A plan to subject more digital media, including podcasts, to CRTC oversight and regulation isn't going to end well. We don't have to make it easy for them.
The CRTC muscling its way into the digital age and streaming services is Exhibit A for the fact that a government bureaucracy that loses its original purpose and mandate will never cease operations and lay people off. They just find something else to do. Morphing like a big haze of wildfire smoke into the homes and businesses of people who deserve to be left alone.
Ms. Gerson notes differentials in bandwidth in the digital age. Good point. Considering that the Liberal Government’s finger prints are all over this mission creep at the CRTC, we need to realize that the bandwidth in play isn’t technical, it’s ideological. The legislative agenda of this government is galloping along with law that narrows the bandwidth of the public discourse in the direction of what the Liberals decide is the appropriate view for discussion.
We really need to have a reasoned debate about the authoritarian streak that the Liberals are determined to leverage over what Canadians see, think and utter. The sooner the better.
I don't ever remember hearing employees of a government agency say: "The job's done. The thing we were created for is fixed. We're not needed anymore. Shut us down".
Nor do I ever remember hearing anything like: "We don't need more authority or more restrictive rules. In fact, we can loosen up, give up some authority and relax some rules".
And I certainly don't ever remember hearing: "We're fully funded and staffed. In fact, we could use less people, and don't need as much money".
Anybody else ever hear any talk like that?
The first job of bureaucracy is to protect and grow bureaucracy. Cynical? When I was younger, I would have thought so. But not after nearly 50 years in Ottawa. Nothing government does is benign. Ever.
@Jen Gerson, you are my Goddamn hero for the day. As a longtime podcast producer for myself AND paying clients, I think you nailed this right on the head.
Are you aware of people already organizing to fight this? I mean, if we take a page from the radicals' playbook, then raising hell might change things. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Not complying feels like it's becoming part of the Canadian citizenship handbook these days: mandates, curriculums, and now podcasts. What a tangled web Ottawa weaves.
Excellent column. I was a broadcaster for several decades, subject to the whims of the CRTC and their political bosses. Make no mistake, politics have always been behind CRTC policy and practices and the absurd belief that CRTC Commissioners, political appointees for those who aren’t aware, should dictate content, particularly digital content. In the 70’s the Commission took up to a couple of years to render a decision and that was on media they purportedly understood. If todays Commissioners are the same group of politically “approved” senior Canadians, I suggest the chances of them truly understanding the digital world are slim indeed.
"... what the fuck is the CRTC playing at by trying to impose itself in this arena at all?"
Michael Geist highlighted the actual, stated objective of the CRTC (in their newly released regulations) for this very question:
"There are a variety of podcasts that can provide a wide range of content relating to information, opinion and entertainment. Without information about online undertakings that transmit or retransmit podcasts, it would be more difficult for the Commission to ........ providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and..... (that) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes."
Read the last part. That is real-life Orwellian shit right there. Requesting the Line editors to perhaps include this quote from the CRTC in the article.
"Indeed, only companies that generate more than $10 million per year will be subject to disclosure. The Line, for example, is (far, far) too small to qualify" -- FOR NOW!
even *IFF* it were designed on paper well, I am really getting to the point where I dont think our government would implement it anywhere correctly. Case in point, someone in the Canadian media sphere really needs to take a look at the roll out and aborted rollout for CARM-- something that seems so vaguely written, poorly communicated that despite my company's best efforts, cant get a straight answer from almost anyone as to how it is supposed to work, what it impacts etc. It was supposed to come into effect Oct 1st and has been delayed until next year. I can only imagine the needless country wide foot shooting this dumb podcast bill will cause.
First, the CRTC carries out the government's policies. It is not supposed to establish policies itself, although it has been known to do so given the vast desert that is government expertise in these areas. But it has been overruled, and its decisions manipulated, many a time by various ministers. Eventually, Commissioners get the message, and either comply or resign (admittedly a rare occurrence). If you don't like what is going on, blame the government rather than the CRTC.
Second, remember that there are two sides to the CRTC. One regulates content/broadcasting and now, it seems, Internet applications. The other regulates telecommunications, including ISPs. The state of competition in telecommunications, the price levels, investment and innovation, are all affected by CRTC decisions, yet there is little to no public awareness. Again, policy is set by government and CRTC merely fills in the details, at least in theory. However, given the complete lack of any competence at ISED, once again the CRTC is forced to make policy, a function for which it was not designed.
