Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC Policy: Measures to support creation of content made by Canadians

16K views 112 replies 26 participants last post by  ryandude_12345 
#1 ·
News release:

Let's Talk TV: CRTC announces measures to support the creation of content made by Canadians for Canadian and global audiences

Additional information on the changes to the Canadian television system

Speech:

Jean-Pierre Blais to the Canadian Club of Ottawa on Let's Talk TV and the future of content made by Canadians

Broadcasting regulatory policy:

2015-86 Let's Talk TV
The way forward – Creating compelling and diverse Canadian programming

Broadcasting notice of consultation:

2015-87 Call for comments on proposed amendments to the exemption order for video-on-demand undertakings and to the standard conditions of licence for video-on-demand undertakings

Broadcasting order:

2015-88 Exemption order respecting discretionary television programming undertakings serving fewer than 200,000 subscribe
 
See less See more
#60 ·
Why is exclusive contracts or services a bad thing. If so then seclusive services in Condo should be outlawed. Rogers or Bell shouldn't be allowed to have exclusive rights in a condo.

The thing is it bussiness and thats the way biz is run. It notr Bells fauklt if Roigers wanted thaty programs then they should payed more to get them. Shomi has exclusive contracts too.

The difference between Shomi & Crave TV is at least on the tv side(not sure about internet)Crave TV is available on numerous providers besides Bell, while Shomi is only avalible via Rogers or Shaw cable.
 
#66 ·
Why is exclusive contracts or services a bad thing. If so then seclusive services in Condo should be outlawed. Rogers or Bell shouldn't be allowed to have exclusive rights in a condo.
You raise a very good point. It is a bit off topic but I see how the reasoning in this thread took you there.

I would say a resounding yes to your second sentence. But I'm sure existing condos will be grandfathered and exempt if any regulatory code ever dared tackle the issue.
 
#61 ·
If I am getting this right, the deal goes something like this:
- Produce (or pay to have someone produce) exclusive content for your online service, you are okay for DMEO.

-Buy exclusive content that has already been distributed by someone else, and make it available through the internet without a requirement that you have cable or satellite and you are okay for DMEO.

-Buy exclusive content that has already been distributed by someone else, and make it available exclusively through one ISP and/or require that you have cable or satellite and you are offside from DMEO and will require a traditional VOD licence and have to contribute to Canadian production.

Does that, more or less, sum it up?
 
#62 ·
First two points are correct. On the third point:
They've defined three types of VOD:
1) Traditional cable VOD that requires a license and contributions to Canadian content
2) Hybrid cable VOD/online operates under the DMEO online and doesn't require a traditional license or contributions to CanCon, but can't require a cable subscription
3) Solely online VOD service, which are completely exempt under the DMEO other than having to be available to all Canadians and can't be tied only one ISP. They don't specifically address TV subscription requirements for this, and that's where the confusion lies.

Bell appears to be using a combination of 1 and 3 for CraveTV.
 
#64 ·
I can see it. It's as if they're operating as two distinct services that happen to share a name and service fee. It's a little convoluted, but it makes sense assuming it's a permitted thing to do, but they aren't clear that it is. Given that Bell IS making those contributions though, I imagine the CRTC would be happier with that situation than them not making those.
 
#70 · (Edited)
You can complain about the Crave TV all you want but to customers who have accesst to it, it is the best new services improvement since long time.
I will be very disappointed if the government screwed it up, and if they do, I will easily cut the cord and start using only american services and provide $0 to canadian new content production or to sales tax.
 
#74 ·
If they're claiming Crave can be exclusive because it qualifies for the exemption, then it's not contributing anything to Canadian content anyway. I mean, their first big exclusive announcement was actually made by Amazon in the US. Even if it is, it's deliberately operating at a loss, so it's contribution is pretty minimal.

So yeah, it's the "this only exists in Canada and can't compete anywhere else on the planet because it needs Bell's oligarch protection" version of Netflix, years late. Go Canada?

Maybe that's good enough for you, but I'd rather TV have to compete on merits rather than simply being something they force you to have in order to get the thing you actually want, because the oligarchs say so.
 
#79 ·
#75 ·
A lot of what been posted is true from both sides of the fence Pro Cravetv & Shomi exclusive contracts and anti-Cravetv & Shiomi exclusive contracts, it all on how one views it, whether one side is right and the other is wrong is debatable.

For me I like Cravetv and what it has to offer at the price and if Shomi comes available on Bell Fibe as channel like Cravetv(refuse to sub via internet be it Cravetv or Shomi)I likely try it out to see how it is.

As for Netflix tried it sometime ago and wasn't impressed old movies and content. Now grant you mot sure what its like presently/ Also saw that Netflix is now available on Telus Optik not sure if this a channel like Ctavetv & Shomi where you don't need to view via the internet but on your tv via the STB as channel like Shomi & Cravewtv not a app or that kind thing?

Like I said Exclusive contracts may not be like by all but those that sub to the service be it Netflix,Cravetv,Shomi Hulu or any other stuff like that its good for them as they don't ned to sub to 10 different streaming services to get what they want.

Now grant you these are just my views. If some agree fine, if others disagre thats fine to your intiled to your opinion.
 
#76 ·
As for Netflix tried it sometime ago and wasn't impressed old movies and content. Now grant you mot sure what its like presently/ Also saw that Netflix is now available on Telus Optik not sure if this a channel like Ctavetv & Shomi where you don't need to view via the internet but on your tv via the STB as channel like Shomi & Cravewtv not a app or that kind thing?
A bit off topic, but that's just an app to watch Netflix over the Internet via your cable box. Telus doesn't sell subscriptions to it themselves. It's just there as an option.
 
