new media right. If this right is not exercised within that period, it would then automatically revert back to being controlled by the independent producer.

The CFPTA concluded their opening statement by characterizing the independent producers they represent as not only leaders in the global new media industries, but also “catalysts of diversity.” Consequently, they require the means CFPTA have outlined to negotiate and navigate the complex transition to multi-platform media successfully.

CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein pulled no punches when beginning his line of questioning, starting outright by that the CFPTA called for a “flexible forward-looking definition of broadcasting,” but did not provide one in their presentation. “Do you have one?” he asked pointedly. Instead of providing the simple and succinct definition von Finkenstein was clearly seeking, the CFPTA reiterated their position that it is more important not to “box ourselves in” with a tight definition in an environment so rapidly changing; however, they did offer to include a more solid definition in their written response.

The Chair then moved on ask why independent production is so key, as some argue that a healthy and expanding new media does not necessarily require independent broadcasters. The CFPTA responded by reiterated that independent producers offer increased diversity, prompting the Chair to ask whether they were making a direct correlation between the introduction of economies of scale and the stifling of creativity and innovation, to which the CFPTA responded “yes, but it also depended on individual business objectives.”

The next questions raised by the Commission were related to the proposed “use it or lose it” clause, asking why broadcasters would not be exploiting these rights and requesting a draft agreement outlining out precisely what “using it” would constitute. CFPTA stated that having the rights on the books is an asset to broadcasters, but taking advantage of them is not always financially viable; consequently, they are seeking a balance in order to ensure that the rights are exploited in the best way possible.

There was considerable interest from the CRTC in CFPTA’s mention in their submission of the International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN), of which CFPTA is the Canadian administrator. ISAN is a voluntary numbering system for the identification of audiovisual works, providing a unique, internationally recognized and permanent reference number for each audiovisual work registered in the ISAN system. The Chair was particularly interested in the potential of ISAN to provide a service or model for measuring and tracking distribution of CANCON on new media platforms, stating that he saw the potential in such a system to measure “what and how much is flowing through ‘dumb pipes’” of the ISPs.

Numerous questions were raised by both the CRTC and the CFPTA regarding the ability of the existing ISAN system to provide such a measurement, and it was clear the significant additional research into this area was required before any formal proposals or decisions could be made. The most glaring hole was the issue of how (and if) ISAN’s structure as an international system would fit with the specific requirements of measuring CANCON online, which is also connected of the challenge of defining such standards in the first place. Despite acknowledgment by both the CRTC and the CFPTA that the idea of ISAN as a measurement was “rough,” the Chair was excited (and as he himself admitted, perhaps overly optimistic) at this first example of something close to a concrete method of measurement of CANCON online.

Near the end of the question period, the Commission asked that, if the incentives for carrying a preponderance of Canadian content as requested by CFPTA were mandated, how would they ensure that audiences consume that content in “a world where fragmentation is infinite and getting more infinite every day.” Although the CFPTA responded that making CANCON more widely available and accessible was their key suggestion, the Commission’s follow-ups seemed to imply a lean toward built-in measures of privileging Canadian content on new media—through use of analogies such as “you can lead a horse to water, but how can you make it drink?” (and, perhaps, should you?)—which could possibly foreshadow debates that will emerge in the Net Neutrality hearings scheduled to take place later this year.

Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC)
As a representative of documentary filmmakers, DOC was mostly concerned with video content distributed over the Internet and over mobile devices and referred primarily to these aspects when using the term “new media.” They also emphasized original content created specifically for new media, rather than content that has been re-appropriated from traditional media platforms.

Primarily, the DOC supported the notion of net neutrality. They were concerned about the role ISPs have stepped out of the passive distribution role they have claimed for themselves by managing traffic flows; consequently, they recommended that the new media exemption order continue but also supports the implementation of specific, targeted measures to improve the availability of CANCON in new media.

The DOC proposed that for content to be deemed CANCON, it meet the following criteria: produced by a Canadian owned and controlled company, 75% of budget spent in Canada and the majority of key crew be Canadian as determined by a new point system geared toward documentary and new media production be created, a draft of which they provide.

They suggested that a method of tracking CANCON online be instituted, citing the American Digimark as an example of a model they feel would be beneficial. Although DOC also supported minimum CANCON requirements eventually be established for new media, they stated that at this juncture there is not yet enough information to provide hard numbers and that a tracking measure must be put in place before goals could be established.

They argued that new media content is particularly valuable because of its longevity, as it is available online indefinitely, and refute the idea that producing content for new media is cheaper than for traditional mediums. Consequently, DOC cited the lack of production financing as the biggest barrier to new media content production, and propose the creation of a fund to address this.

The DOC stated that such a new fund should support productions created primarily for the internet, as funds already exist to support other new media endeavors and re-appropriating television content online is relatively inexpensive. Although they were reluctant to suggest a dollar figure, they suggested a substantial multi-year investment would be required. Further, the definition of priority content should remain flexible, to allow for the funding of a variety of online productions. They saw it as reasonable for the fund to expect a return on its investments, and state that it should support the objectives of production, promotion and accessibility through different funding streams. The DOC highlighted accessibility as a particular blind-spot, as none of the ISPs have acknowledged accessibility as a problem in new media.

In terms of sources of funding, the DOC saw three potential resources: the Canadian government, an ISP revenue levy, and a spectrum heritage trust raised from sale of wireless spectrum. They stated that they would be happy to see funding come from any, or a combination of, these three resources. DOC also reiterated their belief that ISPs are direct beneficiaries of increased bandwidth usage by consumers and, citing statistics that show video as the driver of global bandwidth usage, argued that they should be required to contribute to the creation of content for new media in the same way that cable companies are required to contribute to Canadian content in television.

The first question raised by the CRTC Chair was related to tracking CANCON, and DOC’s suggestion of the adoption of a method such as watermarking. The CRTC Chair asked where the CRTC would come in, and namely who would be responsible for collecting the data and administering the database that would result in the aggregation of this information. After some fumbling around the question, DOC Co-Chair John Christou explained that such a watermark would be embedded in the digital content itself, and therefore send the information automatically and directly to the database without the need for any intermediary intervention. This evidence of confusion regarding the technical function of resources that the CRTC is considering utilizing in central operations, such as the measurement of CANCON in new media, illustrates the existing discrepancies in and pressing need for new media literacy in the creation and enactment of new media policies.

Next, Commissioner Timothy Denton addressed DOC’s strong position with regards to preserving net neutrality, asking the pointed question “What if bandwidth throttling worked in favour of Canadian content—would you change your mind about it?” DOC responded with a firm “No,” followed up with an unequivocal advocacy for the internet as a neutral setting for all content.

Denton followed up by asking “Supposing, however, if I was a very large user of bandwidth, I paid a higher price than people who were lower consumers of bandwidth? Is that objectionable to you?” DOC did not find this proposal objectionable.

What is interesting about this exchange is not only the undue conflation of bandwidth throttling (by the ISP) and variance in individual bandwidth usage (by the end-user), but also the apparent lack of internet literacy on the part of the CRTC. In fact, many major ISPs already charge subscribers different fees based on bandwidth usage levels; for example, Rogers offers four fee levels in the downtown Ottawa core ranging from “Ultra-Lite” (2GB/month) to “Extreme” (95GB/month). The existence of graduated licensing supports the argument that ISPs are profiting off of increased bandwidth usage, which DOC stated suggests indicates that they should therefore be funding the content for which that extra bandwidth is used.

Denton than asked whether CANCON tracking by watermarking or tagging content goes against their principle to net neutrality, to which DOC responded that inherently it did not, but would if it was subsequently used to impact how the content monitored was then accessed by the enduser. Commissioner Michel Morin followed this response by asking if DOC sees an opposition between peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) and Canadian content, proposing that “it makes sense for the Canadian content to be prioritized in the future because the networks will be eventually congested.” DOC responded that P2P and CANCON are not mutually exclusive, and could in fact be mutually beneficial; even that notion represents an “ideal world” right now, it is not necessarily unrealistic. Turning to the example of the music industry ten years ago, they suggested that the industry would be in much better financial shape today had they accepted a user fee from Napster instead of revolting against it. Similarly, DOC said, there’s no reason why coalescence of P2P and CANCON is impossible, but if it is to be a goal to develop a system where such an arrangement works, then the time to take action is now.

Writers’ Guild of Canada (WGC)
The WGC began by strongly advocating that the CRTC rescind the new media exemption order, and institute a regulatory framework that supports and encourages CANCON in new media. They also identified their familiarity with ISAN, and added their offer of assistance to that of CFPTA’s in assessing the system’s suitability for measuring and tracking CANCON.

The panel stated that before they turn to the issue of measurement, some definitions need to be outlined. They began by defining a difference between linear and non-linear online video. WGC defines the experience of viewing linear video as passive and often meant to augment traditional broadcasting, such as the webisodes of Degrassi. Conversely, they viewed non-linear video as interactive, involving user participation in the guiding of events, yet still framed within a broader set of available content choices provided by the content, such as The Border’s interactive videos.

WGC also stated that “original, new media Canadian content” also required definition, in order to ensure that what is being measured, promoted and funded are truly Canadian programs. Television regulations cannot be transferred “wholesale” onto new media platforms, so WGC proposes a new certification system for new media. They recommended that the certification include the stipulations that the content be Canadian owned and produced, with at least 75% of costs spent in Canada and the top five highest creative positions held by Canadians.

They then addressed issues of measurement, proposing that linear video was easier to measure than non-linear video. With the former, broadcasters were increasingly making television programs available online and the audience sees no difference between watching this content on one screen or another; consequently, the WGC argued that from this perspective it makes little sense to exempt ISPs from broadcasting regulations. Further, they stated that the current exemption leaves Canadian broadcasters free to feature non-Canadian content on new media platforms, at the expense of CANCON. To illustrate, they provide the example of CTV’s homepage, which provides a prominent video link to the US series Lost. Although Canadian shows are available, the WGC stated, “you have to work hard to find them, just like on television.” As a result, they again argue that the exemption order be rescinded and that the CRTC set minimum CANCON levels for streaming and downloading of Canadian TV programs by Canadian broadcasters wherever their channels are hosted, proposing a minimum of 60% measured by time.

However, the WGC recognized that the length of a program is not an effective standard for measuring original new media content. For content falling under this category, they suggested measuring by title, but still imposing that CANCON comprise a minimum of 60% available content.

WGC stated that the online world measures success by audience size and revenue, similar to traditional broadcasting outlets, but the current exemption means that the CRTC does not have any data related to these levels in new media. Since the CRTC requires a baseline in order to establish CANCON requirements or implement any kind of levy, WGC recommended that the Commission require reports detailing these statistics.

In relation to that stipulation, WGC argued that while the CRTC should not regulate user-generated content, it does have legal jurisdiction to impose a levy on ISPs. As a result, they proposed that the CRTC create an ISP New Media Broadcasting Undertaking, which would impose a 3% levy for ISPs, drawing from certain revenues (later elaborated be, broadly speaking, revenues drawn from broadband subscriptions for personal use) which would create a pool of approximately $97 million. This undertaking would also offer an opt-in tier for independent new media broadcasters, who could choose to be licensed, taking on licensees’ obligations in exchange for gaining access to ISP levy-produced funding and any promotion incentives that might exist.

The WGC cited a Nordicity group study, which reiterated that the impact of a 3% levy on levels of CANCON online would be immediate and significant, but the cost to ISPs negligible and therefore unnecessary to pass down to subscribers. Finally, WGC stated that “access is meaningless if it is not effective” and went on to advocate for 10% of the levy fund being earmarked as an incentive to broadcasters who improve traffic to CANCON on new media platforms.

CRTC Chair von Finckenstein first asked about distinctions between unique and non-unique online audiovisual content, asking how those boundaries would be drawn in terms of regulation. WGC replied that if a limited number of choices or scenes are provided by the content producer, regardless of the user’s choice of what order to view them in, identifies non-unique/non-linear content. Conversely, something along the lines of Second Life would be considered unique, as the producer does not define a limited number of actions for the user to choose from through which to play out a particular story.

Leonard Katz, Vice-Chairman of CRTC Telecommunications, asked whether WGC supported other groups’ contention that additional support from the proposed ISP levy should not result in the establishment of a fund limited uniquely to new media. WGC responded that they believed that the fund should specifically support new media content, but that this could encompass content created to accompany television (and presumably other traditional broadcasting) programming as well as original content created specifically to standalone on new media. Specifically, they stated that they would not want to see the fund going toward supporting the creating of television programming.

Katz countered by asking whether it really makes sense to separate the funding, if the purpose of online content in fact to “create eyeballs” for traditional broadcasting. Further, even if audiences—and the revenues associated with them—are migrating from traditional to new media platforms, such a migration is not 1:1; while this movement may be occurring the consumer has not left the cable industry. Consequently, they questioned the increase of financial contribution by broadcasters for what could ostensibly be seen as an extension of television programming. WGC replied that funds presently exist to support television productions, and so they want to ensure that there is also some specific funding allocated for reaching audiences over the internet.

The Commission also requested clarification of WGC’s conception of ISPs as broadcasters, illustrating contradictions between their written submissions and oral presentation. In their written submission, WGC stated that ISPs are common carriers if they simply transmit content, but they are BDUs if they engage in traffic shaping and influencing available content; however, it is not clear at this point in time that they fall neatly into either category. WGC’s explained that their stance on the matter had progressed due to a legal opinion they had obtained and filed, which expressed that ISPs should in fact be considered a new class of BDU, which can be regulated accordingly without answering the question they had previously posed.

One of the final issues of concern for the Commission was establishing whether the lack of availability of CANCON on websites such as iTunes is a commercial or regulatory issue; that is, whether it is an issue the CRTC is concerned with. WGC responded by reiterating CFTPA’s earlier contention that such examples of the lack of exploitation of bought rights to new media distribution by broadcasters by reflect a commercial issue, but in fact indicates the need for regulation.

Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC)
The Songwriters Association of Canada presented a proactive proposal tailored around a very specific issue: peer-to-peer file sharing online. SAC opened by quoting statistics illustrating the magnitude of the presence of P2P; they contended that over 40 billion songs were shared annually over P2P networks, and account for nearly 90% of all music distribution online. SAC argued that P2P qualifies as broadcasting under the definition provided by the CRTC notice 2008-11; consequently, they said, regulation leading to monetization of P2P network broadcasting is required.

First, they made it clear that they support net neutrality and the preservation of P2P networks, which they characterize as the greatest repository of Western music ever. They acknowledged that these file sharing networks are not going to disappear; as a result, a movement needs to be made away from failed attempts to stop them and toward innovative solutions promoting making money from them.

There is the pressing need to monetize this file sharing system in order to ensure that artists and creative professionals receive compensation for their work. Noting a lack of movement forward to address this issue, SAC stated that they had decided to take a proactive approach and were prepared to provide an extensive plan to monetize the exponential growth of the unauthorized and un-remunerated P2P system.

Primarily, their proposal called for file sharing to require a monthly fee, purchased through ISPs by being “bundled” into internet service packages. This fee would go directly to a fund that would be then be divided fairly among the creators and rights holders of the music content, according to statistics comparing volume of content downloaded. ISPs could also receive a portion of the fee for their administrative and data collection services. In return for paying this fee, consumers would receive unlimited access to P2P file sharing networks and resources and be freed from legal obligations that currently deem the use of such systems illegal.

In doing so, a foundation of financial and legal certainty would be created that would allow music fans to access content when and how they want, while also allowing those who create music to get paid for it. SAC also referenced a study conducted in the United Kingdom which illustrated a receptiveness to such a proposition from internet and P2P users, which they stated demonstrated the viability of this plan in terms of consumer reception.

Calling it “disingenuous to develop the next generation of Canadian creators if they are not going to be able to make a living,” SAC positioned their proposal as integral to the promotion of increasing availability of and access to CANCON in the new media environment.

