Just a few things.  I think most people would agree that the Broadcasting Act should be updated and include the internet.  Why should the internet be unregulated and given a free pass?  Canada is far from the only country that feels this way. We are not the only place making changes. 
 
The "free wheeling" internet has grown dramatically, changed every aspect of media and has become a multi billion dollar money maker with incredible influence and force.  As with anything as you grow and mature comes more responsibility and obligations.  Time does not stay still and the internet/new media is not the same as it was 20 years ago. Time to grow up.  Self regulation as we see does not seem to work that well and there is no real strong reason why this should happen.
 
Why is it alright on one hand that nothing changes for new media with no regulations only because that 's the way it has always been.  But on the other hand it is fine to have new media literally put traditional operators out of business partially because this older media does have standards, rules and regulations.  The free wheeling internet is not meant to be regulated by it's very nature???  Says who?  Time for the new guys to start contributing and being responsible like every other business. 

GM, Ford, Walmart and many others are US companies operating in Canada.  They do business here, employ many Canadians and make lots of money.   They understood long ago that Canada was a great place to grow and do business. They also understand to operate in another country, you adhere to the laws and regulations of that country, and contribute to the fabric of the society.  It's part of doing business.

Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime, CBS, Apple TV, You Tube, HBO and many others also operate in Canada.  They do business here, employ people, make money here and have Canadian operations that include studios and offices. These companies have also found that Canada is a great place to set up shop and do business.  Why should these businesses get a pass and be unregulated?

The issue of cancon is not a big deal.  Most of the above companies are producing content here, many with Canadian themes and stories with an eye for the international market.  Even better, most are eager to team up with Canadian film studios and broadcasters to produce this material.  Being "discoverable" does not mean it is the first thing you see.  It means that your domestic content is treated the same as everything else and not buried somewhere on your site in a special "Canadian Corner."
                                             

geo wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

    The issue of cancon is not a big deal   

Yes it is.    
 

Not a big deal since it is already happening. And just because there are Canadian films or television shows offered on Netlix doesn't mean you have to watch them.  If you don't want to watch, then don't.  Just like anything else. 

Gonna go off-brand here: they would have died around the same time regardless of Cancon.

In 2022... It's time we grow up a bit in Canada and stop this forced approach to supporting something just because it's Canadian.     I'm all for media owners to support Canadian content financially, and be encouraged to play, air, promote, offer Canadian.   What I have an issue with is the idea that something should get 35 to 40+% airplay, promotion just because it's Canadian.   The market does not want this... The market being Canadians.     In 2022, with people demanding choice, and freedom in what they watch, listen, subscribe to, they should have a choice of having to pay for, watch, listen to Canadian content they did not want to listen, watch or pay for.    This is where CBC should come in..  I have long stood that the CBC should be 100% Canadian.  100% Canadian shows, music and programming on all of their tv, radio and digitial platforms.   This gives choice to Canadians if they choose to watch, listen or whatever and gives free promotion to music, creators, and tv programming.    Commercial broadcasters outside financial support, should only air, offer, promote, what they feel fits and works in their business model.      I don't think you will EVER see 0% Canadian on commercial broadcasters with freedom of regulation... but you will for sure see better fitting offerings.   Some stations will play less like Urban and perhaps top 40... but country and rock, may actually offer more. 

The market place should always be the demand for commercial offerings, but when we start going down the road of controlling what we can and can not do on the internet because it's not Canadian enough, I really think we are becoming more communist in our idea of "FREEDOM" in this country.     

Last edited by radiokid (February 3, 2022 4:49 pm)

I don't know why with some, it's always this fixation with cancon.  "A show that is made using Canadians. often featuring Canadian talent. and shot in Canada.  Just because it's for a US network, why doesn't that count?"

What are you talking about? Of course it counts.  Where did this come from that anything  produced by a US company using Canadian crews, talent, locations somehow doesn't count as cancon?  Why do you think CTV and Global load up their schedules on Friday and Saturday nights with movies shot in Canada?  Are they Canadian stories?  Not usually. Don't the stories need to be about Canada or set in Canada?  No, the same way that US and British productions are not always about things American or British.

Right now there is more cancon being enjoyed around the world on line, on radio, on TV than ever before.
 
