sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

December 7, 2022 7:36 pm  #31


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

splunge wrote:

pay attention to the wording.  encouragement and expectations are NOT the same as requirement or condition of licence.  don't get all bent out of shape about what was said.

Yes, I admit to overreacting. But these guys never stop trying to twist the radio industry to their own often not well considered ideas. It's just not healthy for the industry. 

But it's not just the music quotas. Expanding the ownership limits, even by a small amount, is not going to be good for those who work at the stations that the big guys eventually acquire.

When Rogers wound up with City TV, they fired at least 30 people or more. In fact, they let so many go, they were forced to rehire some of them - including former reporter/anchor Pam Seatle.

We all know what became of the CFRB newsroom, when Bell decided CTV anchors could deliver endless CTV retread reports on air. There is no more live radio specific programming on the weekend mornings.

This is not good for the diversity of voices the CRTC claims they want to foster. More cookie cutter formats, more job losses, less choice. 

How does that help the Canadian industry or the public that listens to it?

 

December 7, 2022 7:41 pm  #32


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

RadioActive wrote:

How does that help the Canadian industry or the public that listens to it?

Because its very sustainability depends on it. It's going to sunset eventually, but this makes the balance sheets work for a few more years.

 

December 7, 2022 7:46 pm  #33


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

I hope you're right. But try telling that to those who will soon be filing for E.I. and perhaps driven out of the industry altogether. Any time one of these big guys takes over a station, whether TV or radio, there are mass firings. I have never known it to fail, not once. I wish those workers luck.

     Thread Starter
 

December 7, 2022 7:49 pm  #34


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

splunge wrote:

pay attention to the wording.  encouragement and expectations are NOT the same as requirement or condition of licence.  don't get all bent out of shape about what was said.

Totally agree.  We also need to consider the history of the CRTC and how they have treated broadcasters over the past 50 years.

The CRTC has rarely if ever revoked a license.  Even stations that have not been complying to the regulations usually get a renewal but for a shorter time.  The CRTC does not have the ability to fine broadcasters for non compliance. 

And over the past 50 years how many stations or companies declared bankruptcy and went dark?  Not many and some frequencies were even resurrected with a new station that was successful. The commission should be given a shred of credit in this since historically they were careful licensing new stations and made sure the market could support more radio outlets.  

The CAB understandably is not happy with today's announcement because they didn't get most of the things they were advocating.  The CAB says that there are 181 stations in financial peril right now.  However the CAB also said in April 2020 that up to 50 stations could close by October 2020 and one in five could be dark by January 2022. Neither of these predictions have come to light so far.

Here is the statement from the CAB...https://www.cab-acr.ca/regulation-through-the-rear-view-mirror-crtcs-updated-commercial-radio-policy/
 

 

December 7, 2022 7:53 pm  #35


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

haydenmatthews14 wrote:

TheWiz wrote:

torontostan wrote:

Looks like there's about to be a couple bidders (Rogers, Bell, Stingray, Pattison, and so on) for CIND, CIDC or CKFG (the only independent english FMs in Toronto). As such, CFTR, CJCL, CFRB, or CHUM-AM could be up for sale shortly.

There's going to be some stations changing hands, that's for sure.

It will be interesting the see if CJOY in Guelph will make a third attempt at moving to FM. They got screwed last time cause the CRTC tried to claim that CJDV in Cambridge and CING in Hamilton were both Guelph stations since both stations primary coverage maps entered Guelph.

And in Kitchener, the 97.9 Frequency is available for Rogers to use (first adjacent to CHFI which Rogers would give approval for). Do they move CityNews to FM... or do they try to bring an additional station into the cluster? They tried to bring KISS to Kitchener many years ago on that frequency but were denied.

I doubt that they would bring KISS to Kitchener I don't think it would do well with 91.5 The Beat or 105.3 Virgin Radio both of them are Top 40 formats. Unless the KISS brand would be an Hot AC format like in Ottawa and Sudbury.

You're probably right. When Rogers applied for KISS, the radio landscape in K-W was much different, the BEAT didn't even exist at the time. My guess is they will probably try moving CityNews to FM.
 

 

December 7, 2022 11:05 pm  #36


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

Found this on Broadcast Dialogue.  "A Profound Disappointment"  
CAB President Kevin Desjardins said the review represents “a missed opportunity to help ensure the future sustainability of radio.”
More on this story: https://broadcastdialogue.com/crtc-radio-review-a-profound-disappointment-cab/

Last edited by haydenmatthews14 (December 7, 2022 11:05 pm)

 

December 8, 2022 10:16 am  #37


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

Colin wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

To provide more flexibility to the radio industry, the CRTC is:


  • eliminating the “hits policy” in Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau

20 years too late, but we'll take it!

This policy never made any sense to me. This constant "protection" the Commission appears to love seems to fly in the face of stations actually competing equally for an audience. Can someone explain why this rule was ever there in the first place?

     Thread Starter
 

December 8, 2022 11:42 am  #38


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

RadioActive wrote:

Colin wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

To provide more flexibility to the radio industry, the CRTC is:


  • eliminating the “hits policy” in Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau

20 years too late, but we'll take it!

This policy never made any sense to me. This constant "protection" the Commission appears to love seems to fly in the face of stations actually competing equally for an audience. Can someone explain why this rule was ever there in the first place?

Now Ottawa and Montreal radio will sound like everywhere else.  Predictable, safe, and not as exciting.  At least with the hit/non radio sounded different and more interesting on air with more new music.  That's one reason why radio in Ottawa and Montreal is more competitive and overall better than Toronto.