Once again, we get "feel good" directives from the government. And of course, the CRTC does not have any control over the greatest obstacle to telecommunications competition in Canada. That would be the policy on foreign ownership of facilities. Although there was some relaxation of that policy under the Harper government, it is still the biggest obstacle to meaningful competition today.
FWIW I served as acting Executive Director of the telecommunications branch in 1981. The position was offered to me several times on a permanent basis, but I ran away just as soon as I could find a more meaningful job.
Liberal governments have been obsessed with promoting what they see as Canadian culture through government edict at least as far back as the 1948 Massey commission. That's led to the Canadian Content requirements administered through the CRTC, which I suspect is the primary motivation for attempting to extend the CRTC's mandate to include the internet. CanCon has been an abject failure at actually promoting Canadian culture. Canadian musicians, actors, and producers typically succeed in spite of it rather than because of it, and their path to success continues to be through the much larger American market rather than the cloistered, clique-y, and subsidized Canadian scene.
The problem is that CanCon has produced a politically-connected group of content producers who benefit from the current arrangement. It's never made them rich, but it's the linchpin of their world and how they make a living. Their traditional markets of radio and TV are withering away, and they've had little or no success internationalizing their product on streaming services. Now they want to protect their livelihood by mandating that the new thing keep funding their mediocre endeavors. Progressives remain sufficiently enamored with the technocratic idea of CanCon that they aren't willing to objectively accept its failure - they want to keep extending its reach, arguing that we just haven't tried hard enough (like true Communism, it's never *really* been tried, you see!)
Now we add in a progressive Liberal government besotted with the idea of better living through technocracy, but incredibly incompetent as technocrats. As a result, we get C-11 and C-18. Are Canadians finally going to have had enough and push back, or are we just going to continue to pay the bribes to the CanCon supplicants and start a boom in VPNs so we can enjoy the content we actually want?
The CRTC muscling its way into the digital age and streaming services is Exhibit A for the fact that a government bureaucracy that loses its original purpose and mandate will never cease operations and lay people off. They just find something else to do. Morphing like a big haze of wildfire smoke into the homes and businesses of people who deserve to be left alone.
Ms. Gerson notes differentials in bandwidth in the digital age. Good point. Considering that the Liberal Government’s finger prints are all over this mission creep at the CRTC, we need to realize that the bandwidth in play isn’t technical, it’s ideological. The legislative agenda of this government is galloping along with law that narrows the bandwidth of the public discourse in the direction of what the Liberals decide is the appropriate view for discussion.
We really need to have a reasoned debate about the authoritarian streak that the Liberals are determined to leverage over what Canadians see, think and utter. The sooner the better.
Do Not Comply
I don't ever remember hearing employees of a government agency say: "The job's done. The thing we were created for is fixed. We're not needed anymore. Shut us down".
Nor do I ever remember hearing anything like: "We don't need more authority or more restrictive rules. In fact, we can loosen up, give up some authority and relax some rules".
And I certainly don't ever remember hearing: "We're fully funded and staffed. In fact, we could use less people, and don't need as much money".
Anybody else ever hear any talk like that?
The first job of bureaucracy is to protect and grow bureaucracy. Cynical? When I was younger, I would have thought so. But not after nearly 50 years in Ottawa. Nothing government does is benign. Ever.
@Jen Gerson, you are my Goddamn hero for the day. As a longtime podcast producer for myself AND paying clients, I think you nailed this right on the head.
Are you aware of people already organizing to fight this? I mean, if we take a page from the radicals' playbook, then raising hell might change things. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Not complying feels like it's becoming part of the Canadian citizenship handbook these days: mandates, curriculums, and now podcasts. What a tangled web Ottawa weaves.
Excellent column. I was a broadcaster for several decades, subject to the whims of the CRTC and their political bosses. Make no mistake, politics have always been behind CRTC policy and practices and the absurd belief that CRTC Commissioners, political appointees for those who aren’t aware, should dictate content, particularly digital content. In the 70’s the Commission took up to a couple of years to render a decision and that was on media they purportedly understood. If todays Commissioners are the same group of politically “approved” senior Canadians, I suggest the chances of them truly understanding the digital world are slim indeed.
"... what the fuck is the CRTC playing at by trying to impose itself in this arena at all?"
Michael Geist highlighted the actual, stated objective of the CRTC (in their newly released regulations) for this very question:
"There are a variety of podcasts that can provide a wide range of content relating to information, opinion and entertainment. Without information about online undertakings that transmit or retransmit podcasts, it would be more difficult for the Commission to ........ providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and..... (that) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes."
