Tuesday, February 14, 2012Cloudy -1°C
Tech

CRTC Considers Placing a 'Made in Canada' Stamp on Internet Content

Posted by Brady Yauch / February 19, 2009

crtc regulating internet contentEvery once in a while a debate erupts with implications that extend far beyond the topic at hand. The current CRTC hearings are a perfect example.

The CRTC is entertaining the idea put forth by Canadian cultural groups that it should introduce content regulations on the internet and new media. It's also considering establishing a fund to help promote Canadian content. This, the groups argue, will ensure Canadian voices will continue to have voice on both the domestic and the international virtual stage.

While this debate certainly concerns the country as a whole, it's particularly important for Toronto, as the city continues to be one of the leading media centers both in Canada and North America. According to government statistics, the city ranks 3rd in TV and film production and 2nd as an exporter of TV programming in North America. A recent report from the Toronto Film and Television Office says production companies spent more than $791 million filming on location in Toronto in 2007.

Sounds great. But, those numbers don't tell the whole story.

In recent years, the city's film and production industry has been in steady decline, partly because of the strong Canadian dollar and the 2007 writers strike. What those two factors highlight is the local industry's dependence on foreign companies - with close to $300 million of 2007's production revenue coming from U.S. companies. One way to possibly loosen the dependence of Toronto's film and production industry on American companies is to support local content. As many readers know, the CRTC already does this through a number of programs and grants - most notably in the $242-million Canadian Television Fund.

Yet, for the last ten years, the CRTC has refused to enter the new media ring, allowing the market to evolve without the 'invisible hand' of government interference. But that might be about to change.

The Globe and Mail reported Stephen Waddell, executive director of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) telling the CRTC that "in our view, if the CRTC doesn't give some opportunity to Canadian content to have a place on that platform, we're going to be immersed in non-Canadian content."

On top of seeking new regulations for online content, ACTRA and other cultural groups want the CRTC to implement regulations forcing Internet service providers to hand over about 3 percent of their subscriber revenue - or about $100 million - to a fund that would help create Canadian programs for the web. They believe the Internet has evolved to point where it should be treated the same as other media platforms like radio, TV and the recording industry.

The ISPs scoff at the idea. They say any such regulation would simply be passed on to the consumer, resulting in more expensive internet bills. Plus, they're not even sure the CRTC has the ability to implement such a tax. We can expect a war of words between the two sides.

The CRTC's decision could potentially have an enormous financial and cultural impact on Toronto (not to mention Vancouver, as Canada's other major English speaking film and production hotbed). The city is already home to a number of digital production companies (I used to work for one), meaning a sizable chunk of money from the proposed fund would likely find its way to Toronto.

But this issue has implications far beyond simply finding a way to support Canadian content in the new media industry. The most important question is: Should the government start regulating Internet content? Isn't the major attraction of media on the web its wild-west nature, where those companies offering the most innovative products rise above the rest? The typical problems associated with traditional media (like high entry costs) are vastly mitigated when it comes to putting content online; this allows for greater competition and more choice for consumers. Are we ready to exchange the free-for-all nature of the web in order to support home-grown talent?

Also, in the face of the global economic downturn, politicians and analysts have been warning against the rising tide of protectionism - with a number MPs in Ottawa attacking the 'Buy American' clauses in the recent U.S. stimulus plan. Isn't this another form of protectionism? If it is, then we must be prepared for other countries to enact similar policies for their new media industries. And if they do, it may contribute further to the drowning out of Canadian content on the web.

What looks like a simple plan to help foster Canadian content on the web may result in the opening of a political and cultural Pandora's box. One major hurdle for the CRTC is how to actually enforce the regulation. One solution proposed is to ensure any media site hosted in Canada contains a certain percentage of domestic content. I doubt the feasibility of this idea, as it would create a regulatory nightmare, forcing the government to continually monitor web activity.

In response to calls from the cultural groups to regulate content, a recent CBC article quoted CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein saying, "we are not in that universe anymore, yet you are asking me to regulate based on that old model." I think that's an apt description of the situation. Policy makers are looking for new and innovative ways to adapt to the Internet--similar to the way traditional print and broadcast companies are being forced to alter their business models. Implementing regulations that worked for a previous era may be insufficient or backwards in today's climate.

Photo by Pete, member of the blogTO Flickr Pool.

Discussion

20 Comments

Davedavedave / February 19, 2009 at 03:15 pm
user-pic
"ACTRA and other cultural groups want the CRTC to implement regulations forcing Internet service providers to hand over about 3 percent of their subscriber revenue - or about $100 million - to a fund that would help create Canadian programs for the web."