When the non hit reg came in for FM, broadcasters were on side.  Their AM stations were more popular and made the bulk of the money.  The same was largely true in the US where FM radio had been very slow to become popular.  Like colour TV, for decades FM radio languished with few listeners and low revenue.  

Rightly or wrongly the hit/non hit ruling gave AM and their owners more years of profitability from a technology that  was out of date and doomed.  Also gave time to license more FM around the country and smaller companies to open new FM stations which were initially financed by, and depended on, the AM operation.  

When I hear those that still drone on and complain about how terrible the hit/non hit ruling was and how it hurt FM in Canada so much, it is laughable.  Sort of revisionist history.  When FM tuners became standard in automobiles was a huge change that moved the audience away from AM in the car.  By the mid to late 80's FM had become standard and no longer an option in most vehicles.  Another big nail in the coffin for AM radio. 
 

Last edited by paterson1 (December 8, 2022 5:24 pm)

 

December 9, 2022 9:45 am  #39


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

RadioActive wrote:

Colin wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

To provide more flexibility to the radio industry, the CRTC is:


  • eliminating the “hits policy” in Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau

20 years too late, but we'll take it!

This policy never made any sense to me. This constant "protection" the Commission appears to love seems to fly in the face of stations actually competing equally for an audience. Can someone explain why this rule was ever there in the first place?

When I was still listening to Top 40 in the early to mid 1980's, it was the non-hit rule that drove me to 98.5 and 102.5 in Buffalo.

 

December 9, 2022 12:46 pm  #40


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

From a consumer's point of view, will any of these changes improve the content or programming for the listener?

 

December 9, 2022 12:53 pm  #41


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

darcyh wrote:

From a consumer's point of view, will any of these changes improve the content or programming for the listener?

Well, there is no regulation about actual sports coverage having to be on AM so this would mean an FM could easily pick up a sport if one company were to give up an AM to own 3 FM... BUT
I have no idea what that does for ratings.
(today?)


RadioWiz & RadioQuiz are NOT the same person. 
RadioWiz & THE Wiz are NOT the same person.

 
 

December 9, 2022 10:59 pm  #42


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

TheWiz wrote:

haydenmatthews14 wrote:

TheWiz wrote:


There's going to be some stations changing hands, that's for sure.

It will be interesting the see if CJOY in Guelph will make a third attempt at moving to FM. They got screwed last time cause the CRTC tried to claim that CJDV in Cambridge and CING in Hamilton were both Guelph stations since both stations primary coverage maps entered Guelph.

And in Kitchener, the 97.9 Frequency is available for Rogers to use (first adjacent to CHFI which Rogers would give approval for). Do they move CityNews to FM... or do they try to bring an additional station into the cluster? They tried to bring KISS to Kitchener many years ago on that frequency but were denied.

I doubt that they would bring KISS to Kitchener I don't think it would do well with 91.5 The Beat or 105.3 Virgin Radio both of them are Top 40 formats. Unless the KISS brand would be an Hot AC format like in Ottawa and Sudbury.

You're probably right. When Rogers applied for KISS, the radio landscape in K-W was much different, the BEAT didn't even exist at the time. My guess is they will probably try moving CityNews to FM.
 

Could they try to put CityNews 570 to HD Radio on 96.7 or 106.7? 99.5 Bounce has HD now with the HD2 channel playing Pure Country.

 

December 11, 2022 1:47 am  #43


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

The Ottawa southern Quebec hits/non-hits decision from the CRTC really demonstrates how ill equipped the CRTC is and irrelevant in 2022/2023.

I remain concerned that Ottawa wants to regulate Canadian online stations much like they've regulated our am & fm stations over the past decades in the next few years ahead.







  

 

December 11, 2022 3:21 am  #44


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

dsgraham wrote:

The Ottawa southern Quebec hits/non-hits decision from the CRTC really demonstrates how ill equipped the CRTC is and irrelevant in 2022/2023.

I remain concerned that Ottawa wants to regulate Canadian online stations much like they've regulated our am & fm stations over the past decades in the next few years ahead. 

Regulating online anything just skyrockets the sale of VPN use. CRTC can't really do anything anymore. 
They can only protect what airs on AM or FM.
 


RadioWiz & RadioQuiz are NOT the same person. 
RadioWiz & THE Wiz are NOT the same person.

 
 

December 11, 2022 8:15 am  #45


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

dsgraham wrote:

The Ottawa southern Quebec hits/non-hits decision from the CRTC really demonstrates how ill equipped the CRTC is and irrelevant in 2022/2023.

I remain concerned that Ottawa wants to regulate Canadian online stations much like they've regulated our am & fm stations over the past decades in the next few years ahead. 

I would say you have every reason to worry, given the history of Bill C-11, which aims to add regulations to the Internet in Canada. It's supposedly designed to force CanCon requirements to the Netflixes and Disney+s of the world, but it also contains clauses that allow the CRTC to control user content - all while the government insists it has no intention of doing any such thing.

Yet despite endless requests from users, privacy advocates, and entitles like YouTube, they stubbornly refuse to remove this controversial clause they swear they won't use, with no explanation. The bill, which they have now introduced twice in two sessions and seem extraordinarily eager to pass, has been stuck in the Senate for weeks, with even those unelected officials expressing concern about what it really means. 

So if you're concerned about the government doing exactly what you fear, there is good reason to worry. 

I know many here think I'm overreacting and that C-11 won't change things, but I would point out again that two former CRTC Commissioners, an ex-CRTC Chair, and experts worldwide have looked at this thing with raised eyebrows and have continually asked why Canada is doing this. 

