It was as if the internet — the most democratizing, weird, wonderful, frightening and important technological development in communications since the printing press — had never been invented.
I moved here in 2005. I can't remember when I first heard about the CRTC, but my best guess would be somewhere in the two following years. I knew from the first time hearing about it that the CRTC was nothing more than what the french call a "usine a gaz": an overly complex, byzantine regulatory body that did the exact opposite of what its name would lead an unsuspecting observer to believe.
Sadly for them, every time I heard about it in the intervening 18 years, confirmed my initial intuition: They only serve to protect deep-pocketed incumbents and stifle new technologies and innovation at every turn.
The most baffling thing to me is why the debate is about the minutia of the CRTC's aforementioned byzantine conduct, instead of questioning its very existence? Well into the 21st century, it would seem like a legitimate question, don't you think?
Canadians have usually been content to pay off the rent seekers so long as they can still access the content they really want. The trouble comes when the rent seekers try to restrict access to that content on the theory that it'll force Canadians to like the mediocre dreck they've been producing in their subsidized sheltered workshops. The fact that politicians kept caving to these groups in the face of overwhelming rejection by consumers foreshadowed the outsized influence small, vocal constituencies would have on social media today.
The weird thing about using the CRTC as a device for subsidized content production is that it's so extraneous to the actual requirement to regulate access to finite EM spectrum for telecommunications. It's as if we mandated Nav Canada to not only run Canada's air traffic control systems, but also make access to air traffic control contingent on whether airlines are running enough flights to small communities and helping those communities achieve targets for tourism. Want to fly that route from Vancouver to Toronto? Not unless you're directing 5000 tourist visits per month to Swift Current, Saskatchewan! And don't even think you can get away without flying a 737 into the local airport 3 times a week! We'll talk about the direct flight to Mexico another time.
After 25 years working (as a crew member) mainly in television production most of the mediocre dreck I've worked on was the product of U.S. production companies/studios. :-) There's a lot of dreck produced by EVERYONE. But the dreck produced by non-Cdn companies doesn't always make it to our airwaves. Do we produce what I would call 'crap TV' in Canada? Of course some of it is - but I wouldn't say it's proportionally more than the U.S. does.
I'd be interested in which specific Cdn shows you've seen in your opinion fall into the mediocre dreck category.
And Cdn TV isn't subsidized to the extent that many people think it is.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. CRTC commissioners need to read the mandate and mission statements one of which is "Connect. These activities are aimed at ensuring Canadians can connect to quality and innovative communication services at affordable prices." Since we have one of the highest priced mobile phone, internet access and cable tv packages on earth, I would say the CRTC has failed miserably and should be disbanded if it can't deliver on its mission. Likewise, the Big three should be broken up. How about we nationalize fiber and resell space. Bell, Rogers, Videotron, Telus, ATT, Comcast etc can all bid on providing services to Canadians at the lowest prices.
Connection Competition or lack thereof is a huge issue. Likely less known due to few people living there, however our Territories are remote and rely on satellite communication with few options. I recall a CRTC meeting to discuss issues of choice and more importantly reliability. Completely unplanned but during this CRTC hearing, the satellite 'wobbled' and ALL communication was lost. The Territories hut down - bank, businesses, government offices - everything. Shortwave radio was the only way to communicate. Fibre connection a potential option but impractical on this sparely populated land mass - most of constantly frozen ground and water. So, the mission of the CRTC concerning competition is important and challenging ...
Rogers did that to us without a wobbling satellite! Your geography does make it a challenge, but I have no issue with a territory/federal owned infrastructure operated under contract to a commercial enterprise.
Decentralization and of course a change in government would help........the smelly old boy/girl Laurentian club drooling over Western Canada's cash cow is becoming more apparent under this Trudeau debacle and that may be the only positive result of 8 years of his destructive chaos.
Mr. Menzies properly describes the broadcasting side of the CRTC, as the hearings that are his subject are all about content -- how to control it (including how to fund it). There is another side to the CRTC, the telecommunications side. Mr. Menzies should know, as he was Vice-Chair of that side.
The two sides have absolutely nothing in common, apart from a set of Commissioners, who generally do all they can to avoid telecommunications issues, which are genuinely complicated. Better to opine about culture. That leaves telecommunications issues in the hands of staffers, some of whom understand what they are doing, others not. But clearly the Commissioners have no clue, and generally defer to staff analysis -- and to pressure from the Minister's office.