The Chair congratulated SAC on what he termed “a very creative approach,” but went on to inquire as to whether they were suggesting that such a monthly fee would replace projected revenues lost from P2P sharing, which they would translate into a given number of CD sales. SAC disagreed with that depiction, making a distinction between reproduction and sharing. The latter they characterized as a key identifier of P2P and stated that the act of file sharing is not something they are looking to stop, but that they are looking to be compensated for it.

The Commission went on to ask whether SAC’s proposal would require changes to international copyright treaties that Canada is a member of. SAC said that it would, and in order to avoid violating these treaties, it would need to be generally agreed that file sharing is impossible to stop; according to a study by Daniel Gervais that they had commissioned, if that were the case the kind of legislation they are requesting would not be a violation.

Several other points that required clarification were also identified by the CRTC, notably the questions of:
1. how to set the rate of such a fee

2. how (and if) such national legislation would affect international (and especially American)
P2P providers and music copyright holders

3. how (and if) to avoid charging users not participating in P2P music downloading

4. whether such a model could be extended beyond music to other media (such as film and television).

Throughout the discussion, SAC remained clear on their position in support of net neutrality, arguing that the internet is a pull medium and therefore the audience cannot be forced to listen to what providers or corporations want them to; as a result, the best solution is to protect net neutrality and ensure equal access to CANCON, the creation of which should be supported by financially compensating creators through a fee such as the one they propose.

The Commission expressed interest in this proactive proposal, with von Finckenstein calling it “the most original approach I’ve seen yet.” However, the CRTC ultimately emphasized that further development was needed and, furthermore that the CRTC should not be SAC’s primary target, since the implementation of the proposal fundamentally requires changes to copyright law and treaties.

While you're waiting for Days 4 and 5...

2009-02-25T19:42:00.003-05:00

Have a look at the run-down for Day 3.

New Media Hearings -- Day 4

2009-02-25T07:40:00.002-05:00

I'll have the report of Day 4 up on the blog some time later today. Day 5 will also be posted here.

Week 1 in Review

2009-02-19T00:05:00.001-05:00

With the end of the first week of the CRTC hearings it's time to take stock of what has transpired. One thing that has been great has been the coverage. Reporters from the Globe and Mail have been live blogging the hearings (I wonder if they're planning on doing this for the entire hearings), and CPAC has aired them on tv and online.

In general, I would say that the last few days were not good for representatives of Canada's artists and creative unions. The cases offered by the representatives were poor, and their performances in front of the hearings were demonstrably weak.

This is not because the issues are not important; however, the manner in which those issues were communicated to the commission were not particularly convincing.

I would characterize the leading arguments put forward over the past few days this way:

1. Charge levies on ISPs despite ignorance of scope and extent of problem
Almost all of those appearing over the first few days, including representatives from the ACTRA, the Director's Guild of Canada, SOCAN, and the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, can agree on two things: First, that no one is exactly sure where digitization or the Internet is going, how audiences are incorporating new platforms into their lives, or how entertainment industries are adapting to the challenges put to them. In other words, no one can offer much in the way of insight as to the extent or scope of "broadcasting in new media". And yet, those same groups feel comfortable in arguing that the CRTC should impose a levy on Internet Service Providers because what ISPs do is "broadcasting" and that the levies collected from should go into a fund to create content online.

To illustrate, here's an exchange between the Chairperson of the CRTC and Brian Anthony, CEO of the Director's Guild of Canada (the numbers indicate paragraphs in the hearing transcripts):

THE CHAIRPERSON: 728 On page 3 at the bottom you say:

"The same shortage of high quality Canadian entertainment programming is evident in traditional media." (As read)

729 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any basis for making that statement? I mean one of the problems of new media is measurement, as you know. We highlighted that nobody really knows what is out there, how to measure it, et cetera.

730 So you are making this categorical statement. I presume you have some evidence to back it up.

731 MR. ANTHONY: We don't feel that there is anything more on the new media than there is in traditional media. There is only so much content being created.

732 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that may be so but the point is nobody ‑‑ I haven't seen any study. I haven't seen any measurement or anybody telling me there is a dearth or there isn't a dearth. I mean you are making the assumption since there is a dearth in traditional media there has to be a dearth in new media as well?

733 MR. ANTHONY: Well, we may be ‑‑ this may be more impressionistic than data‑based and we recognize that there is a strong need for more research into what is going on in the new media.

Other examples of proposals based on evidence that is "more impressionistic than data based" come from Gerry Neil, special adviser to ACTRA:

581 MR. NEIL: So on November 11th, 2008 we visited various websites, Canadian broadcasters' websites, to see what they had up there.

582 Global's website had episodes of nine television series available for viewing and only two of those were Canadian. The other seven were American programs, a not particularly good ratio.

583 CTV was much better. They had 24 programs available and they had 12 which were Canadian and the other 12 were non‑Canadian programs.

584 Yes, there are isolated examples, the exceptions that prove the rule; the rule being that in our experience, you need to have appropriate regulations in place to ensure that the necessary space is given for Canadian content, the necessary funding is available for it and the necessary promotion is given to it.

And if the idea is to measure the amount of Canadian content online. how would one do it? Stephen Waddell picks up that challenge here when we he was asked by one of the commissioners:

467 MR. WADDELL: Well, look it, we are not looking for any heavy duty regulations here just to be clear. We are looking for some incentives to be put in place to create Canadian programming. Go with the Chairman's regulation, a light approach on this one. And in that regard we look to potentially an ISP levy.

These kinds of arguments continued into the second day, when representatives from Canada's recording industry got a chance to defend their submissions before the commission. As Frances Munn points out in reviewing day 2 of the hearings, an alliance of unions representing creative personnel in Quebec suggested that ISPs should be licensed like broadcasters, and should have to abide by Canadian content regulations. They, along with the ’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, also admitted that they were unsure as to what kinds of business models work online, but that the CRTC could go some distance in helping them figure it out.

Remember: I am not saying that the creative industries don't have issues that need to be dealt with. However, calling for a levy on ISPs for a fund to create content in the absence of evidence is asking the CRTC to regulate preemptively, to assume a problem exists when it's not abundantly clear that it does. It is also saying that, in the name of ignorance, that the CRTC include ISPs under its regulatory umbrella as broadcasters when they also serve a number of other purposes, like the post office, or the bank, or the travel agent. Finally, if we buy the argument that the levy would be passed onto Canadians in terms of their service fees for access (which most of us would agree is an easy equation the ISPs can make to the public to curry favour for its own position, even though there's nothing stopping rates from being raised for some other reason), then the creative unions are asking Canadians to pay while the everyone figures out where the problems are.

2. Intervention in the name of maintaining professionalization
I have been particularly struck by the way "professional, high quality" production has become a key motif in these hearings. No one is interested in regulating what people put up on YouTube, everyone says, it's just those productions which are professionally rendered for commercial benefit. The Canadian Conference for the Arts suggested that it could help the commission in this regard, as it had drafted its own criteria for what constitutes a commercial artist in its submission to the CRTC. The Canadian Independent Record Producers Association (CIRPA) declared that making a professional level as a musician is harder today than it used to be. What's interesting about such developments is that it seems to be asking the commission not only to become a promoter of Canadian content, and to provide economic safeguards for the industry, but to also act as a body that defines guild membership. This is important in the new media age, since more people can produce audiovisual works of varying qualities at relatively little expense. What would happen if the CRTC brought down a levy on ISPs to a create a fund that any Canadian could access to produce works for new media -- not just those who do this for a living? Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it?

3. Intervention in the Name of "Shelf Space"
The phrase "shelf space" came up a lot in the first two days. First, the internet was characterized by the Chairman as offering "unlimited shelf space". Then, on the second day of the hearings, representatives from CIRPA and the copyright collective SOCAN suggested that the CRTC needs to regulate online activities in the need of ensuring "shelf space" in new media. This might mean content requirements for internet-only music streaming services (this would require licensing, too); it might also require that web pages offering music or audiovisual works devote a certain percentage of their web pages to showcasing Canadian content.

One problem here: Is the language of shelving an appropriate way to frame one's interface with the digital devices? My immediate instinct is to say no. Some in media studies talk about one's experience as one involving a number of screens, or windows. A colleague of mine thinks "menu" might be a better way of looking at it, since shelves can be at eye level or higher or lower. Some shelves can be sent to places where they would be out of sight. Menus items are to be always available, should we choose to select something from them.

References to "shelf space" are very popular within the discourse around cultural policy in Canada. This is because calling for shelf space appears relatively anodyne - all anyone is asking for is exposure, not for someone to tell people what to listen or watch. It bears noting here that "shelf space" is also part of a cluster of arguments about causality which circulate in the cultural sphere. Another example is the one that equates the success of a Canadian musician to Canadian content regulations.

These arguments require a thorough rendering to determine the validity of their claims. However, such rendering is not necessary because many interpreters of those arguments simply fill in the blanks and take the same logical leaps made by those people making them. No one is going to discount that the establishment of Canadian content regulations has not supported the creation of a music industry, but that does not mean that such regulations created the music industry. Policies mandating content quotas or encouraging exposure generate production activity, but they do not immediately equal success (whatever that might mean), and to make that equation places the question of artistic success as a policy matter, even though, as many know, the making of a successful piece of music relies on a number of factors -- luck being one of them -- of which the regulatory apparatus is only a component of a larger picture. That doesn't stop these arguments from continuing to circulate as if evidence was not necessary. However, that doesn't make these arguments particularly convincing, either.

4. Arguments about "Swamping"
These arguments start from the position that even though things are still in their early phases, policies are necessary to avoid Canadians from being overrun with content from other places. For Richard Hardacre from ACTRA, the concern is that Canadians will be "swamped" with Hollywood movies and American culture. Of course, the rhetoric about swamps works on two levels, painting an image of Canadian citizens being overrun with content. However, it's not an issue of being overrun with operas; but rather the stuff from the swamp, or "uncultivated ground" of mass culture. Claims about "foreign sites" or "foreign content" should make one uneasy not only because it seems to equate one's media consumption with one's commitment to citizenship, but also because the phrase carries the taint of unfamiliarity, of disease, and of distrust.

----
To wrap up: Over the past two days, I got the palpable sense that many of the commissioners, most notably the Chairman, were incredibly frustrated with the positions put forward by the creative organizations and representative lobby groups. One can easily say that this is part of the performance, since everyone knows that these hearings are being televised. At the same time, though, the CRTC, and KvF in particular, seem to be more sensitive to the ways in which the dynamics of new media are different than those that came before them. The stubbornness to acknowledge this fact by almost all who appeared over the first 2 days of the hearings seemed to strike a nerve with the Commission. That shows a surprisingly low level of new media literacy and threatens to marginalize these groups at a time when "fact-finding" is supposed to be one of the purposes of this investigation.

Even if mechanisms from "old media" need to be applied or adapted for digital settings to address the industrial concerns that many are feeling associated with new forms of digital distribution, denying any difference and sticking one's head in the proverbial sand is unlikely to win support, either with the public or, it appears, with some people at the CRTC.

It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change over the coming weeks, when more representatives from the managerial side of the cultural industries get their chance to appear before the commission.

CRTC Hearings Day 2

2009-02-18T22:52:00.002-05:00

Here are the highlights from Day 2 of the CRTC hearings -- thanks to U of O law student Frances Munn for covering the hearings today. The hearings resume on Monday.

CRTC Hearings Day 1

2009-02-18T07:00:00.004-05:00

Here's the round-up of day one of the hearings, from Michael Geist and his student Samantha Montreuil. I will provide my own commentary after today's hearings.

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

2009-02-15T18:54:00.001-05:00

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.

Some exciting news

2009-02-10T09:35:00.003-05:00

Wagmedia readers rejoice! We're back with some exciting news. I'll be teaming up with Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, to cover the upcoming CRTC hearings on broadcasting and new media. Details about the hearings can be found here.

We'll be sending students from our respective programs to cover the hearings. Their reports, along with supplementary commentary from Geist and myself, will appear simultaneously on both of our blogs. The fun begins on February 17.

Upcoming Lecture

2009-01-27T12:41:00.005-05:00

A little plug for a lecture I'm giving here at Carleton next week, that is inspired by some ideas I started to flesh out in a blog posting I wrote a little while ago.

I'll be back shortly with some news about Wagmedia and the upcoming CRTC hearings on new media.

The rest of the story...

2008-11-03T21:05:00.013-05:00

And now, the rest of the story on the CRTC's broadcasting policy directives, with perspectives from panelists at the CAB convention along with my own opinions.

So, what else did the commission recommend?

Local Programming Improvement Fund: Since the CRTC believes that Canada’s local markets, especially smaller markets, are not being served by local programming, the commission announced the creation of a Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF), which will devote $60 million annually for the next 3 years into the support of locally produced programming, especially news and information. The fund will be divided up into two streams -- $40 million for English-language markets, $20 million for French-language markets. The fund will come from BDU’s, who already contribute 5% of their gross revenues towards the Canadian Television Fund. An additional 1% will now go into the LPIF.

This one has many people at the CAB convention scratching their heads. Some wondered how the $60 million was determined; others wondered whether this was within the CRTC’s mandate; even more wondered about the wisdom of the CRTC in announcing a new production fund without a consultative process. Everyone agreed that this will mean higher cable and satellite fees for Canadians, since the extra contribution will be passed onto consumers.

In my mind, there is something to this. In fact, there’s a lot to this. First of all, this is the second time that the CRTC has become directly involved in the newsrooms of the nation in the last year or so. Remember the TQS controversy in Quebec? That’s important here, because one of the representatives from the CRTC who was sitting on the regulatory panel I attended drew reference to the TQS case as part of the commission's rationale to create the LPIF. For me this is indicative of something else: that the previous decision on TQS did not represent a precedent for other broadcasters.

When pressed by other panelists, the representative from the CRTC could only offer that "some surveys" show that Canadians “want to see themselves on television”, and that a fund for local programming in places with populations of less than 1 million people was the way to address this. A representative from Bell asked, "Where in the Broadcasting Act does it state that news programming, local news programming, and local news programming in small markets, is something that falls under the CRTC’s jurisdiction". No response was offered.

There are other problems with the LPIF that didn't come up here. For example, CBC stations will be able to apply for this funding. This would mean that taxpayers will be paying twice for their public broadcasting: first from a Parliamentary Grant, and now through cable fees. It seems as though the CRTC will be administering over the LPIF, but it has asked the CAB for guidance in setting up the fund. How will the CBC be given a fair shake for the funding if the CAB is playing a key role in the structuring of the LPIF?

Beyond the technical issues, there is another problem. The question is not whether local programming could use some support in some way. This point is probably true, although we would have to determine what constitutes the conditions for support. The question is whether this is the appropriate place to exercise that support, and whether there are any problems of having the state’s regulatory body engaging in policies that dictate, or structure, or direct news production.

Distant Signals: With this decision the CRTC has allowed broadcasters to negotiate a fee with BDUs for carrying out-of-market signals to their subscribers. Now broadcasters and BDU's will have to negotiate what the fee will be.

The reaction to this by the broadcasters was was generally positive here, but the overarching idea is that this is small consolation for losing the big prize. The big prize was fee-for-carriage, a policy that would have allowed over-the-air broadcasters to charge BDU’s to carry their signals. Naturally, this would have generated considerable revenues to broadcasters and would have increased the price of cable and satellite services for Canadians. The CRTC rejected this proposal, arguing that the broadcasters did not put forward a convincing case for FFC. The broadcasters didn't like the decision one bit.

