How Canadian broadcast regulation ranks against the U.K. and Europe

Canadian Communications Reports recently sat down with Michael Ryan, a lawyer with Coudert Brothers' global telecom practice in London England who, up until 1994, had been VP law at Unitel Communications Inc (now AT&T Canada). His years working in England and experience in dealing with the European communications market have given him a fresh perspective on what Canada's broadcast regulator is doing right, and what it might do better. An edited transcript of that conversation follows: CCR: How is communications policy in the U.K. and Europe different than in Canada? MR: Europe is behind in the sense that they haven't been able to confront the dominance of American culture. Canada has lived with it from the beginning of the country's history, but it's only starting to impinge upon the consciousness of Europeans. CCR: Does the arrival of digital TV make those concerns less relevant? MR: It doesn't remove the concerns. It just means we have to deal with the concerns in different ways. We've tried in the past (in Canada) to license programming networks and television distribution in ways that secure the position of Canadian programming and Canadian culture. But the Internet is changing our ability to do that. Canada needs to put more focus on producing content that people want to see. If people want to see it, it will find a ready market. I think the theory that you can get strong by protecting your domestic market is unsound. CCR: How do the CRTC and the U.K. regulatory climates differ? MR: One of the key differences is that OFTEL (the U.K.'s Office of Telecommunications) has a mandate that doesn't extend to cultural issues. A lot of the CRTC's thinking about telecommunications issues is influenced by the cultural mandate on the broadcasting side that tends to look at telecommunications issues in situations where it wants to promote some Canadian values, not just to price regulate. The OFTEL focus is a narrowly defined price regulation mandate. They might express a desire for universality, but the rates in the U.K. are much higher than they are here. It's much more of an executive function than a judicial one. There are never any public hearings. The paper proceedings they have are much shorter, and the deadlines are much tighter. It may contribute to speedier decision, but it is at the expense of public participation. CCR: Are there lessons Canada can learn from OFTEL? MR: In terms of process, it's hard for me to justify a 13-member commission. I'm not convinced that a one-person CRTC, which is what OFTEL effectively is, is the right model either, but I think something like a three-member board would be ideal in both cases. With one person, the regulatory process has become too personalized. That's an argument that's been made many times in the U.K., that issues tend to be identified with a particular director general. There's a danger that it seems to be a particular crusade, rather than a particular initiative that is a public interest, broadly-noted initiative.I think the CRTC is going to have to do what a lot of their counterparts are doing, and that is rely more and more on the market to sort things out and disabuse themselves of the notion that they can control events as they are unfolding. It's a hard pill to swallow, particularly for the CRTC, which grew up in an era when it was possible to regulate a whole industry through a sort of command and control system. The regulators in the European states don't have that history behind them and don't suffer from the illusion, as a consequence, that it's possible to regulate that way. The CRTC is having trouble moving away from that model and accepting the model that is being imposed upon them.

How Canadian broadcast regulation ranks against the U.K. and Europe

News | 05/11/2000 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us