Telecommunications used to be regulated as a form of transport until 1976. Then visions of "convergence" started dancing in the minds of policy-makers, and a heroic effort was made to "converge" carriage and content. That has failed utterly. Time to withdraw telecommunications from the CRTC's jurisdiction, and let the Competition Bureau supervise any conduct that is potentially anti-competitive. Any social issues can be the subject of side agreements between service providers and government (reverse auctions come to mind).
As to the broadcasting/media/content side, why do we need a regulator at all? I know that this is one of Mr. Menzies' recurring themes, and he is right. Just abolish the CRTC. As consolation prizes, current Commissioners can become Senators.
Actually, most of them never find full time employment again. It's a good gig if you reckon it will be your final job. Because in all likelihood, it is your final job.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful article. Particularly because Mr. Menzies has the perspective of experience to note that the same players, from the CRTC down the line have perfected the charade masterfully. Nothing has changed, right down to repurposing themselves to meddle in the internet, which requires contortions of logic in order for CRTC to control content, allotment of the spoils and ensure the continuation of a government entity that has become stale dated.
The real tragedy is the failure to reward innovation and welcome newcomers to the industry that can find a niche and become successful. I’m sure Mr. Menzies could write quite a book about CRTC hearings bloated with whiners who need protection (and funding) to get their pet projects off the ground and to attain the notoriety of success in a competitive marketplace. And yet we have a distorted perception of those who are successful without the perks and protections and that strict regulations are needed to cut everyone down to the same size.
Canada is a very insecure country, but the media giants have certainly made a pile of money by playing the cynical game.
The sooner the electorate votes out the current federal government, the better. I welcome a program review that goes medeval on the CRTC's mandate, budget and headcount, leaving behind a much smaller entity focused on frequency allocation and not much more. I am embarasssed to be a citizen of a country that regulates content and competition in media.
I keep forcing myself to read about this stuff, knowing it's going to make me grind me teeth, because I think getting this right is important and there is a narrow window (which is closing) to get policy right here. And, we're still pretty far off the mark.
The internet as conceived was (and is) a pretty decentralized place. At its best, it does 'democratize' the ability to reach and grow an audience and share all kinds of content.
But, from the beginning, platforms within the internet have worked to create proprietary spaces within the internet they could control and monetize. Whether it's the AOL portal model or today's social media and search platforms, the goal has been to collect folks within a platform, then charge for access to audiences. Great business model, but an unhealthy concentration of power.
None of what the government seeks to do, though, is focused on addressing that. Instead, we are doing what too much of Canadian public policy does: subsidize favoured industries under the guise of saving (or creating) "good paying jobs."
The platform concentration issue could be addressed by things like transparency on how their algorithms serve up content (and audiences) and sell advertising. They could be forced to allow competing ad networks to integrate with their platforms, creating competition. They could be forced to give all users far, far more control over what they prefer to see (and not see). We could simply tax profits generated in Canada by these platforms at a greater rate and use some of that revenue to support Canadian content creators, aimed at supporting the next generation of journalism, writers and artists.
But instead, we simply seem to be looking for a way to get new media to fund old media without actually addressing any of the issues above. As long as Postmedia, Bell, Rogers, Torstar, etc get their cut, nobody seems to care about the anticompetitive nature of these large, multinational platforms. That's ... a headscratcher for me.
"This was followed by a chorus line of vested interests explaining how important it is for the regulator to ensure lotsa cash flows in their direction lest the nation’s creative aesthetic dies under the jackboot of American cultural imperialism."
Those 'vested interests' are also speaking on behalf of the over 200K people who work as crew members in the film/television industry in Canada. The majority of those people work on U.S. productions - and most of them were/are still out of work for most of this year due to the SAG/AFTRA & WGA strikes. The few people who had work were on Canadian productions which were (thankfully) unaffected by the strikes.
Those U.S. productions film here due partially to our tax credit regime (which the majority of countries also have), but mainly due to the high skill level of our crews. We don't want to be just a branch-plant industry - we also want a Canadian industry that can continue to operate whether or not there are labor shut-downs in the U.S.
"And — OMG! — whatever happens don’t make me have to move to Hollywood. You know, like poor old Ryan Reynolds did." Moving to the U.S. for work is a non-starter all but a few film crew workers. Why would the U.S. give a green card to a driver, locations manager, accountant, set dresser, prop master or anyone else working in the dozens of other crew positions? It's not just all about the talent/creative people.
Kaycee, I respectfully offer a heartfelt, "Frankly, Miss Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"
I do hope that you got the - American, to be sure - cultural reference as it absolutely conveys my disgust with the constant assertion that only Canadian, etc., etc., etc. cultural thingys are worthwhile.