The revenues generated by distant signals, which the industry claims as between $70-90 million, can now be realized through negotiations with BDU’s and, in the case those talks break down, mediation from the CRTC. A representative from Bell, clearly stinging from new rules which make life more difficult for direct-to-home satellite services, likened the distant signal decision to an additional charge Canadians will have to pay every month, another LIPF. Again, there may indeed be something to this, but until the results of the negotiation come through, it’s hard to say. What’s also problematic is the issue of copyright; unless the Conservatives make changes to C-61, time-shifting would be illegal, I believe. The negotiations over distant signals may well include discussions on copyright, but we’ll have to wait and see.

In the end: So what does all of this mean? Some initial thoughts:

1. The CRTC has decided that, in a time of considerable economic and technological change, the best thing for the country's broadcasting system is to keep all of the same players in the game and to build policies which ensure the continued existence of those already under the policy framework. This is not new. Ideas about "stability" in the broadcasting system have been a cornerstone of regulatory ideology at the CRTC for years. That idea draws on more than simple economic protectionism (although that's a big part of it). It also draws on perceptions about technological panics -- that Canadians will be flustered if somehow the channels that were once on their televisions are now gone. What would be the loss if, instead of the Food Network Canada we got the US Food Network? Indeed, those Canadian programs would go off the air, but wouldn't they find a new place on a different channel, or on a Canadian channel? Clearly, this is a bigger issue than I wish to address here, but a policy framework that favours national industrial stability has its consequences.

2. If the players on the field are the same, Canadians will now be paying more for the tickets without seeing any appreciable difference on their television screens.

3. While the CRTC may be contracting its regulatory processes as a regulator of broadcasting services, it is at the same time expanding its regulatory oversight as a regulator of programming. The creation, without consultation, of a separate programming fund is evidence of this. The effect of this is important, because those costs will be passed onto Canadians, such moves represent the expansion of fiduciary responsibility for the Canadian broadcasting policy apparatus away from institutions and onto individual Canadians. Both the CRTC and the CAB should take this into consideration when they establish boards for the LPIF. It might be nice to have a member or two from the public involved in the process.

4. The jury is still out when it comes to the issue of how Canada's radio and television broadcasters will deal with new media. By "deal", I don't just mean in the policy sense. That process will winds its way through the CRTC's headquarters in the coming months. But judging from the effective absence of discussion during the regulatory panels (even on subjects such as copyright, which have been "in play" for some time now), and based on the unbelievably lame panel discussions around how broadcasters use "social media", the news is not encouraging. This may have to do, in part, with the fact that "traditional" broadcasters don't understand or use the Internet. It may also have to do with the fact that people don't expand their engagement with media properties from the radio or the television to the web. But it may also have to do with the fact that the industry doesn't feel as though it has to be all that creative in dealing with it.

And with that, I can now move onto other things, like my upcoming public lecture at Carleton on November 12 on the Conservative Party's cultural policies. I can promise you it'll be a lot less wonky than this blog entry. Hope to see you there!

On the CRTC, the CAB and other Acronyms, Part I

2008-11-03T14:50:00.017-05:00

Back blogging this week, with a simpler-looking blog. That big tv on the header was starting to bother me. Maybe I'll pretty it up when I get a chance.

On to business: About a week ago, I decided I would attend the annual convention of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which is taking place here in Ottawa. The conference, which is intended for Canada's private radio and television broadcasters, always focuses on key policy questions and business issues affecting the country's broadcasting system, and so I've always felt as though it would be great to see the event first hand.

The timing of the event couldn't have been better, since the convention comes on the heels of the CRTC's policy framework for Canada's satellite and cable companies – what the CRTC calls “Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings,” or BDU’s.

The conference kicked off with a set of opening remarks from the Chair of the CRTC, Konrad von Finckenstein (you can find the speech here) and the discussion continued later in the morning with a spirited session featuring reaction to the CRTC's decisions by key regulatory officials from Canada's DTH, specialty-services, networks, and cable providers.

Let's have a look at the some of the big ticket items from the CRTC's report, sprinkled with some impressions from those overheard at the convention. The media coverage of the report seemed to conclude that this represented a case of some minor tinkering with the system, nothing major to report. However, a closer look at the report itself, and taking into consideration the dissenting remarks of 2 commissioners and the comments overheard at the convention, it is likely there was more at play than these articles suggest.

De-bundling: The CRTC has now loosened the rules governing the ways that BDU’s package specialty services. What this means practically is that the bundling of cable services can no longer be considered as a policy exigency. BDU’s are free to offer any composition of channels that they wish, provided that the overall package chosen by each consumer features 50% plus one channel that is Canadian.

Most media coverage of the CRTC report took the angle that the report’s big finding means greater flexibility for Canadian consumers. However many people – including representatives from the broadcasting companies and from companies like Bell and Rogers – seem to think otherwise. The key here is that bundling no longer has a regulatory rationale, but this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a business case for BDU’s to develop customizable broadcasting options. At one session I attended, one representative noted that nowadays people no longer advertise for specific services but rather focus on the bundling or packaging of services with cellular phone subscriptions, home phone services, high-speed internet services, and so on. Other people at the conference wonder if the new measurement – 50% plus 1 – is effectively counter-productive to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, in which the CRTC says it defends Canadian content but doesn’t offer a ruling to encourage that when Canadians fill out their cable packages.

For me, the first concern is more pressing than the second. Issues about how Canadians will fill in their television choices are largely irrelevant if these opportunities are not available to them.

Genre Protection: The CRTC kept genre protection in place, keeping HBO and other American or foreign services out of the country. There was some relaxing of the rules in other cases, however.

The CRTC declared that two genres – news and sports – are healthy enough to stand a little competition – from Canadian-owned and operated entities. The CRTC also noted that there can be greater flexibility within genres. What this means is that an all-sports channel like TSN can now air movies with sports content like “The Rocket” (might this mean an airing of “The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh”, the first movie I ever saw at a theatre? One can only hope) up to a minimum of 10% of their overall content.

For Canada's private broadcasters, genre protection is a sacred cow. This is for good reason: it keeps them in business. Many specialty channels would not be able to continue running if either the original station (like the Food Network) or if American competition were to enter the marketplace. For companies like Astral Media, which owns The Movie Network and Super Ecran and will be bringing HBO Canada to the country some time soon, the news about genre protection was met, without surprise, with a sigh of relief.

The CRTC again trumpeted the creation of competition for news and sports as something which benefits consumers and which will encourage new entrants and innovation in these genres. Again, many around the table are unsure whether new entrants will get into the game because a) starting a television station is expensive b) both news and sports are expensive genres c) without guarantees of carriage offered through bundling schemes, it would be difficult to guarantee a solid revenue base to keep it a going concern.

For me, this is more a case of lateral movement. Genre protection symbolizes the very essence of the regulatory policies that underlie Canadian broadcasting: You allow Canadian broadcasters the “right” to import foreign programming and to a genre monopoly so that the broadcaster will generate sufficient revenue to put back into the system to support independent production of Canadian television. Until anyone is prepared to reform that arrangement there’s not much to say here. The decision also ushers in a period of "TBS or WGN-ification", where specialty channels will begin augmenting their primary content with movies or syndicated television programming. How the 10% figure --- or any of the various percentages which govern the Canadian broadcasting system, for that matter -- was determined is anyone's guess.

I'll be back tomorrow with Part II and even more acronyms!

Wagmedia on the election trail

2008-09-09T19:30:00.003-04:00

During the (Canadian) election season I will be posting the odd blog entry over at "Campaign Perspectives 2008", a blog maintained by Carleton's School of Journalism and Communication. It's an excellent opportunity for faculty at the school -- both on the journalism and on the communication sides -- to offer a range of different positions on the upcoming election. My first blog entry examines the recent decision by the Consortium of Canadian Broadcasters to exclude the Green Party from the national leadership debates. I argue the decision has serious consequences not only for the political parties, but also for the credibility of Canada's major media outlets at the beginning of an important election campaign.

I'll be back here now and then, including a posting about the release of new studies advising the CRTC to harmonize the rules for television and the Internet.

08/09: A summer report and a look ahead

2008-09-06T20:48:00.009-04:00

A long post here -- mostly bookkeeping and scheduling. Considering how little I have been posting to the blog, it's better than nothing.

So the school year has begun and like everyone else who does this for a living I can't believe the summer is over. I really mean it this time -- the break flew right by me. The weather in Ottawa was terrible most of the time, which is probably why I feel like I didn't have much of a summer this time around.

In assessing my work performance this summer, the results are good, bad, and ugly.

On the good side: I finally finished my chapter about Facebook for the third edition of How Canadians Communicate. The title is, "Log on, Goof Off, Look Up: Facebook and the Rhythms of Canadian Internet Use." In the article I use Facebook as a way to tease out what I consider as three soft spots within media studies research, particularly when it comes to digital media: the problem of measuring media use; accounting for the use of media technologies as a distraction in workplaces, and considering the relationship between internet applications are and older informational forms. The way we use applications like Facebook and Google draws on practices of "looking stuff up", like in a telephone book, office directory, or yearbook. I'm planning to expand on these ideas over the course of a few different articles in the future, but this one gets the basic ideas down. I'll post an electronic version of the piece once it makes it through the peer review process.

Other good: An article I wrote 3 years ago is finally going to the presses. The piece, "Peace, Order, and Good Banking: Packaging History and Memory in Canadian Advertising," will actually appear in Public Memory in Canada, edited by Peter Hodgins and Nicole Neatby and published by the University of Toronto Press in 2009. Don't ask me what the article is about -- I can't even remember writing it. But it's done and it'll be on bookshelves soon, which is all I can ask for.

Also good: I am experimenting with a couple of collaborative writing projects. One is with a colleague at another university; one is with a colleague in another department here, and the other is with one of my graduate students. These projects are still in the embryonic stages, so I don't want to jinx them until they are finished, but I'm enjoying the group work so far. How that translates to writing is another story. Maybe I'll blog about it when it's over.

This too is good: I have fussed around with my syllabus for my "Entertainment Studies" graduate seminar to the point that I can say that after countless variations, I am finally happy with it. This hasn't been something I could say the last few years. where I thought the course was missing something. While I realize it's not perfect, it's as good as it has been. On top of the that the students in the seminar, while numerous, look to be interested and engaged. So that's saying something. Let me know if you're interested and I'll send along a copy. Many people have helped me with the process, giving me suggestions for readings and helping me think through different ways to present the information. Thanks to those people -- you know who you are.

On the bad side: I had planned to spend the summer writing the book version of my dissertation on the history of Canadian audiovisual policy knowledge. I even told the publisher that this was plan and that they could bank on a manuscript arriving in early September. Well, some predictions don't always come to pass, so add mine to the pile. All is not lost -- see the plans for the school year below.

As for ugly: This blog. I'm not happy with it. The image at the top is too big, the design is ugly, and I don't post a whole lot. I think that qualifies me as having a lame blog. This post probably doesn't do a whole lot to change that perception.

So I head into the 08/09 year with a fresh list of to-do's and a decent amount of energy. Here's what's on tap:

September-October: There is much to do here on top of the usual load -- finish two collaborative writing projects; submit grant applications; take care of other administrative paperwork, organize two talks by visiting colleagues. I figure all of that will be in the bag by Thanksgiving.

November: Only one thing. I'll be participating in "Engage", Carleton's public lecture series on current events. My talk is entitled, "Pirates, Profanity, and Potentially Racy Movies: Assessing the Provocative Cultural Policies of the Conservative Government":

The first year under the minority government of Stephen Harper saw relatively little action in the areas of arts and cultural policy. Since then, the government has proposed a number of policy initiatives that have attracted considerable controversy. These include sweeping changes to Canada's copyright laws; withdrawing funding cuts to a range of cultural programs and redirecting other funds towards the upcoming Olympics in Vancouver and providing new powers enabling the Minister of Canadian Heritage to withdraw tax credits for film and television productions deemed to be "contrary to public policy". In addition to these proposed changes, there are also important developments on the regulatory front. In the coming year, Canada’s broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, will make a number of rulings which may have a significant impact on the television, Internet, radio, and cellular phones Canadians use, and the domestic content produced for those devices. The activities of the various departments responsible for Canada’s cultural sectors may well represent the lasting legacies of this minority government.

In this talk I move beyond an analysis of the political machinations and emotionally charged rhetoric that have characterized much of the discussion to date. Even if an election puts a hold on these proposed changes, I argue that these developments serve a provocative function, stimulating important debates on the future of federal support for arts and culture in an environment characterized by abundant media platforms, concerns over media concentration and access, and new relations between producers and consumers made possible by digital technologies.

The talk takes place on November 4. More information, including the location, will be posted at the "Engage" site by the end of September.

November - May: That talk segues nicely into what will dominate the rest of my time. I solemnly swear that I will turn all of my non-teaching, non-administrative, non-advising, non-parenting efforts towards finishing the book. A light teaching load in the winter means I've got about 5-6 months to get a manuscript off to the publisher by the end of the school year. This means no conferences until the spring and no other side writing projects. Unless one comes along, of course. Oh, there I go again.

One more thing I'll definitely have to deal with: the future of this blog. I'll keep you posted.

Public Broadcasting and Streaming Video

2008-08-15T13:35:00.002-04:00

Have you ever wondered why CBC doesn't do much streaming video on the web? Here's an inside look at the problems the public broadcaster is facing.

The headline says it all...

2008-08-14T22:59:00.009-04:00

From Pitchfork Media. What's with the Conservatives and the F-word? Remember Bill C-10 and that movie? What's next? A swear jar for the cultural sector where the proceeds can go to tax cuts?

A more nuanced reflection is on its way...

Delayed Reaction: The CRTC and the Future of the Canadian Television Fund

2008-07-04T09:35:00.015-04:00

I'm trying to catch up on the flurry of policy activity over the last little while, as well as taking care of some writing responsibilities. And as most academics will note, blogging comes at the end. At this rate, I'll get to the Bill c-61 business some time in 2012 (but Michael Geist has got it all covered anyway). Then again, timeliness isn't exactly the hallmark of this little piece of real estate here in cyberspace.

So, on to the business at hand:

Last month saw the release of the CRTC’s recommendations for the future of the Canadian Television Fund to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The big attention-grabber was the suggestion to split the fund into two, so that the private sector portion of the fund would be administered largely by the private sector to make “commercially-oriented” programs. The other chunk of money, which comes from the Department of Canadian Heritage, would be administered by a separate board and oriented towards programs that achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and would be aired on the CBC and non-profit broadcasters.

While the report is only a set of recommendations, and it is ultimately up to the Heritage minister to make the final decision on how the CTF should be administered, it represents an unbelievably misguided document. Here's why:

1. The report makes a mockery of the public consultation process: If the CRTC knew in advance that it was going to adopt the Task Force recommendations made earlier this year, why was a public consultation necessary?

2. It accepts, without any hint of criticism or reflection, the “crisis” rhetoric espoused by Canadian broadcasters, a claim made with dubious evidence.

3. The report effectively accepts the arguments made by Shaw and Quebecor, even if it didn't accept their solutions to the problem. In the process, it missed a a golden opportunity to put BDU’s in their place. Instead of having each BDU contribute to a federally administered fund, why not have each company set up its own fund, which it can administer in any way it wishes, provided that it meets requirements laid out by the CRTC? This would encourage a diversity of productions (since each company would use it to develop programming for its own purposes, rather than for the collective good of each other). Commissioner Michel Morin is right when, in his dissenting report, he wrote that the Quebecor fund model should have earned a trial period to see how it worked. The intention should be to move the carefully managed private sector away from moments of collusion. Having competitive entities jointly administrating a “commercial” stream of money to stimulate production is evidence is not a recipe for making good programming, its a recipe for making "content" to fill the airwaves. It is, by almost any measure, totally ridiculous.