Michael Geist, a respected Professor of Law at the U. Of Ottawa, who specializes in the Internet, has been raising the alarm about this for over a year. You can see just some of the reasons at his site here

     Thread Starter
 

December 11, 2022 1:32 pm  #46


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

I am by no means well read or have a strong knowledge of the internet.  However this new media has been regulated already one way or another for years. The issue is that it has been self regulated, which is not working.  And we see what a poor job most of the new media as been doing keeping vile, hurtful and material that has no business having a forum off of their sites.  Twitter owner Elon Musk is a prime example of why the internet needs regulations.   

Why some people get so worked up about this is beyond me.  Algorithms regardless where they come from are designed to put material out front, much of which most people have no interest.  Why would  including some Canadian referenced material be a bad thing?  Many say because "forcing" Canadian material by algorithm is fake.  Hey kids algorithms themselves are fake, get over it.

When I was on Youtube recently looking at reviews of vehicles, I was much more interested in seeing a review from a Canadian source rather than from India or the UK.  But because of the algorithms on Youtube I was initially getting an over abundance of reviews from the Australia, UK, US car dealers etc. 

Sorry folks, I support C-11 and agree with what is being proposed.  All these ill informed comments on thought control and the government controlling what you can say or look at are paranoid and laughable.  Tik tok, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and the others will not be harmed by C-11 and most important consumers won't be either. The days of the wild west are over for the internet here and most other countries. 

Not sure what all these raised eyebrows that RA always refers to.  The CRTC almost never has 100% of commissioners on side for anything.  So the fact that an ex chair, a couple of commissioners and Michael Geist have issues is not surprising or necessarily a bad thing.   I am glad the Senate is taking it's time and if the bill is sent back, so be it.  But like it or not change and regulation for the internet is coming regardless. 

Last edited by paterson1 (December 11, 2022 2:14 pm)

 

December 11, 2022 3:09 pm  #47


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

paterson1 wrote:

  But like it or not change and regulation for the internet is coming regardless. 

Time to invest in VPN stock! 


RadioWiz & RadioQuiz are NOT the same person. 
RadioWiz & THE Wiz are NOT the same person.

 
 

December 11, 2022 3:27 pm  #48


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

This is long and I apologize, but I hope at least some here will read it. Because I believe it’s that important.
 
I know p1 that you and I differ on Canadian Content rules, but I continue to be absolutely stunned that you think any regulations that have the potential to censor the Internet – your Internet and your posts – is not something to be concerned about.
 
Since I control the site, I could easily go in and strike down sentence two in paragraph 3 of your post or take out anything I don’t like. But I won’t because I believe in freedom of speech, so long as it does not verge on hate, insulting another member or encouraging violence. So you’re free to express yourself here, even if you don’t agree with me.
 
And while I hate getting political here, I have to go that way to explain why you and everyone else in Canada should worry about this. I assure you all sides of the spectrum will be equally shown to be untrustworthy. And I've backed it up with actual linked news stories to prove my point. 
 
First, I’m not crazy about the government giving the CRTC any more power over any other media. They haven’t exactly distinguished themselves with their current oversight of broadcasting. But if you want them to endorse CanCon, fine. It can be argued that’s a positive for our producers here. I’m not for it, but OK, let’s concede that point for the sake of argument. I don’t subscribe to any online service at the moment, so it won’t affect me.
 
What’s wrong with the discoverability plan is exactly the point of your so-called “fake algorithms.” A Canadian who makes his living on YouTube testified before Parliament earlier this year that that very discoverability could potentially threaten his livelihood. He worries that if the “fake algorithm” pushes his content to the top of the “you may also like list” on YouTube and few people click on it, it will be sent gradually to the bottom of the pile. No one looks at the 200th item on those lists. Yet it could happen, based on how they work.
 
Second, he’s also terrified, that, though he’s Canadian, his content somehow won’t be “Canadian” enough to meet the new criteria. Here’s part of what he told Parliament in June:
 
“Given the broad powers of the CRTC, which Bill C-11 expands to include digital platforms, the Canadian YouTuber community is right to worry that the continued success of their channels could soon be dependent on their ability to make content that’s “Canadian enough” to obtain government endorsement. 
 
“Even more ominously, section 9 of this bill says the CRTC can dictate “the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific GENRES” on digital platforms. Given YouTubers make videos of every genre imaginable, from fitness to architecture to political commentary, it is frankly terrifying to imagine that government may soon have a hand in determining which genres of videos are more worthy of promotion than others."


But that’s not all. The government has never explained and indeed repeatedly refuses to, why they took out and then slipped back in the user content provisions of the bill at the last minute, presumably hoping no one would notice. That’s when the alarm bells started to ring. Experts (and there are far more than those I cited, including the normally rubber stamp Toronto Star, which expressed concerns about C-11 in an editorial earlier this year) who oppose this law have asked endlessly and repeatedly why it’s there and why they rushed it through so quickly.
 
The CRTC’s only response is ‘we have no intention of ever using it.’ So in the face of so much heat, you have to wonder why the feds absolutely, categorically refuse to take it out. The only conclusion you can come to is they want it there for a reason. And the only reason that makes sense is to potentially censor content they don’t like. There simply can’t be any other explanation.
 
So let’s look for a moment at that “we’ll never use it” pledge. Where have we heard this from governments of all stripes before? When the Emergencies Act was created a few years ago, the feds vowed up and down it would almost never be used unless it was the direst of times, like a World War. You can argue the truckers’ protest (and I was not a fan of those people) might be one of them. We’ll see what Justice Roleau decides in February. But so much for vowing “we’ll never use it.”
 
When Doug Ford came into office, he said there was no way he’d ever use the Notwithstanding Clause. Yet when CUPE went out on strike last month shutting down schools, it’s the first thing he reached for. Ultimately, he was forced to back down, but so much for vowing “we’ll never use it.”
 
