WHO WILL RID US OF THESE MEDDLESOME PRIESTS?

The CRTC is thinking of regulating the internet. Seriously. It’s even going to hold…

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, May 16, 2008 10:54pm - 0 Comments

The CRTC is thinking of regulating the internet. Seriously. It’s even going to hold hearings — sorry, a “consultation” — on the matter. And while CRTC commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein claims “our intention is not to regulate the internet,” it wouldn’t be the CRTC if it didn’t have regulation very much in mind.

So when von F. says “new digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn’t exist a few years ago,” and when he adds that the purpose of the exercise is “to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives,” you just know where this is headed.

Hence the series of innocent “questions” the regulator would like to address takes on a very sinister hue indeed:

  • What is broadcasting in new media?
  • Should the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content for the new media environment be supported? If so, how?
  • Are there any barriers to accessing Canadian broadcasting content in the new media environment?
  • What other issues should be considered?

Now, not even the CRTC is addle-headed enough to think of regulating every little blogger in cyberspace, or the thousands of other sites that are producing oodles of Canadian content on their own, even without the miracle of government “support.” It’s the old media in the new media you can imagine the regulator getting its hooks into — the Canwests and the CTVglobemedias. After all, you can just bet someone at the commission is going to say, we already regulate what they broadcast on the network. Doesn’t it just make sense that we should also regulate what they broadcast over the ‘net?

And this is where this all gets very scary. Television has been a regulated sector since the start, with predictably dreary results. The nation’s magazines, while (hitherto) unregulated as to content, have descended into a similar state of decrepitude, thanks to their clinical dependence on state subsidy. But newspapers have until lately been the exception, or as much of an exception as you get in this country (we still prohibit foreigners from owning Canadian newspapers, though Canadian plutocrats have a proud record of rescuing other countries’ newspapers.)

That was already in some peril, thanks to the trend toward cross-ownership of newspapers by broadcasters of recent years. If the government could not pressure the newspapers directly, it could do so indirectly, by threatening trouble for their owners’ broadcast interests. And if you don’t think that’s possible in this country, you haven’t been paying attention.

But now suppose the CRTC gets into regulating the ‘net in support of Canadian content and other good things. Is it going to regulate what CTVglobemedia puts up on its CTV site, and not on its Globe and Mail site? Will it impose quotas on globalnational.com but not on nationalpost.com? Not on your André Bureau.

This has got to be stopped, now. Once upon a time the Conservatives talked about trimming the CRTC’s powers back to such rudimentary tasks as auctioning spectrum and the like. I realize that was, like, two whole years ago, but at this point it’s an open question who’s the bigger threat to press freedom in this country, the human rights commissions or the CRTC.

UPDATE: You think I’m just imagining things? Have a read of this graf from the Ottawa Citizen‘s account

The outcome of the hearing, which is expected late 2009, could eventually limit Canadians’ access to online broadcasters and Internet-based radio stations. It may also see a levy charged to Internet service providers to pay for the creation of more Canadian content online.

Or if you really want to give yourself a fright, scroll through the CRTC’s compilation of “stakeholder views” on the subject. 

Bookmark and Share
  • http://postgeographic.wordpress.com Padraic

    I guess you’re not a fan of net neutrality?

  • KK

    Restrictions will result in bias, not neutrality. Only the freedom of content/opinion gives a fair representation of all sides.

  • Marie-Claire

    However, there are people in the world who take anything in print as fact. Those people deserve neutrality. On a tangent… Is i just me, or has newspaper reporting fallen far belows tandard? Whilst cleaning out my grandparent attic, I came across stacks of newspapers from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. IN those articles, reporters strived for accuracy and good description. Now, i t seems as if they’re all frustrated editorialists.

  • http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

    To “regulate” the Internet successfully, you have to physically block traffic to those sites deemed inadmissible, and potentially use deep packet inspection technologies to ensure that allowed traffic is meeting muster.

    If you think Bells throttling of BitTorrent traffic is wrong, imagine if the government started doing it to enforce notions of cultural purity….

    The internet is NOT regulatable (ugh what an ugly word), its very design and structure do not permit it. On the Internet, everyone is a provider and a consumer, unlike television where the distinction is clearly defined. If the CRTC governed content on MSM sites only, all the MSM would have to do is host the “unallowed” content on a third party and provide a link (embedded or otherwise). Presto, CRTC regulations are circumvented!

