OTTAWA – While most witnesses have insisted the Broadcasting Act is woefully out of date and the sky is falling on the industry, the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications reviewing that piece of legislation as well as the Telecommunications Act heard last week the Broadcasting Act actually works just fine, and the broadcasting system is relatively healthy.
On Wednesday, October 17, Marc Raboy, Beaverbrook professor emeritus in ethics, media and communications at McGill University and Gregory Taylor, assistant professor at the department of communication, media and film, University of Calgary, told a far different story than the appointed politicians had become used to hearing.
In his opening remarks, Raboy stated: “From 2001–2003, I was one of two external expert advisers to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its study on the state of Canadian broadcasting, which produced the report, Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting, also known as the Lincoln report.
“Early on in its report, the Lincoln Committee said its study can be viewed as a report card on the health of the Broadcasting Act. It went on to say: ‘The Committee has concluded that the Act itself needs few changes. It was finely and painstakingly crafted and reflects a consensus reached after a long and arduous consultation process. While the Act needs some modest retooling … it remains a viable instrument of public policy. The key issues revolve around how to carry out the intentions of the Act.’
“I would say this statement remains largely true today.”
“Legally, cable, satellite, IPTV providers are broadcasters,” added Taylor. “That is a very healthy part of our system. It’s very profitable, even though some of their (subscriber) numbers have been dropping—as I said, cable about 5%—somehow they have managed to keep their revenues stable, which means they are putting up their prices every month.
“When we talk about broadcasting in Canada, we tend to come back to stories about local television and the CBC, but we are looking more at the larger system. It’s actually doing fairly well.” – Gregory Taylor, University of Calgary
“Radio has been relatively stable. Conventional local television that is advertising-based has been suffering, there is no doubt about that. I should add that specialty channels continue to do well online. When we talk about broadcasting in Canada, we tend to come back to stories about local television and the CBC, but we are looking more at the larger system. It’s actually doing fairly well.”
However, he continued, “my optimism only goes so far.. and is also tempered by recognizing that it is a slow decline. What I’m not seeing is a cliff right now. When you talk about, say, the music industry, it went off a cliff. The broadcasting industry has not. It has had a slow decline and, even in the Netflix era, has dropped by maybe 5%. And that’s cable subscribers. With television viewing, we’ve dropped one hour a week. We used to watch 27 hours a week and now we watch about 26 hours a week since Netflix came on, and that’s traditional television. So there has not been a collapse, the sky has not fallen. My optimism is because of the data,” Taylor said.
“If it goes off the cliff, I’ll come back and tell you I was wrong. But from what I’ve seen so far, I don’t see it.”
He went further to praise the Broadcasting Act as it stands. “One of the positives of the current legislation is that it’s written in a very technologically-neutral way. You do not see reference to specific forms of technology in the Act. It simply says ‘distribution.’ I think it’s important that be maintained… given how rapidly these things evolve.
“When you bring the distribution in… we fund the content through distribution, because they’re all part of the same system right now. When cable started — and this is something I teach in my classes — it was a pirate or outlaw industry, much like a lot of Internet streaming is today. What happened? We brought them in, we made them part of the industry and the pirates joined the country club.”
Then the discussion moved to the CBC and Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald offered the following view: “you say CBC is central to the Canadian communication system—in fact, it may have intensified—I’m not convinced of that. Maybe you’re right, but I want you to convince me. Because it’s increasingly irrelevant to me, and my children don’t watch it. As the chair says—and I have to agree—what does Canadian content mean if no one is watching it?”
The chair (David Tkachuk) seemed to be in agreement but then the newly minted vice-chair of the Committee, Julie Miville-Dechêne, who was a reporter for Radio-Canada for 30 years stepped in and said that she needs to take some time to defend the Corporation after hearing her colleagues demolish the CBC.
This shows promise for the backroom discussions of the Committee…
“If it were at an equal rate to Canadian broadcasting distributors, roughly 5%, that would add roughly 50 cents a month to a Netflix bill. I do not see this as a major obstacle and seem fair if legacy media-like cable are asked to contribute the same.” – Taylor
Yes, the Netflix tax was mentioned. “If it were at an equal rate to Canadian broadcasting distributors, roughly 5%, that would add roughly 50 cents a month to a Netflix bill. I do not see this as a major obstacle and seem fair if legacy media-like cable are asked to contribute the same,” said Taylor (an earlier version of this story noted professor Raboy said this, however it was misattributed).
Finally, one recommendation on the telecommunications side from professor Taylor: “One, the current government initiative being done with the CRTC about bringing technology, particularly broadband, into rural areas is a very welcome initiative. It’s also a patch. I don’t think this is really a long-term strategy. By bringing things like wireless and spectrum under the CRTC mandate and thinking longer term about these things, that can develop into a real strategy.”