When Toronto Mayor John Tory was re-elected earlier this fall and was given “Strong Mayor” powers by Queen’s Park, he assured outraged councillors and the public that he believed in negotiation and arriving at an agreement, and that “I’ll never use it.” But just last week, he appointed Paul Johnson as Toronto’s new city manager, a position that’s normally voted on by the entire council. He didn’t even ask them and just did what he wanted, thanks to his new powers. So much for “I’ll never use it.”
 
There’s obviously a pattern here. Governments at every level – federal, provincial and even municipal - have all vowed they wouldn’t exercise their special extra powers. And all did the very first chance it proved expedient. At least these guys are elected and can be held accountable. You can’t say that about the fiefdom over at the CRTC.
 
So when Chair Ian Scott, who won’t even be there when this thing gets passed, boldly admits “Yes, we have the power, but we’ll never use it,” why on God’s green earth should you believe him?

Instead believe the evidence and the recent history. It suggests that any government given an extraordinary power will use it when they want to get their own way on something they feel is expedient. So yes, you SHOULD care, because it has the potential to affect you and everything you post both here and anywhere else.
 
It’s the last thing we need. But it appears we’re going to get it sooner than later. The real question is in what form. So while you can be glad you’re going to be under the government boot on the web, just remember the party you like may not be in power forever. And you may not appreciate what the replacement decides to censor.
 
But as we’ve seen from the above examples, they’ll never use them.
 
Until they do.
 
And that’s why all of us should care. Before we can longer say that. 

     Thread Starter
 

December 11, 2022 5:36 pm  #49


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

RadioActive wrote:

This is long and I apologize, but I hope at least some here will read it. Because I believe it’s that important.
 
I know p1 that you and I differ on Canadian Content rules, but I continue to be absolutely stunned that you think any regulations that have the potential to censor the Internet – your Internet and your posts – is not something to be concerned about.
 
Since I control the site, I could easily go in and strike down sentence two in paragraph 3 of your post or take out anything I don’t like. But I won’t because I believe in freedom of speech, so long as it does not verge on hate, insulting another member or encouraging violence. So you’re free to express yourself here, even if you don’t agree with me.
 
And while I hate getting political here, I have to go that way to explain why you and everyone else in Canada should worry about this. I assure you all sides of the spectrum will be equally shown to be untrustworthy. And I've backed it up with actual linked news stories to prove my point. 
 
First, I’m not crazy about the government giving the CRTC any more power over any other media. They haven’t exactly distinguished themselves with their current oversight of broadcasting. But if you want them to endorse CanCon, fine. It can be argued that’s a positive for our producers here. I’m not for it, but OK, let’s concede that point for the sake of argument. I don’t subscribe to any online service at the moment, so it won’t affect me.
 
What’s wrong with the discoverability plan is exactly the point of your so-called “fake algorithms.” A Canadian who makes his living on YouTube testified before Parliament earlier this year that that very discoverability could potentially threaten his livelihood. He worries that if the “fake algorithm” pushes his content to the top of the “you may also like list” on YouTube and few people click on it, it will be sent gradually to the bottom of the pile. No one looks at the 200th item on those lists. Yet it could happen, based on how they work.
 
Second, he’s also terrified, that, though he’s Canadian, his content somehow won’t be “Canadian” enough to meet the new criteria. Here’s part of what he told Parliament in June:
 
“Given the broad powers of the CRTC, which Bill C-11 expands to include digital platforms, the Canadian YouTuber community is right to worry that the continued success of their channels could soon be dependent on their ability to make content that’s “Canadian enough” to obtain government endorsement. 
 
“Even more ominously, section 9 of this bill says the CRTC can dictate “the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific GENRES” on digital platforms. Given YouTubers make videos of every genre imaginable, from fitness to architecture to political commentary, it is frankly terrifying to imagine that government may soon have a hand in determining which genres of videos are more worthy of promotion than others."


But that’s not all. The government has never explained and indeed repeatedly refuses to, why they took out and then slipped back in the user content provisions of the bill at the last minute, presumably hoping no one would notice. That’s when the alarm bells started to ring. Experts (and there are far more than those I cited, including the normally rubber stamp Toronto Star, which expressed concerns about C-11 in an editorial earlier this year) who oppose this law have asked endlessly and repeatedly why it’s there and why they rushed it through so quickly.
 
The CRTC’s only response is ‘we have no intention of ever using it.’ So in the face of so much heat, you have to wonder why the feds absolutely, categorically refuse to take it out. The only conclusion you can come to is they want it there for a reason. And the only reason that makes sense is to potentially censor content they don’t like. There simply can’t be any other explanation.
 
So let’s look for a moment at that “we’ll never use it” pledge. Where have we heard this from governments of all stripes before? When the Emergencies Act was created a few years ago, the feds vowed up and down it would almost never be used unless it was the direst of times, like a World War. You can argue the truckers’ protest (and I was not a fan of those people) might be one of them. We’ll see what Justice Roleau decides in February. But so much for vowing “we’ll never use it.”
 
When Doug Ford came into office, he said there was no way he’d ever use the Notwithstanding Clause. Yet when CUPE went out on strike last month shutting down schools, it’s the first thing he reached for. Ultimately, he was forced to back down, but so much for vowing “we’ll never use it.”
 
When Toronto Mayor John Tory was re-elected earlier this fall and was given “Strong Mayor” powers by Queen’s Park, he assured outraged councillors and the public that he believed in negotiation and arriving at an agreement, and that “I’ll never use it.” But just last week, he appointed Paul Johnson as Toronto’s new city manager, a position that’s normally voted on by the entire council. He didn’t even ask them and just did what he wanted, thanks to his new powers. So much for “I’ll never use it.”
 
