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
#92 ·
On the subject of taxes, that has nothing to do with the CRTC and they have no say in that. It's simply on the basis of physical presence. CraveTV operates out of Canada, while Netflix serves Canada but has no physical presence here. It's the same as any other online store that doesn't operate out of Canada. It has nothing to do with streaming companies. The EU was able to do it because Netflix has a European headquarters in Amsterdam.

Also on the subject of CraveTV being a licensed service, post #16 quotes the relevant part of an article.
 
#93 ·
Also on the subject of CraveTV being a licensed service, post #16 quotes the relevant part of an article.
Bell seems to believe it's a licensed video-on-demand service, but they might be the only ones. I took a quick look and couldn't find any applications or decisions on the CRTC web site regarding new VOD services from Bell. They might be there somewhere, or Bell might believe CraveTV falls under its existing VOD license for Fibe and satellite.

More telling though is that PIAC-CAC didn't find anything either, and they said so in paragraph 35 of their application to the CRTC against CraveTV & Shomi back in February: http://www.piac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PIAC-CAC-Part-1-CraveTV-Application.pdf

CraveTV, as a programming service accessed via STB, is also bound by rules for VOD services. PIAC-CAC believe that CraveTV, when accessed via STB, will be provisioned as a VOD service, though PIAC-CAC have not seen any Bell application for such a licence, or an application for an extension. If CraveTV obtains the appropriate VOD authorization, then STB CraveTV (as distinguished from IS CraveTV) will be bound by conditions of licence, and subject to certain expectations and encouragements. Section 10 of the VOD COLs include a prohibition against undue preference or disadvantage.
CraveTV and Shomi are what the CRTC had in mind when it invented the hybrid VOD category, so expect the CRTC to adjust their wording so that they can't have it both ways. Either eliminate exclusive content or make the service available to all Canadians over any Internet connection.
 
#99 · (Edited by Moderator)
Canada's TV watchdog on Thursday opened the way for domestic cable giants to launch U.S. channels north of the border without worrying whether they will compete with existing Canadian services.

The CRTC in a landmark decision ordered an end to genre protection, which in the past guaranteed local cable channels carriage and protection from direct competition with U.S. channels. The sea change in the Canadian market will now see open competition among all cable channels in the Canadian market, local or foreign.
Article link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/canada-loosens-restrictions-us-cable-780965
 
#100 ·
I saw that article as well, as a person who would like to see more choice IE: more popular U.S or even other international channels launch here, I'm just curious from the CRTC's announcement that they'll be ending the practice of Genre Exclusivity/Protection, there's nothing in the announcement from what I saw (unless overlooked) that they'd permit non-Canadian services to compete with Canadian ones, from what I noticed it almost seemed to indicate that Canadian channels could compete by launching channels to compete against other services.

Also if I'm wrong about the above, don't forget if say a channel like USA/TNT/ESPN/FSN wanted to launch here wouldn't that channel(s) still need to pass the partially/totally competitive test that the CRTC has?
 
#103 ·
... there's nothing in the announcement from what I saw (unless overlooked) that they'd permit non-Canadian services to compete with Canadian ones ...

Also if I'm wrong about the above, don't forget if say a channel like USA/TNT/ESPN/FSN wanted to launch here wouldn't that channel(s) still need to pass the partially/totally competitive test that the CRTC has?
This is from paragraph 51 of the regulatory policy announcement:

With respect to non-Canadian services, as mentioned in the Working Document, the current approach to authorizing these services for distribution in Canada will be maintained. Specifically, all non-Canadian services must be authorized before they can be distributed in Canada. For a service to be authorized, a Canadian sponsor (e.g. a distributor, programming service or industry organization) must make a formal request to the Commission. To help ensure that Canadian services have priority, the Commission will not authorize non-Canadian English- and French-language services if they compete with Canadian pay and specialty services.
Also of note:
Further to the present policy, the Commission notes that a condition of the authorization of non-Canadian services for distribution in Canada will be that they allow their services to be offered on a pick-and-pay and small package basis as in the case of Canadian services. The Commission considers that the imposition of this condition on non-Canadian services is essential to ensuring a fair playing field between Canadian and non-Canadian services available to Canadians in the context of a competitive, consumer-driven environment. Accordingly, it expects non-Canadian services, as good corporate citizens, to continue to abide by the applicable rules established by the Commission if they wish to continue to have their programming services available in Canada.
So I think you are correct. Services do not get genre protection from other Canadian channels, but will get protection from non-Canadian services.
 