Yes, I do want my neighbors to have jobs and to flourish but, damn it!, I don't want to subsidize them. I don't want to subsidize anyone! Let them succeed on the basis of the quality and relative cost of their product (i.e. their labor). And, lest you tell me that they are of the highest quality and relative cost, then let them lower their cost to attract more work. See, solved your problem.
But this whole Canadian thingy of needing to subsidize stuff simply because it is Canadian and is not American is absurd. I don't watch very much television at all: I have difficulty hearing and closed captioning is an imperfect alternative. So I read. In fact, really, why don't we shut down Netflix and Disney+ - see? solved your problem! - and issue library cards to everyone.
But stop stealing my money so you can subsidize those folks who seeming cannot otherwise get a job. Or, if they can get a job, do so! But leave me out of it!
The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world which don't provide some type of public funding for film/television production. So we're in line with what much of the rest of the world does - just not the U.S.
Lowering wages to attract more 'business' is a race to the bottom. Is that what you're advocating?
Just because you don't care for television doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. And there are lots of people who don't care for/about libraries - would you be OK with those people advocating to shut libraries down? The amount of gov't funding which goes directly to film/tv production is pennies per individual per year. And I'd be willing to bet that taxpayer funding of libraries is considerably higher than taxpayer funding for the film/tv sector.
Just because the US doesn't do something is no compelling reason for Canada to do it. A bad idea is a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who does or does not do it.
I was not recommending a race to the bottom but simply pointing out that that was an option available to the folks in those industries. And, if they cannot get a job in the arts industry - note: INDUSTRY, i.e. an economic grouping - then let them get a job elsewhere in the economy. Just because they wish to be in the film and television industry does not mean that I should pay to allow them to have that job.
I was for many years an accountant in public practice and I had many, many clients who were in the arts industries and it always astounded me a) how much was received by way of various public grants, etc.; and b) how ungrateful were the recipients and how resentful they were that the amounts were not more. Ultimately, I became convinced that no matter how much was paid out, the recipients would argue it was not enough and those who were not receiving would always argue, "Hey, what about me?"
Hence, my wish to end these subsidies.
If you are not a bibliophile and it is your wish to end public subsidies to libraries, you are free to make that case.
I moved here in 2005. I can't remember when I first heard about the CRTC, but my best guess would be somewhere in the two following years. I knew from the first time hearing about it that the CRTC was nothing more than what the french call a "usine a gaz": an overly complex, byzantine regulatory body that did the exact opposite of what its name would lead an unsuspecting observer to believe.
Sadly for them, every time I heard about it in the intervening 18 years, confirmed my initial intuition: They only serve to protect deep-pocketed incumbents and stifle new technologies and innovation at every turn.
The most baffling thing to me is why the debate is about the minutia of the CRTC's aforementioned byzantine conduct, instead of questioning its very existence? Well into the 21st century, it would seem like a legitimate question, don't you think?
Canadians have usually been content to pay off the rent seekers so long as they can still access the content they really want. The trouble comes when the rent seekers try to restrict access to that content on the theory that it'll force Canadians to like the mediocre dreck they've been producing in their subsidized sheltered workshops. The fact that politicians kept caving to these groups in the face of overwhelming rejection by consumers foreshadowed the outsized influence small, vocal constituencies would have on social media today.
The weird thing about using the CRTC as a device for subsidized content production is that it's so extraneous to the actual requirement to regulate access to finite EM spectrum for telecommunications. It's as if we mandated Nav Canada to not only run Canada's air traffic control systems, but also make access to air traffic control contingent on whether airlines are running enough flights to small communities and helping those communities achieve targets for tourism. Want to fly that route from Vancouver to Toronto? Not unless you're directing 5000 tourist visits per month to Swift Current, Saskatchewan! And don't even think you can get away without flying a 737 into the local airport 3 times a week! We'll talk about the direct flight to Mexico another time.
After 25 years working (as a crew member) mainly in television production most of the mediocre dreck I've worked on was the product of U.S. production companies/studios. :-) There's a lot of dreck produced by EVERYONE. But the dreck produced by non-Cdn companies doesn't always make it to our airwaves. Do we produce what I would call 'crap TV' in Canada? Of course some of it is - but I wouldn't say it's proportionally more than the U.S. does.
I'd be interested in which specific Cdn shows you've seen in your opinion fall into the mediocre dreck category.
And Cdn TV isn't subsidized to the extent that many people think it is.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. CRTC commissioners need to read the mandate and mission statements one of which is "Connect. These activities are aimed at ensuring Canadians can connect to quality and innovative communication services at affordable prices." Since we have one of the highest priced mobile phone, internet access and cable tv packages on earth, I would say the CRTC has failed miserably and should be disbanded if it can't deliver on its mission. Likewise, the Big three should be broken up. How about we nationalize fiber and resell space. Bell, Rogers, Videotron, Telus, ATT, Comcast etc can all bid on providing services to Canadians at the lowest prices.
