It’s the oligopsony, of course
THE CANADIAN MEDIA Producers Association’s mission is to defend it members, so of course it is the focus of its submission to the Broadcast and Telecom Legislative Review (BTLR) panel.
A main concern is the concentration of ownership in the English TV market: “Given the substantial vertical integration and consolidation of broadcasters in Canada, the oligopsonistic nature of our domestic market, the information asymmetry between producers and broadcasters, and the resulting significant buying power yielded by broadcasters, there is a real risk that ownership concentration will reduce the programming options and the number of distinct creative and editorial voices available to Canadians,” reads its submission.
Therefore, they recommend that the CRTC be given “the express power to govern commercial arrangements between large vertically integrated domestic broadcasting undertakings and large foreign online broadcasting undertakings, on the one hand, and independent producers and independent broadcasting undertakings, on the other.”
However, the CMPA also notes “the Commission may be reluctant to regulate online and foreign services because (a) it is currently unable to grant a broadcasting licence to non-Canadians, and (b) its existing enforcement powers outside of licensing are inefficient or ineffective.”
We liked this new idea, though: “The Commission could… direct any AMP (administrative monetary penalty) to be paid to various funds, including the CMF, CIPFs, Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, and others.”
The CMPA also filed with the review panel different studies that will help understand how measures in the UK helped the independent production sector: Impact of the 2003 Communications Act on UK Indie Producers and The impact of Terms of Trade on the UK’s television content production sector.
As well a study by Wall Communication: Buyer Power in Canadian TV: An Examination of the Domestic Market Structure for the Purchase and Sale of Canadian-produced English Language TV Programming
And finally, a document prepared for the CMPA in partnership with: Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) è Association québécoise de la production médiatique (AQPM) and Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) elaborating a Modelling a new broadcasting distribution system financial contribution framework for Canadian audiovisual content.
Such research will be useful for the Review Panel in elaborating recommendations for the Government.
The Directors Guild of Canada (DGC)
On net neutrality, the DGC is concerned that: “existing provisions only apply to Canadian-owned carriers, leaving free rein for foreign devices and terminal equipment such as Roku, Chromecast and Apple TV boxes, which provide and govern access to content. The DGC recommends that the CRTC examine this issue and develop ways to ensure non-discriminatory access to Canadian content and services on Internet connected devices,” reads its pitch.
It's submission also says the Broadcasting Act should be renamed the Audiovisual Media (Services) Act, consistent with terminology used by media regulators across the world.
“This submission is also a call to action against cultural homogeneity created by recommendation algorithms and the domination of a small number of global Internet platforms with similar content libraries.” – DGC
“This submission is also a call to action against cultural homogeneity created by recommendation algorithms and the domination of a small number of global Internet platforms with similar content libraries. FAANG… benefit from fiscal advantages — including minimal Canadian physical presence, employment, and contribution—and an absence of regulation,” says the DGC. (FAANG = Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google)
“In order to ensure that all cultural content and specifically, audiovisual content is moving freely in Canada, we recommend that section 24.1 of the Act be applied to provide oversight over new consumer access technologies (such as Smart TVs, terminals, software programs, connected and intelligent devices),” adds the DGC submission. Essentially, such things would need to be licenced by the Commission.
On Broadcasting Act’s objective: “First, we note that within the current Act, the Canadian broadcasting system is to be ‘owned’ by Canadians. While it is important that intellectual property be retained and exploited by Canadians, we believe that the most fundamental goal is to recognize the voices of the creators not just the production companies or other entities that might own the production rights.”
Finally, the directors propose that “artificial intelligence and algorithms play an increasingly important role in content discoverability, and in particular with regard to domestic cultural content as much as local news visible. The actual percentage of local content presented to viewers online by foreign platform is often ruled by algorithms, or by a mix of human curation and algorithms,” reads the submission.
“Foreign platforms, similar to domestic online platforms, currently do not disclose information about how their platforms present content for competitive reasons. Nonetheless, the CRTC should have access to the underlying principles of these algorithms.”
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists [ACTRA]
“Over the decades, Canada has developed one of the most comprehensive cultural policies in the world, and our successes in television, music and literature are a direct consequence of these policies. While providing funding to artists, producers and distributors of cultural products have been an essential part of the policy toolkit, structural measures are even more powerful because they are not subject to the current state of public finances nor the political whims of the day,” says the ACTRA submission.
The actors argue while times are good for the sector John Landgraf, president of FX, the drama/comedy series network (owned by Fox but soon to be a Disney brand) and the philosopher king of U.S. television, coined the term ‘peak TV’ to describe the phenomenon. “But, the very concept of peak TV implies this global boom will come to an end, if not tomorrow, then the year after. And we believe this will happen.”