4. By tying money from the Heritage Department for “cultural” programming, it further contributes to a reshuffling of the CBC so that it inches ever closer to zones in which political meddling can be more direct. It also serves as a slap on the CBC’s wrists for its attempts to make popular programming, a move that has been largely awkward, poorly conceived, and, I hate to say it, would ultimately lead to its marginalization. Sure, the Conservative government, the CRTC, and the private broadcasters have a lot to do with what has happened to the state of public broadcasting in this country. But do not be led astray here – the CBC has been equally if not more complicit to its own demise.

5. With its introduction of the "hit factor", the CRTC has assisted in turining a discussion around access into a discussion around ratings and scheduling. In spite of its populist rhetoric, this move threatens to result in greater regulation over the content of Canadian television.

6. With its recommendation that new funding should be directed to support new media content, the report tips the CRTC’s hand as to how it is going to regulate the activities of the BDU’s and others online by showing that they on the verge of applying logics drawn from other sectors to a new media environment they clearly do not understand.

7. By threatening to intervene on negotiations between broadcasters and producers on how to deal with new media residuals, the CRTC now threatens to expand, not contract, its regulatory reach by acting ast the de facto mediator for two parties for which it jointly represents.

8. The report further insults Canadian audiences and creators by asking to conceive of television in a way which is completely foreign to their own enjoyable experiences of the medium, argues for greater regulation of the scheduling of programming, and has the chutzpah to suggest that one can easily mandate to make television shows with “popular appeal”.

9. It has absolutely nothing to do with television as a media form, as a creative venture, as a form of leisure, or as a cultural form. This explains why so few Canadians take the opportunity to appear before the Commission or to write in. It has very little to do with them in the first place.

10. While it’s probably not the CRTC’s place to do so, the report could have at least opened the door for the most poignant statement of all: That it is time to reconsider the principles underlying Canada’s Broadcasting Act. This kind of discussion would not result in the dissolution of the CRTC but would call for a reshuffling of its regulatory purview away from propping up the country's broadcasting sector based on a perception of scarcity, but one which recognizes the need of a broadcasting regulator to facilitate a culture of access and innovation for a world of media abundance. It did no such thing, choosing instead to follow the path of least resistance. In the process, rather than reflecting a progressive vision towards the regulation of communication, the report demonstrated that the commission continues to look sideways for inspiration.

On private lives and public facebooks

2008-06-02T16:36:00.018-04:00

Two posts in one day -- I must be on a roll. A good day of writing always generates other kinds of writing. Blogging counts, doesn't it?

I’m in the process of working up an article on Facebook in Canadian life (you can see the bibliographic information by looking at the sidebar on the right), which is inching towards completion. Since one of things I've been thinking through became newsworthy recently, I thought I'd post it here in the interest of topicality. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I round this part of my article into shape.

Among the first things that people think about when they talk about Facebook has to do with the issue of privacy. Most recently, a group of students at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic brought a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, contending that Facebook violates a number of Canada’s privacy laws.

I’m always inspired when students enter into the public sphere with the intelligence and bravado offered by those at the CIPPC. And I’m not really interested in defending the company’s activities, particularly in light of stories about account termination and the fight over interoperability. Since I’m not a legal specialist on privacy, I’m quite sure that there are a number of important issues that the company needs to address, and if the CIPPC is able to accelerate that process, then that’s fine by me.

However, in the spirit of debate, then, I want to see what happens if we move the discussion about Facebook and privacy away from the legal realm and to consider Facebook not just as the popular website but rather as a derivation of a media form – public directories or catalogues that contain the names and faces of individuals which I'll call "facebooks" for short. If we consider things this way, might we consider that the student’s claims about privacy may run the risk of ignoring the history of media forms and, in the process, of painting the Internet and all of its applications with the same legal brush?

Here's what I'm trying to say:

Privacy advocates who criticize Facebook argue that the company's treatment of privacy is symptomatic of the broader problem of privacy online: which is, that most people are unaware of the fact that their own personal data is being communicated either to other users or to advertisers without their prior consent. This is one of the main concerns of the CIPPC report. On the other side of the discussion are those people who argue that, through their participation in sites like Facebook, users voluntarily agree to loosen the reins on their personal information. This is seen as perfectly alright by companies like Facebook and highly problematic for privacy advocates. This is usually how the media coverage of online issues plays out, which has the effect of reproducing the two straw men of media studies -- the manipulative capabilities of media coupled with laissez faire approaches to privacy allowing for the increased publicity of private life. When those things are placed in the context of younger users, we have a veritable holy trinity of media-related moral panics.

Clearly the company should be more upfront about the way it uses people’s data – and ensuring more transparency over that data seems like a laudable initiative.

But let’s keep in mind something here: facebooks as media forms, not just in their digital guise are inherently loose when it comes to privacy.

Facebook as media form, you ask? Well, we have quickly forgotten that before they became synonymous with social networking and web 2.0, the facebook had a print equivalent, called the facebook. These were books that were distributed to students on some American college campuses. Each school’s facebook had different contents, of course, but for the most part, they featured pictures of students and faculty, and various amounts of personal information, from addresses and phone numbers to date or place of birth. I am not sure about this (anyone can kindly correct me), but some facebooks might have contained more information than that.

The idea of the facebook was to serve as a social stimulant, to insure against the kind of shyness that new students might feel being in new surroundings. With a facebook in hand, students could theoretically introduce themselves to people that they did not already know. There were other uses for the Facebook on campus, namely to identify attractive or unattractive people and in some places, arranging for dates between mismatched people was part of a first-year student’s social experience. Consider the case of the story from the Yale Daily News published in 2001 (before the appearance of facebook.com), on the role of the facebook as part of the annual "screw dance" event for incoming students:

Screw dances are a special tradition at Yale where roommates set each other up with blind dates for a semi-formal dance, leaving the possibility that they can "screw" their roommates by giving them a bad date.... Your date might be someone a suitemate knows from class, but very often dates are picked from facebook photos. Sometimes even the most well-meaning roommates arrange dates with a facebook beauty only to discover that pictures are very, very deceiving. That photogenic date might operate on the social level of a seventh grader.

It is for this reason that student media outlets routinely warn students to be careful about how they choose which picture would appear in the facebook, since as those of us who tend to (unfairly) privilege visual media would like to say, image is everything.

So in its pre-digital form, the Facebook is like a yearbook-in-reverse, which itself, is a kind of catalogue of names and faces and, in some cases, more or less personal information about those contained in it.

Port Credit secondary school,with personal information, 1957. Image via

In addition, it draws upon other residual informational forms, like the phone book or yellow pages, the catalogue, the identity card, passport, and even the mugshot so that people can identify the identity of the accused:

image via

Simply put, each of these formats blend private and public domains through the use of photography and through making one's "profile" available to different kinds of readerships. The question of one’s privacy in “the facebook” is probably not much different than the question of one’s privacy in the phonebook – if you don’t want a crank caller, don’t list your number. What one does with your picture and information in the facebook – whether they draw on it, put it up on a wall, or put Brad Pitt’s body under my face, is beyond the control of the “face’s” originator. What is the copyright on this kind of information? What are the rules governing the use of this kind of data? I'll have to ask around.

Let’s also remember that using your personal information for profit isn’t a digital phenomenon – how does the yellow pages make money? By delivering an audience to advertisers through an old distribution technology – the big book on the doorstep. When an issue like account termination arises, as it did in the case of Facebook, the situation should not be dissimilar to that of de-listing your name and telephone number from the phone book. It should not mean that your number and address continue to be listed for 5 years, in case you change your mind.

Clearly, there are things about facebook.com which are different, but they are really matters of degree, namely that more information about yourself (if you should choose to elaborate upon it in your profile) is open for perusal and profit than previous versions of facebooks and that this information can be sent more quickly and across more channels than ever before. Again, though, this is a matter of degree, of scope, but it doesn't radically depart from the trajectory of media forms out of which the online facebook derives.

Remember that facebooks are supposed to facilitate conversation between people that do not know each other. However, in the digital Facebook, users predominantly create universes of relationships – or “friends” – based upon people they already know or once knew but wish to reconnect, and that being connected or friended from someone random is seen, at least in the circles I ride in, as gauche. Let’s keep in mind that it is probably only after the “parents”, that is those of us who are on Facebook and who are also over the age of 23, that issues around privacy have really taken hold.

So is what were are seeing here the backlash of the “juvenilization” of culture, where adults do things that their kids do but demand a kind of privacy that one didn’t have when they were younger? Or are we seeing the continued perpetuation of the old characters that always seem to dominate the way media technologies are framed? Maybe it’s the fact that the contents of “facebooks”, be they yellow pages or yearbooks.which were once seen as anodyne, now set off alarm bells in a society particularly sensitive about surveillance in the age of digital dissemination.

Then again, perhaps its neither of these conditions, and instead reflects the sense of disappointment we feel when media technologies fail in providing perfect communication. After an initial honeymoon period the proliferation of spam, reported privacy breaches, and celebrated cases of mistaken identity, fraud, and stalking have undermined Facebook’s innocence, and by extension, the innocence of youthful technologies that, like our own young people, don’t always live up to the lofty potential we expect of them.

What this means is that although the technologies are digital that the laws that govern internet sites, like Facebook, may need to take into consideration the laws governing the uses and abuses of their textual and analog precedents. Seeing Facebook.com as a part of a long line of books featuring faces and names might result in a more measured appreciation of the current incarnation's strengths and weaknesses and may modify our expectations on what facebooks can actually promise to their users when it comes to keeping their profiles under wraps.

Stay tuned

2008-06-02T10:07:00.008-04:00

This should be an interesting week if you're someone who is interested in or invested with the way television programs are brought to Canadian screens. This week the CRTC will release its recommendations for changes to the Canadian Television Fund, the primary source of cash for domestic television production. While the public review of the CTF was going on, there were concerns that there would be a considerable change, one that splits the fund into "cultural" and "commercial" lines of support.

However, I would be surprised if something that radical were to actually take place. The CRTC is likely to work more creatively in order to avoid the thorny issues around definition such a split would produce. The CTF is already oriented to encourage the production of certain genres of programming, like drama, over others, like the news, and considering the importance of the CTF to the production industry they are unlikely to suggest a major overhaul. Where things have gotten sticky lately has been over reality-style programming and over the lack of oversight on the content of CTF-supported productions from the those who contribute to it -- Canada's cable companies. It seems like what we're likely to see are recommendations that seek to provide further definition to the kinds of programs supported by the CTF and, at the same time, give the cable industry a little more of a say over how and where the money is spent, whether in terms of increased presence on the CTF board or some other form of oversight.

Then again, I've been wrong before.

One more thing to keep in mind: the CRTC will be looking into the question of how to regulate the Internet, which really means how to set up a system to ensure that those already under their regulatory authority, broadcasters and telcos, continue their commitment to Canadian programming online. So I'll be looking to see how the report on the CTF foregrounds the new media issue in this report.

The CRTC's recommendations on the CTF could well be a moot point, since it is ultimately the Heritage Minister, Josée Verner, who will have the final say on what the CTF should do next. One of the most likely outcomes will be that she will do very little, largely because of other matters facing the Conservative party. The ignominious departure of Maxime Bernier from his cabinet post, the need for continued representation from Quebec in key positions, and the tendency for cabinet shuffles during the summer may well mean that Verner will be on the move. This means that the new Minister might have to pick up the pieces, which will likely include dealing with the future of the CTF, the CRTC's proceedings on new media, Internet throttling, and the issue of tax credits for those risqué movies which are contrary to public policy. In that scenario, it may well be that the choice for next Minister of Canadian Heritage might indicate whether or not the government actually has the, well you know what, to actually go through with restructuring Canada's cultural policy infrastructure.

This movie may be bad for your career

2008-05-28T10:12:00.004-04:00

In a sign that the silly has crossed clumsily into the realm of the ridiculous, Macleans is reporting that a Conservative staffer has been fired for ordering tickets to a special screening of Young People F-ing, for her boss, Tory MP Gary Goodyear. For those living outside of Canada, this is the movie with the spicy title that has been trotted out in the debate about Bill C-10 that would deny tax credits deemed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be "contrary to public policy". The staffer is quoted as saying she ordered the tickets "for our files" in case either she or someone she knew (hint, hint), might want to "attend a movie like that".

Now news has come out that a few other Conservative MPs originally on the list to attend the special screening have indicated that they never intended on going to the film. It would be nice for politicians to, maybe, see the film before dragging the Canadian arts community into the muck, but that would require the kind of equanimity which usually escapes this particular administration. At least they're not shy about how they feel about the cultural sector -- in explaining why so few politicians were attending the Governor General's Performing Arts Gala in Ottawa a while back, Health Minister Tony Clement told The Globe and Mail's Jane Taber that the government doesn't get "jacked up" to meet arts and cultural celebrities. I'll let you add your own punch line here.

The debate on C-10 continues this afternoon, as the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce hears from actor Paul Gross. You can watch it webcast live here.

Canadian Film in the Post C-10 New Normal?

2008-05-05T10:42:00.004-04:00

It's not as funny as it could be, but Todd Babiak from the Edmonton Journal looks into his crystal ball to make some interesting predictions of what the Genie nominees for Canadian films might look like after (if?) Bill C-10 is implemented.

More to come on this -- after I write about the CRTC business. Stay tuned.

Canadian television hits the road

2008-02-27T00:32:00.007-05:00

It is safe to say that many Canadians do not experience films produced by Canadians in commercial movie theatres. This has been for reasons too numerous to mention in much detail here here: national policies directed towards producing documentary, animation, and art films, the heavy influence of Hollywood studios on domestic exhibition, and the absence of screen quotas that exist in other countries. As a result, Canadian films were consumed in other cinematic spaces, such as film festivals, repertory theatres, video stores, and on television.

In the 1930s and 40s, Canadians also experienced domestic films via the road show. These were traveling exhibitions organized by film societies and the National Film Board of Canada that brought movies to rural areas and showed them to audiences in community centres, church basements, and town halls. This made watching Canadian cinema a de facto act of citizenship, in which the consumption and appreciation of the film itself came with moderators and the expectation of discussion -- an experience quite distinct from other moviegoing experiences. 1

I was reminded of the traveling film movement a few weeks ago when I read that screenings of the acclaimed CBC-television program, "Little Mosque on the Prairie," were being organized in cities across Canada at venues that are, well, very un-television. These include the Schmiatcher Theatre in the MacKenzie art gallery in Regina:

The Garrick Centre in Winnipeg's Marlborough Hotel:

The Plaza Theatre in Calgary:

And the National Film Board Theatre in Toronto:

from Lone Primate (through cc license)

Each event featured a screening of the show, followed by a Q + A with members of the cast and crew and a discussion about diversity and multiculturalism in Canada. The event was part of a larger initiative organized by the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television and by the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is yet another impressive achievement for a show that has attracted a lot of attention in Canada and abroad. It is too bad that I haven't had a chance to attend the events (although I sense that a road trip to Ottawa might be a natural next step for the tour), so what I offer here are some speculations.

First, I'm interested by the "touring" aspect here, since like musicians or writers, the "tour" is an essential mechanism in the marketing of the show, helping to build audiences and buzz. Suffice it to say that I'm fascinated by how the reception a television show, one experienced largely in a domestic context, differs when framed as an event or in the context of a classroom. So I'd be interested to see how the show was set-up by the organizers, whether programs were given out, whether any kind of merchandise was available for purchase, and of course, the nature of the discussion after the screening. Since the show's success stems to a large degree by its engagement with elements of sitcoms, were there discussions about the production of the show, the crew's influences, favourite television shows, and so on? Or did it focus mainly on the theme of the show, about the use of gentler comedic form to deal with issues of diversity.

