Jump set to launch site, likely with off-shore content before Canadian broadcasting

JumpTV is raising the stakes in its battle to become an Internet re-transmitter by promising to launch its site within the next couple of weeks. The move comes as the company continues its battle for legitimacy with the Copyright Board of Canada, and as large U.S. broadcasters sharpen their legal knives to fight what they view as another iCraveTV-type service. No timetable yet for copyright hearingsJumpTV’s planned launch could break a procedural stalemate in the Copyright Board’s review of a proposed new tariff for Internet retransmissions. JumpTV is anxious for the board to rule on its tariff application quickly, saying a drawn out process would be "unnecessarily complex, lengthy and expensive". "JumpTV, as an Internet start-up company, has extremely limited funds and cannot engage in a drawn out process... Accordingly, JumpTV is requesting a formal hearing to determine the merits of its claim…that should last no longer than two days (one day to be given to JumpTV and the other to the collectives)," the company’s lawyer, Sunny Handa, writes in a March 23 letter to the board. He also recommends that submissions be limited, and that neither side be required to provide expert evidence. One observer of the process says Jump’s request for an expedited process is out-of-line. "You can’t decide the legal issue as well as the tariff issue in two days… There’s no doubt that the collectives may want an extended process to look at all the issues in detail and that may have the effect of having a negative effect on JumpTV as well, and they’re not going to cry if that happens. But, they’re not doing anything outrageous in that regard." The Canadian collectives and JumpTV have been swapping letters over how a board hearing should proceed. The collectives, which represent rights-holders for TV broadcasts in Canada, suggest a much longer process that would see hearings begin only after 30 weeks of procedural wrangling in the first phase. A second phase would last another 23 weeks before the board could begin a hearing. The two-phase approach is necessary, the Canadian Broadcasting Rights Agency argues in its letter to the board, because if the board rules against Jump in phase one, there wouldn’t be a need for a second phase.The company had delayed launching its web site, pending approval of a new tariff from the Copyright Board that would allow it to pick up over-the-air television signals and retransmit them over the Internet, without fear of reprisals from broadcasters. Jump president Farrel Miller confirms a launch is pending, but won’t say if the new site will stream local TV signals when it goes live. The company has said in the past that it won’t offer an iCraveTV-like service until it secures a copyright tariff. What’s more likely is that JumpTV will start with off-shore programming for which it has cleared the rights. In an interview with CNM last October (CNM, Oct. 4/00), Miller said the portal would carry signals from around the world, including Europe and Asia. In some cases, agreements would be exclusive or would involve linking to broadcasters’ Internet sites. Taking a soft launch approach likely won’t upset the Canadian collectives, or the Washington-based National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) which asked this week for leave to participate in Copyright Board hearings on the matter. While much ado has been made of the NAB’s request to be made a party to the JumpTV debate, it’s unlikely the group will either be granted intervenor status or have much influence over the Copyright Board’s final decision on the matter. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) was denied status as an interested party late last year, and observers note the NAB won’t likely get it either as the relevant collectives are already represented in the proceedings. The NAB’s members – America’s largest and most powerful broadcasters – were quick to shut iCraveTV down in late-1999, tying the company up in expensive lawsuits in the United States. Though it likely won’t be given a voice at the Copyright Board, except perhaps to submit a friend of the court-style brief, analysts expect the organization and its members won’t hesitate to sue JumpTV if it begins re-transmitting TV broadcasts without proven firewall technology to keep the signal out of the States.In its April 2 letter to the Copyright Board, Henry Baumann, EVP of law and regulatory policy for the NAB, states: "An action of this Copyright Board authorizing (JumpTV) to retransmit television broadcast signals over the internet would have profound international implications and adverse consequences, and likely would violate international law." The association notes that it successfully fought attempts by its domestic satellite industry to pick up local TV signals and retransmit them across the country. "The damage done by our domestic satellite industry pales by comparison to the havoc that could be wrecked upon the system of free over-the-air broadcasting in the U.S. by granting (JumpTV’s) tariff." Miller says he isn’t intimated by the NAB’s opposition to his service, saying if the lobby group wants a cause, it should go after cable operators rather than Internet retransmitters. He says U.S. broadcasters should be more concerned that Canadian cable companies have unrestricted access to American programming under the current re-transmission regime – a bigger problem than JumpTV.

Jump set to launch site, likely with off-shore content before Canadian broadcasting

News | 04/05/2001 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