Tackling new technologies a priority for CRTC vice-chair Arpin

Helping sort the wheat from the chaff in keeping Canada abreast of new communications technologies is a top priority of the CRTC’s recently installed vice-chair of broadcasting. "I think new technologies are issues that require the constant examination of the CRTC. As vice-chair, I will have to say they are a concern, and as a commission will have to get much more knowledge, and not only respond to the issues but also be proactive," Michel Arpin tells Canadian Communications Reports. He adds, however, that the CRTC must not get caught up in fads of the moment. "We are gathering information and having briefings ," he notes. "But we have to ask ourselves: Is it something that will really have an impact or will it launch today and be buried in the next few months? Everybody got excited a few years ago about @home; where is @home today? The technology doesn’t exist anymore." One of the problems, notes Arpin, is that new technologies are launched every week, and it’s impossible to know which ones will stick. And, he cautions, often these technologies take longer to develop or be adopted than predicted. "We have been hearing about broadcasting over the Internet for almost a decade now. Yet it is still limited and consumption of it is in the low range," he says. "We have to examine all of that, and we have to assess the new technologies, examine how they fit together, and how they meet the spirit and letter of the Broadcasting Act – that is a top priority." Even though Internet video broadcasting is currently not widespread, Arpin says that the CRTC will have to re-examine the 1999 New Media Exemption Order. The order classifies much of the content on the Internet as a form of broadcasting but places no regulation on it. It was set to expire in 2004, but the CRTC extended it. Arpin points out that the order is something that has to be looked at. " is something that we have to look at down the road. I have no specific timing , but we have been monitoring the system as more broadcasters – both foreign and Canadian – have been using the Internet," he notes. "We also have to balance the extent to which it is drawing audiences to justify the resources we will have to commit to it. We can’t for a technology that is having little or no impact. On the other hand, we can’t wait until it becomes a threat to the broadcasting system." The Internet has the potential to create a borderless content world, which would be a threat to Canadian broadcasters as they currently operate. For instance, Canadian broadcasters acquire the rights to air lucrative U.S. programming within Canada, but Hollywood studios could potentially use the Web as a vehicle to directly reach viewers here. "I totally share those concerns ," states Arpin. "But that being said, when information is moving across borders, and new technologies are seamless to the border, the commission cannot build a...wall around Canada. We do not have the means." While wanting to protect Canadian content – a cornerstone of the broadcasting system – Arpin adds that the commission can’t implement measures that will "disenfranchise consumers." The commission must weigh the concerns of the broadcasters with the reality of the various forms of new media and the interests of viewers or listeners. One area where the CRTC has come under attack from cultural groups is in the amount of Canadian content that came with the licensing of two U.S.-backed subscription satellite radio services in Canada (CCR, Sept. 9/05). In licensing Canadian Satellite Radio Inc. (CSR) and Sirius Canada Inc., the CRTC mandated that they each carry at least eight Canadian channels featuring 85% Canadian music, spoken or written content with a premium on new musical selections and music from emerging Canadian artists. The licensees can offer nine foreign channels for each Canadian channel carried, and they must contribute at least 5% of their gross annual revenues to Canadian talent initiatives. The CRTC ruling doubled the number of Canadian channels initially proposed by CSR and Sirius Canada, but many cultural groups and FM and AM radio operators cried foul. The Canadian content restrictions on the satellite radio providers are at about 10% compared with 35% for existing radio stations. As a result, it led radio broadcasters to protest that they were at a competitive disadvantage because they had higher Cancon requirements. Many of them have suggested that they will approach the commission for a downward readjustment as a result of the way subscription satellite radio was licensed. But Arpin notes that there are other examples of the CRTC requiring different Canadian content levels for different forms of broadcasting. "It’s not the first time that the commission has licensed platforms that have different levels of Canadian content," he says. "Specialty services and pay TV have different Canadian content requirements than over-the-air television. There have been occasions where the commission has for similar media set different Canadian content requirements." He noted that in licensing subscription satellite radio the commission had to consider for the first time that the satellite-based services would be North America-wide. Although he had not yet joined the CRTC at the time of the satellite radio licensing process, he states that the regulator had to also consider the black and grey markets. In any case, he says that FM and AM radio owners will be able to present their case in the upcoming radio review process. A public notice outlining the radio review is planned for next month. The CRTC announced earlier this month that it was moving ahead with a review of its commercial radio policy, although the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) had requested a further delay until the effects of the launch of subscription radio could be better evaluated (CCR, Oct. 7/05). But the CRTC told the association that "a review of the Commercial Radio Policy is timely and that any further delay would not be advisable, especially given the many technological and other changes taking place and the impacts they may have on the radio and music sectors." The radio review was due to take place in 2003, but was delayed by CRTC chair Charles Dalfen because subscription satellite radio had not been licensed and the rollout of digital radio had not advanced very far. Another new technology that the commission is examining is video to cell phones and other mobile devices. The regulator is currently mulling whether mobile TV should fall under the New Media Exemption Order – something that hasn’t stopped TELUS, Bell Mobility, and Rogers Wireless from launching services (CCR, Sept. 27/05). But Arpin says that it is not too late for the CRTC to regulate mobile TV, even though the country’s three largest wireless carriers have already gone ahead. "The service is widely popular, and regulation after the fact is possible," he points out, adding that the CRTC will make its decision in the next couple of months. Dealing with new technologies in the broadcasting system is a priority for Arpin. He notes that one of the reasons he returned to the CRTC after a stint elsewhere in the 1970s was because he believes with his knowledge and experience, he will be able to play a role in sorting out these complex issues. "I want to act as a bridge between the broadcast operator and the regulator," he adds. "If I am a good bridge, then I have done my job."

Tackling new technologies a priority for CRTC vice-chair Arpin

News | 11/29/2005 5:00 am EST

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