THIS is what this is all about - money. These groups want free money from Canadians, whether we are interested in the content or not. How on earth are they proposing to enforce Can-con on the internet anyway? Will a timer pop up on your computer and say "Sorry, you owe 1.5 hours of Canadian content watching - please view 'Being Erica' now."

If the CRTC were really interested in 'protecting' Canadian consumers they would champion net neturality.....but they aren't.
Brook / February 19, 2009 at 03:27 pm
user-pic
Of course the 3% Internet tax will be passed on to end-users. You ride a unicorn to work if you think the cable/satellite companies aren't passing on the costs of the Canadian Television Fund. Decry the tax a just another bill hike during tough times, if you like. That makes sense.
I for one am not that bothered by paying 3% more to have $100 million put into media and arts jobs. That sounds like a stimulus package that could possibly entertain me (as opposed to an auto sector bailout), and won't leave the government in a deficit.

Trying to regulate/enforce can-con viewing, however, is a pretty untenable notion.
GDH / February 19, 2009 at 04:15 pm
user-pic
Dumb idea. So naturally the CRTC is all over it.

"'invisible hand' of government interference" - well that's an original use of that metaphor.
Mike W / February 19, 2009 at 04:40 pm
user-pic
I don't understand, the ACTRA union wants the CRTC to make me pay ACTRA union members?

And money will make them better?
Steve / February 19, 2009 at 04:41 pm
user-pic
This is just another tax, a regressive one at that.

If it is worth subsidizing Canadian programs (a debatable point), then do it transparently through the tax system by increasing income taxes to pay for it. That way, at least, the "rich" pay more.

By the way, my 15-year old daughter has posted more than 70 videos on YouTube. Will she get a cheque?
Mark Dowling / February 19, 2009 at 05:18 pm
user-pic
Is blogto, spacing and torontoist going to get some of this money?
Hell - if I restart posting on my blog can I haz some CRTC dollars?

(I had some Being Erica snark in this comment but saw Davedavedave got their first)
Sean / February 19, 2009 at 05:52 pm
user-pic
Imagine if the CRTC forcing us to eat Canadian 'content' poutine every day?

Sometimes I eat Tex-Mex, Italian and Chinese food. Will I have to pay extra because it's not Canadian content? NO to that and NO to the CRTC. The only way to fight back back is to write to the CRTC and say NO!

Live theatre employs Canadian actors, all acting in foreign owned plays here in Toronto! Tax the actors sucking up to Dirty Dancing, Sound of Music, Twelve Angry Men, etc.
Disparishun / February 19, 2009 at 05:56 pm
user-pic
<i>Sometimes I eat Tex-Mex, Italian and Chinese food. Will I have to pay extra because it's not Canadian content? </i>

Actually, Sean, it <i>is</i> Canadian content. Unless, of course, you're flying in your meals from the States (or Italy, or China) -- in which case, yeah, I'd say you'll be paying extra!
undergrounded / February 19, 2009 at 06:09 pm
user-pic
the net is the great equalizer. Folks don't flock to content because it's American, or run away from it because it's Canadian, they just watch it if its good. There's no need for the CRTC to regulate can-con for the internet because all the usual obstacles of competing against American programming (poor time slots, few promotional dollars, etc.) are erased. The net is a level playing field for good content.

This is about making money in a changing industry, and it's existing members asking for dough to keep things the same.

Actors, writers and producers should try busking over the summer to remind them what they need to do to connect to audiences (If they don't already). Get out from behind their desks and the cameras to remember what it takes to really engage someone.

Cable companies and internet providers need to remember that without content, they cease to exist, and pony up.

Traditional networks need to die. Pack it in and turn into monied production companies churning out local product.

Mark / February 19, 2009 at 07:14 pm
user-pic
Not only is this attempting to close the proverbial barn door after the horse has bolted, but the barn has also burned down!
montrealshorts / February 19, 2009 at 08:44 pm
user-pic
"in our view, if the CRTC doesn't give some opportunity to Canadian content to have a place on that platform, we're going to be immersed in non-Canadian content."

Oh my god what a self serving load of shit.

That argument is the death rattle of a group of people who are desperately clinging to a bygone understanding of Canada, media, the world.



Christopher / February 19, 2009 at 09:08 pm
user-pic
Um. yeah..... So let me get this straight.
The mighty CRTC, which allowed the sale of CityTV and ensured even less competition and choice for Canadians is now trying to make certain that we have Canadian contents assurances for the NET?
Just how in the hell are they going to do that? The same way they've ensured that there is sufficient Canadian content on the television. Hell, even CBC now broadcasts Jeopardy.
Spare me!!!!
MattDev / February 19, 2009 at 10:32 pm
user-pic

Having recently moved back from the UK I'm having a hard time getting over the state of the 'net here.

