opens

the gates

While the crtc is weighing the pros and cons of Rogers Communications’ buyout of Maclean Hunter at a hearings session in Ottawa, the cable, production and telephone industries are still reeling from the recent crtc decision to throw open the gates of competition for infotainment delivery systems.

‘A Competitive Telecom Future,’ the banner used by the crtc to herald the regulated birth of convergence in the Canadian telecommunications industries, also declared the local telephone business an open market and granted telcos the right to test market video-on-demand alongside cablers.

The crtc did not hand over the right to apply for broadcast licences to telcos and any such move would require legislative changes to the Broadcast Act.

Jocelyne Cote-O’Hara, Stentor Telecom Policy ceo, says the impending issue now is the extent to which telcos will be involved in distributing, packaging and acquiring video and multimedia product.

‘This is where it gets complicated,’ says Cote-O’Hara. ‘The definition of broadcasting and programming has been changing all the time and video-on-demand doesn’t constitute broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act. The whole question of our qualifying for licences and the definition of broadcasting needs to be attended to as soon as possible.’

Cote-O’Hara creates a scenario in the future whereby a cbc travel documentary, which is sold to travel agencies through telco distribution systems, is suspended somewhere in broadcast limbo. ‘This connects to the second stage (of the issue), which is: does video belong exclusively to broadcast and cable carriers?’

The existence of regulation is in question following the telco decision, and the suitability of Cancon measures is at the center of the debate.

Michael MacMillan, ceo of Atlantis Communications, looks positively on the crtc move, on condition the telcos support Cancon. ‘Both through cultural support and direct money, we would want to make sure that the telcos make the same commitment to Canadian content as the cable companies have,’ says MacMillan.

David Ellis, head of Omnia Communications, refers to himself as ‘a reregulator’ and sees the end of content regulation as inevitable and not entirely a bad thing. ‘Times have changed and it’s time to move on. Larger production companies and software houses, such as Softimage and Alias Research, and the publicly listed production houses are leaving town and beating the competition at their own game rather than circling the wagon. It’s time to export or die rather than protect or die,’ says Ellis.

Alex Raffe, ceo of the Ontario Film Development Corporation and cochair of a strategies committee on cultural industries, says: ‘Although you can’t enforce Cancon in a public environment, the broadcast example indicates the strength of (these regulations). It is leaping too far to say that because it is digital, therefore you can’t regulate it. The real concern is who controls the pipeline.’

Role changing

The argument that there will always be a place for content regulation ‘in order to protect our national identity,’ comes from Gord Haines, coo of Alliance Communications. However, he does see the role of the crtc changing significantly along with the distribution landscape.

Bill Allen, spokesperson for the crtc, says the commission is aware of the need for change and a move is underway ‘to get out of micro-management – whereby the commission is involved in each and every business decision – and to move to a more macro approach whereby you allow industries as a much flexibility as possible to innovate and compete.’

‘Large issue’

In the land of the macro, says Allen, ‘large issues’ such as principle objectives in the Broadcasting Act, social issues (such as tv violence) and issues of privacy for consumers will be the going concern of the regulating body.

Morrison says the crtc’s talk of macro-management is simply a disguise for inefficient regulation policies and sloppy administration.

The issue of what it will cost to get onto the infobahn – i