Technology is altering the broadcasting landscape – as it has before

Broadcasters, industry associations and the CRTC have a lot to consider in the upcoming television policy review, including the effect new technologies might have on conventional broadcasting. But no amount of technological advancement will negate the need for quality content, or usurp the commission’s ability to regulate, they say. "The commission makes a lot of conscious decisions, like them or not, that have just as much impact as technological change," Ian Morrison, spokesperson for the industry advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, tells Canadian Communications Reports. "People who press the mantra ‘You can’t regulate anymore because of technology,’ I don’t think they can make that argument stick." At this point in time, any potential upcoming television policy review can only be referred to as speculative. News that the Department of Canadian Heritage is prepared to allow the CRTC to conduct a television review has led to much pontificating, but no official announcement has come from the commission. Nevertheless, it does provide the opportunity to consider the key issues to be examined. One inherent problem in establishing a new regulatory framework is trying to account for the unseen innovations that will alter the broadcast landscape in the upcoming years – or even months. Charlotte Bell, Global Television’s VP regulatory affairs, feels that the answer is simplified rules that allow broadcasters to adapt and respond to new environments. For instance, many broadcasters are likely to call for looser restrictions as a means of defence against the commission’s recent decision to not regulate mobile television. While Bell says Global hasn’t had sufficient time to think about this decision, she feels the competing parallel systems need studying. "We can’t continue to operate in an environment where there are an increasing number of foreign services coming in, which are continually fragmenting audiences and reducing our ability to make our advertising projections," she says. Time-shifting and PVRs further alter the advertising landscape, technologies that Bell would like examined as well. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the voice of Canada’s private broadcasters, declined to comment on the upcoming television review at this time, but pointed to a submission made as part of the radio policy review as an indication of how it will approach the impact of new technologies and services. That submission states that pressure on profitability increases and margins decline as "new competitive platforms operating in a largely unregulated, parallel system take hold in the market." From that statement, it’s safe to opine that the CAB will be lobbying for some way for broadcasters to defend themselves. However, David Goldstein, VP government and regulatory affairs for CHUM Ltd., doesn’t believe technology is, or has ever been, a regulatory trump card. "There’s a great myth that the Canadian broadcast system is broke. It’s not. And one of the reasons that it has succeeded is that public policy decision-makers have largely taken a technology-neutral approach," he says. "As long as we all focus on the ball, which is competitive, attractive content, then we shouldn’t get hung up on particular technologies." In contrast to Global, CHUM happens to be an early adopter of cross-platform material and produces a lot of its own content. Where CHUM and Global do agree is that the time has come to look at some fundamental areas of the conventional broadcast structure. With the number of viewers who watch true over-the-air broadcasts falling to the low single-digits, investing money in these systems has less value as a means to defend Canadian broadcasting. Goldstein says the bigger issue is producing programming that can distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe. "The way we win is by putting great stuff on screen, and that’s where we should be spending our money," he says, adding that abandoning over-the-air transmission would save CHUM somewhere in the neighbourhood of tens of millions of dollars. Global’s Bell says the industry has to find a way to economically roll out high-definition TV in Canada. Bearing in mind the Broadcasting Act calls for a certain level of accessibility, discarding over-the-air transmissions presents a compelling option to divert funds to higher-quality productions. The issues Friends will pursue the hardest during any review is increasing levels of local and high-production-value fiction television. "The commission should be embarrassed by the failures of the ’99 policy," says Morrison. "The top one is regarding drama, and allowing a circumstance where very low production value material could receive equivalent credit in the priority programming." He points to Global’s now defunct Train 48 series as an example of a broadcaster opting for the lowest production values it could get away with, just to meet Cancon requirements. Morrison expects the commission to ask about Cancon incentives and minimum requirements during the hearing process, and says Friends will push for minimum expenditure requirements as well as a minimum number of hours of Canadian programming required between 8 and 10 p.m. "It’s just a matter of insisting on a certain minimum expenditure as part of the bargain you get when you operate a series of broadcasting licenses, that you put something back into Canada," he adds. It’s redundant to say the industry is constantly changing, and of course the commission will have to take change into account. But in the end quality content delivers, and the CRTC will rule. Says Morrison: "One thing that does not change is number of hours in a day that people have available or choose to watch."

Technology is altering the broadcasting landscape – as it has before

Broadcast | April 21, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us