There’s obviously a pattern here. Governments at every level – federal, provincial and even municipal - have all vowed they wouldn’t exercise their special extra powers. And all did the very first chance it proved expedient. At least these guys are elected and can be held accountable. You can’t say that about the fiefdom over at the CRTC.
 
So when Chair Ian Scott, who won’t even be there when this thing gets passed, boldly admits “Yes, we have the power, but we’ll never use it,” why on God’s green earth should you believe him?

Instead believe the evidence and the recent history. It suggests that any government given an extraordinary power will use it when they want to get their own way on something they feel is expedient. So yes, you SHOULD care, because it has the potential to affect you and everything you post both here and anywhere else.
 
It’s the last thing we need. But it appears we’re going to get it sooner than later. The real question is in what form. So while you can be glad you’re going to be under the government boot on the web, just remember the party you like may not be in power forever. And you may not appreciate what the replacement decides to censor.
 
But as we’ve seen from the above examples, they’ll never use them.
 
Until they do.
 
And that’s why all of us should care. Before we can longer say that. 

Good post. One trusts the government - any government - at his/her own peril.
 

Last edited by Dale Patterson (December 11, 2022 5:41 pm)


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

December 11, 2022 10:51 pm  #50


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

Like I have said many many times there are a lot of laws and bills on the books that governments don't intend on using.  However these remain since everything is legal and regardless some may need to be used at some point, and quick action is required.  Using the Emergencies Act had the support of over 66% of Canadians and many felt the government should have brought it in earlier. It also brought an end to the blockades, as did the War Measures Act in 1970. 

I will take your word that Doug Ford said that he would never use the Notwithstanding Clause.  However it seems odd that he has used it three times already. 

Part of the reason for the Strong Mayors powers from Queen's Park was to help remove the grid lock and slowness of local municipal governments .  If John Tory initially said he would never use these new powers is kind of surprising since up until now, the mayor of the city of Toronto really didn't have any more power than a councillor.  If Ford, Tory or C-11 abuse these powers or privileges and actually curtail anyone's freedom or democracy then that is wrong.  However I don't really see any of your examples of doing this. 

Bill C-11 is easy.  You actually think that the CRTC or some government bureaucrat is going to read our posts on SOWNY and edit or ban them??  Like I have said many many times again, this is not what C-11 is about so why do you keep trying to mislead and portray that sites like SOWNY will be under siege by the government and CRTC?

JJ McCollough dislikes the CRTC, regulations, and tends to trivialize anything Canadian.  He is based in Vancouver and writes a column on Canada for the Washington Post.  He is very pro American, dislikes our style of government, the monarchy, bilingualism, our system of law and like some on here hates cancon.
He once said that the Tragically Hip was a second rate band because they had little success in the US.  The fact that they had sold more records in Canada than U2 didn't seem to matter. 

His website is quite popular and to his credit he does have some very interesting content.  However usually he acts like Canada is an embarrassment and failure. It is evident that he really would rather be living or working in the US. He seems bitter that he is rarely asked to be a pundit on Canadian media and he rarely says anything negative about the US. His Washington Post columns are quite dismissive about Canada with exaggerated facts. He is obviously trying to make a name for himself, which is fine.

So what he said before the commission I don't really know what to make of it. I am not sure anything he said is accurate or just his opinion.  JJ has little to worry about his content not being Canadian enough since this is what he talks about a lot of the time and what has made his Youtube channel popular. 

 

December 12, 2022 12:24 am  #51


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

This response is simple, I think the CRTC should just stick to radio, TV & telecom, as they have, based on the legislation & regulations they've been tasked to regulate/enforce. The CRTC has become less relevant with time and in the next few years should be obsolete. Bill C11 is messy, intrusive & unwelcome CRTC expansion of jurisdiction to Canadian online content providers and likely unenforceable when it's so easy to find and connect to a VPN service and server outside Canada to get the online content you want whether in Canada or outside. I'm happy that the Senate, the house of maybe deeper sober thought, have so far not passed this legislation to Royal Assent.

 

December 12, 2022 12:50 am  #52


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

dsgraham wrote:

This response is simple, I think the CRTC should just stick to radio, TV & telecom, as they have, based on the legislation & regulations they've been tasked to regulate/enforce. The CRTC has become less relevant with time and in the next few years should be obsolete. Bill C11 is messy, intrusive & unwelcome CRTC expansion of jurisdiction to Canadian online content providers and likely unenforceable when it's so easy to find and connect to a VPN service and server outside Canada to get the online content you want whether in Canada or outside. I'm happy that the Senate, the house of maybe deeper sober thought, have so far not passed this legislation to Royal Assent.

There is another aspect to this in my mind, one I'm sure p1 won't agree with, either. Remember the original reason for the CRTC (and before them the BBG and before them the CBC - yes, the CBC actually once had jurisdiction in creating rules for radio.) It was formed, among other purposes, to regulate the public airwaves, with the idea being that these were very rare resources and there were only so many open spaces that could be filled. 

And because they were public and scarce, they needed to have someone in charge to make sure stations didn't overlap and only one owner could operate on a given frequency, to prevent certain chaos from interference if it became a free-for-all.

But the Internet does not use any scarce public airwaves. It is not finite. It is limitless. Anyone who wants to start up a website can do so, and there's endless room for millions more. Therefore, it's always been my feeling that the CRTC has no business having any say on matters concerning the web because it's completely out of their jurisdiction.

