THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY AND broadcasters look to be readying themselves for a regulatory scuffle over the delivery of television to mobile phone handsets.
The wireless companies say that since the video signal they plan to make available to cell phone customers is delivered via IP, (over the Internet), that it therefore falls under the CRTC’s 1999 new media exemption order and should not be subject to regulation. Period. That order said the CRTC would stay out of regulating the Internet – a decision which was made when the web was still just a toddler, however.
The broadcasters say that television is television, whatever the mode of delivery or viewing device, and that linkage rules and contribution levels to program production should apply, meaning that for every CNN added to Rogers Wireless cell customers there must also be a CTV Newsnet, and for every dollar of revenue earned from bringing video to mobile phones, 5% must find its way to a TV production fund. Just like a traditional broadcast distribution undertaking (BDU).
The CRTC has yet to make a public peep on the issue, but something is coming on this file, soon.
Both Bell Canada and Rogers Wireless announced this year that they will soon offer television channels and other content to the handsets of their wireless customers using Idetic Inc.’s MobiTV technology. Rogers is actually a bit overdue now, given its announcement in April that MobiTV would be commercially available in the second quarter of this year. When it made the announcement, Rogers said it was talking with MSNBC, CP24, NBC On-Line, Discovery, TLC, The Weather Channel, Meteo Media, and NBC Mobile. It also said it would offer some Toronto Blue Jays content and other programming.
However, both technical and programming issues have held up its launch at Rogers. When contacted by www.cartt.ca, Bell Canada declined to comment on the issue, or when it might launch such a video service.
It’s a nifty thing, being able to watch live TV or selected on-demand highlights on the teeny screen of a cell phone. You’ve gotta think the CRTC will certainly have an opinion on this, don’t you? It has an opinion on everything else.
At this point it’s unclear just what’s going to happen or when but a CRTC spokesperson told www.cartt.ca this week that the Commission “is looking into what level of regulation, if any, would be appropriate.” The spokesperson added the Commission would make public its next steps “shortly”.
“We feel pretty confident that the new media exemption order exempts us from regulation,” Rogers Communications vice-president, regulatory, Ken Englehart told me Wednesday. “Now, the new media exemption order is up for review so it’s always possible that the CRTC can say ‘well, considering it’s up for review, do you think should apply to the wireless video service going forward?’
“It’s possible the CRTC might review it and it’s also possible they might want to invite comments whether people share our view that it’s within the new media exemption order, but we have not heard anything from them,” added Englehart.
As for the broadcasters, the recent satellite radio decision causes them concern when it comes to mobile video – and down the line, even BDU-delivered services. As reported by www.cartt.ca, two new Canadian companies were granted licenses to operate satellite subscription radio services in Canada last month and must offer only one Canadian channel for every eight foreign ones (however, the Canadian channels must be 85% Canadian content).
A number of broadcasters and cultural groups have since appealed that decision, saying it’s just the tip of the iceberg which will wreck the Canadian broadcasting industry.
Broadcasters want wireless operators be subject to the same requirements to link foreign services and Canadian channels when plotting their video lineups as cable and satellite TV companies are.
“You’ve followed the issues of MobiTV and behind the scenes, you’re aware the Commission has enquired into this – and is predisposed to viewing it as part of their regulatory space,” CHUM Ltd.’s vice-president of planning and regulatory affairs Peter Miller told me last week. “I can assure you now (the satellite radio) precedent is being looked at by all wireless operators who are saying ‘we don’t want to be regulated but if we are, we want the same deal as these guys – which says we can bring in whatever foreign video services we want so out goes the eligible satellite list.’
“They are looking at this and my view is that it will start in the mobile space and if this decision stands, in five to 10 years you will absolutely see it impacting the DTH and cable space,” Miller added.
“I think the broadcasters should take a chill pill here,” countered Englehart. “They are so heavily into protectionist mode that they are not thinking clearly on this. (Mobile TV) is absolutely not a threat to the Canadian broadcasting system in any way. They should allow this medium to grow a bit and see what happens – which is precisely the thinking behind the new media exemption order.
“You are not going to get one single subscriber in Canada that cancels their cable TV service, because they’re getting their TV over the cell phone,” added Englehart.
That 1999 exemption order, however, was most recently cited (in the end, futilely) by Canadian incumbent telcos when arguing against VOIP regulation for them. The Commission still decided to maintain the regs on the incumbent telcos, despite the fact that VOIP calls are Internet-delivered.
Perhaps wireless operators should bear that in mind because if the CRTC can look at Internet-delivered telephony and say “phone is phone” as it did in the VOIP ruling, it’s not much of a stretch to see Commissioners use the same logic and decide that “TV is TV” when it comes to video on cell phones and apply BDU regs to video-delivering mobile phone companies.
It could happen. But not without a fight.