As a solution, then, to the approaching expected financial downturn on the other side of this peak, the government could ensure that a “portion of the proceeds from every future (wireless) spectrum auction be allocated to the production and distribution of Canadian content, including audiovisual and music programming.”
“We note first of all that the five largest Canadian media companies are vertically and horizontally integrated enterprises that remain profitable, and they should be able to absorb the levy into their financial operations.” – ACTRA
ACTRA is not unaware that contributions could have an impact on consumers and the organization “believes all Canadians should have access to the Internet. We are thus sensitive to the concern that introducing a levy on Internet providers may increase the subscription costs to the detriment of some Canadians. We note first of all that the five largest Canadian media companies are vertically and horizontally integrated enterprises that remain profitable, and they should be able to absorb the levy into their financial operations.”
The submission explains further that “for Canadians who wish to have an Internet connection and for whom cost is an impediment, ACTRA would support a subsidy program attached to the Income Tax system.”
The actors also propose the CRTC oversee search engines. “Regulating search engines would be difficult, but ACTRA recommends the government approach search engines like Google, Bing and others, and request they ensure Canadians are offered some Canadian choices in their search results. While it is neither possible nor appropriate to interfere in the final selection made by individuals, Canadian consumers should have a real choice, including Canadian films, television programs and music. We expect companies would concur with the government’s reasonable request to be seen as good corporate citizens.”
Asian Television Network [ATN]
The president and CEO of ATN is Shan Chandrasekar, and he uses this opportunity to sensitize the review Panel to the plague of programming piracy. Frankly, he uses every opportunity to alert everybody in sight to that issue as it is directly impacting his company’s survival.
“(F)igures reported by Sandvine in a recent Global Internet Phenomena report in which it found that subscription piracy services alone result in an estimated annual financial loss to the industry in North America of US$4.2 billion. If approximately one tenth of those losses are attributable to the Canadian market, the impact here would be approximately $500 million,” says the ATN submission.
Using Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act could resolve the issue. “As odd as it may be our laws, as interpreted and enforced currently, support and even pamper programming piracy that is taking place by availing it shelter under the umbrella of Net Neutrality,” says the ATN pitch. “Our (Canadian) net neutrality is amoral in that it does not distinguish between lawful and unlawful radio-telecommunication. Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act… provides as follows: ‘except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunication carried by it for the public.’ Upon review of CRTC decisions in regards to Section 36, the reality is that it has not been able to deal with viral hate propaganda over the net under our present framework and that is evident.
“Currently with the existing Section 36, leaves the CRTC unequipped to undertake proper course of action to the content of messages being carried by Canadian carriers. It is not empowered to make a determination that content is lawful or unlawful. Therefore, as it stands Section 36 nurtures unlawful (i.e. child pornography) or pirated content over Canadian carriers and at that creating a disservice to Canadians,” concludes the ATN submission.
Pelmorex
Pelmorex is the owner of The Weather Network and MétéoMédia, two must-carry 9(1)(h) TV channels. Nothing is more typical of Canadian conversation than the weather, so we decided to end this segment on the BTLR submissions with the weather company.
Weather and climate is becoming a more prominent topic of conversation, so “access to weather news reporting is becoming more important every year due to the increased instance and severity of active and catastrophic weather events.”
Pelmorex has an issue with the renewal process of their mandatory carriage status, too. “With each licence renewal, Pelmorex continues to invest and commit more in exchange for mandatory distribution. We submit that this option should remain within a revised Act . But as the 9(1)(h) criteria are subjective, we can never be assured of maintaining our essential service status and our general terms and conditions of carriage. Indeed, in our most recent licence renewal the CRTC reduced our wholesale rate by 5%, despite receiving no requests from Canadian cable and satellite subscribers to do so.”
Pelmorex, it should be noted, also created, built and runs Canada’s emergency alerting system.
The company supports “identifying fixed, objective criteria (e.g. Canadian programming expenditure and exhibition percentages) that, if met, would ensure distribution by regulated BDUs.”
However, the company also seems to argue for loosening of Canadian ownership restrictions, too. Pelmorex “is concerned that expanding the scope of broadcasting regulation, and maintaining a rigid interpretation of the objectives, could negatively impact our digital business. Because Pelmorex’s TWN/MM apps and websites deliver primarily Canadian content, and contribute to the objectives of the Act in a variety of other ways, we believe that they should be able to continue operating without interference regardless of the legislative or regulatory context,” reads its submission.
“More simply put, in our view a suitable regulatory regime that captured digital content activities would recognize the contributions of our digital services and ultimately rubber stamp them as being fully compliant. Any attempt to regulate that imposed disruptive requirements on our digital services would therefore be viewed as a legislative or regulatory failure.”
