THE SYSTEM Greg Diamond – ByrnesMedia Since his appointment at the start of the year, CRTC Chair, Konrad von Finckenstein, has been a pleasant surprise with his more open, dialogue-based approach coupled with clear intent when enforcing existing statutes. For that we applaud him. Now, he has set his sights on tackling the issue his predecessors were reluctant to touch – new media. The outcome of his plans could be anything from: A. charting a new path for the Canadian broadcast and telecom industries for decades to come; or B. rendering the regulator itself largely irrelevant.
Mr. von Finckenstein outlined the “New Media Project Initiative” in a recent speech at the Broadcasting Invitational Summit where leaders from all interested parties were in attendance and he rightly recognized that, “There is no more important matter facing the Commission, nor does any other matter have such long-term consequences.”
The question he asked is simple in intent, but extraordinarily profound in its implications – “Should we attempt to regulate new media?”
He went on to say, “For us at the CRTC, the guiding principle in our approach to new media will be exactly the same one that we have followed in our approach to traditional media: to regulate as effectively as we can to further the two primary goals of the Broadcasting Act – Canadian content and access to the system for all Canadians, whether as audiences or as participants.”
It was those last few words that struck me the most – “whether as audiences or as participants.” That statement (conundrum, actually) will undoubtedly be the wrestling point in this endeavour. After all, in a new media environment, the audiences ARE the participants.
What can the Commission do to place legislation on media that is geographically blind?
University of Ottawa law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Michael Geist (michaelgeist.ca), argues, “that two pillars of Canadian cultural policy need to be reconsidered.”
First, the "walled garden" approach that promotes Canadian content by limiting access to foreign content is increasingly being surpassed by technologies that provide universal access to near-unlimited content regardless of the country of origin. Conventional broadcasters may rely on "geo-gating" technologies that seek to replicate offline borders on the Internet, yet the growth of user-generated content and the ready availability of technologies that by-pass porous electronic borders render content requirements almost meaningless in the new media environment.
Second, the emergence of the Internet as the cheapest and most effective distribution platform in the world points to the need to rethink Canadian funding programs. Many programs and policies (foreign investment restrictions, tax credits, movie co-production treaties) are geared chiefly to support either the production or distribution of Canadian content, which was once viewed as the primary barrier to global success for the culture industries. To date, far less attention has been paid to creation, marketing, and access side of Canadian content, yet in the Internet world that is precisely where support is most needed.
Mr. Geist, as always, makes valid points.
His mention of “geo-gating” coupled with the term “geo-blocking”, which Mr. von Finckenstein referenced in his speech, could be a cause for concern as this project progresses.
I asked analyst and blogger, Matt Roberts (mattroberts.com), to weigh in on this topic and he did so with great insight.
In geo-blocking, Mr. von Finkenstein was referring to protecting Canadian media’s dissemination of content outside of Canada. In these terms the CBC has already done this. The most recent example I can think of was when the CBC put up live streaming of the NHL hockey games and subsequently blocked access to foreign IP addresses. Canadians traveling were unable to access the content and foreigners in Canada were able to access content. The BBC is, or has been, going to implement something similar for their local users (who ostensibly already pay for the service) and foreign listeners/viewers like myself. They're hoping to let it be 'geography independent' meaning a Brit in Canada still gets access. This is a DRM-like initiative and we'll probably be seeing more of this, not less. I'm not sure why the CRTC sees the need to be involved here, technology for this type of media is coming along and in many ways if you put it on the web in any form you have to expect that people will try to circumvent any dissemination limitations. For example, I know of people who were traveling in the Middle East during the playoffs using their Corporate VPN's to fool the CBC into letting them watch the streamed games.
The 'geo-gating' Michael was referring to would be the opposite (in some senses) from 'geo-blocking.' In that it would prevent Canadians from possibly viewing content from foreign jurisdictions within Canada, think “Great Firewall of China” for a worst case scenario. This could also restrict access based on time zone, provinces etc. This could be by my reckoning a Net Neutrality issue, though if you own the content how you choose to limit access to it is your own business, Michael might disagree. If you are essentially limiting foreign services’ competitive abilities of getting to the Canadian Network, I'd have a problem with that. I would be surprised if this were not legislated away by the CRTC though they might try to use something like it to protect Canadian Media. I think this, as Michael believes, can be dangerous. But again, I don't see this as an issue.
