1 of 1- RadioActive
- Moderator
Online! 
Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
The CRTC has been having marathon hearings into updating the Broadcasting Act to the modern era. One of the major proposals is forcing U.S. streamers to produce Canadian Content, which Canuck companies are obligated to spend money on and show here.
You'd think all of the local streaming competition would be interested in making this a level playing field. But apparently not Bell Media. In something of a surprise, the telecom giant isn't in favour of the idea of forcing the Netflixes and Disney+'s of the world to follow suit.
Why? A recent article in Mobile Syrup speculates about the reasons they're taking that somewhat surprising position.
"Bell’s staff mentioned that they don’t think the foreign giants should need to play to the same Canadian content requirements as actual Canadian companies. This is an interesting perspective to hear, suggesting perhaps Bell’s afraid that if Netflix, Prime Video and others need to invest as heavily in Canadian content as Bell does, it will lose access to talent and a successful niche it uses to differentiate itself."
It also opens the door for Bell to claim that alleviating the burden for American streamers means the CRTC should perhaps look at loosening regulations here, as the very definition of "broadcasting" in this country is changing.
Bell Media On The Future Of Canadian Broadcasting
- paterson1
- Member
Offline
Re: Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
Crave has been on a bit of a tear of late. They have over 4 million subscribers now and apparently have seen double digit growth in the past year. Most important, Crave is one of the few streamers that actually makes money. I wonder if they and CBC Gem have benefited from some of the "buy Canada" sentiment that doesn't seem to be trailing off yet.
Top streamer in Canada by far is Netflix, followed by Disney+, Amazon Prime and then Crave. I know of some who have tried Crave and didn't like the service at all. But Crave does offer more current/recent movies than the other streamers. And as the article says, they have cut out a successful niche with their original programming.
Money Genius recently compared the different streamers in Canada and the categories and gendre that they do best...
- Jody Thornton
- Member
Offline
Re: Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
Maybe Bell doesn't want to upset HBO, since most of Crave's content originates on that network.
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
- paterson1
- Member
Offline
Re: Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
Jody Thornton wrote:
Maybe Bell doesn't want to upset HBO, since most of Crave's content originates on that network.
I don't know about most, Crave has a lot from other sources too, including their original productions. I thought the rundown of the different services that I posted was interesting. Netflix seems to be slipping a little and have so much more competition now.
- tdotwriter
- Member
Offline
Re: Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
I honestly don't even think any of these regulations should still be a thing in the age of streaming and quite frankly, it would've been great if this whole old regime had started to substantially unravel in the '90s and '00s when high-power Ku/Ka band "small dish" digital satellite technology made it easy to access subscription and free-to-air satellite TV from other countries, particularly the U.S, even if there are hoops involved to getting access to subscription services (DirecTV & Dish Network) and keeping everything on the up & up. (I do not condone or think well of signal piracy). It is entirely possible to subscribe to an American TV service legitimately using a U.S billing address and bank account.
I'm of the belief that firstly, the internet in general is largely un-regulatable. All it takes is a VPN to circumvent whatever limitations there are that come with connecting to anything domestically available through a Canadian IP address. The way I see it, if "Canadian content" of any kind is of sufficient mass appeal, the industry and the general public alike will seek it out, and there are many case-in-point examples of this. No regulations required.
The main takeaway from that article is towards the end of the "Bell's presentation highlights" section of the article.
"The crux of Bell’s argument is that if there are fewer regulations, all the companies can focus on making the most amount of money from their media empires and with more money, they can make more content to better serve their audience’s needs."
I believe that broadcasting and telecommunication regulation is absolutely necessary to some extent, but what the industry here is burdened with and has been for many years is too much for modern times IMHO. "Broadcasting" in the age of streaming is far more powerful and efficient than it was in the pre-internet and pre-social media age and re-adapting old regulations meant for broadcast radio & TV stations and old-fashioned linear pay TV channels is not the solution to the challenges that our domestic media and entertainment industries face.
Last edited by tdotwriter (June 27, 2025 5:00 pm)
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Why Bell Doesn't Think Foreign Streamers Should Have To Make CanCon
I'm of the belief that firstly, the internet in general is largely un-regulatable. All it takes is a VPN to circumvent whatever limitations there are that come with connecting to anything domestically available through a Canadian IP address. The way I see it, if "Canadian content" of any kind is of sufficient mass appeal, the industry and the general public alike will seek it out, and there are many case-in-point examples of this. No regulations required.
.
Also, as much as consumption is now borderless, so is creation. Remote, multi-location recording/filming/taping is easier and more common than ever -- making the task of determining what is or isn't "Cancon" not only very difficult, but also pointless.