#101 ·
I didn't see any mention that channel ownership rules changed. They will still need to meet Canadian ownership requirements to operate in Canada. It's also unclear whether US and other foreign owned channels will still need approval for carriage. It appears that Canadian channels and approved US stations will be free from genre requirements but getting carriage is another issue. There are a number of US channels that are approved but not carried on any BDUs so carriage is not guaranteed.
 
#102 ·
In at least some of the cases where US channels are approved but not carried, it's a programming rights thing. If the station in question doesn't hold the Canadian rights to their programming, it can't be shown here. For example, Comedy Central has long been approved, but nearly all of their programming is owned by Canadian stations. There are also situations where ones that are carried have alternate programming in Canada when they don't own the rights to something. OTA stations, especially the old "superstations", seem to have been mostly grandfathered in though. They didn't change the rules regarding foreign ownership or foreign services broadcasting here though, so the old process still applies. All the new rules are regarding Canadian services.
 
#104 ·
That makes carriage rules clear. US and other foreign owned stations must still be approved for carriage and cannot directly compete against Canadian stations. For example, FX or HBO in the US will not get carriage in Canada. So what happens if a Canadian station decides to change genres and directly compete with a currently approved US station? Can the Canadian station then turn around and get the US station's carriage approval revoked?

The pick-n-pay decision for US stations is troubling in one respect. Stations like TCM rely on subscriber revenues alone for financing. That's how they can operate with no ads. Making them pick-n-pay could make it uneconomical for them to continue operating without ads. I don't want to see TCM turn into another AMC (which is now rampant with ads but originally had none.)
 
#108 ·
The pick-n-pay decision for US stations is troubling in one respect. Stations like TCM rely on subscriber revenues alone for financing. That's how they can operate with no ads. Making them pick-n-pay could make it uneconomical for them to continue operating without ads. I don't want to see TCM turn into another AMC (which is now rampant with ads but originally had none.)
How many "subscribers" of TCM never watch it and never wanted to be a subscriber in the first place? I get to pay for someone else to have it with no ads when I've never watched a thing on it and likely never will.

That's a great business model for them, not so much for the people being forced to pay for it.
 
#105 ·
Historically, removals of eligible US specialty channels rarely happen, and many of them have changed formats. The only examples I can find are those requested by their original sponsor, and the only example I could find of that happening recently is this one. I don't see that changing, given the uproar it would cause. Even the old "superstations" aren't really superstations anymore.
 
#106 ·
The "US Superstations" are a kind of interesting example. Originally, the OTA and satellite stations were the same. Some of them separated the two stations with a satellite "superstation" that has different programming from the OTA station. Most Canadian BDUs had the satellite station since it was easier to receive and distribute. Later on, I believe some of the stations started asking for payments to use the satellite feed. Then someone noticed that the original approval was for the OTA station itself. Presto chango, the satellite feeds were quickly replaced with the cheaper to carry OTA feeds. They no longer look like superstations because they are not the real US superstations. They are simply the OTA parent stations. I find it interesting that the CW network is not approved for carriage in Canada but some of these stations are now CW affiliates. It just shows how archaic regulations can become and why they needed revision.
 
#110 ·
How many "subscribers" of TCM never watch it and never wanted to be a subscriber in the first place?
I feel the same way about TSN. The difference is that TSN costs more and I can't stand to watch TSN due to the number of ads. Sometimes I'll put TCM on as background TV. I'd never due that with TSN. If TSN didn't have ads I might. I would also watch it occasionally if they didn't keep inserting extra ads that cut off programming.
 
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