Here is the best part, the most popular cancon programming internationally also has been the most Canadian.  Transplant, Coroner. Schitt's Creek. Letterkenny. Degrassi. Private Eyes, Heartland, Flashpoint, Murdoch Mysteries, Nurses, Rookie Blue, Kim's Convenience, Cardinal, Hudson and Rex etc. All set in Canada, and enjoyed worldwide.  And we haven't even touched on the many Canadian children programs, reality shows and home improvement programs that have had international success.   

CBC should be100% Canadian? Well radio pretty much is and CBC TV is 75-80% right now.  So I don't really understand how increasing TV by 20- 25% will make any difference.  And why should private broadcasters have no commitment to any domestic productions? 

The real issue is that many Canadian broadcasters are not very creative, lazy, want to be in the big leagues, but don't want to work for it. The goal is to do as little as possible, spend as little as they can and be given carte blanche with no demands on them even though they have done nothing to earn this. They have forgotten it is a privilege to have a broadcast license and you are a service to the public with responsibilities, not the other way around. 

 

paterson1 wrote:

The real issue is that many Canadian broadcasters are not very creative, lazy, want to be in the big leagues, but don't want to work for it. The goal is to do as little as possible, spend as little as they can and be given carte blanche with no demands on them even though they have done nothing to earn this. 

On that, at least, we agree. The Rogers & Bells of the world want to make tons of money while spending nothing.  

paterson1 wrote:

They have forgotten it is a privilege to have a broadcast license and you are a service to the public with responsibilities, not the other way around.  

Which brings me back to my original point - I contend the Internet is not "broadcasting" and you don't need a licence to start a Netflix because you're technically not on the air or using public spectrum. Therefore the laws surrounding broadcasting should not apply. 

i'll ask again..... What defines Canadian Content in television/movies.  please be specific.  RA and Paterson1 you're going around in circles without addressing what is actual government policy. 

splunge wrote:

i'll ask again..... What defines Canadian Content in television/movies.  please be specific.  RA and Paterson1 you're going around in circles without addressing what is actual government policy. 

It's complicated, but if you're game for a lot of reading, the answers can be found here. 

RadioActive wrote:

splunge wrote:

i'll ask again..... What defines Canadian Content in television/movies.  please be specific.  RA and Paterson1 you're going around in circles without addressing what is actual government policy. 

It's complicated, but if you're game for a lot of reading, the answers can be found here. 

oh i know where the answers are.... but neither of you are using those as a basis for your theoretical arguments.

RadioActive wrote:

Sorry, but they're not the same. The CRTC is using the excuse that they're distributed by phone as one of the reasons it falls within their purview. Pretty thin reasoning. Under that scenario, if I make a phone call, they should then have a say on what I can or can't talk about or feed down the line.

The fact is the Internet is a still relatively new communications method that never existed before. Just because it can carry programming, does not mean it should fall under the CRTC's purview. Perhaps we need a new organization to police it. The CRTC has proven in the past they're not up to the job and will almost always make the wrong decision that hurts consumers. 

The CRTC may need to be revamped or change too, as they have in the past.  Your example of making a phone call and the CRTC having a say on what you can say is not realistic and isn't going to happen. 

We agree to disagree, but you can't have two businesses that are essentially the same and the older of the two has conditions on their business with some regulation, rules and standards and the other nothing.  In the real world this won't continue. So disagree all you want but changes are coming here and elsewhere.  And it seems like the big operators like Netflix have been getting prepared for this.  Good on them.

paterson1 wrote:

The CRTC may need to be revamped or change too, as they have in the past.  Your example of making a phone call and the CRTC having a say on what you can say is not realistic and isn't going to happen

 And yet their original draft (made very late on a Friday night, no less, hoping no one would notice) was to also regulate user videos posted to YouTube or TikTok. So my phone example may not be as ludicrous as you thought. 

They claim they've eliminated it this time. But I absolutely do not trust them not to change it back when they think no one is paying attention. After all, they've already tried it once. 

paterson1 wrote:

We agree to disagree, but you can't have two businesses that are essentially the same and the older of the two has conditions on their business with some regulation, rules and standards and the other nothing.  In the real world this won't continue. So disagree all you want but changes are coming here and elsewhere.  And it seems like the big operators like Netflix have been getting prepared for this.  Good on them.