My hunch is that it was the latter rather than the former. And while it might be obvious that the show's content would be the reason for this, I suggest it's only half the issue. This is because in Canada, discussions about the relationship between the cultural text and national affairs typically trump discussions about artistic achievement. It is "Little Mosque's" Canadian-ness that is the starting point for the discussion rather than its virtues as a media text. In other words, the blending of artistic and nationalist discourses, then, represents a vital component of the "talk" around Canadian popular culture. And, as we have seen, the "Little Mosque" roadshow nods -- albeit indirectly -- to a tradition that stretches back, in part, to a time when the country's films traveled from place to place offering local audiences evenings mixed with entertainment and education.

1. On the NFB road shows, see Peter Morris, Embattled Shadows: A History of Canadian Cinema, 1895-1939 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1978). For more on the Film Society movement in Canada, see Charles Acland's article "Patterns of Cultural Authority: The National Film Society of Canada and the Institutionalization of Film Education, 1938-41" in the Canadian Journal of Film Studies 10 (1) 2001: 2-27.

High Drama at the Canadian Television Fund Hearings

2008-02-07T21:53:00.015-05:00

Last week was a thrill-fest if you're one of the handful of people who find the machinations of Canadian broadcasting fascinating.

The issue: a public consultation about the future structure of the Canadian Television Fund. A task-force was convened last year by the CRTC to look into the CTF. This came after a couple of its biggest investors, Shaw and Videotron, threatened to pull their money out of the fund. Among the report's highlights is the suggestion that the CTF create two lines of funding: one line of support would be audience-driven, where issues such as market size and return on investment would determine the eligibility of productions. The other line would go to "cultural" productions, which would be measured according to a different formula. Ostensibly what we have here is the siphoning off of money that would give the "audience" programming to private broadcasters and the "cultural" programming would go to the CBC.

Dividing culture from commerce is tricky stuff. How are we going to determine the difference between the two? What will be the determinant of audience success? It should come as no surprise when an uproar followed. First, Jim Shaw refused to attend the meetings because the head of the CRTC wasn't chairing the proceedings. So he sent in his own second or thirds-in command, who declared the Fund is "dead" and a "failure". This set off a response by a number of different groups in the production community. In one case producer/director Peter Raymont who used an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail to draw parallels to the public/private funding arrangement in television production to that of Canada's health care system. Then he called on Canadians to reject what he called "2-tier television".

Also rushing to the defense of the Fund were Canada's broadcasters, including Global and CTV, which called for the continued support of the fund -- and for the creation of a market-oriented stream of funding for private broadcasters.

So less than a week since the dust settled in Gatineau (soon followed by -25C weather and our umpteenth dumping of snow), what can we take away here? In short, it's not clear that anything was really accomplished, except the public airing of grievances from the interested parties involved. That being said, we can use the hearings as a chance to point out a couple of tendencies both about the CTF and about television in Canada.

Let's start with this: The Canadian Television Fund is not about television, but about a Canadian approach to the "problems" of television: Here's what I mean. First, the idea of the Canadian Television Fund wasn't to create successful programs. It wasn't even concerned with "market-driven" or "audience-driven" initiatives. Quite the opposite. The CTF was created to "high quality" programs that were, "under-represented". In other words, the fund represents a market corrective -- stimulate the production of certain kinds of programs based on an economic model that may not be representative of what the local market can absorb. While it is true that is an industrial measure, one which supports the development and maintenance of the independent production sector, it is also a nationalist measure, too. The reasons for supporting this kind of system is based on the fact that Canadians should have access to this kind of programming even if the market won't provide it for them. It equates choice with Canadian choices. It is one of a range of market correctives already in place in Canada, including foreign ownership restrictions, rules on simultaneous substitution, and, of course, Canadian content regulations.

Each of these measures share the same assumption about the failure of the Canadian marketplace for certain kinds of television, including children's programming, variety programming, and drama. So to say that the CTF is a failure is not true. The structure of Canadian broadcasting is built on all sorts of perceived failures in the Canadian television marketplace. And all of the players involved benefit both from the construction of a system built on failure and from the constant reminder that it always stand on the brink of collapsing.

So we can debate the merits and demerits of the logic that has structured Canadian broadcasting, but suffice it to say for now that "audience-success" is an odd metric to add into an already complicated environment built on the problems of Canadian television.

We have no real understanding of television audiences. A colleague reminded me of this fact. In Canada we have a very thin appreciation of the audience. We typically hear that Canadians "want Canadian stories" without appreciating what exactly that might mean. We sheepishly point out that the audience "likes American television" because we commonly think this is a symptom of a larger cultural pathology and a reflection of our suspicion about the ways Canadians enjoy themselves. We say "it would watch Canadian television if it were available", as if it were a sickness in need of an antidote.

These conceptions of the audience are so dominant in Canada because consumption of media texts is laced with the rhetoric of cultural nationalism. In other words, when we talk about the audience for television, we're not talking about audience preferences for television (a result of the inconsistent systems of ratings we have in Canada) Nor are we talking about the audience's relationship to television as a medium -- one which is based on familiarity and intimacy, on casual forms of address, on entertainment and spectacle. What we get instead are discussions about what audiences don't do or should do in the name of the national interest. In other words, the audience is politicized (or nationalized) for an activity that may not articulate such an agenda.

As a result, the television audience is largely ignored in the discussion about "audience success", only to be trotted out by private broadcasters to say that people don't watch Canadian programming or by others to say that they would. The issue of what Canadians actually do watch has been largely irrelevant.

The discussion of culture vs. commerce has a longer history than you might suspect. Observers of Canadian film are aware that in 1967, the government created the Canadian Film Development Corporation as a way to fund feature film production. This was part of a broader move -- one which pushed the National Film Board into the "cultural" camp and, slowly eked the private film production industry into the "commerce" camp. Might it be the case that this is what is happening here?

Canadian producers are caught between a rock and a hard place. What do you do when you make things your retailers don't really want but have to carry because someone else tells them they have to? This is the problem facing the Canadian production community, which is that no matter how hard they try, broadcasters rarely show the motivation to actively encourage Canadian programming. And that's because there's little incentive for them to do so. Since the object about content regulations is quota filling first and quota filling with successful programming second, then, most Canadian shows can be easily replaced or that content regulations can be met by other programming perceived as being less risky.

This is why many of the broadcasters were so supportive of the Canadian Television Fund during this week's hearings -- since the Fund's contributors fund Canadian television -- not the broadcasters. By giving the money to producers to give to broadcasters, the Fund gives the broadcasters the money to spend on programming it supports as well as the choice of whether or not to carry a particular program. So I remind you here that this is one of those quirky Canadian situations, since the producers get to spend someone else's money, the broadcasters have all of the power. They are the big winners in the system. So if we're going to move to an audience-driven funding system that exists in other countries shouldn't the broadcasters behave like other broadcasters, and give the greenlight to productions using their own funds? It's hard to agree with Shaw here, but as it stands the system is funded largely by cable and satellite providers who pass on those investments to their customers. It is true that Shaw, like other big players in the marketplace, has profited off of the backs of a protected market, but there might be other ways to pay back the system -- keeping the prices of access down seems like a more appropriate place to start.

Let's be clear here: I'm not saying that Canadian programming is undesirable because it is of poor quality or because people aren't interested in watching it. I'm also not saying that Canadians don't watch Canadian television. Both of these assertions are foolish. What I am saying is that such programming is undesirable because it's positioned in the marketplace as undesirable and compensatory. The thinking goes like this: because Canadians watch other programming and because broadcasters aren't willing to shell out the money to support it, and because local productions are important to a national broadcasting system, and because America is right next door, other measures must be put in place to ensure they reach the airwaves.

Improving the lot for Canadian producers is not just a case at throwing money at the problem -- although that might help. It's also about repositioning the place of local productions and rethinking the logics of Canadian television. From listening to the hearings and reading the coverage in the newspaper, I don't think that's the way the conversation is going.

There's one other thing I don't get -- among the recommendations is that the Canadian Television retains ownership in the productions it funds. Is that a new thing? I have to look into that when I get a chance. If that's the case, then do the people of Canada then own a library of shows? Like I said, I'll get back to you.

Diagnosing the CTF as a failure is easy to say, but difficult to prove. A failure in what sense? In the sense that Canadians aren't watching many of the shows produced by the Fund? In the sense that it is ostensibly Canadian cable and satellite subscribers who indirectly subsidize Canadian productions? In the sense that few Canadian shows can challenge major US shows? Perhaps each of these things may be true, but there are a couple of other irons in the fire here:

1. Let's remember the system pre-assumes market failure. Is that the producer's fault?

2. Let's remember that tons of shows fail in the United States all the time. Don't take my word for it, consider the significant (sic) career of any of the Seinfeld people post-Seinfeld. Any takers for the Michael Richards show? So the fact that many Canadian shows fail to resonate with audiences is a fact of life in television -- only in Canada do we think that its a policy problem.

3. Let's remember that shows fail for a variety of reasons -- including their place on the schedule, the way it was marketed, their availability online, the competition, and so on. Again, that is a logic of television which people involved in the television debate don't consider because -- again -- this isn't really about television as television.

4. Let's keep in mind that if points 2 and 3 are true, can we assume that creative staff learn from shows that fail about why they fail and that the experience gained from working on shows that fail may help the next time a show comes around? Consider the case of Rob Sheridan (an acquaintance of mine from yesteryear). He's a writer currently working on "Little Mosque on the Prairie", one of the darlings of the Canadian television world these days. He's also written or worked on the crew for a number of other shows that received CTF money. Might it be the case that he's developing what the business-types call "a core competency" that is now being put to work on a show that's a success? While I certainly haven't written it in the clearest way possible, what I'm saying here is, doesn't failure produce success in creative activities? Remember television policy in Canada isn't about television.

5. Finally, let's keep in mind that it is a different story entirely if we are talking about Quebec.

So Shaw's rhetoric was powerful and, not surprisingly, it prompted a loud response. On sober reflection, however, it is clear that the issue of success or failure isn't the appropriate determinant of what the CTF is doing. The relative success of a number of Canadian television shows may be due to a lot of factors, but developing the skills to make decent television (and getting the budgets to make them) has come, in many cases, on the backs of a lot of failed Canadian television shows.

Don't underestimate the power of performance. Since it's unclear to me exactly what was accomplished over the past week, it's important to point out the wider context in which this discussion is taking place. What we're seeing here with the CTF is a little skirmish in a big battle about how to regulate Canadian communications in an age of media abundance. One of the recommendations of the Task Force report was to encourage the CTF to earmark money towards the production of works to be aired on digital platforms. And the head of Quebecor has stated that he'd like to take some of the money that he puts into the CTF into a fund to support new media productions. At present, the CRTC has little to no jurisdiction on the Internet, so the moves it makes -- and doesn't make here -- are part of a broader re-purposing of the CRTC's position in the digital age. It is quite possible that Shaw sees an opening here -- take a run at the CTF while a supportive government is in power, see if he can get some backtracking, and then see if gains can be made in new media.

Since the CRTC's study on new media regulation hasn't come out yet, any moves it makes will have to be made very carefully. So let's remember that these public hearings are important forms of political theatre both for the constituencies represented by those in attendance, and the members of the press looking for angle, but also to the regulators charged with steering the course of the system.

What happens next is anyone's guess. The public notice says the CRTC agrees with the Task Force's recommendation to create separate lines, so all signs point in that direction. In the end, it may not look exactly what was being proposed, but rather that greater emphasis will be placed on audience figures in determining a) what shows get funding and b) which broadcasters will benefit. One thing is for sure --- the issue over the terms of reference that will be used tor regulate Canada's media landscape is still a work in progress.

New design

2008-02-07T21:50:00.002-05:00

You like?

I found the header image the flickr page of Angel Raul Ravelo Rodriguez. The original image is here. I am citing the author to comply with the "BY" attribution license as part of the Creative Commons license.

Of barn doors and diverse voices

2008-01-17T11:37:00.000-05:00

I spent the better part of my Tuesday speaking to the CBC about the CRTC's new cross-media ownership policy. In the afternoon, I was on Newsworld, and was then corralled by one of the producers who wanted to use me for a piece she was working on for "The National". In the end, the piece didn't run. This is because, to be honest, there really isn't much of a story here. Or let me put it a different way -- the story was not exactly newsworthy, except for some policy wonks in the broadcasting business.

The basic results of the report -- a ban on one company owning newspapers, radio and television stations in one market (but, in the words of Meatloaf, "2 of 3 ain't bad"), a ban on one company having broadcasting assets comprising more than 45% of the national television audience share through a merger or purchase, and a ban on one television distributor dominating any local market -- seem perfectly sensible and likely to ensure the "diversity of voices" that new CRTC honcho von Finckenstein seems to want. So why are people so upset? We can describe the dissenters in terms of barn doors and diverse voices -- and we can say that both of them are, in some ways, off the mark.

First, there are people who feel that the CRTC is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. That's because these rules aren't retroactive, and therefore don't cover the mega- mergers that have already made Canada one of the most converged Western nations (and don't get me started on our cell phone services). This criticism is valid, except that it was also true that von Finckenstein was cleaning up the business carried out by the previous administration, and probably didn't have much wiggle room on decisions already carried forward. So all they could feasibly do is let the decisions work their way through the approval process, and try and set some rules for next time. So now it's true that, in Ottawa, CTVglobemedia couldn't snap up the Ottawa Citizen, and that Rogers can't buy CTVglobemedia, for example. So what's left to be converged in a very tight national media landscape is reasonably safe for now.

While it's definitely the case that these rules should have been put in place decades ago, the barn door analogy doesn't quite hold up, because there are a few, ahem, animals still left in the stable. Remember, this decision says nothing about new media, because the CRTC hasn't taken a position on what it is going to do when it comes to regulating aspects of the Internet. I predict that while it won't slap content regulations on ISP's, it will probably impose some kind of rules on the distribution of content that comes from conventional broadcasters operating over the internet. Why do I think this may come to pass? Because with the decision on cross-media ownership, the CRTC has established now that, although it doesn't regulate newspapers, it can use its soft power to ensure that those organizations that it does regulate don't go into the newspaper game. In other words, the CRTC is saying to those it now regulates that if you want to own a newspaper, you're going to have to give up one of your broadcasting properties. Which one is more important? A similar kind of move may be coming for new media, in which activities on the internet will be tied into broadcasting licenses. The report is due in February.

The second issue is that of foreign ownership of Canadian media properties. Although it's been floated around that the thresholds on foreign ownership may be lowered (a flame fueled by the CRTC's handling of the Canwest/Alliance merger), it's unlikely that any real changes will take place under a minority government. Seen that way, one might argue that the CRTC is making a preemptive move against lowered foreign ownership restrictions by capping the audience share any one media company can own as a result of a purchase or merger. So even if Rupert Murdoch were to come into Canada, he'd have to deal with rules that limit his audience reach.

So with a few things still left in the barn, then there's the issue of diverse voices. Critics find the language -- that the CRTC is acting to ensure a diversity of voices only after consolidation -- to be a rather seedy act by the regulator. To some degree, I think they are right, because for all of its apparent, toughness, the rules do nothing to a status quo which sees a profound lack of diverse voices at the local level. Remember the 45% figure is for an audience share measured on the national level. Remember too, that The National Post and the Globe and Mail don't count as "local" papers. Because of this, we have a situation where in places like Vancouver, both of the local papers are owned by Canwest, the National post is owned by Canwest, and the leading television network is owned by Canwest. Similar scenarios involving CTV exist here in Ottawa, through its ownership of television stations, radio stations, and the Globe and Mail.

The irony of the diverse voices argument is that it is probably safe to say that Canadians now have access to a significant diversity of voices when it comes to national and international news. But what about local happenings? These are endeavours that attract only a small number of news agencies with the resources to cover them extensively. It is here where a diversity of voices policy focused on local media could have had significant effect.

