Canadians: Should the CRTC regulate Internet content?

As Canadians know, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulates the amount of Canadian content that is included in radio and TV broadcasts. Whether or not this is a good thing is not the subject of the debate though.

But what is the subject of the debate is the fact that the CRTC is currently holding hearings on whether its mandate to control content should be extended to Internet broadcasts. See this link from today’s CTV News for a report on the hearings. The CRTC did adopt a “hands-off” approach to the Internet in 1999 (Google “CRTC New Media Report 1999” for information and commentary on that report), but it has been rethinking that approach in light of the improved Internet technology and its ability to carry audio/visual content in the ten years since.

Legally, the question of whether the CRTC can use its mandate under the Broadcast Act to regulate Internet content seems to be “yes.” For a discussion of why, see this paper, published last year in the Alberta Law Review. But the question is, should it?

In the CTV News items linked to above, Colin Mochrie (Whose Line is it Anyway? and This Hour has 22 Minutes) says that “With no regulation on the Internet, there’s a big fear that all Canadian content will be buried by foreign content.” Then Mochrie…

Canadians, how do you feel about this? Is Mochrie genuinely concerned about Canadian content being buried, or is he just looking for more funding? How do you feel about such regulation being extended to the Internet, especially if it meant you would have to pay more for it?

Note: This is not a thread to discuss whether the Canada or the CRTC should have any sort of content regulation. Let’s just accept that they do, and discuss whether that mandate should be extended to the Internet for the reasons and under the conditions that are stated in the CTV news item.

Note 2: Comments and insight from non-Canadians are welcome too.

No, the CRTC should not regulate the internet for content.

There are only so many chanels on the TV/Radio spectrum, so regulation is necessary, and since regulation is necesary a case can be made for regulation of content. This simply does not apply to the internet, where regardless of how much non-Canadian content is out there, there is nothing that prevents access to Canadian content.

If the powers that be think that Canadian content on the internet should be increased, that can be done without regulation. For example, the new that I read on the internet is CBC and BBC – both public broadcasters. The shows I watch on the internet are TVO and BBC – both public broadcasters. I watch them because of their quality, and their quality is derived in part due to public funding. I do not watch them because competing entities are blocked.

As far as a fee or tax goes to assist Canadian internet content producers goes, I am not opposed to it in principle, but I’m curious as to the execution.

So how is this going to work, exactly? If you watch ten American made Youtube videos in a row without watching something Canadian, will you be breaking the law, or will you just be forcibly prevented from doing so? How can anyone think this is a good idea? And does Kids in the Hall count as Canadian content, or not? I’m just curious.

The more I think about this, the more I’m appalled by it. (I’m not Canadian, by the way.)

This is nothing more than protectionism and equivalent to a tariff on foreign entertainment. I don’t see how Canadians find this acceptable, even for over the air broadcasts. If your home grown programming is so bad that people must be forced to watch it, perhaps you should encourage/create better programming instead of forcing people to watch things they don’t want to watch.

Is it really actively discouraged in Canada to be a fan of foreign entertainment? Are people prevented, for example, from watching nothing but Bali-wood movies or listening to nothing but Wagner?

I’m sorry for crashing the party, but I’m obviously ignorant on the subject. It just seems so wrong to me. Perhaps our resident Canucks can calm my fears?

The restrictions are on broadcasters, not on consumers. A radio station broadcasting in Canada must devote some percentage of their airtime to playing music from Canadian artists. TV stations, IIRC, must have certain percentage of their shows be Canadian.

As to the OP, I’d be happier if Canadian content restrictions were lifted entirely. I’m completely opposed to any kind of regulation of internet content. It’s insanity.

If I understand the CTV news item correctly, the arts community seems to want the CRTC to place a levy on Internet access. I’m assuming it would be similar to the current levy placed on blank recording media. The proceeds from this levy would be used to fund Canadian arts projects.

That’s how I understand the execution would be, but I’m wondering if this isn’t just another attempt by the arts community to find funding. I don’t see a dearth of Canadian web sites, for example–certainly, there are plenty of Canadian newspapers, Canadian TV and radio stations, and Canadian-based business sites on the web. In addition, there are umpteen Canadians who have personal web sites, blogs, and similar. MP3s of Canadian music are available from a number of sources and YouTube videos featuring the music of Canadian bands proliferate. Canadians and their views are also noticeable on foreign forums (like the SDMB) and undoubtedly, in other foreign-based places.