Ah, but that's the way technology works. Someone comes up with a better mousetrap and they get the advantage. But in this case, the Internet ISN'T a mousetrap at all, which means the laws surrounding mousetrap regulation do not apply. Just because it has the ability to present programming does not make it a TV, radio or cable station. That alone should put it outside of the government's greedy interfering maw. 

As for Netflix, yes, good for them. I'm not a subscriber but if they were forced to produce any programming simply to fulfill a quota and they raised my price to pay for it, I'd be some kind of pissed. And chances are I wouldn't be watching the very stuff I don't want to pay for. 

And yes, you are also correct. We have gone round the horn on this numerous times and we'll never agree on the fundamental question of government mandating content of any kind. I'm against it. It doesn't seem to bother you. To each his own. But government interference in anything like this will always stick in my craw. (And if you've ever had anything stuck in your craw, you'll know how uncomfortable it can be...)

The Internet is not a car. It's not a TV set. It's not a vacuum cleaner. It won't make you dinner, although you can order one on it. I can't send email on my radio or play a game.

It's a different beast. My contention is not that I'm living in the past - I would suggest CanCon regs. are definitely a thing of the past and very outdated - but the future, contending that the WWW is not a broadcaster. Therefore, the CRTC has no business regulating it. 

RadioActive wrote:

The Internet is not a car. It's not a TV set. It's not a vacuum cleaner. It won't make you dinner, although you can order one on it. I can't send email on my radio or play a game.

It's a different beast. My contention is not that I'm living in the past - I would suggest CanCon regs. are definitely a thing of the past and very outdated - but the future, contending that the WWW is not a broadcaster. Therefore, the CRTC has no business regulating it. 

Disagree all you want.  The net is going to have some regs regardless here and elsewhere and it's overdue.. I do agree that cancon should be updated even reduced for radio.  However the Broadcasting Act also needs an update and this includes the internet. The fact that it is a different beast doesn't matter.  

A lot of focus of this new bill - now called C-11 - has been on CanCon, which is understandable. But when a former CRTC vice-chair warns against the hidden nuances of the proposed changes, it ought to give everyone pause. This affects your freedom. Before you come out in favour of the thing, you'd better be sure they've gotten it right. 

Here's what former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies has to say about it, in an article from the Global News website. He appears to agree with my contention that the Internet is not a "broadcast entity" per se. And he begins by noting they've taken out that sneakily-added provision about the law applying to user generated content on sites like YouTube and TikTok. 

"They've added what they believe to be some safeguards, but they've also taken some out from the previous legislation. Overall, the big problem still is that they continue to believe that the internet is broadcasting, and I don't think they really understand what it is," he said.

"The former CRTC vice-chair's concerns about regulatory overreach are also still at the top of his mind. "It's unfortunate because they're giving the CRTC enormous powers — enormous powers — and it's not in the DNA of any regulatory body to not continue to expand its turf," Menzies said.

"So that's troubling." 

I'll say. And remember, this isn't coming from me. It's a former CRTC head honcho, who knows how that less-than-august body really works. We would be wise to at least give some consideration to his words. 

Given what we've all seen regarding their regulating of Internet and cell phone fees in recent years resulting in some of the highest prices in the world, do you really want to give these people more say in your lives and in your bank books? I, for one, would not trust them to be able to draw a straight line with a pen. If they even know how to use one. 
  
Liberals say new online streaming bill won’t hurt free speech — but some remain skeptical

It's a very tough slog, as all government legalese deliberately is, but if you want to actually read the bill, you can see it here. 

I really don't care what these dunderheads say, I do not want them giving the CRTC more power, and thus more influence over us. [sarcasm] After all, they've shown such good judgment up until now. (Perhaps Chair Ian Scott can ask his good pal from Bell what he thinks over dinner.) [/sarcasm]

"Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which will be in charge of regulating online streaming platforms as well as traditional broadcasters, "will have no power to regulate the everyday use of social media by Canadians." 

"But the Conservatives said concerns still exist that the law could apply to people using and posting content on social media. John Nater, the Tory heritage critic, said "this 'just trust us' approach does not inspire confidence." 

Regardless of their "good intentions" and despite assurances that individual non-commercial posters won't be targeted, this is simply an accident waiting to happen. Sadly, it looks like a fait accompli. 

God help us. 

Heritage minister says Netflix, Disney should contribute more to Canadian culture