    So again, the only way to “regulate” the internet and control content is to inspect and monitor traffic from every single connection within Canadian borders and the international links across our borders.

    You know, kind of like China…

  • John

    “However, there are people in the world who take anything in print as fact. Those people deserve neutrality.”

    …and there’s the real heart of the question–do fools that take anything in print as fact deserve protection?

  • Marie-Claire

    Fools they may be, but it does nobody any good to have an ill-informed electorate.

  • Serge

    You think I’m just imagining things? Have a read of this graf from the Ottawa Citizen’s account

    Well, then it must be true!

    The internet is NOT regulatable (ugh what an ugly word), its very design and structure do not permit it.

    You, um, don’t really quite understand those Interwebs, huh?

    On the Internet, everyone is a provider and a consumer, unlike television where the distinction is clearly defined

    Oh, for sure. Today I read twelve Web pages, created four Web megasites, recorded a half-dozen Webisodes, and produced and uploaded sixteen music albums for downloading. You?

  • http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

    Buddy, I’m a network admin for a trans national corporation.

    I manage traffic flow and content management to ensure corporate goals on the WAN and the Internet are met. In other words, I do in my career what I’m talking about.

    My point is, you don’t HAVE to provide content. But you CAN. By posting your opinion to this here post kinda confirms my point. Since anyone can post content, the MSM would be able to use anyone to get around any CRTC regulations. CTV could surrogate to ABC and redirect visitors there, as a simple example. How would the CRTC regulate that? By preventing Canadians from going to ABC’s site?

    How would the CRTC prevent CTV from posting that link? Censor their web content? Have Hareper’s Information Czar approve content before it is publicly posted?

    Again the only way to meet any of those objectives is to inspect and control all Internet traffic within and crossing Canadian borders.

  • http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

    I should add, the whole Net Neutrality debate arose because CBC used BitTorrent to distribute content.

    That meant that individuals were consumers and content providers at the same.

  • http://andrewcoyne.com Andrew Coyne

    Catelli, you’re missing the point. It’s not a matter of whether they can regulate the ‘Net directly, in a technical sense. All they need is the power to make trouble for the broadcasters in their existing businesses. As long as that’s the cast, the networks will meekly comply with whatever directives the CRTC sees fit to issue.

  • http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

    Being a techie, I see it otherwise. I see it as the whole point. But of course I would. ;)

    Lets go with two assumptions here, one that the Internet is ready as a capable broadcast medium. (Which it isn’t yet, in North America at least). The second is that the CRTC passes some sort of Canadian Content regulations that encompasses Canadian media companies.

    So whats a CTV or CanWest to do? Simple, set up a company offshore, lease some servers and an Internet connection, and ka-bam! they have a legal means to distribute content to Canadian citizens. (I’m not going to get into the revenue model, as that’s whole other ball of wax). They don’t even have to staff those offices. They can run that company from within Canada, billing back resources. It just becomes a shell game (a legal one).

    But say the companies obey the spirit of the law and don’t attempt end-runs around it. So what? The consumer still wins. We just don’t get our content from Canadian media companies. We go steal it, subscribe to it or buy it outright from foreign firms. With the global nature of the Internet, there’s no controls to stop this.

    End-result, the spirit of Canadian content regulation dies. The consumer chooses what they want, irregardless of the bureaucrats trying to force feed into the Canadian consciousness.

    There’s a natural conclusion of all this. When the Internet supplants traditional broadcast mediums, consumers will no longer be bound to what their “local” providers choose to offer. At that point, Canadian companies can no longer just buy someone else’s production and rebroadcast it. The consumer will be cutting out the middle man, and going direct to the source. So to survive, Canadian companies will HAVE to invest in their own content, whether for the domestic or the international audience. They can no longer rely on American companies doing it for them. The final irony is, the spirit of Canadian content will win out as Canadian companies struggle to produce quality content for their target audiences. But the CRTC will die a quick death of irrelevance. And that gives me something to cheer about.

  • http://mikeanddean.blogspot.com Dean P

    Marie-Claire:

    All the more reason to have a qualification test for suffrage. Pass a test, have a higher degree, or own a certain amount of property.

  • Marie-Claire

    Yes, because 40% of the population NOT voting just isn’t high enough.

Next

From Macleans