CRTC set to wade into retransmission debate with call for comments

As asked to by the federal government, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued a call for comments in a new public process to examine Internet retransmission. It has set a deadline of September 6 for comments on how Canada’s broadcasting laws, and the 1998 new media exemption order in particular, might be amended to take into account the retransmission of over-the-air television signals via the Internet. The road to retransmissionSince breaking the JumpTV story in September 2000, Canadian NEW MEDIA has published dozens of stories exploring the debate with unmatched insight, timeliness and detail. As the CRTC prepares to wade into the discussion, CNM has prepared the following list of all back-issue stories, bi-weekly update items and breaking news updates published since we began covering the story – many of which were available within hours of our obtaining internal and other documents.CRTC declared new media broadcasting, but promises immunity from regulation – CNM, May 20/99.Legal loophole that gave birth to iCraveTV won’t be closed anytime soon – CNM, Mar. 22/00.Securing copyright tariff key in JumpTV’s bid to become an Internet retransmitter – CNM, Sept. 20/00.Comparisons to iCrave miss global nature of new television portal, says JumpTV.com – CNM, Oct. 4/00.CCTA asks for consideration in JumpTV issue – CNM, Oct. 4/00.Copyright Board decision won’t affect iCraveTV’s business plan, says McCallum – CNM, Oct. 4/00.Broadcasters rights agency needs more information before responding to JumpTV – CNM, Oct. 18/00.Opposition to JumpTV.com intensifies as broadcasters form new media coalition – CNM, Nov. 1/00.Battle of words continues between Canadian broadcasters and JumpTV.com – CNM, Nov. 29/00.Federal government may introduce legislation on Internet broadcasting – CNM, Jan. 24/01.Tobin favours tightening retransmission loophole to satisfy broadcast concerns – CNM, Feb. 21/01.Jump set to launch site, likely with off-shore content before Canadian broadcasting – CNM, Apr. 5/01.CAB makes new request for Jump status – CNM, Apr. 19/01.JumpTV launches as both sides agree on Copyright Board timetable for tariff – CNM, May 3/01.Parliament should resist temptation to outlaw Internet retransmissions – CNM Newsmaker, May 3/01.JumpTV doesn’t pose threat to U.S. broadcasters, says Miller – CNM Update, May 17/01 (not archived).Copyright Board Jump hearing status in air as feds launch review of section 31 – CNM, May 31/01.JumpTV applauds federal consultation paper on retransmission regime – CNM, June 28/01.Copyright Board rules on interrogatories – CNM Update, July 18/01.Copyright Board takes two issues off the table in phase one of JumpTV proceedings – CNM, July 25/01.JumpTV offers to pay CTF fees – CNM, Aug. 23/01.JumpTV drops section 31 bid – CNM Special Update, Oct. 11/01.JumpTV drops tariff bid, board process cancelled – CNM, Oct. 18/01.Government to close section 31 loophole – CNM Special Update, Oct. 29/01.JumpTV to survey users on subscription model – CNM Update, Nov. 7/01.Departments had adequate time to study section 31: Canadian Heritage official – CNM, Nov. 15/01.Door open to Internet retransmitters in section 31 legislation tabled Dec. 12 – CNM, Dec. 13/01.Opposition MP predicts smooth ride for retransmission bill through committee – CNM, Feb. 22/02.Rumours of Industry, Heritage rift on C-48 denied after MP’s comments in House – CNM, Mar. 7/02.Bill C-48 consultation document proposes new category of Internet retransmitter – CNM Special Update, Mar. 21/02.Retransmission battle lines publicly drawn as regulations proposed for Bill C-48 – CNM, Mar. 27/02.Internet retransmission regulations to allow new class of Internet undertaking – CNM Special Update, May 2/02.Clock running out on C-48 as broadcasters, stakeholders urge further changes – CNM, May 16/02.Deadlock on C-48 regulations prompts ministers to throw ball into CRTC court – CNM, May 31/02.JumpTV will pay tariff, abide by same rules as cable: Miller to committee – CNM Update, June 5/02.Options all on table as Parliamentarians debate final shape of C-48 legislation – CNM, June 14/02.Heritage Committee creates permanent moratorium on Internet retransmission – CNM Special Update, June 18/02.Bill C-48 passes in House, Senate to examine bill this fall – CNM Update, June 19/02Door still open to Internet retransmission even as Bill C-48 passes – CNM, June 26/02.Observers suggest that the process will start from scratch, educating commissioners about the issue, which has already been hashed out for both the Copyright Board of Canada and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The call for comments, Broadcasting Public Notice 2002-38, sets out a broad range of questions the commission will need to answer before it can decide whether or not to let the exemption order stand, or whether Internet retransmitters such as JumpTV.com Canada Inc. or the now-defunct iCraveTV.com Inc. should be licensed. Unlike previous bouts between JumpTV and its opponents, however, this time the issue will be broader than the Copyright Act. Last May, the House of Commons passed Bill C-48 – yet to wend its way through the Senate or win Royal Assent – but hope remains for would-be Internet retransmitters to convince the CRTC to create a new class of broadcast distribution undertaking, possibly with more lax conditions than those with which cable companies and direct-to-home satellite TV players are encumbered. But, says Jay Kerr-Wilson, Canadian Cable Television Association senior counsel, first the commission will have to re-tread some well-worn ground. "You’ve got to remember that this is the CRTC’s first crack at it, which means that they’ve got no factual record at all," he tells Canadian NEW MEDIA. "A lot of what they’re trying to do here is just figure out what’s going on out there, what the processes are: a lot of the things that we – meaning all the parties who have been involved in the discussions – have been talking to Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada about. We sort of have to back up for the purposes of the CRTC proceeding and say, ‘OK, this is what we mean.’ There’s also a shift in focus from a narrow copyright thing to a broader broadcast policy perspective." Toward that end, the CRTC is seeking comments on a variety of questions ranging from what Internet retransmission is, to whether it can serve as a complement to current broadcast technologies, the impact it might have on the current television system, and what conditions it might apply to a new class of Internet retransmitter. Several of the commission’s questions relate to technology, asking for instance what measures can be put in place to keep retransmissions within Canada’s borders, and whether the bandwidth is available to provide the service. Kerr-Wilson says the commission’s questions are on target, and the list of queries should allay fears that the regulator might reopen the entire issue of the exemption order prior to a mandated review of it two years from now. "We think that what the commission did in 1998 with the new media exemption order was a very sound decision," he says. "They didn’t consider Internet retransmission, so it’s perfectly fine for them to say, ‘OK, now we’ve got a development and we’ve been asked by Cabinet to take a look at it and build a record.’ That’s what this process is all about. I think their questions are aimed in a way that isn’t going to take a look at all the other elements that were part of that original exemption order." Though it’s expected that many of the same arguments that have been heard for more than two years for and against the legitimacy of Internet retransmission will be expressed again, the process is still fraught with some uncertainties. It’s not known, for example, whether the commission could create a second exemption order to deal with Internet retransmission since C-48 will codify reference to the original exemption when it passes. The CRTC has been asked to report on its findings no later than Jan. 17, 2003. One unknown quantity in this issue is the Senate. While the Senate is expected to pass C-48 in the fall when Parliament resumes sitting, the reasonably quick January deadline might convince some senators to delay passage of the bill. That may be a remote possibility since any delay would likely be the result of mobilizing an activist contingent of senators on the issue. As was seen in the final outcome of the Standing Committee process, opponents of Internet retransmission were most effective in galvanizing political will against JumpTV, and it’s uncertain whether pro-Jump forces could gather the same lobbying resources. A further complicating factor could be the commission’s inclusion of a broader discussion of interactivity into the debate. Besides a series of targeted questions on Internet retransmission, the CRTC will also include comments related to its recent proceeding on interactivity. To that end, submissions filed to Public Notice 2001-113 will be made part of the record of this current process. Kerr-Wilson dismisses notions that interactivity on the television side will become inextricably linked with the commission’s final determination on Internet retransmission. "The commission’s probably not trying to draw a link. I think they just want to say that, insofar as there may be issues in common since the Internet is one way to encourage interactivity…they’re saying that we’ll take it as a given that anything that might have been said about interactivity in the context of the prior hearing can be referred to in this without having to revisit those submissions. I don’t think they’re saying that these two issues are necessarily linked or co-dependent." After the September 6 comments are received, parties will have until October 4 to make reply comments. Only one group has issued a public reaction to PN 2002-38 thus far. The North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) issued a media release July 19 stating: "(NABA) welcomed today’s announcement by the (CRTC) that it is seeking comments from the public regarding the rules for the retransmission of broadcasters’ signals over the Internet." NABA secretary general Michael McEwen is quoted in the release as saying: "The protection of television and radio signals is important, not only to broadcasters, but to all those involved including writers, actors and producers. The retransmission of broadcasters’ signals on the Internet does not respect geographic or political borders. Broadcasters throughout the world need a regulatory environment where their product is respected and protected."

CRTC set to wade into retransmission debate with call for comments

News | 07/25/2002 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