There's one other reason why national audience share is important to the way we understand the CRTC's decision. Let's remember also that coming from the Competition Bureau, von Fickenstein also sees "diversity of voices" in the context of ensuring a fair marketplace for the advertising industry. A dominant player can also dominate the advertising market, setting high rates and limiting opportunities for other advertisers. Let's remember that the national advertising market matters to these discussions too. Simultaneous substitution of Canadian shows benefits advertisers, not viewers. These "diverse voices" need to be heard, too.

On "The Facebook Effect"

2007-12-18T20:42:00.000-05:00

I have a lot of admiration for Michael Geist. He is one of the most active public intellectuals in Canada, particularly when it comes to discussions around how the Canadian legal system has been handling new technologies. His comments on Canadian camcording legislation (which you can see on his blog) injected a sober voice of reason into that heated discussion

His most recent effort, setting up a Facebook page to draw attention to a simple-minded piece of Canadian copyright legislation, attracted more than 20,000 members in a matter of a few weeks. When word came down last week that the Canadian government was going to delay putting the legislation through the House of Commons until the new year, many -- including yours truly -- suggested that Professor Geist should earn many of the plaudits for encouraging people to think seriously about how changes to copyright legislation could affect their lives.

So it is with the utmost respect that I have some serious disagreements with one line of argument, published in a column in the Toronto Star, that Facebook had a major role to play in the victory.

In his article, Geist explains that Facebook "is far more than just a cool way to catch up with old friends; rather, it is an incredibly effective and efficient tool that can be used to educate and galvanize grassroots advocacy, placing unprecedented power into the hands of individuals." He also acknowledges that while not alone in raising the issue, "the momentum was unquestionably built on thousands of Canadians who were determined to have their voices heard."

Two things are worth noting here. First, I draw your attention to the end of the piece -- the part that says " This scenario cannot be repeated for every issue." Second, I should point out that I have just completed David Edgerton's fantastic book "The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900". These two things -- Geist's legal disclaimer and Edgerton's measured account -- mean to me that a more subtle explanation is needed for what has just happened here.

This is because Geist's analysis recycles what Edgerton calls "an innovation-centric" account of new technology. Here the Facebook group plays a key role in the story, driving government action. Then the column ends up with another trap Edgerton discusses, that is not being able to distinguish between the significance and use of new technology. The thinking goes like this: Since there are all of these people signed up to Facebook, and since it received a lot of attention in the press, it must have had some significant effect on the final outcome. For Edgerton, these "claims for significance", are made long before any historical analysis can be undertaken. Since this column comes a mere days after the copyright delay, it looks like Geist has just grounded into a triple play.

Are there other explanations for why the copyright issue "stuck"? Here are three possible explanations:

1 Minority governments are sensitive: Even though the Liberals aren't mounting much of an opposition these days, let's remember that we are dealing with a minority government. This is a government that is particularly sensitive to situations that attract a lot of negative attention, on Facebook or in other arenas. Would this effort have worked with a majority government that could simply ram the issue through Parliament? There are lots of Facebook groups devoted to a lot of issues -- like the environment. This hasn't had much an effect on the Conservatives, has it?

2. Language matters: Remember the linguistic gymnastics that turned "estate taxes" into "death taxes" in the United States? It works in Canada, too. Copyright is a complicated legal issue, one which is difficult to explain to the general public. However, framing the issue as a case where "Hollywood lobbyists" were influencing Canadian copyright law is a stroke of rhetorical brilliance (as opposed to, pointing to the influence of, say, Canada's actors unions) that would get a lot of Canadians into a lather. This is because it combines the concerns of creators and users of cultural materials with those of Canada's cultural nationalists. The influence of America on Canadian government policy is also the Achilles heel for the Conservatives. Many Canadians are still suspicious of the Harper government when it comes to relations with the United States.

It also doesn't help when the big voices in favour of the move were representatives of the music and broadcasting sector. These forces combined to made copyright a hot-button issue and a reminder of the "hidden agenda" label that follows the Conservatives.

3. Old media still matter: The Facebook part of the story really took on its shape when it was picked up by the dreaded mainstream media -- including newspapers, television stations, and the public broadcaster. These outlets are always looking for cases of technological determinism. So, not surprisingly, the story about copyright became a story about Facebook. It's fascinating to see how newspapers play such an important role in legitimating new media

4. Hey -- what about the blogs? Remember those places which were giving people unprecedented access to the political process? I raise this point to draw to another point of Edgerton's - that some of the most effective new technologies are the ones which are only marginally better than their predecessors. That seems important here, because Facebook's ease of use is one of the reasons for its ridiculous popularity. Since the interface is so simple, it is also easy to download applications and join groups with just the click of a button. Now there's no more need to send an e-mail to "subscribe-L@whateverthelistnamewas.com" or having to deal with an inbox flooded with messages when you're away. Facebook's brilliance, I suggest, lies in simplifying things for the general user, whether it's del.icio.us links or last.fm accounts. If Facebook has done anything here, it is that it made political participation easier. So on this point, Geist may be right. But remember, use and significance are two different things. So are we any more informed about the impact of Facebook on political action as we are with other and older technological forms? I don't think so.

A few things to keep in mind here. First, this was a column in a daily newspaper, so there's only so much one can cover in this format. Second, let's also keep in mind that I am in favour of any action which put an end to this copyright bill, and I applaud the tremendous efforts of people confronting the Industry Minister, writing letters to members of Parliament, protesting, and of course, joining the Fair Copyright Facebook group. So I'm not trying to rain on the parade here. But to suggest that Facebook was responsible, in the absence of any of the other factors, for what has just taken place seems a little rich, even at this time of the year.

I'll let Edgerton take it the rest of the way: "Thinking about the use of things, rather than of technology, connects us directly with the world we know rather than the strange world in which 'technology' lives".

Two cents...

2007-11-01T22:02:00.000-04:00

image via

I can't help it. Every time I start writing one of these posts, I think of The Simpsons, Kent Brockman, and "My Two Cents". So while I've been hibernating in the scholarly wilderness for the past little while, it's time to lob a few pennies into cyberspace.

This actually came up at the recent "How Canadians Communicate" symposium I attended a few weeks ago in Banff (which was terrific, by the way). Someone pointed out that for all of the talk about the importance of cultural policy in Canada, the subject hasn't come up as a political issue during the recent elections. While I had realized that point before, and others have noted that you had to dig far and wide to get some idea from the various political parties where they stood on arts and culture issues, it does seem on the surface to have taken a backseat politically. Or maybe its a case where politicians believe that Canadians don't care too much about the subject enough that it would affect their voting. If this is true, the question is, why?

Here are four possibilities:

1. The simple answer is that cultural policy has long been about the development of cultural industries and that many Canadians can see through the rhetoric about "telling Canadian stories" and realize that since the cultural industries are such an important part of the economy now, the discourse around cultural issues has become an economic matter and is better understood when it is treated that way.

2. Another reason might be that the Conservative government doesn't care too much about the cultural agenda unless it serves to contribute to winning ridings in the next election. That is the thinking behind the naming of Josée Verner as the new Heritage Minister. Some have observed, since she is from Quebec and can be the government's "face" for the celebration of Quebec's 450th birthday, then this may pay off whenever the LIberals decide to hold an election. So it is possible that if the Conservatives have their way, the Heritage department will be more politicized than it ever has been. So even if cultural policy issues aren't on the political agenda, Canada's cultural policy may end up serving one.

3. The third answer may be that, particularly in the case of broadcasting, no one has any really good ideas about what to do next. The torrent of new technologies and the various legal wrangling over copyright issues and intellectual property, along with the back and forth on whether or not Canada has become a haven for piracy has left many people scratching their heads. What will be the rationale for cultural policies in a time of media abundance? Remember how much discourse around Canadian cultural policy relies on lack of access to resources (like frequencies) or lack of shelf space (hello, Canadian content). So what is there to do?

Two interesting voices have emerged in this in-between state. The first are the broadcasters, most notably Jim Shaw of Shaw Communications. Shaw (and Quebecor honcho Pierre-Karl Peladeau) decided that they weren't going to support the Canadian Television Fund, a responsibility that is usually a condition for receiving a broadcasting license. After much ink was spilled (including a lot of it on the Intenrret), Shaw agreed to re-start the payments after meeting with the CRTC. However, he hasn't stopped ratcheting up the rhetoric, suggesting that the fund supports programs that don't work and that they money is not properly accounted for. The Canadian Television is currently undergoing a review by the CRTC, so it should be interesting to see how Shaw's antics play out in the policymaking.

Speaking of which, the CRTC is the second group to watch here. Why? Because they are trying to figure out how to get involved with the Internet. Remember back in 1999 when the CRTC announced boldly that it would not regulate the internet? Here it is.

Compare this with the recent comments of the CRTC's chief, Konrad von Fickenstein at a conference in London last week. Or those of vice-president of the CRTC, Michel Arpin, who told Playback magazine today that back in 1999 "there was nothing to regulate". The subject, as it were, is back on the table.

So what happens next? We probably won't know until the end of next year, which is when the CRTC is planning to hold hearings on the subject. One thing is for sure, this probably isn't going to affect people who post videos to Youtube. It will, however, affect those broadcasting organizations who already fall under the CRTC's regulatory rubric. How will this happen? Still not sure, but a couple of suggestions might be a) forcing broadcasters to stream Canadian shows online (although many already do) or b) forcing broadcasters to commit to support online content.

There is one other scenario --- this one would force Canadian ISP's to give priority to Canadian content sites. This is the argument of ADISQ (the organization representing the Quebec recording industry) as well as many other cultural groups (thanks again for this, Michael Geist). They argue if broadcasters have to make some contribution to the development of Canadian culture through provisions for Canadian content, they why shouldn't Internet Service Providers? So, once again, issues of access and content return to the fold. And, as Geist correctly points out, if such an argument were to take hold, ISPs, American content holders and Canadian cultural producers will coalesce against net neutrality regulations - since each perceives that it has something to lose from a more open Internet. What I can't figure out is exactly what that would look like if Canadian content got better "shelf space" online -- maybe someone can give me a better idea.

4. The fourth answer may be that there has never been a groundswell of political support for cultural policy issues. Were the cultural parts of NAFTA part of the Mulroney/Chretien election? I don't think so. Were there other election campaigns in which political parties could gain traction by hitching their wagon to the issue of the support -- or lack thereof -- to Canadian creative communities? Also highly doubtful. Maybe what have here is that cultural policy issues in Canada operate in a parallel universe to other political concerns, only occasionally mixing with one another in more subtle ways.

Perhaps it will take another election to get these issues on the front burner. One of the great things about the current political climate in this country is that one of those seems to be always looming around the corner.

Just imagine...

2007-10-20T09:06:00.001-04:00

...what our cities would look like if there were no billboards. Consider the case of Sao Paulo. Is it better or worse without the advertisements? As they say on "Coffee Talk". Discuss amongst yourselves.

an apologia and a tribute

2007-09-26T11:41:00.001-04:00

I realize that this little corner of cyberspace has been about as lively as an evening of polka at an old age home, but blogging is hard. I have all of these plans to post, but I simply run out of time. Work just gets in the way of the Internet. I'll have more to say about that and other matters some time soon. In the meantime, enjoy a great photo essay on old movie theatres, courtesy of The New York TImes. And go see "3:10 to Yuma".

the sound of television

2007-07-27T13:23:00.000-04:00

Yes, yes, the blogging is slow. But with a a journal article that needs to go out, a book manuscript that needs to be finished, administrative work that needs to be done, and some quality time with the other people in my life, there simply isn't much time to blog. But I'll write when I can.

With that in mind, enjoy this interview with Alexandra Patsavas, the musical director of "Grey's Anatomy," "The O.C." and, I would come to learn, a whole bunch of Roger Corman films. She talks to Kurt Andersen on Studio 360 about the thinking behind the musical selections for "Grey's". A few highlights: She says the show creators believe that sound should be treated as score, not as source music that simply sits in the background of the story. She also admits the show soundtrack tends towards indie rock, and has taken a liking to the music of Scandinavian artists, particularly from Iceland ("indie music from indie nations" she says). She says that she used to categorize her music according to whether or not a song would be good for a death scene, but as she says, "there's so much death on the show I now have categories like whimsical death or depressing death." It's interesting how those categories tie in nicely with the perceived emotional features of indie music. And she also likes Feist.

It's a funny thing about Feist, because the first time I heard her album I was sure her songs would appear on commercials or in soundtracks. That's not an insult by the way, there's just something in that music that has resonates. The one thing I'm trying to figure out why I thought that from the very beginning. Is it the smoothness of her voice? Is it the poppy 70's hooks in the music? Is it that the tone of the music works in such a way as to set the mood of the scene but not to overpower it?

the heritage minister as "largely ceremonial"?

2007-07-01T09:46:00.000-04:00

That's how Slate magazine characterizes Canada's version of a Minister of Culture in a recent version of its series "the explainer". While it's true Bev Oda is no Andre Malraux (and it's also true that this was only a short piece) Canada's culture minister does a lot more than attend functions and cocktail parties. She controls the purse strings for a lot of cultural activities in this country and can play a major role in establishing the structural conditions that affect the other institutions that govern over national cultural activity, like the National Film Board of Canada. As the government's interface to the cultural sector, the Minister of Canadian Heritage also wields considerable symbolic power too.

To borrow a phrase from Ricky Ricardo, I think the explainer has a lot more explaining to do.

the problem with canadian television archives

2007-06-29T09:16:00.000-04:00

Michele Byers of St. Mary's University provides a nice overview on the poor quality of Canada's television archives. Anyone who has ever tried to track down old Canadian television programs for research purposes can sympathize with her frustration. The fact that the country doesn't have an audiovisual archive makes me wonder if forgetting is one of the key themes in the study of Canadian television. Remember -- television programs up here usually count as "content."

in the media...

2007-06-20T10:39:00.000-04:00

This one's for you, zigzigger: You'll find yours truly in this podcast from CBC Radio One's "Definitely Not the Opera." The piece is called "A Facebook only a mother could love." My little bit (which you can find toward the end of the podcast) is about the popularity of Facebook in Canadian political circles.

diversity, at last!

2007-06-12T08:05:00.000-04:00

I hate to say I told you so, but ...

from the frontiers of broadcasting regulation

2007-06-08T18:25:00.000-04:00

So the news came down today that the CRTC approved CTVglobemedia's purchase of CHUM assets with one big proviso. The new company is not allowed to have the City-TV assets. This was because the commission argued that if it gave CTVglobemedia the go-ahead, it would violate its policy on multiple station ownership in major markets like Toronto or Winnipeg.

Some people, like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are applauding the deal, saying it represents a big step for "diversity" of programming. Ironically, the CRTC seems to be drinking the same Kool-aid as the Friends on this one. It is also touting this decision as representing a key step ensuring "diversity of voices in the Canadian broadcasting system." I always get nervous when the theme of diversity gets thrown around after a mega-merger. So to the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and their pals in the CRTC, permit me to say, um, I don't think so.

Why? Let me count the ways :

1. For all of the talk on diversity, there's an awful lot of consolidation going on here. Let's remember that CTVglobemedia still gets control of all of CHUM's radio stations and all of its specialty channels, including Bravo!, MuchMusic, and TV Land Canada. These are the key assets in the deal, both because they offer more opportunities to spread programming across different platforms and for their national coverage. While the A-Channels aren't exactly exciting, the fact remains that the new CHUM/CTV company is now humongous and the CRTC has done very little to change that. Diversity my foot.

2. I guess the CRTC isn't too interested in consolidation of the music programming market -- now CTVglobemedia owns both MuchMusic and MTV Canada.

3. Does anyone really care about radio anymore? Considering that CTVglobemedia takes over all of CHUM's stations and considering that the Standard-Astral deal offers more consolidation, the radio landscape in this country could be a real mess. Let's watch them spin the diversity card when that all shakes out.

