Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents

Canadian ISPs avoid “Canadian content” regulations

Canada's telecoms regulator has concluded that Internet audio and video does …

The Canadian government has worried for some time about the possibility of having its creative industries squeezed into oblivion by competitive pressure from Hollywood and elsewhere. To support homegrown content, the government offers money to content creators and uses regulation to mandate that certain amounts of Canadian content end up on TV. But what happens when broadcasting moves onto the Internet?

That was the question confronting the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which was facing pressure to set up a levy system on ISPs to help fund Canadian Internet audio and video content. The CRTC today decided not to adopt the levy proposal, though, and also voted not to regulate broadcast content on the Internet (read the complete report).

Internet broadcasting has had a special regulatory exemption since 1999, but some cultural groups and content creators argued that it was time to apply the same standards that govern TV to Internet broadcasting. ISPs were totally opposed to the plan, which would in some ways regulate them like traditional broadcasters.

Since late 2008, the CRTC has been examining the issue, especially the contentious claim that ISPs should start paying their "fair share" to create Canadian content. "With respect to the source of the funding for the creation of such a fund, certain parties, including creative unions, guilds and producers, argued that ISPs and wireless service providers (WSPs), to the extent that they deliver broadcasting content, are an important part of the broadcasting system in Canada," says the new CRTC report. "These parties were of the view that ISPs and WSPs, in their distribution capacity, should be required to contribute to Canadian program creation and exhibition."

But, in the end, the ISPs won out. "While broadcasting in new media is growing in importance, we do not believe that regulatory intervention is necessary at this time," said CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein. "We found that the Internet and mobile services are acting in a complementary fashion to the traditional broadcasting system. Any intervention on our part would only get in the way of innovation."

The move was cheered by Google, for one, which said that the "new media" regulatory exemption was the best approach to "keeping the Internet awesome." Canadian law professor Michael Geist concurred, saying, "Overall, the decision to avoid new regulations and levy schemes is a good one."

"New media" was spared regulation this time, but only through an "exemption"—the CRTC still considers Internet video to be "broadcasting" and could therefore remove the exemption at some future date and treat TV and the Internet exactly the same way.

One CRTC Commissioner, Tim Denton, wrote a concurring opinion in which he called the entire Broadcast Act an outdated law that needs to be scrapped. "Commissioners of the CRTC should not be deciding at five-year intervals or less whether massive amounts of personal and corporate communications should be subjected to a comprehensive scheme of prior approval by the state," he wrote. "This is the issue which should be put permanently beyond the reach of the CRTC. It is for this reason especially that steps must be taken to limit the Act to 'broadcasting,' as it is popularly understood, and to leave the Internet to evolve."

Expand full story

10 Reader Comments

  1. Please, CRTC, stop wasting time on stuff nobody cares about and finally and utterly get into it with Bell. Much more pressing for Canadians. We can't get the content if the pipes are clogged!
    992 posts | registered
  2. There are so many more important problems for the CRTC to be dealing with, say the Telecos and their rapacious fee structures. Regulation of the internet? Did their parents not tell them the story of the little dutch boy and the dike?
    110 posts | registered
  3. The article isn't clear: are these "groups" actually asking for China-style regulation of web content? As in, if 80% of my browsing isn't Canadian-based, I'm blocked?
    3794 posts | registered
  4. That's right hoseheads, 2 of the top 10 Google results for any search must now be a Canadian website.

    And at every fifth video will randomly switch to either Bruce Cockburn or Rush.
    4253 posts | registered
  5. "And at every fifth video will randomly switch to either Bruce Cockburn or Rush."

    I'd be down for that, it'll be better then 90% of the content at YouTube that isn't fansubbed anime that's otherwise unavailable to me and my anime freak kids.
    1156 posts | registered
  6. quote:
    Originally posted by DaveSimmons:


    Rush videos? That really would liven up my youtube experience.

    But seriously people, here's the flowchart for what happened:

    Guilds and unions complained to CRTC that Internet broadcasting wasn't contributing to the generation or distribution of Canadian content.

    CRTC responded to their request by investigating thoroghly, which included discussions with other stakeholders, like ISPs

    CRTC came to the conclusion that regulation is unnecessary at this time.

    I'm really happy with how the CRTC handled this to be honest. They responded to the unions/guilds, instead of ignoring them. They did a thorough investigation, and contacted other stakeholders like ISPs and web content distributors. Finally, they reached the right conclusion.
    171 posts | registered
  7. quote:
    Originally posted by rays username:

    Not quite. When applying for a broadcasting license, TV and radio stations are required to air a certain percentage of domestic content; depending on the target market this can mean so many hours of local news, locally-produced sitcoms or documentaries, French-Canadian music on FM stations etc.

    If the CRTC considers Web-streamed content as broadcasts, it literally means that the Canadian-born "stations" would need a license and would be expected to abide by the conditions attached therein. The commission has no jurisdiction outside Canuckistan - obviously - and would/should/could not filter-out anything.

    Or so I hope.
    1002 posts | registered
  8. Forgive me for my deep-rooted opinion, but growing up near enough to Toronto that half the TV channels I got were from Canada, I came to believe it was a massive inferiority complex that caused the content laws. Just like the awards show that has a Best Canadian Movie prize just in case nobody picked one of those for Best Movie.

    When you only have the USA as an alternative, I guess it's OK-ish to say 40% of what you watch should be Canadian to "maintain the culture". However, the Internet gives you the WORLD, and replacing 40% of the *world* with Canadian content just seems downright silly. What, now they're worried that websites from Zimbabwe will make their children become too Zimbabweian?...
    960 posts | registered
  9. Taxpayer money goes to help the Content Creator with Gov't grants, why should we have to pay another tax on our ISP bill to do the same thing.

    Content Creators - If you want your stuff to be watched (even by people outside of Canada) Stop making sucky programs. Trailer Park Boys is known worldwide not because it was forced upon us, but because it's a show people WANT to watch.

    Filling the airways with more chaff just makes it harder to sort out the real Canadian gems.

    Applause for the CRTC on this decision, let's just hope they stick to their guns.
    74 posts | registered
  10. First off, thank whatever God that stopped the CRTC putting some ridiculous law into place for Internet content. Second, they should now start targeting Bell/Rogers crap that is going on in both the cell phone and ISP markets.
    658 posts | registered

You must to comment.