They've made the claim that because it was originally delivered via telephone, that gives them the right. But that seems a stretch to me. Do they have a right to monitor or interfere with a private phone call you make simply because they've been tasked with looking after telecommunications? 

In the end, I maintain that although there are certainly similarities, the Internet is NOT broadcasting. It's a totally different animal and the CRTC has no business meddling in something that was never in their purview to begin with. The fact they stuck their grubby fingers into it is an indication of why they should not be trusted with any censorship abilities or other powers. This has nothing to do with CanCon. 

Government overreach is just the first step in stuff like this. We've seen over the years and decades where that leads. Given the Commission's previous track record, I'm afraid to see what they do next. And everyone here should be, too.

     Thread Starter
 

December 12, 2022 1:13 am  #53


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

paterson1 wrote:

Like I have said many many times there are a lot of laws and bills on the books that governments don't intend on using.  However these remain since everything is legal and regardless some may need to be used at some point, and quick action is required.  Using the Emergencies Act had the support of over 66% of Canadians and many felt the government should have brought it in earlier. It also brought an end to the blockades, as did the War Measures Act in 1970.

There is no reason to have laws on the books that are never intended to be used. Especially the power of censorship. If they're not planning to ever use it, as Chair Ian Scott has promised (then flip flopped, then flip flopped again) why is the government so insistent that it be there? You never answer this question, because there is only one answer - they want that power in reserve. It's not a power I want any government to have. Just ask the people living in China how they like having their Internet controlled. But of course you can't - because they'll never be able to see the question there. (And no, I'm not saying this is the same as Communist control. But giving up those liberties in small quantities is exactly how it starts.) 

paterson1 wrote:

I will take your word that Doug Ford said that he would never use the Notwithstanding Clause.  However it seems odd that he has used it three times already. 

Part of the reason for the Strong Mayors powers from Queen's Park was to help remove the grid lock and slowness of local municipal governments .  If John Tory initially said he would never use these new powers is kind of surprising since up until now, the mayor of the city of Toronto really didn't have any more power than a councillor.  If Ford, Tory or C-11 abuse these powers or privileges and actually curtail anyone's freedom or democracy then that is wrong.  However I don't really see any of your examples of doing this. 

Bill C-11 is easy.  You actually think that the CRTC or some government bureaucrat is going to read our posts on SOWNY and edit or ban them??  Like I have said many many times again, this is not what C-11 is about so why do you keep trying to mislead and portray that sites like SOWNY will be under siege by the government and CRTC?

 
Again, you're missing the point - it doesn't matter that they said they wouldn't use them. They have. In Tory's case, less than a month in office. Absolute power corrupts and all that jazz. 

paterson1 wrote:

IJJ McCollough dislikes the CRTC, regulations, and tends to trivialize anything Canadian.  He is based in Vancouver and writes a column on Canada for the Washington Post.  He is very pro American, dislikes our style of government, the monarchy, bilingualism, our system of law and like some on here hates cancon.
He once said that the Tragically Hip was a second rate band because they had little success in the US.  The fact that they had sold more records in Canada than U2 didn't seem to matter. 

His website is quite popular and to his credit he does have some very interesting content.  However usually he acts like Canada is an embarrassment and failure. It is evident that he really would rather be living or working in the US. He seems bitter that he is rarely asked to be a pundit on Canadian media and he rarely says anything negative about the US. His Washington Post columns are quite dismissive about Canada with exaggerated facts. He is obviously trying to make a name for himself, which is fine.

So what he said before the commission I don't really know what to make of it. I am not sure anything he said is accurate or just his opinion.  JJ has little to worry about his content not being Canadian enough since this is what he talks about a lot of the time and what has made his Youtube channel popular. 

I admit to not knowing much about Mr. McCullough and have never seen any of his videos. Yet he was considered important enough to testify on the record in Parliament, which is not a consideration afforded just anyone. So clearly his expertise, regardless of his so-called attitude, was worth hearing. Somebody thought he should be heard or they would have given that valuable time to someone else.  

I have said it before and I guess I'll have to say it again - this is not about CanCon. Although I don't like any government forcing content on any broadcaster, under the current regs., the CRTC has the right to do so. For broadcasters. But as noted in a previous post, I do not believe the Internet is the same as broadcasting. 

And while it really saddens me that you are walking into this chasm with your eyes wide open and seem happy to fall into this trap - it's one none of us may ever escape after this odious Bill passes. It's not about whether they will censor the Internet. It's about the fact that under Bill C-11, they CAN. And that should scare the hell out of us all. 

Let me just conclude with some statements from people who are much, much smarter than I will ever be. 

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana

And

"There are none so blind as they who will not see." - John Heywood, 1546. 

     Thread Starter
 

December 12, 2022 2:08 am  #54


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

We are talking in circles regarding this "never intend on using it."  Sort of like you always saying that SOWNY is not a political forum.  But yet you bring up more politics with your opinions and certain sacred cows more than anyone else.  You justify it whenever you initiate something that is political by saying you had to think long and hard about it first.  But it is just too important and it's necessary to explain your position. Sort of like when the government justified why they introduced the Emergency Act, or used the notwithstanding clause? 

Yes I have answered your question many times regarding rules being on the books that are not intended to be used.  You just don't like my answer, and all you do is ignore it.  Please see my post above where it is again explained.  

One thing that is never answered is the question that I and others have asked many times.  What justification does the internet have to be unregulated?  No other business operates this way, so why the internet? I am not even talking about the CRTC.
 
Many including yourself have this vague, "but it's not broadcasting" take and seem to think the internet should continue to have rights that nobody else has.  This is ignored and never explained why.