Connection Competition or lack thereof is a huge issue. Likely less known due to few people living there, however our Territories are remote and rely on satellite communication with few options. I recall a CRTC meeting to discuss issues of choice and more importantly reliability. Completely unplanned but during this CRTC hearing, the satellite 'wobbled' and ALL communication was lost. The Territories hut down - bank, businesses, government offices - everything. Shortwave radio was the only way to communicate. Fibre connection a potential option but impractical on this sparely populated land mass - most of constantly frozen ground and water. So, the mission of the CRTC concerning competition is important and challenging ...
Rogers did that to us without a wobbling satellite! Your geography does make it a challenge, but I have no issue with a territory/federal owned infrastructure operated under contract to a commercial enterprise.
Fuck Ottawa. Jens’ word, not mine!
Decentralization and of course a change in government would help........the smelly old boy/girl Laurentian club drooling over Western Canada's cash cow is becoming more apparent under this Trudeau debacle and that may be the only positive result of 8 years of his destructive chaos.
Mr. Menzies properly describes the broadcasting side of the CRTC, as the hearings that are his subject are all about content -- how to control it (including how to fund it). There is another side to the CRTC, the telecommunications side. Mr. Menzies should know, as he was Vice-Chair of that side.
The two sides have absolutely nothing in common, apart from a set of Commissioners, who generally do all they can to avoid telecommunications issues, which are genuinely complicated. Better to opine about culture. That leaves telecommunications issues in the hands of staffers, some of whom understand what they are doing, others not. But clearly the Commissioners have no clue, and generally defer to staff analysis -- and to pressure from the Minister's office.
Telecommunications used to be regulated as a form of transport until 1976. Then visions of "convergence" started dancing in the minds of policy-makers, and a heroic effort was made to "converge" carriage and content. That has failed utterly. Time to withdraw telecommunications from the CRTC's jurisdiction, and let the Competition Bureau supervise any conduct that is potentially anti-competitive. Any social issues can be the subject of side agreements between service providers and government (reverse auctions come to mind).
As to the broadcasting/media/content side, why do we need a regulator at all? I know that this is one of Mr. Menzies' recurring themes, and he is right. Just abolish the CRTC. As consolation prizes, current Commissioners can become Senators.
Surely former Commissioners should get Senate seats as well! :-)
I thought they became (interim) ethics commissioners.
I have a fond memory of Konrad: I once appeared before him (in a CRTC hearing) wearing blue jeans and a sports shirt.
Actually, most of them never find full time employment again. It's a good gig if you reckon it will be your final job. Because in all likelihood, it is your final job.
In my experience, many become consultants. But their knowledge becomes stale very quickly.
You're clearly an exception.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful article. Particularly because Mr. Menzies has the perspective of experience to note that the same players, from the CRTC down the line have perfected the charade masterfully. Nothing has changed, right down to repurposing themselves to meddle in the internet, which requires contortions of logic in order for CRTC to control content, allotment of the spoils and ensure the continuation of a government entity that has become stale dated.
The real tragedy is the failure to reward innovation and welcome newcomers to the industry that can find a niche and become successful. I’m sure Mr. Menzies could write quite a book about CRTC hearings bloated with whiners who need protection (and funding) to get their pet projects off the ground and to attain the notoriety of success in a competitive marketplace. And yet we have a distorted perception of those who are successful without the perks and protections and that strict regulations are needed to cut everyone down to the same size.
Canada is a very insecure country, but the media giants have certainly made a pile of money by playing the cynical game.
The sooner the electorate votes out the current federal government, the better. I welcome a program review that goes medeval on the CRTC's mandate, budget and headcount, leaving behind a much smaller entity focused on frequency allocation and not much more. I am embarasssed to be a citizen of a country that regulates content and competition in media.
I keep forcing myself to read about this stuff, knowing it's going to make me grind me teeth, because I think getting this right is important and there is a narrow window (which is closing) to get policy right here. And, we're still pretty far off the mark.
The internet as conceived was (and is) a pretty decentralized place. At its best, it does 'democratize' the ability to reach and grow an audience and share all kinds of content.
But, from the beginning, platforms within the internet have worked to create proprietary spaces within the internet they could control and monetize. Whether it's the AOL portal model or today's social media and search platforms, the goal has been to collect folks within a platform, then charge for access to audiences. Great business model, but an unhealthy concentration of power.