4. Considering 2 and 3, did anyone think about how the deal might affect Canada's recording industry?

5. Saying that CTV can't buy City-TV seems like a noble move, but there is only one little question: who will buy them? Let's see, will it be Rogers? Maybe Quebecor? What about Shaw? Yes, it will produce diversity, but this is among a small number of players that make up the oligarchy that is Canada's broadcasting environment. As long as foreign ownership restrictions are not relaxed, there are really only a small number of people who could actually take over these stations. The chances of a really new entrant jumping into the game -- someone in the software industry perhaps -- are highly unlikely.

6. Keep in mind who else liked this deal -- the Association of Canadian Advertisers. Why did they like it? Because now it guarantees a "competitive marketplace" in key advertising markets. Seeing that Canadian broadcasters will now be allowed to air more commercials, it seems that the CRTC's big accomplishment recently is to please the advertising community. So local voices are winners from this deal-- local advertisers. Here's to diversity of advertising!

7. Let's also remember that there are more mergers coming down the turnpike in the coming months. So, like collective bargaining in the automotive industry, the CRTC has to be careful it doesn't set up any precedents the other potential merger candidates can refer to when they testify in Gatineau before the end of the year.

You can see here that what are experiencing is the beginning of a reshuffling -- not a shake-up -- of the Canadian broadcasting system. Maybe that's the reason today's news, in its own way, is a little depressing.

loaded comment...

2007-06-05T08:48:00.000-04:00

....about the role of state in cultural matters. This one's from yesterday's Globe and Mail piece about federal funding of arts festivals:

"If the objective is that people have a good time, I don't see why I should be excluded"
-- Minister of Canadian Heritage Bev Oda

Oda was responding to suggestions from Quebec MPs that Oda should stay away from Montreal's summer festivals if the government wasn't going to pony up the money, but that little quip says much more than that.

back in the habit

2007-06-04T18:51:00.000-04:00

So I'm back from Saskatoon happy and healthy. I'm working on a post about my time in the prairies, but for now, I offer this Canadian angle to the buzz about the new movie Knocked Up. Judd Apatow, meet Rebecca Eckler. Do you think this is a technique either to scoop a little cash from the creators, or even to push her own book into the film's limelight?

Saskatoon bound...

2007-05-27T16:29:00.001-04:00

Well I head off to Saskatoon on Tuesday. It'll be my first trip to the "Paris of the Prairies." (I got that phrase from somewhere, honest) and I'm looking forward to doing all of the conference things - giving a paper (see link on the right), catching up with some friends and colleagues I don't see very often, and providing some support to what feels like a gazillion grad students attending this year. I've never been to Saskatoon before, so this should be a shock to my central Canadian sensibilities. Seriously, though, I'm really looking forward to it, and I've heard great things about the city. I found this photo of the 1940 Saskatoon Quakers hockey team from the image gallery of the City of Saskatoon Archives and thought I'd post it. That's not an indicator of how ignorant I am that I think it'll be wintry there this week. I just like the pic, that's all.

People complain about how much they don't like conferences because the papers are of poor quality, or because the decision to run many panels concurrently means that it's possible that about 6 people will attend your paper and those that do have very little they can offer in terms of feedback. I suppose those are legitimate beefs, but I always say that is partly function of the overspecialized nature of academics nowadays. We always like to tell our undergraduate students memorizing all of the specific facts of a situation isn't all that important -- but synthesizing them with larger ideas is what we're really trying to test. The fact that some scholars don't live up to that credo in practice can be a little depressing.

I also something more interesting is going on, which is that people don't know how to give criticism that is constructive (ie: will help you as your research and writing continues to take shape) nor do people know how to accept criticism as anything more than ad hominem. In light of that many people figure, why bother even trying? This is one of the strangest things about academic life -- how little debating we really do when face-to-face. I thought of that again while watching Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton debate on religion a little while ago at the New York Public Library and thought, man I would kill to see some of big names in my field have a spirited discussion. If everyone in the room recognizes the fact that the work is hard, the journey is frustrating, and one's hold on knowledge is always fleeting, the spirit should be more generous than it usually is. That being said, aside from the pre-paper jitters I always have, I generally like conferences a lot.

The Canadian Communication Association annual conference is odd bird. That's because all of the societies in social sciences and the humanities meet in a different Canadian city every year over a course of about a week. So, it stands to reason that while walking around campus talking about reality television you'll hear people coming out of a social work conference, or a literature conference, or whatever else is running concurrently with yours. I actually like that a lot. It gives off the impression that a) you are not working alone and b) that belong to a wider community of ideas. And I'm sure that sounds a little schmaltzy, but like cooking chicken academics sans schmaltz can be a pretty dry enterprise. I also like the book fair, and usually walk away with a bunch of books that I could probably buy cheaper online just for the feeling of buying books at a conference. And yes, that's schmaltzy too.

So I'll send posts from the road when I can. Otherwise, I'll blog upon my return. I know that sounds like an empty promise the way the blogs been sputtering along lately, but I'll work on it.

The Q

2007-05-22T12:44:00.000-04:00

According to Broadcaster, today marks the 30th anniversary of Q107, Toronto's classic rock station. For about 5 of those 30 years, Q107 was the soundtrack to this scholar's teenage years. Maybe I'll find a little Iron Maiden to relive those days. Then again, maybe I shouldn't.

the digest

2007-05-21T20:55:00.000-04:00

Some old and new news arriving here at wagmedia:

Think Canadian broadcasters are having financial troubles? I don't think so.
Here's a great article about ballooning movie budgets, with "Sahara" as a case study
What happens when corporations use YouTube as b-roll for its own advertising? Stay tuned this Tuesday.
Looks like Hugo Chavez is getting in the film business.
And here's the best headline I've seen in a long time

Changes to Canadian Television

2007-05-17T11:33:00.000-04:00

The CRTC announced today that changes to the broadcasting regulatory landscape are on the horizon. So what's in store?

1. More advertising: 3 minutes more per hour (for a total of 15) by September 2008. As Dana Carvey's church lady used to say, "Well now, isn't that special"?

2. A set deadline for a transition from analog to digital and HD signals for all broadcasters by 2011. The rationale? "A deadline is necessary to avoid a situation where viewers turn to foreign programming to take advantage of this new technology because there is not enough Canadian digital programming available." Ah, cultural nationalism, always there just when you need it.

3. What appears to be a rather aggressive direction to Canada's broadcasters to invest in more Canadian programming and to provide producers with terms of trade to provide "more stability and clarity". The CRTC information backgrounder indicates that broadcasters will have to show drafts of agreements as part of their license renewal. I don't know if they've ever had to do this before (I'll look into this), but it seems like with this effort, the CRTC is now in the business of monitoring deals between broadcasters and producers. Or is this a matter of intellectual property? If that's the case, then this is new ground for the CRTC too.

Consider this one of many changes coming to Canada's media landscape. Hold onto your toques!

another plug

2007-05-15T07:04:00.000-04:00

Here's my contribution to In Media Res, an online project in media studies organized by the Institute for the History of the Book. I'll have something later this week - and it won't be another plug.

a plug

2007-05-10T13:27:00.000-04:00

My article, "The Self-Destruction of the CBC," is now available in Geist magazine. However, the magazine hasn't updated their website with the new issue. Fear not, however. It's already been republished by the B.C. online publication The Tyee. You can find it here. Tell me what you think.

Canada: Land of the Pirates?

2007-05-08T09:17:00.000-04:00

Variety reports that Warner Brothers announced it will no longer provide promotional and word-of-mouth screenings in Canada under the government makes the practice of bringing camcorders into movie theatres illegal. The company says that 70% of all pirated Warner films released over the last 18 months originated from Canada. While we can take those numbers with a grain of salt, it's more likely that this is part of a broader effort by American media firms to dictate IP policies in other countries. The New Yorker has an interesting piece about this.

some weekend viewing...

2007-05-05T14:36:00.000-04:00

Enjoy this flickr photoset from the site of Montreal's Expo '67, 40 years later.

The latest on Internet radio

2007-05-04T08:41:00.000-04:00

Here's a recent piece in ars technica about the decision to delay the royalty fees hike for Internet radio stations in the United States. A new Internet Radio Equality Act has been put forward in the House of Representatives that would tie royalty payments to percentage of profits which are similar to those that govern satellite radio and which would keep many stations on the air. The final decision will come in mid-July.

BGM and CHUM: "This Deal is Done"

2007-05-01T16:16:00.000-04:00

Or so says this report just released by Bloomberg. As if that was ever in question.

Hail Old Media, Hail Casual Culture!

2007-04-30T07:09:00.000-04:00

I realize that the postings have been few and far between lately, but I'm getting back into the habit now that the semester is over. While I've been laying low, there's been some news over the past weeks that has thrown some cold water on the prophets of life in the age of Web 2.0.

1.Cnet reports that the blogging phenomenon may have hit its plateau. What that means is either that people aren't starting new blogs or that those that have blogs don't keep them going or move to other web applications, like Twitter. To be honest, I'm not sure what this kind of reporting really means. Does that mean that blogs aren't influential? Not so fast. Does it mean that we'll look back 50 years from now and see the blog phenomenon as the equivalent to CB radio craze? Perhaps. Does it mean that once again that your friends here at wagmedia are the classic late adopters? It sure looks like it. I'll let you know when I start to invest in the stock market so you can sell before the market crashes.

2. Chalk one up for the passive viewer. Reuters reported that life in the world of Web 2.0 is "less participatory than many people assumed." According to a study of online surfing data (I wonder what that looks like), 0.16% of visitors to YouTube upload videos, while 0.02% of Flickr visitors put their own pictures up for view. What is significant is that the traffic to these kinds of sites has spiked significantly. In other words, people just like to sit back and watch -- even on the Internet. Then again, who would blame people for not bothering to post, when Youtube keeps taking down videos for weird reasons -- consider the case of CTV reporter David Akin.

3. An article in Computerworld magazine (via) offered this opinion on the state of e-books: "There is one unavoidable and fatal fact that will kill the nascent e-book market in its cradle: People love paper books." Take that e-readers!

Not all is rosy for fans of older media. The cost of pay phone calls in Canada is going way up.

Hold the royalties

2007-04-28T07:09:00.000-04:00

So maybe there is life for Internet radio as we know it after all.

Goodbye CH, hello E Canada

2007-04-24T18:01:00.000-04:00

Remember an earlier posting about Turner Classic Movies coming to Canada that could have been entitled "what took you so long?" Well, add the E Network to the list. Mediacaster reports today that Canwest has cut a deal to distribute E - branded material in Canada. I sure would have liked it when "Talk Soup" was in its infancy. That show was pretty great. Not to worry, concerned defenders of Canada's distinct television system -- there will be some local content (read: Entertainment Tonight Canada) on the network too. What this means is the end of Global's second mini-network, CH. It'll be rebranded as E in the fall. It also means E! content will make its way to satellite radio in Canada.

In memory of CH's demise, here's a tribute to its original incarnation, CHCH-Hamiltion. This was prepared in anticipation of its move to an Ontario-wide network, ONtv, in 1996. Global would take it over shortly after the switch.

Stay tuned for another dispatch from the frontiers of broadcasting regulation -- it'll be out of this world.

So?

2007-04-23T14:40:00.000-04:00

How did you spend your World Book and Copyright Day? It's today, you know. But don't enjoy it too much; you need to save your money to get to the Big Apple for "Spider Man Week in NYC." It starts on April 30.

A Post for the Eyes

2007-04-22T11:06:00.000-04:00

This cover of Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" comes from Acejet170, who has created an entire flickr page devoted to those fabulous blue and white Pelican paperbacks. I love the use of the CBS "eye device" logo, designed by Kurt Weiss and William Golden.

Life is Worth Living: Turner Classic Movies is in Canada

2007-04-22T10:48:00.000-04:00

There is a common saying that when it comes to popular culture, things usually happen in Canada five years after they happen in the United States. There's also the maxim -- I think it's in Paco Underhill's book, "Why We Buy" -- that people waiting in line have a threshold of about 10 minutes before they feel like they've been in line for years.

It is in the spirit of waiting that I can now proudly say that Canadians with a digital box finally have Turner Classic Movies. It's actually been available to Canadians since 1998, but only on the upper reaches of satellite systems. Since December, it's been available in Ontario to subscribers of digital cable (and I believe those in Western and Atlantic Canada can get it too).

Anything I would tell readers of this blog south of the border would be, like, so ten years ago. However, permit me to point out a couple of things: Robert Osborne and Molly Haskell do a great job on "The Essentials"; I love the idea of the guest programmer -- the last one, I think, was David Mamet. A month of Oscar nominated films leading up to this year's festivities spotlighted two films I've been meaning to see but for various reasons never got around to seeing. One is "The Battle of Algiers," a film that is so smart, so well done, and so powerful. The other is "North by Northwest." Yes, I've never seen it until now. In addition to the obvious brilliance of Hitchcock films, "North by Northwest" offers some of the finest tributes to modernist architecture I've ever seen, from the early scenes at the UN to the cantilevered Frank Lloyd Wright-style house perched on Mount Rushmore at the end. Don't take my word for it -- it looks like starchitect Daniel Liebskind agrees.

I'm with David Bordwell when he says "Some day Ph.D. students will be writing dissertation on the contribution of Turner Classic Movies to US culture." This contribution isn't just through the reshuffling of the archive every programming day for domestic consumption. TCM does an incredible job of recirculating various discourses about movies. The TCM website has an incredible database with movie clips, trailers, posters, and -- of course -- the chance to buy the film on DVD. It has a pretty good blog. Its Young Composers competition, which gives the opportunity for young talent to re-score silent films, is an interesting way to reinvigorate the early history of motion pictures. The Cinematheque Quebecoise in Montreal used to stage events where composers would perform live accompaniments to silent films. I regret never having the chance to go to one of those evenings while I lived in la belle ville. The tributes to old cartoons and movie trailers are pretty great too.

The artists weigh in on the future of internet radio

2007-04-16T23:09:00.000-04:00

Here's David Byrne's eloquent response to the US Copyright Board's decision to impose "performance royalties" on web radio -- measures that would affect his own radio station.

4 Questions

2007-04-16T21:49:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of Passover seders now etched in the annals of family history, permit me to offer the following 4 questions about what might be called the "old media/new media divide."

I'll begin with the one that seems most loopy:

1. Aside from the technical distinctions, what are the differences between the first generation of short films and videoblogs and, say, the first motion pictures? My first thought is that within the "college prank" genre of videoclips one can find similarities to, say, the Lumiere brothers "L'arroseur arrosé"...

image via

As many of you may know, the story involves an unsuspecting gardener doesn't realize someone is stepping on the water hose, then points the hose at his face and....well you can probably figure out the rest. Now I'm not saying that this is true across all videoblogs, mobisodes, and other forms e- storytelling, but can you catch my drift? Is there something about the relationship between narrative styles and temporal limitations? Those of you with film studies backgrounds can shed some much needed light here.

2. At the time of the emergence of motion picture technology, was there the same kind of old media vs. new media language between motion pictures and, say, photography over which form
of visual expression should be more influential in the way that bloggers and the MSM fight it out in the blogosphere? My immediate answer is probably yes, I just don't know off hand.

3. Am I the only one who finds Amanda Congdon's conjuring up of "journalism wars" in her thou-dost-protest-too-much response to the storm of criticism that after she shilled for Dupont just a little rich? Instead of coming to terms with the fact that these kinds of arrangements are problematic for all journalists, she decided to couch her defense in the "war" rhetoric and present herself in some way as the victim in all of this. That's weird, no?

What's revealed here is that maybe -- just maybe -- some bloggers and vloggers want to be picked up by the dreaded "mainstream media" not to reform it and that the "challenge old paradigms" is conveniently the same rhetoric one hears in business school. Instead, some may desire to turn what is a hobby or a "start-up" into a profession and to gain a wider audience and the authority that comes with it. But to admit that would run afoul of the ethics of the internet, where trashing the MSM is part of a credibility-producing shtick that blogs like to use. They are slow, we are quick. They are corporate, we are idealistic. They have rules, they are rule breakers. They are gatekeepers; we want to be gatekeepers.