Thus I find myself disagreeing with Colin Mochrie that “all Canadian content will be buried by foreign content,” and I wonder if he and the rest of the arts community who would like to see this levy put in place really want to promote a Canadian presence on the Internet, or whether they just see Canadian Internet users as a funding source for their own projects, no matter how much (or how little) those projects are wanted by Canadians.

Mochrie,

  1. Provides no evidence to support his assertion,
  2. Isn’t an expert in Internet content and traffic, and
  3. Has a vested financial interest in this.

His opinion is, frankly, wholly untrustworthy on this matter.

There’s no pressing public interest in regulation of Internet content and no practical way to do it. It’s a ridiculous idea.

I can see where it might be taken. Consider CBC’s ZeD, which was essentially an internet production given TV air-time. It could not survive on the internet due to lack of funding (IMHO, because the site was not used to generate advertising revenue). With funding, it would have been a significant distribution point for Canadian artists. I’d be happy as a clam to subsidize that sort of stuff, just as I am more than willing to subsidize the CBC’s present radio and, to a lesser extend, television offerings, partly because I want to give Canadian artists a leg up in making it to the national and world stage, partly because I really like a lot of the stuff they produce, and partly because I realize that not everything Canadian artists wish to procude will appeal to the American market, so as long as production decisions are based on an American market, the Canadian artists and I will be missing out.

I agree that this is a grab for funding, for a web presence costs next to nothing, and on the internet there really is no such thing as being burried in foreign content, for everything that is out there is equally out there – there simply isn’t the bottleneck that there is with radio/TV chanels. Regardless of what funds are put into developing a Canadian arts presence on the internet, it still will be subject to the problem of searches primarily coming up with American content. The trick will be to produce extremely good Canadian content, make it available and promote it, and the let it float to the top.

As you can tell, I support increased arts funding, internet or not. To me the internet is just another distribution chanel, and one that I particularly like.

They want to charge me more for internet to fund stuff i have no interest in? Absolutely against it. Even if they ended up producing something i like being forced to pay for it if i want the internet is absurd. Let the artists fund their own projects like everyone else.

Ya. What Rick said.

This comes up every now and again, the last time was when Sheila Copps thought up the bright idea to make every Canadian web site bilingual. I would agree that its a money grab, hopefully it will get shot down as previous attempts.

Declan

Do Canucks have to pay for a TV license (actually a license to receive broadcasts, which covers the internet too) as we in the UK do? If so, then you’re already funding Canadian TV.

No, we don’t. A portion of our taxes do go to the CBC, but I have no idea how much. We have commercial TV for the most part.

I am totally against this money grab, by the way. Although I agree with the content laws, they are for broadcasters.

There’s no regulation being proposed so far as I can tell, just a money grab in the form of a levy on internet access.

I’m opposed. There was a ghost of an argument for Cancon rules for radio/TV, given the economies of scale resulting from market access north of the border vs south of the border. On the internet, everyone has access to a global market. If you can’t make it with that kind of market access, try harder.

It’s about time we got rid of this tax black hole. From the CRTCweb cite:

“Spectrum utilization:” Jesus Christ.

It looks like it’s shaping up to be a battle over money, regardless of how much the arts community claims it wants to avoid being buried in foreign content. Note, however, that the word of the day is “immersed.” From today’s Globe and Mail:

But ISPs saw it differently:

Poking around on the Globe’s blog on this matter finds user comments, none of which support the arts community. What might the average Canadian Internet user’s response be if this content control/cash grab thing somehow manages to pass?

No, spectrum utilization is the important, legitimate part of the CRTC’s mandate. It’s really quite important that the broadcasting, wireless, etc be organized in such a way that we pack as much use as possible into the radio frequencies available. What we need to be rid of is this idea that the CRTC should be in the business of regulating content.

I voted for a Conservative government because this is exactly the type of area in which government should not be involved. I am certain we could abolish the entire CRTC and still survive. The only viable Canadian shows and artists that have any acclaim would have done so without enforcement of the CRTC Canadian content rules. Radio stations play Neil Young, Rush, Guess Who, Bryan Adams, BTO, and the like in order to provide Canadian content. They most likely would play this stuff anyway, but are forced to under the CRTC regulations. So I hear “Takin’ Care Of Business” way more than I’d like, but I’ll bet rock stations around the world also play this “gem” from time to time.

I think I’ll write to my MP with some thoughts on this actually. Perhaps you other hosers should do the same?

Agreed. It’s the wording that bugs me. If you read the text on the website it’s all very verbose and grandiose. I get the feeling they’re trying to affirm a reason for their existence.