None of what the government seeks to do, though, is focused on addressing that. Instead, we are doing what too much of Canadian public policy does: subsidize favoured industries under the guise of saving (or creating) "good paying jobs."
The platform concentration issue could be addressed by things like transparency on how their algorithms serve up content (and audiences) and sell advertising. They could be forced to allow competing ad networks to integrate with their platforms, creating competition. They could be forced to give all users far, far more control over what they prefer to see (and not see). We could simply tax profits generated in Canada by these platforms at a greater rate and use some of that revenue to support Canadian content creators, aimed at supporting the next generation of journalism, writers and artists.
But instead, we simply seem to be looking for a way to get new media to fund old media without actually addressing any of the issues above. As long as Postmedia, Bell, Rogers, Torstar, etc get their cut, nobody seems to care about the anticompetitive nature of these large, multinational platforms. That's ... a headscratcher for me.
"This was followed by a chorus line of vested interests explaining how important it is for the regulator to ensure lotsa cash flows in their direction lest the nation’s creative aesthetic dies under the jackboot of American cultural imperialism."
Those 'vested interests' are also speaking on behalf of the over 200K people who work as crew members in the film/television industry in Canada. The majority of those people work on U.S. productions - and most of them were/are still out of work for most of this year due to the SAG/AFTRA & WGA strikes. The few people who had work were on Canadian productions which were (thankfully) unaffected by the strikes.
Those U.S. productions film here due partially to our tax credit regime (which the majority of countries also have), but mainly due to the high skill level of our crews. We don't want to be just a branch-plant industry - we also want a Canadian industry that can continue to operate whether or not there are labor shut-downs in the U.S.
"And — OMG! — whatever happens don’t make me have to move to Hollywood. You know, like poor old Ryan Reynolds did." Moving to the U.S. for work is a non-starter all but a few film crew workers. Why would the U.S. give a green card to a driver, locations manager, accountant, set dresser, prop master or anyone else working in the dozens of other crew positions? It's not just all about the talent/creative people.
Kaycee, I respectfully offer a heartfelt, "Frankly, Miss Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"
I do hope that you got the - American, to be sure - cultural reference as it absolutely conveys my disgust with the constant assertion that only Canadian, etc., etc., etc. cultural thingys are worthwhile.
Yes, I do want my neighbors to have jobs and to flourish but, damn it!, I don't want to subsidize them. I don't want to subsidize anyone! Let them succeed on the basis of the quality and relative cost of their product (i.e. their labor). And, lest you tell me that they are of the highest quality and relative cost, then let them lower their cost to attract more work. See, solved your problem.
But this whole Canadian thingy of needing to subsidize stuff simply because it is Canadian and is not American is absurd. I don't watch very much television at all: I have difficulty hearing and closed captioning is an imperfect alternative. So I read. In fact, really, why don't we shut down Netflix and Disney+ - see? solved your problem! - and issue library cards to everyone.
But stop stealing my money so you can subsidize those folks who seeming cannot otherwise get a job. Or, if they can get a job, do so! But leave me out of it!
The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world which don't provide some type of public funding for film/television production. So we're in line with what much of the rest of the world does - just not the U.S.
Lowering wages to attract more 'business' is a race to the bottom. Is that what you're advocating?
Just because you don't care for television doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't. And there are lots of people who don't care for/about libraries - would you be OK with those people advocating to shut libraries down? The amount of gov't funding which goes directly to film/tv production is pennies per individual per year. And I'd be willing to bet that taxpayer funding of libraries is considerably higher than taxpayer funding for the film/tv sector.
Just because the US doesn't do something is no compelling reason for Canada to do it. A bad idea is a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who does or does not do it.
I was not recommending a race to the bottom but simply pointing out that that was an option available to the folks in those industries. And, if they cannot get a job in the arts industry - note: INDUSTRY, i.e. an economic grouping - then let them get a job elsewhere in the economy. Just because they wish to be in the film and television industry does not mean that I should pay to allow them to have that job.
I was for many years an accountant in public practice and I had many, many clients who were in the arts industries and it always astounded me a) how much was received by way of various public grants, etc.; and b) how ungrateful were the recipients and how resentful they were that the amounts were not more. Ultimately, I became convinced that no matter how much was paid out, the recipients would argue it was not enough and those who were not receiving would always argue, "Hey, what about me?"
Hence, my wish to end these subsidies.
If you are not a bibliophile and it is your wish to end public subsidies to libraries, you are free to make that case.
What an utterly brilliant piece. The better debate is whether the CRTC should even still exist; we'll likely get to that around 2075. Well done.
Perfection! But I have little hope. I do hope that the JJ's of the country survive this onslaught somehow.