What happens on the web is the same as broadcasting and broadcasters with many websites and streaming are all over the net.  It would be easy to include webcasting in the mandate of the CRTC, FCC or any other government regulator if that would make things easier to digest.

It was only a couple of years ago that some were outraged that governments felt that twitter, facebook and others should even pay any taxes!  Remember when Netflix refused to even acknowledge the CRTC with a somewhat arrogant statement that the rules didn't apply to them, because the internet and services like them have no borders.  How times have changed eh?? Netflix got clued in quickly from many governments around the world.  

As mentioned above Elon Musk whether he knows it or not, is certainly making it clear that this new media sorely needs regulations since so far he doesn't seem to know how to regulate the company internally.    And again it is not about your freedom and censorship, and it never has been.

The CRTC is only one a many government regulating bodies getting their grubby fingers on the internet.  This is not the Canada thing that those who don't like C-11 try to push.

Why you think of government as the enemy or something to be feared is a real mystery to me.  And you coming from a broadcast news background should know better. 

 

December 12, 2022 9:56 am  #55


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

paterson1 wrote:

We are talking in circles regarding this "never intend on using it."  Sort of like you always saying that SOWNY is not a political forum.  But yet you bring up more politics with your opinions and certain sacred cows more than anyone else.  You justify it whenever you initiate something that is political by saying you had to think long and hard about it first.  But it is just too important and it's necessary to explain your position. Sort of like when the government justified why they introduced the Emergency Act, or used the notwithstanding clause?

More than a bit disingenuous. There is simply no way to discuss Bill C-11 and everything it threatens to do than to bring up politics. It's intensely political and if we want to debate it here, it's unavoidable. It would be like chatting about the weather and never referring to the temperature or if it's cold out. Why bother if we can't be plain about what this is really about? 

paterson1 wrote:

Yes I have answered your question many times regarding rules being on the books that are not intended to be used.  You just don't like my answer, and all you do is ignore it.  Please see my post above where it is again explained.

Your answer makes no sense. "Let's make laws we'll never enforce." Then why are they there? It's insane. Especially when they start actually carrying out those laws they swore they would never use. I gave you three recent examples in a previous post. Doesn't seem to have made any impression on you, but these are facts. Makes them a little harder to ignore, but you managed to do that, anyway. 

Laws are made to control a specific problem. Yes, there is a lot on the Internet that is vile and perhaps some rules are needed. We have hate speech and libel and slander laws, which should help - if they are enforced properly. And sites like Facebook and YouTube have a responsibility to take odious and obnoxious hate mongers off their platforms. Just like we have the right not to go there and support them if they don't. But to add censorship edicts to those laws leaves them open to not only interpretation but outright abuse. I'd rather not give them the opening.  

paterson1 wrote:

One thing that is never answered is the question that I and others have asked many times.  What justification does the internet have to be unregulated?  No other business operates this way, so why the internet? I am not even talking about the CRTC.
 
Many including yourself have this vague, "but it's not broadcasting" take and seem to think the internet should continue to have rights that nobody else has.  This is ignored and never explained why.

The Internet does not belong to Canada - or any country. It is a new and very different animal. If it requires legislation, it should be centered in my addled mind on illegalities, the aforementioned hate speech and the harms it can cause. It should not be used to further nationalist causes that have nothing to do with the nature of the web itself. But like moths to the proverbial flame, politicians can't resist using it for their own purposes. My fear is this is only the beginning. And in putting curbs on the web, they'll destroy what made it so compelling in the first place. 

paterson1 wrote:

What happens on the web is the same as broadcasting and broadcasters with many websites and streaming are all over the net.  It would be easy to include webcasting in the mandate of the CRTC, FCC or any other government regulator if that would make things easier to digest.

 But the web is not the same as broadcasting. It's just not. It requires no over-the-air access and does not take up precious public airwaves, which, as noted in a previous post, are limited. It has to be handled differently but it seems politicians in their zeal to control it are trying to provide old labels to a new technology. I believe things will eventually work themselves out, but the interference of politicos won't help us get there. 

paterson1 wrote:

It was only a couple of years ago that some were outraged that governments felt that twitter, facebook and others should even pay any taxes!  Remember when Netflix refused to even acknowledge the CRTC with a somewhat arrogant statement that the rules didn't apply to them, because the internet and services like them have no borders.  How times have changed eh?? Netflix got clued in quickly from many governments around the world. 

  
Oddly, I have no problem with them being taxed in the countries where they operate. They're a business and businesses pay taxes in the countries in which they operate. But paying taxes does not give anyone the power to control content. Unless you suggest the CRA should police what you're allowed to say. 

paterson1 wrote:

As mentioned above Elon Musk whether he knows it or not, is certainly making it clear that this new media sorely needs regulations since so far he doesn't seem to know how to regulate the company internally.    And again it is not about your freedom and censorship, and it never has been.

 
Musk is hopefully an anomaly, a rich and egotistical one at that. Letting him get hold of Twitter was a business deal and one that's regrettable because I don't think he knows what he's doing and got into this solely for ego. Not a good combination no matter what the business. And again, it IS about my freedom and yours and everyone else's reading this screed. If you're willing to give up any of your freedom of expression, I wish you well. I'm not ever going to be in that position. And I will fight it until my last day. I don't mean to take this over the top, but when I think about how many people have died fighting around the world over the centuries to protect this most precious right, it boggles my mind you would be willing to cede any of it so easily because "they have the right." No, they don't.

paterson1 wrote:

The CRTC is only one a many government regulating bodies getting their grubby fingers on the internet.  This is not the Canada thing that those who don't like C-11 try to push. 

