The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports.Just what should the CRTC be expected to do with regard to interactivity in television programming? Some of what is being requested in the commission’s fact-finding inquiry seems well outside the regulator’s purview. One such request is that by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA) that the CRTC clarify who "owns" the iTV component of broadcast programs delivered through the set-top box. But iTV content can vary greatly from electronic program guides to advertising to additional on-screen information about characters on a show. The ownership could vary depending on a number of issues, such as the form of the content, where the funding to develop the content came from, and how and why it was created. The CRTC cannot be expected to rule on who "owns" iTV content in such wide-ranging circumstances, nor should it. The push by some broadcasters for CRTC assurances that they should have access to two-way broadband access at no cost to deliver their content is also suspect. Equally though, the cable industry’s call for a wide-open, purely market-driven approach seems too laissez faire. There are some areas in which the CRTC may be able to facilitate the rollout of iTV content in Canada. One question it might consider is what kind of iTV content should various channels be permitted to run? Does the iTV content have to fit in with a channel’s defined nature of service? For example, should a channel devoted to travel be permitted to deliver sports-related iTV content? Many would say no. The CRTC may also have a role to play in helping develop a code of conduct for negotiations between producers, broadcasters, and programmers delivering iTV content, as the CFTPA has recommended. Such an approach was used with the launch of new digital specialty channels. The code provided for general principles in the negotiation of carriage deals, and appeared to help the process. While market forces to an extent dictated which channels were carried and at which price, anyone who felt wronged could complain to the commission. This is, for example, what PrideVision did when Shaw was charging a nominal fee to preview its new gay and lesbian channel.