This week’s decision by the CRTC to exempt new media platforms from regulation was one that was not surprising if the testimony by several groups on various sticking points was anything to go by. Even before the new media hearing kicked off, the question of determining whether broadcast activities on the Internet constitute broadcasting as it is defined under the Broadcasting Act, dominated discussions between ISPs, and cultural organizations. ISPs argued that they are mainly conduits for transmitting broadcasts and therefore can’t be called broadcasters. Cultural organizations, however disagreed. At the new media hearing, it was obvious that the CRTC had its work cut out for it regarding the definition of broadcasting on the Internet. But if there was one issue that generated lots of discussion, it was the issue of measuring broadcast content on the Internet in order to establish how often a program was viewed in order to determine its expenditures and revenues. Parties at the hearing discussed both internal and external measurement modalities. However, it was obvious that there was no standard measuring modality that was widely in use and accepted by all. For instance, the International Standard Audio Visual Number (ISAN), pitched by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA), turned out to be in its early stages of usage in Canada. Introduced two years ago, ISAN uses water-marking and fingerprinting technologies for tracking and distributing video in various formats. Besides being relatively new in the Canadian market, ISAN also had very few clients who had registered to use it, raising questions about whether it was acceptable to all producers in Canada. Additionally, ISAN is not the only tracking technology in use in Canada. Other tracking technologies include those used by Comscore and Google. Faced with this dilemma, it was therefore not surprising that the CRTC ruled that it would be initiating a follow-up proceeding – at a yet to be determined date – that would “explore in greater detail the specific reporting requirements of new media broadcasting undertakings, identify which undertakings will be subject to the requirement and potentially examine the feasibility of identifying and measuring new media broadcasting content.” New media itself is still in an ever evolving position. Despite being widely adopted for broadcasting, it still lacks viable business models that are guaranteed to generate healthy returns. In this regard, it was not a surprise that the CRTC quashed a proposal to compel ISPs and wireless service providers to provide a small percentage of their gross annual revenue to support the creation of new media content. Feeling swamped by what they see as a domination of the Canadian film and television market by American productions, some cultural groups proposed that the CRTC should place priorities that favour the promotion of Canadian content online. ISPs in particular would be compelled to use filtering technologies that give priority to Canadian content, but not completely bar foreign productions. But the CRTC ruled that new media broadcasters are currently using innovative technology to promote Canadian content and therefore sees no point “at this early stage” to introduce specific measures for the promotion of Cancon on new media platforms. The CRTC’s decision to initiate another hearing to determine the measurement of broadcast content in new media is a welcome move. If parties at this future proceeding can arrive at a definite conclusion on measurement modalities, perhaps it could answer some of the complex questions that faced the February proceeding. Perhaps then, we will be able to know how much content is produced to appropriate monetary returns.