4. Might we have to come to terms with the fact that our understanding of Internet use might nationally specific? I think about this in the Canadian case all the time; for one thing Canadians do a lot less e-commerce than Americans do. A friend that will go nameless once had ice cream delivered; while another sent me a Poilane bread as a wedding engagement gift -- from France! Then again, I dare say the Canadian experience with mail-order shopping ended many years ago; yet a recent trip to Katz's deli in New York City found people lining up to send rolls of salami to relatives in Oregon.

This idea of national Internet practices may also be germane considering that the Internet means different things in different places. Just ask the people in Thailand whose access to YouTube is limited; or people like Bruce Stirling, who tried to check his Twitter page in the United Arab Emirates and found this And we know about Google in China to understand how the World Wide Web can be a lot less, well, worldly.

But it's not just in these places where one's internet experience is unique; Try watching "30 Rock" on NBC's website from Canada. Or better yet, try to get the soundtrack information for a show like "Weeds" on Showtime -- and you'll discover that nation-states may be imagined communities, but geography matters in cyberspace -- unless you find ways to work under the table around the rules.

Your thoughts?

End of Internet Radio: The Story Continues

2007-04-16T21:36:00.000-04:00

Remember an earlier posting about the deliberations at the US Copyright Board on royalties for Internet radio stations? Here's the results. They aren't good. Hold onto your hats, Canadian web radio outfits....

Ratings news

2007-04-15T19:02:00.000-04:00

The New York Times reports that the Nielsen company will be releasing viewer ratings for television watching that occurs outside the home by using a cellphone tracking system. That might be good news for CNN or CBC Newsworld since they seem to be always on in airports and hotels. The same can be said for sports networks. I like this quote from the rep: "Nielsen has a mandate to follow the video wherever it goes."

Another obit (albeit one with an interesting link)

2007-04-12T14:59:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting chestnut from the world of television scriptwriting. Jaime Weinman has an interesting post that I found after following a link on Dead Things on Sticks about the recent passing of Stan Daniels, the Toronto-born executive producer and co-creator of "Taxi" and a writer on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Weinman explains that Daniels lent his name to a comedic device popularized on his shows where a character contradicts something they said a short time earlier. For example, someone will say they're trying to lose weight only to find themselves pigging out at an all-you-can eat buffet later in the scene. You can find some examples from actual shows on Jaime's blog. Apparently some writers -- including one from "The Simpsons" -- call this "The Stan Daniels turn."

The Taco Kit Demo

2007-04-11T00:28:00.000-04:00

Here are 4 things you may not have known about the 6.9 million Canadians who have used a taco kit in their household in the past month, thanks to research reported on Media in Canada:

1. Taco kit users are 75% more likely to have also used a frozen hot snack (such as Burritos or Pizza Pops) in the past month.

2. Taco kit users are 40% more likely than the "average Canadian" to be full-time students

3. Taco kit fans are more likely than average Canadians to have invested in an RESP.

4. Taco Kit fans are 80% more likely to have attended a theme park, water park or water slides between 2 and 6 times in the past year as average Canadians.

from the frontiers of broadcasting policy...

2007-04-10T22:33:00.000-04:00

Warning -- long post about something a little old ahead.

Is there something in the air or has there just been a bizarre flurry (no pun intended) of weird stuff emerging from the frontiers of broadcasting regulation? What a country!

So fasten your seat belt -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.

A couple of weeks ago there was a wee controversy around Canada's annual award show for the music industry, known as the Junos (named after the bureaucrat that brought Canadian content regulations to Canada's airwaves, Pierre Juneau). It was slated to air on CTV. It had Nelly Furtado as the host. But then there was this little problem with "The Amazing Race". It airs on CBS, but in Canada it is simulcast on CTV to allow the network to sell Canadian ads. The Amazing Race was planning a 2-hour edition of the show. That would interfere with the airing of the Junos in Ontario and Quebec. CTV originally decided that it tape delay the Junos in the east, air the Amazing Race and give viewers the chance to watch the awards show at the convenient Sunday night hour of 10:00. That decision appeared in the paper, with CTV offering the opinion that "weighed against the risk of losing two million viewers to CBS for a show those viewers are already engaged in, this was the best solution." Well, that didn't go over too well, and by the middle of the day, CTV had reversed that decision and air the Junos in the east, as originally planned.

Now Dead Things on Sticks, one of the finer blogs on Canadian television culture, does a nice job of explaining that this situation was more complex that it may appear, so I won't repeat that here. So what does this situation show?

1. It shows us that one of the key levers in the country's regulatory apparatus -- simultaneous substitution -- is intended to allow broadcasters to sell Canadian advertising. One might also say that this rule is, in effect, a kind of "Canadian content" system for Canada's advertising industry, including production houses, technical staff, writers, and agencies.

2. It shows us that under the "Canadian content" scheme, Canadian programming is almost always the compensatory choice for conventional broadcasters. In other words, broadcasters lack the motivation to support Canadian programming unless it is in return for something, either the continued right to rebroadcast programming readily available to most Canadians on other channels, or to have ownership regulations that shut out foreign ownership of broadcasting undertakings. What happened with the Junos is representative of a longstanding practice whereby broadcasters find ways to do as little as possible to support such programs, either by messing around with schedules so that audiences can't find the programming (this is not exclusively a Canadian phenomenon, by the way); or by slotting programming in times where either a) a popular program is being run on another network b) on Saturday nights. To a degree, this is understandable, because Canadian content regulations ask broadcasters to subscribe to rules which are counter to those which exist among private broadcasters in (some) other countries. For them, audience numbers are obviously very important factors; in Canada, audiences are an important factor, but fulfilling a broadcaster's quota of Canadian programming is another.

3. It also shows us that sometimes people do really dumb things. Remember: CTV is going before the CRTC to approve its merger with CHUM soon. It doesn't want to ruffle any feathers in advance of that happening. I think someone realized this very quickly and sought to rectify the situation, even if it came at the expense of "The Amazing Race." To make it worse: the Junos is actually a successful show, attracting a decent sized audience, and is watched by prized youth demographics. For CTV to even open this can of worms (especially for a show that is successful) was a really dumb call.

4. Finally, it shows us that a major tension in Canadian cultural life is not that between "culture" and "commerce" but that between economic nationalism and cultural nationalism.

Well, that will do for that one. What's next? Oh yes, the case of a history network, a writer's union, and one of the CSI shows. It seems that someone at the Writer's Union of Canada began to notice that History Television was showing an awful lot of episodes of "CSI: NY." They didn't like this. They complained to the CRTC saying this didn't qualify as "history". The network, owned by Alliance Atlantis (who co-produces CSI) offered the justification that it was airing the show because, um, the show is “set in a city that became synonymous with one of history’s most significant and notorious events, 9/11.” The CRTC said it didn't think so, and it looks like the two sides are now embroiled in working out some kind of solution but that the CRTC has asked them to stop airing the show so often. Since it's about New York -- the city where 9/11 took place -- the story attracted attention (and maybe a few laughs) in the New York Times.

What's our take-away here?

1. It dispels the myth that the CRTC only regulates the broadcasting system and not the content itself. As in the case of history television shows, it does. You can see this by following this link to the CRTC's site and checking out the "Conditions of license." It tells you exactly what kind of programming will be aired on this station. This kind of situation came up a while ago with two news services, CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet. The conditions of Newsnet's license was that it was a "headline" news broadcaster only. This meant that its programming had to operate on a 15-minute "wheel" and that Newsnet always had to return to headlines, even if they were covering breaking news, press conferences, and so on. This went on for years, until they finally relaxed the rules and Newsnet now runs a regular all- news station. Similar fights over formats took place between MuchMusic and MTV Canada a while back too, because I believe MTV wasn't allowed to show music videos. So in Canada audiences endure programming quotas imposed on broadcasters and rigid rules on actual program content.

2. These rules are meant to encourage diversity, but do they? I don't think so. They do allow for networks to have control over certain formats (Newsnet's complaint was always that the rules were in place to shield CBC Newsworld from competition, ditto for Much and MTV) and have little to do with audiences.

3. These rules also show that the CRTC's decisions on which television services to air (and how to define genres) is tied to broader political objectives about how Canadians should watch television. As one of my colleagues suggested, the fact that it is in the business of deciding the Canadians need a history channel -- over a channel devoted to bossa nova -- is something else. This system actually encourages the kind of behaviour on display in this case -- namely the politicization of genres. Look at the all of the hand-wringing linking the state of the "Canadian drama" to Canadian national identity and you can see what I mean.

4 Of all people, the writers' union should realize the serious ethical consequences of getting into the business of effectively regulating the works of others.

Last for today -- did anyone else catch Michael Geist's column about the pressures being placed on the CRTC to get in the business of regulating the Internet? Geist talks about the fact that this is a push by industry for the regulator to find ways to reproduce the current industrial arrangements for broadcasters onto new media systems because of copyright pressures and concerns that the prospects for Canadians to get American programs direct would actually force them to have to change their practices and give Canadians something different in addition to what we can get from American stations.

What can we take away from this?

1. We must always read the fine print: The CRTC always maintained it had the right to reopen the issue of regulating the Internet at a later date.

2. This may be a bit of a stretch (and it's not as conspiratorial as it sounds) but it may also be the case that since places like China or Thailand have put pressures on search engines or web sites to block access to certain sites from their citizens, and since those pressures haven't resulted in full-scale revolution, that the CRTC (and others) are just waiting for the right time to get in the game. In other words, its interesting to see the ways in which democratic countries borrow techniques used in the undemocratic ones.

3. There was a scholar -- whose name absolutely escapes me at the moment --who once said that relations between regulators and those that they regulate are such that the regulator actually benefits the regulated because the two effectively need each other for their own survival. Did you notice the way the CRTC took the issue about media ownership off the table until after it makes its decisions on the big media mergers coming down the 'pike? Case in point. Can you see how more regulation of the Internet might serve mutual interests?

My brain is slowly breaking, so I'll stop there. Maybe the old line that the most interesting things about Canadian broadcasting take place not on television, but in policy documents has some sad truth to it after all.

Condolences...

2007-04-10T09:20:00.000-04:00

A certain someone I know who specializes in 1970s Canadian cinema in the wilds of England is probably going about his academic pursuits with a heavy heart today. This is because of the announcement yesterday that that Bob Clark, the director of what still is the highest grossing Canadian film, Porky's, died last week. Playback reports that Clark was in preproduction for the remake of his 1972 film Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things and was set to meet with Quentin Tarantino, who had expressed interest in the film. Oh what could have been.

Here's some news...

2007-04-09T11:10:00.000-04:00

So in anticipation of CTVglobemedia's purchse of CHUM, it looks like Rogers is going to help them out by taking CHUM's "secondary" assets. This would make them the fourth "network" in Canada. Here's the link to the Mediacaster report.

More later.

Don't you find it interesting....

2007-04-09T00:23:00.000-04:00

....that the flow of news on my Google Reader tails off significantly on weekends? I guess this still means there is a relationship between media information flows and the days of the week -- or that many other bloggers have other things to do on the weekend -- like the rest of us.

On Canadian media mergers and public benefits

2007-04-06T09:39:00.000-04:00

Vancouver's weekly paper, the Georgia Straight, has an excellent article by Charlie Smith about the two major mergers on the horizon in the Canadian media landscape.

Smith's article pays particular attention to the number of "ordinary citizens" who have submitted comments to the CRTC as the regulator prepares to review the mergers of CTV globemedia and CHUM and Canwest and Alliance Atlantis. What's interesting is that many of the people profiled in Smith's articles are citizens who are connected to the process in some way, either as employees of media assets about to be consolidated or as representatives of arts groups affected by Canadian cultural policy. The question still remains how many people who are disconnected from Canada's cultural industries actually submit opinions to the CRTC, and whether this kind of participation is the most appropriate way to measure public opinion.

Smith's article also features a reminder that with every big media merger comes something in the form of a "public benefits package," in which the corporation (let's say CTV globemedia in this case) "donates" a portion of the total value of the proposed merger back into the community, in the form of supporting the production of Canadian dramatic programming. This "package" works in funny ways, because it can quickly pacify critics of the merger by offering them financial incentives to play ball.

It's also unclear whether this is a public benefits package or an "industrial benefits" package that, like the consultation process itself, has very little to do with the public -- or more importantly, the audience for media offerings.

Tunnel Vision

2007-04-05T19:35:00.000-04:00

Cnet has an interesting article about the latest trend in advertising -- using the blank (or dark) walls of subway tunnels to display short commercials. One of the companies mentioned in the ad, is the Winnipeg- based Sidetrack, whose clients now include London's Heathrow Express train, Boston's T, and Rio de Janiero's Metro.

For those of us fascinated by the ways old media reappear in modern guises, the description of Sidetrack's system is fascinatingly cinematic -- or perhaps zoetrope-like might be better: Here's an example of one in action -- from the BART train in San Francisco.

The tunnels are equipped with a row of screens. As the subway leaves the station, it trips an infrared light which begins the commercial. The film speed is supposed to run in conjunction with the speed of the train. The company calls their work "motion picture advertising" that relies on the viewers "persistence of vision" to assist in the illusion of motion. Except this time the people are doing the moving. So you can add the space between stations to the growing list of media "windows" and start theorizing about subways as projection apparatuses. I feel an article coming on....

On the subject of old media in new media, see Charles Acland's new edited collection, Residual Media.

From the archives...

2007-04-05T14:30:00.000-04:00

This image, from the digital records of the Archives of Ontario, is entitled, "A dog pulling a sled carrying motion pictures in Deux Rivieres," c. 1910. Hearing the news that Ottawa will see snow -- even if it will only be a few flurries - has put me back in a wintry mood.

now this would be bad...

2007-04-04T17:32:00.000-04:00

Could it be that iPhones won't be coming to Canada soon? CBC reports news of the iPhone in Canada is "speculative," because Rogers -- the only company that has the GSM line capability that the iPhone uses -- may choose to hold off either to see how the phone does in the US market or until its existing contracts with Motorola or Sony-Ericsson expire. Yet another reason why Canada's cell phone consumers, already burdened by the highest cellphone fees of any developed country, are punished by a regulatory model that encourages little competition. So the iPhone might be like Turner Classic Movies -- we'll have to wait forever to get it.

More on TCM coming in future posts, along with a commentary on the Juno/Amazing Race fiasco.

Play Ball!

2007-03-31T11:27:00.000-04:00

Life is worth living - baseball starts tomorrow.

I love the question "Which one is these games is the closest thing to the real thing?" I also love the fact that George Plimpton was used to make Intellivision seem, well, more "intelligent" than Atari. Thanks to intellivisionlives for the trip down memory lane.

Ann Coulter (Canadian Edition)

2007-03-31T10:23:00.000-04:00

Salon has an article about Rachel Marsden, one of the contributors to "Red Eye," an anti-liberal equivalent to "The Daily Show," airing on Fox News. Before rising to the status of Ann Coulter's Canadian doppelganger with a regular column at the Toronto Sun newspaper, Marsden was last seen as a "Canadian correspondent" on "The O'Reilly Factor." Before blitzing the United States, Marsden achieved fame in Canada for questionably accusing an Simon Fraser swim coach of rape and sexual harassment and plunging the school and its administration into chaos, pleading guilty to criminally harassing a Vancouver radio host, working for a Conservative party MP under a false name, and lying about her media experience on her resume. Salon reports that on the web page of one of her failed communication pursuits, she once opined that "Your image is your calling card."

I'll let you add your own punch line here, but it's unfortunate that in the attack on the objectivity of the "mainstream media", the concept of credibility also went with it.