Mr. Roberts and Mr. Geist show just how far-reaching this matter really is. In my mind, the real issue is that neither one are broadcasters. That fact is, the vast majority of people in our industry are woefully unaware and, thus, unprepared for this coming debate.
Traditional media should be taking a lead role with new media technology, but that has not been the case. It will be our ability to learn and use these new avenues in concert (or in place of) our current models, which will secure our long term health as an industry. We need to stop paying so much attention to things out of our control like satellite radio and go back to exploring areas where we still have opportunity for leadership. For instance, while L-band digital radio may be dead, Industry Canada has indicated that under certain guidelines it will allow testing of IBOC technology and has already been doing so with the CBC in both Toronto and Peterborough.
Further, in March of this year, the CRTC’s Michel Arpin, spoke to North American broadcasters in Mexico City and was quoted as saying, “Our new digital radio policy allows licensees to propose the technology or technologies they believe will be the most appealing to the listening public. The policy now states that, if they want, broadcasters can implement IBOC HD radio for their AM or FM stations.” American broadcasters have already jumped on that bandwagon to varying degrees of success, but the fact they are on the bandwagon at all is to their credit. So, with the door apparently open, when can we expect large-scale IBOC HD rollout in Canada?
It doesn’t take an enormous effort to get up to speed on the technology front. There is a vast amount of information on these topics. For example, Google “Internet Radio” and you will receive 433,000,000 links. Try the same with “Wi-Fi” and the result is 209,000,000. If anything, the over-abundance of material could hamper the process – if that happens, then take the easiest route and just ask your kids!
If you still feel this is a situation that will ‘sort itself out’ and won’t really affect you, then I urge you to read the following excerpt from a recent article by respected PC Magazine columnist, John C. Dvorak.
The key to understanding Internet radio is the fact that it can exactly mimic transmitter-based terrestrial and satellite broadcast radio in terms of content and style. Internet radio has three huge advantages over transmitter-based distribution, which will absolutely spell the eventual doom of traditional radio.
REACH - By its nature, the Internet can distribute the "signal" or show around the world to every nook and cranny. And it can do it while providing high quality at each locale.
ON DEMAND - Because the product has to run through servers anyway, there is an on-demand aspect to Internet radio that cannot be duplicated by transmitter-based radio without the use of ancillary TiVo-like equipment. And there are no such devices available. Internet radio can stream in real time or be obtained on demand as needed. You can listen to what you want when you want. This is a big competitive advantage.
LOW COST - The death blow, though, always comes down to money. The expense of streaming over the Internet is a fraction of what transmitter-based broadcasting costs. There is no big antenna, no transmitters, no special studios. Nothing within reason can change this metric.
This same argument could be made about TV, with IPTV being the future of TV distribution. Internet radio will pioneer this transition of media to the Net, if for no other reason than it got a head start.
So, you have to wonder: When will the last terrestrial transmitter get turned off? Well, this sort of thing never happens overnight, but certainly by 2020.
A sobering passage to be sure, although I don’t agree with everything Mr. Dvorak is saying. For example, Internet radio doesn’t “exactly mimic” terrestrial radio’s market-centricity, but that’s not to say it can’t direct itself to a specific geographical area and won’t do so in the future (to be fair, there are some examples of this already in existence). If that market-specific content was then coupled with wireless technology like Wi-FI or Wi-Max, then Internet Radio becomes much more “traditional” in its form and the portability advantage of terrestrial radio suddenly disappears.
Will transmitters go the way of the dinosaurs at some point in the future? That’s a question that has been asked repeatedly over the decades, but digital technology is progressing at such a pace that more and more validity should be attributed to that query. Remember, it really wasn’t that long ago that a satellite was just the idea of a science fiction writer.
In many respects, the CRTC’s “New Media Project Initiative” is actually an exercise in playing catch-up and it is incumbent on each of us to do the same and become better educated so when the time comes we have the informed foresight to add meaningfully to a discourse with such significance.
In short, “the system” will change - let’s make the most of this opportunity and make our voices heard in the process. |