1 of 1- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline 
Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
First they asked the CRTC for permission to spend less on CanCon and news. Now Bell is at it again, this time with a request that would seem almost impossible for the feds to grant.
They want to ensure CTV (and its other channels) have access to U.S. imports, before the Americans decide to put some of their bigger shows on their own streaming platforms, denying the sales to over-the-air networks in Canada.
"Bell’s ask comes as U.S. companies that make TV shows or have rights to sports content are choosing to offer streaming services in Canada themselves, bypassing the Canadian TV broadcasters that have traditionally been the only option to distribute that content.
The government’s policy direction to the CRTC on implementing the Online Streaming Act “must be amended to contain measures to ensure that foreign content owners continue to make their content available to Canadian broadcasters and streamers,” Bell said in a letter to Canadian Heritage."
The demand, made in March and revealed by a Freedom Of Information request, came as the CRTC was studying how to implement new rules for Canadian broadcasting. But it does not appear in the proposed changes that will be coming as a result of Bill C-11. Bell claims without that access, the Canadian broadcasting system might collapse.
What, exactly, does that say about the state of the Canadian broadcasting system or the way Bell Media runs its business? And how can the Canadian government possibly tell the big U.S. streamers who they can or can't sell their programming to? My guess is there's no real way they can, which Bell insists will be the end of the Canadian broadcasting system "as we know it."
Bell asked Ottawa for laws, regulations to ensure access to American TV content
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
This is the can of worms the CRTC has opened by attempting to regulate streaming as broadcasting.
- RadioActive
- Moderator
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Agreed. While I admit they might have to consider doing something in a time of great transition, both Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 are horrendously flawed and are hurting, not helping, the industry as a whole.
The worst part is that experts from all across the spectrum endlessly warned the feds this might happen and they absolutely refused to listen.
And so here we are, running straight toward the edge of the cliff at breakneck speed. What happens when they inevitably fall off?
- •
Thread Starter- paterson1
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Aren't C-11 and 18 a little different than what Bell is asking for? I don't see these related much at all.
Can't see how the CRTC could do anything about who the streamers sell their product to. Unless foreign companies were purposely and unfairly trying to cancel out domestic services. Isn't that more a competition bureau even NAFTA issue and would involve other government departments? Also seems odd since many of the foreign streaming services have been partnering for quite some time with Canadian companies.
Looks like Bell is trying to ensure this continues. Production has been booming in Canada or at least will again when the actors strike is settled. US companies find it attractive working here with the low dollar, top studios and crews and more flexible union rules, along with tax incentives.
Canada isn't the only country attempting to regulate streamers similar to broadcasting. The days of the wild west and the new media calling all the shot with no regulation are over.
- In Phase
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Regulators like to regulate
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
paterson1 wrote:
Aren't C-11 and 18 a little different than what Bell is asking for? I don't see these related much at all.
They relate in that the bills treat streaming much more like broadcasting.
If that's the situation, Bell's regulatory and legal teams would be remiss in their duties not to ask for that to reality to be applied evenly to all affected parites.
Yes, it's impractical, but that might very well be Bell's point here.
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Also seems odd since many of the foreign streaming services have been partnering for quite some time with Canadian companies.
Looks like Bell is trying to ensure this continues. Production has been booming in Canada or at least will again when the actors strike is settled. US companies find it attractive working here with the low dollar, top studios and crews and more flexible union rules, along with tax incentives.
Negating the need for the bill in the first place.
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Canada isn't the only country attempting to regulate streamers similar to broadcasting.
This argument is so tired. How many people does it take having similar bad ideas to make the idea magically good?
- darcyh
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Seems like the satellite TV fiasco all over again.
If you recall Canadians were not legally allowed to subscribe to Direct TV / Dish Network for essentially the same reason. Many figured a way around it.
- paterson1
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
The reality is that streamers and broadcasters are in the same business. One feels they can do whatever they want, while the other is regulated. Interesting how streamers are now offering lower priced channels with commercials. Sounds a lot like traditional TV or a cable channel.
The problem is that the streamers with the exception of one or maybe two are losing money and lots of it. Maybe a case of too many services and not enough people interested to pay. But pay you will.
I agree that the federal government has made a mess out of this. Their communication skills are lousy and don't seem to be getting better. However the new media regardless how big and powerful they think they are cannot call all the shots and must be flexible. Same for the government. One size does not fit all, and if you are operating in various countries and sell services, you are bound by the laws of that country.
Some may think the argument is tired, but it is real and not going away.
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
The reality is that streamers and broadcasters are in the same business.
Not exactly. Broadcasters had their content regulated because they were given license to use very limited and valuable publicly owned bandwidth. That was the trade-off for what had been essentially a license to print money.
The internet brought about unlimited bandwidth and democratized media like nothing since the printed word. Anyone can stake their claim. Anyone can use YouTube to become a star, or even just make a living.
Regulating content in this environment is as ridiculous as dictating how many of different types of movies can be on each screen of the multiplex, or which magazines have to be shown prominently in the rack.
Of course streamers should have to abide by the laws in the countries in which they operate; I'm arguing against having dated and ineffectivce laws in the first place.
Last edited by RadioAaron (October 26, 2023 6:18 pm)
- RadioAaron
- Member
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Seems like the satellite TV fiasco all over again.
If you recall Canadians were not legally allowed to subscribe to Direct TV / Dish Network for essentially the same reason. Many figured a way around it.
Yes. Current examples would be the CRTC protecting rights Canadian broadcaster paid for through Simsub or gatekeeping which specialty channels can be carried on cable. If they're saying "streamers are broadcasters" then they've opened themselves up to being asked to ban certain streamers from competing.
Last edited by RadioAaron (October 26, 2023 6:18 pm)
- Tomas Barlow
- Banned
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Aren't C-11 and 18 a little different than what Bell is asking for? I don't see these related much at all.
It's completely differemt and unreleated. That doesn't matter to people on this board who would still hate the liberals if they cured cancer.
- Tomas Barlow
- Banned
Offline
Re: Bell Wants Cdn. Gov't. To Protect Its U.S. Show Buys From Streamers
Seems like the satellite TV fiasco all over again.
If you recall Canadians were not legally allowed to subscribe to Direct TV / Dish Network for essentially the same reason. Many figured a way around it.
I was really annoyed at the time, but both Canadian satellite providers are alive and well so it worked as intended.