Read the last part. That is real-life Orwellian shit right there. Requesting the Line editors to perhaps include this quote from the CRTC in the article.
"Indeed, only companies that generate more than $10 million per year will be subject to disclosure. The Line, for example, is (far, far) too small to qualify" -- FOR NOW!
I don't know if it's been said already, but "Do Not Comply" might look good on a new The Line coffee mug.
I’m a monthly subscriber but this post got you the creepy $100 donation. Great work.
Speaking of compliance...
https://www.steynonline.com/13805/comply-with-me-comply-comply-away?fbclid=IwAR3iOGCpsXjuxDHqpwcJl5HdSfLgGy70UXhLAkV0vdd_qzpIgCvEjELndXU_aem_AXHisyt7DhwnRpeSqu0FrXHWYVy-92M08TErkMjaGO7IB26kmE8bT5Mx-FxV0VZAzms&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
If you're into podcasts you should be aware of the podcasting 2.0 initiative, including the index:
https://podcastindex.org/
and the apps:
https://podcastindex.org/apps
even *IFF* it were designed on paper well, I am really getting to the point where I dont think our government would implement it anywhere correctly. Case in point, someone in the Canadian media sphere really needs to take a look at the roll out and aborted rollout for CARM-- something that seems so vaguely written, poorly communicated that despite my company's best efforts, cant get a straight answer from almost anyone as to how it is supposed to work, what it impacts etc. It was supposed to come into effect Oct 1st and has been delayed until next year. I can only imagine the needless country wide foot shooting this dumb podcast bill will cause.
Looks like I have some learning to do on VPNs and TOR. I am so deeply unimpressed.
Two points.
First, the CRTC carries out the government's policies. It is not supposed to establish policies itself, although it has been known to do so given the vast desert that is government expertise in these areas. But it has been overruled, and its decisions manipulated, many a time by various ministers. Eventually, Commissioners get the message, and either comply or resign (admittedly a rare occurrence). If you don't like what is going on, blame the government rather than the CRTC.
Second, remember that there are two sides to the CRTC. One regulates content/broadcasting and now, it seems, Internet applications. The other regulates telecommunications, including ISPs. The state of competition in telecommunications, the price levels, investment and innovation, are all affected by CRTC decisions, yet there is little to no public awareness. Again, policy is set by government and CRTC merely fills in the details, at least in theory. However, given the complete lack of any competence at ISED, once again the CRTC is forced to make policy, a function for which it was not designed.
Once again, we get "feel good" directives from the government. And of course, the CRTC does not have any control over the greatest obstacle to telecommunications competition in Canada. That would be the policy on foreign ownership of facilities. Although there was some relaxation of that policy under the Harper government, it is still the biggest obstacle to meaningful competition today.
FWIW I served as acting Executive Director of the telecommunications branch in 1981. The position was offered to me several times on a permanent basis, but I ran away just as soon as I could find a more meaningful job.
Liberal governments have been obsessed with promoting what they see as Canadian culture through government edict at least as far back as the 1948 Massey commission. That's led to the Canadian Content requirements administered through the CRTC, which I suspect is the primary motivation for attempting to extend the CRTC's mandate to include the internet. CanCon has been an abject failure at actually promoting Canadian culture. Canadian musicians, actors, and producers typically succeed in spite of it rather than because of it, and their path to success continues to be through the much larger American market rather than the cloistered, clique-y, and subsidized Canadian scene.
The problem is that CanCon has produced a politically-connected group of content producers who benefit from the current arrangement. It's never made them rich, but it's the linchpin of their world and how they make a living. Their traditional markets of radio and TV are withering away, and they've had little or no success internationalizing their product on streaming services. Now they want to protect their livelihood by mandating that the new thing keep funding their mediocre endeavors. Progressives remain sufficiently enamored with the technocratic idea of CanCon that they aren't willing to objectively accept its failure - they want to keep extending its reach, arguing that we just haven't tried hard enough (like true Communism, it's never *really* been tried, you see!)
Now we add in a progressive Liberal government besotted with the idea of better living through technocracy, but incredibly incompetent as technocrats. As a result, we get C-11 and C-18. Are Canadians finally going to have had enough and push back, or are we just going to continue to pay the bribes to the CanCon supplicants and start a boom in VPNs so we can enjoy the content we actually want?
I will not comply.