#78 ·
wasn't impressed old movies and content.
Yeah, House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are definitely old content just like Seinfeld, Frasier, Sex in the City....you know, the ones Crave uses in their advertising and welcome screen that no one with a basic cable/Sat subscription/OTA antenna could ever have seen.

Sarcasm aside, Shomi and Crave are late entrants hoping Canadians will pay for content that is dated while their parent companies jockey to nail down US produced content they can secure "exclusive rights" to.

Sorry, I'll keep using my VPN to get what I want, it's LEGAL.
 
#82 ·
Netflix don't pay a cent because they operate under the Digital Media Exemption Order. You might remember there was discussion of a possible "Netflix tax" that would make them subject to the same rules as Canadian companies.
5% of the amount required to make a profit is more than 5% of the amount required to make a loss, though.
I think CraveTV is probably priced to at least break even, if not make a small profit in the long term. Obviously there will be losses in the first year or 2 while they build a subscriber base and work through the startup costs. I haven't checked, but I'm sure that Netflix lost money when they first started.

Keep in mind that CraveTV's costs are much lower than Netflix since they aren't buying movie rights, so they don't have to charge as much as Netflix to make a profit.
 
#83 ·
I suspect that CraveTV is expected to lose money. The pricing and marketing of CraveTV appears to be aimed squarely at enticing Canadians into subscribing to FibeTV or Bell TV. Just as Bell did with their satellite service, I suspect that Bell is willing to run CraveTV at a loss for several years in order to attract customers and gain market share for both CraveTV and their other, highly profitable, services.
 
#84 ·
I believe that what eventually happens to CraveTV will depend on how the CRTC interprets or clarifies what they mean by "exclusive", which looks like it comes down to the entities that apply for the new hybrid video-on-demand license category.

The Notice of Consultation talks about licencees as BDUs, so Bell is separate from Eastlink in that regard and they can argue that their content is not exclusive, but it would mean that every CraveTV distribution partner would need to apply for a hybrid VOD license.

If the commission decides that the overall CraveTV service is the hybrid VOD licensee, then they'll be in violation of the exclusivity prohibition and something will have to change. In the meantime, don't expect anything to change until at least this fall since comments are allowed until the end of April, then there will probably be a hearing, then time to consider the input, and finally a ruling.

Some useful articles:

CRTC "Talk TV" Decision #2 - Good For Cord Cutters?
Confusion reigns in CRTC Shomi, Crave TV ruling
The CRTC’s Latest Talk TV Decisions: Sweeping Change or Plus Ça Change?
 
#86 ·
The CRTC have created the hybrid classification precisely so that Bell CAN have exclusives AND does NOT have to pay 5% for content creation on Crave TV. Bell fans should be ecstatic, but there seems to be no pleasing them.

HST/GST/PST could easily be collectable on Netflix, all it requires is legislation and/or directives. Other jurisdictions have done it. But this is outside the CRTC's remit.
 
#89 ·
At the moment Bell has to pay 5% to canadian content as it has been discussed many times on this forum.
Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that CraveTV was operating under the digital media exemption and was not licensed nor required to follow any of the CanCon rules. I don't believe that Bell ever applied for a VOD license for CraveTV.

If CRTC wants to treat Crave TV as streaming service then taxes should not be collected. They should stop discriminating against canadian services and their customers.
Taxes are collected on CraveTV because they're a Canadian company - it has nothing to do with how it's classified by the CRTC.

Collecting taxes on foreign services offered over the Internet is a tricky thing to do. It may work for a large company like Netflix if the US government cooperates, but how do you collect tax on services from small companies operating out of Russia, Bermuda, Belize, etc?
 
#88 ·
Here is an in-depth article from January on the potential collection of GST/HST on international digital sales, although the CRTC has no control over that issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...giants-could-sting-consumers/article22371670/
A few short paragraphs in the 2014 federal budget invited input on “ensuring the effective collection of sales tax on e-commerce sales to Canadians by foreign-based vendors,” and whether to enforce mandatory collection, as the European Union and Norway already have.
 
#90 ·
You can find a link in post #79

Somehow europenian Union did find a way to collect tax from Netflix.

Other services that operate from different countries probably have no rights to distribute their services in Canada, so taxes could not be collected, similar to Hulu Plus or Amazon Prime.
 
#91 ·
That link describes proposed changes to the traditional cable/satellite video-on-demand license. None of those conditions apply to an exempt or hybrid service, which is mentioned in paragraphy 4:
4. Specifically, the Commission announced that it would amend and expand the VOD exemption order to include these new hybrid VOD services as a second type of exempt undertaking. These services will benefit from the following incentives:

a) the ability to offer exclusive programming content in the same manner as services operating under the DMEO; and

b) the ability to offer their service on a closed BDU network in the same manner as traditional VOD services without the regulatory requirements relating to financial contributions to and shelf space for Canadian programming that would normally be imposed on those traditional VOD services.
As far as some EU countries taxing Netflix, that's a lot easier since Netflix has offices in Europe. Even that doesn't make it simple since jurisdictions come into play unless they can get every single EU country on board. I don't believe there's anything EU-wide yet - various countries like France are working things out on their own with the big fish like Netflix.
 
#95 ·
As far as some EU countries taxing Netflix, that's a lot easier since Netflix has offices in Europe.
The EU's Electronic Commerce Directive dates from 2000 and applies regardless of whether the seller has established a physical presence within the EU.

The Directive long predates Netflix' internet streaming business. Netflix, along with many American companies, has established offices in Europe in order to minimise the cost of doing business, including their overall local tax obligations. They are obligated to charge VAT regardless of their offices' locations.

Canada is 15 years behind in taxing e-commerce in general and, because they did nothing to get ready, streaming services in particular. That indicates a lack of will, not technical difficulties in enforcement.

But as I said before, this is all outside of the remit of the CRTC.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top