Is it just me, or does the CRTC seem to be on a loop like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day?
It really wasn’t that long ago (1999) when Canada’s federal broadcast regulator studied the Internet and decided — in what can only be termed a blatantly obvious decision — that they won’t regulate the Internet. (Although, just for snits and giggles, it would have been fun to watch them try.)
Enter 2008. And just hours ago, the CRTC announced it would study… wait for it!… “the new media envirornment in Canada!” [sfx fanfare] This seems to have emerged from their previous study called the New Media Project Initiative, which was established to “highlight changes [to yet another, previous study] since 2006.”
The product of which… I think, I’m kind of getting lost here… is this morning’s call for comments about how new media intersects with broadcasting.
“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,” said the CRTC Chairperson. “Our intention is not to regulate new media, but rather 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.”
To be clear… (from a CBCnews.ca article)
The commission in 1999 decided against regulating broadcasting over the internet because it was still in a fledgling state, and issued a similar decision in 2007 on cellphones. However, because the pace of technological change has been so rapid, the CRTC said it is now time to review its role. [emphasis added]
The Commission wants to hear your opinions.
You have until July 11 to send your comments online, faxing 819-994-0218, or through their web site launched today to collect comments at http://crtc.newmedia.econsultation.ca.
|
Comments below | See also: The CRTC, The Media Landscape |
| Email this | Posted at 12:16 pm (15 May 2008) |
The tone of this posts suggests that it would be foolish for the CRTC to even consider regulating the internet yet I would submit how is it any different from television or radio?
How is video or radio that uses the internet to transport packets any different from video or radio that uses transmissions towers or co-axial cable?
Digital Cable uses Internet protocols to deliver its signal to homeowners. HD over the air signals also use internet technologies to deliver signals, so we regulate radio and television, then we should also regulate the internet.
For what its worth, I don’t think the CRTC should be regulating television, radio or the internet since the real difference is the delivery mechanism, not the content.
The Internet, on the other hand, has no such finite limit. — Tod
The Internet definitely has a finite limit, and ISPs worldwide are scrambling to impose caps on what were previously billed as unlimited user accounts. This is actually relevant to the CRTC, because it’s almost completely due to the recent increase in popularity of streaming video (though of course, p2p is the scapegoat).
Obviously, if the CRTC mandate was just to manage the radio spectrum, this wouldn’t be relevant, and they should butt out. But they also have a cultural mandate, so if TV is moving to online (whether live or on-demand), they have to at least look at it and see if they can apply that part of said mandate in a world where media is unicast (there has to be a better term than this) over TCP/IP rather than broadcast OTA or via cable. It’s perfectly reasonable if you ask me.
Tod, most digital television stations don’t use broadcast spectrum so that throws out your argument. Category 2 and 3 stations are only available on satellite and cable. And honestly, how many people actually get their television signals from over the air?
Even so, compression techniques could and intelligent use of the broadcast spectrum could dramatically increase the amount of stations that could broadcast within the current allotment. Even in Toronto, with the use of digital technologies, we’d have no problem having many more stations.
If it becomes clogged then you could reserve some spectrum for essential channels and sell the rest to the highest bidder.
Hugh, I still get my TV signals over the air. There are more of us out there than you think! Why else are TV stations starting to broadcast over-the-air HD?
How many more stations do we need anyhow? There are only so many people with so many hours in the day to watch TV. I imagine that more channels means the viewing audience is divided into smaller parts per channel, it gets harder for individual channels to make money.
The Big Snit,
Did you purposely replace the H with an N? I know this isn’t looking at the heart of your post but this saying is one that has always perplexed me and your variation is of no help. Can you enlighten me?
Yours, Mr Giggles
Lorraine, Global began broadcasting over the air HD just prior to the SuperBowl. Why? So they could force the satellite and cable distributors to simulcast the big game. Had they not put up HD OTA transmitters, they would not have been able to force the issue.
As far as how many stations do we need? I don’t know but I say let the viewers decide. We don’t limit the number of websites so if space is available why limit the number of television stations?
15 percent get TV over the air, going to 40 percent in Quebec. CRTC/Statcan