We will always disagree on this. But at least we have that freedom - for now. I hate the term "slippery slope" but it applies here. They start by controlling small pieces of the Net and you say 'what's the harm?' And then, they take it a little farther. And a little farther. It's slow and you may not even notice. And then suddenly, your ISP tells you they have to take your last post down, because it doesn't meet "requirements." And that's how you get silenced. I'd prefer we never let it get that far.

paterson1 wrote:

Why you think of government as the enemy or something to be feared is a real mystery to me.  And you coming from a broadcast news background should know better. 

It's because of my news background that I have been closely able to observe governments all these years. And that's why I feel the way I do. I can tell you I'm not alone. It has gotten worse over the years. It seems governments of all parties are more interested in getting re-elected at any cost than actually acting in the interests of the people who put them there, especially if that might hurt their own motives. That's not why we elect them. I find that scary. And we all should, too. 

As for government being the enemy, let me end by quoting U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Not a hero of mine by any means but he did say something that's true. He once noted that "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

My question is help who? You or them? I think you know what my answer would be.

     Thread Starter
 

December 12, 2022 10:04 am  #56


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

By the way, Post Media published an easy-to-digest look at what Bill C-11 (and Bill C-18) are all about. It's completely non-partisan and doesn't take sides, instead just trying to outline what they're supposed to do. If this story confuses you or you want to know why they're so controversial, you can find the article here:

Online streaming, news bills wrap up amendments. When do they become law?

     Thread Starter
 

December 12, 2022 10:09 am  #57


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

=12px>> We will always disagree on this. But at least we have that freedom - for now. I hate the term "slippery slope" but it applies here. They start by controlling small pieces of the Net and you say 'what's the harm?' And then, they take it a little farther. And a little farther. It's slow and you may not even notice. And then suddenly, your ISP tells you they have to take your last post down, because it doesn't meet "requirements." And that's how you get silenced. I'd prefer we never let it get that far.

That, in a nutshell, is what this is all about. Well said.
 


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

December 12, 2022 5:02 pm  #58


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

Well, now here's something I never expected...

Senators amend online streaming bill to ban CBC sponsored content

     Thread Starter
 

December 12, 2022 7:36 pm  #59


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

Again, C-11 has nothing to do with censoring what you say or don't say on sites like SOWNY.  You talk about regulations being the "slippery slope" and "then they will take away more and more." You are basing all of this on your personal feelings and dislike and distrust of government.  And again this is why I say coming from a news background you should know better.  

Sounds like now you are saying that the internet should have no regs at all.  I find that really strange after all this time you would feel that way.  Especially when the evidence is pointing the other way.  The twitters, facebooks, tik toks and Instagram have proven time and time again they can't or won't regulate themselves.  So the answer is to do nothing?  Let the hateful lies, extortion, intimidation, damage, and criminal activities found over the web continue.  That does not have the anything to do with freedom, in fact it is the opposite.

Calling me disingenuous  when I point out you doing what you accuse politicians of doing is laughable.  You always say something how you don't want to get political or don't want the site to get political...but do it anyway. The BS meter goes off of the scale on that RA.  Agreed it is difficult and maybe impossible to keep politics totally out of this topic, however it seems that this is ALL you talk about.  And you have initiated almost all of the posts on this topic.  

You never mention the real reasons for C-11, but just about your paranoid fantasies of big brother government taking over your life, and lies about how the CRTC will be monitoring everyone's posts and editing anything that they don't like.  Again the BS meter goes off of the dial! 

Regardless if C-11 gets passed or is sent back for more revisions, your version that you continue to promote with needless fearmongering about censorship and misinformation will never happen. 



 

 

December 12, 2022 8:43 pm  #60


Re: CRTC Makes Huge Changes To Cdn. Radio On Music, Ownership Rules & More

paterson1 wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

Colin wrote:

20 years too late, but we'll take it!

This policy never made any sense to me. This constant "protection" the Commission appears to love seems to fly in the face of stations actually competing equally for an audience. Can someone explain why this rule was ever there in the first place?

Now Ottawa and Montreal radio will sound like everywhere else.  Predictable, safe, and not as exciting.  At least with the hit/non radio sounded different and more interesting on air with more new music.  That's one reason why radio in Ottawa and Montreal is more competitive and overall better than Toronto.

When the non hit reg came in for FM, broadcasters were on side.  Their AM stations were more popular and made the bulk of the money.  The same was largely true in the US where FM radio had been very slow to become popular.  Like colour TV, for decades FM radio languished with few listeners and low revenue.  

Rightly or wrongly the hit/non hit ruling gave AM and their owners more years of profitability from a technology that  was out of date and doomed.  Also gave time to license more FM around the country and smaller companies to open new FM stations which were initially financed by, and depended on, the AM operation.  

When I hear those that still drone on and complain about how terrible the hit/non hit ruling was and how it hurt FM in Canada so much, it is laughable.  Sort of revisionist history.  When FM tuners became standard in automobiles was a huge change that moved the audience away from AM in the car.  By the mid to late 80's FM had become standard and no longer an option in most vehicles.  Another big nail in the coffin for AM radio. 
 

This garbage again.

Montreal English music radio is NOT competitive. There are three stations, two of them owned by the same company.

Ottawa is competitive because HOT 899 launched in 2003 and turned the market on its head. Format changes since then are a direct result of that. Additionally, Ottawa Anglo (CBC) and Montreal Franco (98,5) have #1 talk stations that are #1 by a wider margin than any market in North America. There's a reason for that.

How on earth is playing songs that stiffed the first time and hoping people will like them now supposed to help radio?

Last edited by RadioAaron (December 12, 2022 9:26 pm)