The 'neutrality' of the internet, which might favour Canada, is currently hindering us. We consume vast amounts of mediocre content from around the world and seem to have little ambition for our own content or information.

I really fail to see what ACTRA is doing having an active role in the future of Canadian content on the web. It's horse dealers setting the rules for the car industry. There are probably some tweaks to be made when it comes to audio video content rules but if streaming 'Being Erica' is the future of online CanCon then we're all in trouble.

What we need - and what a government grant system is never going to create - is more Club Penguins and Flickrs. Great ideas are best funded by venture capitalists not policy suits.

We also need a better CBC. The BBC website has a clear mandate to push boundaries and be ad-free. The CBC has pockets of brilliance in spite of being underfunded and relying on an American company to sell its advertising.

We should be willing to pay more for our content. It's part of who we are and is a critical part of our society and economy. The CRTC (or whoever) should be taxing us or the service providers who deliver us content. That money should go to make an ad-free CBC website and grants to pay for organizing advertising exchanges and paying Information Architects, UX & SEO experts so that the fabric of our sites can compete internationally. They should also create a big pot of capital and let venture capitalists bid to manage the fund's investment in start-ups. Finally, seeing as advertisers invest over $1 billion a year online there should be attempts to regulate the buying and selling of ads to Canadian IPs.
Adam / February 19, 2009 at 10:53 pm
user-pic
Shouldn't something this stupid just spur a referendum to send the CRTC and the geniuses that spawned this Titanic towards their self-perpetuated doom? This is what passes as good government spending? I hope to hear about some senior-level lay-offs in the CRTC mighty soon.
warmflash / February 19, 2009 at 11:53 pm
user-pic
At this point, the Gov't should do us all a favor, save us all billions and shut down the CRTC.
Chris replying to a comment from GDH / February 19, 2009 at 11:56 pm
user-pic
Yeah, "The Invisible Hand" is economist Adam Smith's term to describe free market forces. The government's hand is anything but invisible. So, I think you've just used the term in the exact-opposite context.

Does anyone else think the CRTC should not only stay out of online affairs, but back out of Radio and Television altogether? I think any institution that would systemically promote Nickelback is a WAY BAD idea.
Chris replying to a comment from Christopher / February 20, 2009 at 12:13 am
user-pic
Regarding the CRTC's effectiveness, and the sale of CityTV...

First of all, CHUM (who owned CityTV) was a family owned business. And the family decided to sell the business.. and who's to stop them. CTV was most interested in the purchase of City. But the CRTC actually didn't allow the sale of CityTV to CTV. They were worried about media concentration, particularly in news, due to the fact that CTV and City shared the same markets. So, CityTV went to the next bidder... Rogers, who didn't previously own any news channels in CityTV's markets. Whether the CRTC's intervention in this deal is a good or bad thing is up for debate.

As for the CRTC's ability to regulate what airs on CBC...

The fact that the CBC, a tax-funded network, airs SO MUCH American programming, doesn't make me question the relevance of the CRTC, it makes me question that of the CBC. Doesn't the fact that our own tax-funded National Broadcaster needs to air so much US content prove that those are the shows Canadians prefer to watch? Why should my taxes go to fund the purchase of shows I can see on NBC, ABC, or Canada's private CTV? It's preposterous.
MattDev replying to a comment from Chris / February 20, 2009 at 12:49 am
user-pic
Chris - I think there's an alternative explanation to why the CBC has so much US content. It's possible it's because Canadians prefer it. Or it could be that the CBC has mostly failed to create a Canadian alternative. Failing to make something good doesn't necessarily mean that people don't want it. There are public broadcasters that succeed at making popular, high-quality content (e.g. the BBC or CBC radio).
Brady / February 20, 2009 at 09:04 am
user-pic
"Yeah, 'The Invisible Hand' is economist Adam Smith's term to describe free market forces. The government's hand is anything but invisible. So, I think you've just used the term in the exact-opposite context.

That was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek comment. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Glad to see so many people are as interested in this topic as I am.
Valerie / February 20, 2009 at 09:11 am
user-pic
Thank you for this post. I was starting to think I was nuts.

It's been kind of amazing how after years of whining about the ways Cancon requirements have been implemented (the implementation, not the requirements themselves or the motivations behind them), suddenly people are saying they've been so fantastic for other forms of media, certainly they must be applied to "new media".

While I'm no cheerleader for the CRTC, I'm actually heartened by their healthy skepticism for the idea that the old models can apply. Certainly they played a big part in setting up those models (and helping create the ISP/multimedia monsters folks want funding from), but they do seem very concerned about applying them in this scenario, where unlike radio and tv, Canadian new media (especially not directly related to traditional media content) did not start out at an inherent disadvantage. It's early days yet - we'll see if truly new models (or non-models) can emerge.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal