Parsing the CRTC: Say 1 to 1, or "Control" Again and I'll Throttle Ya!

I AM POSITIVELY queasy about the fact that I'm writing about the CRTC again. But here we go.

An unfortunate and persistent side effect of the times that we live in is that activism finds itself up against money, all the time. In the current hearings going into whether the CRTC will assert any jurisdiction over televised content over the internet, lobbyists for broadcasters and cable types blanketed the commission for months.

Currently on Twitter, if you search the comments regarding the CRTC, you won't see as many tweets about "keep your hands off the net" or "stop trying to control the net!" as you did a few days ago -- but they're still there.

The truth is that these are only the first set of hearings this year that will be dealing with the internet. And here's where the wisdom of the mob breaks down. Many of the same people who are currently crying that the CRTC should do nothing, and keep your hands off the net, are going to be arguing in a few weeks that the CRTC do something about net neutrality.

Well, folks, that's a load of bullshit. Either you're for free expression on the net or you're not. Either the CRTC has regulatory authority here, or it doesn't. Either you're with the corporate agenda of the Bells and the Rogers or you're not. Things are being decided in a windowless rooom in Gatineau. They will affect you. It's time you put down the tweet deck and read a few articles first.

Here's something else: the same artists and "arts groups" (not cultural workers or industry representatives, because that would make it sound like, um, you know, we were taxpayers or stakeholders or something) that are currently arguing for support are going to be the same people on your side in a few weeks when all that talk about "net neutrality" comes down. They're fighting for a place at the table. And your interests align with them -- not with Rogers, Bell, and the other ISP's. Just saying.

The other thing that came up last week was the potential change to the licensing requirements for OTA broadcasters. The CRTC has signalled that they're going to renew everyone for a year, and then when the hearings resume, they want broadcasters to present as a group. So over the air channels and specialty channels will be renewed at once. This is a good thing because it will hopefully put an end to the semantic games where people claim their channels are in the toilet, when the reality is that the viewership has largely shifted to other properties they own anyway.

Now, the other piece of info that was buried in that little call to action was the commission's idea that maybe for a year they would require a 1 to 1 spend on foreign to domestic programming.

This is an attempt to subtly reframe the debate that is going to require vigilance from the cultural industry.

The reality is when you talk about "foreign" spending versus "domestic" spending, it changes things. The ratios aren't that far apart. That's because "Domestic" spending includes things like local programming, news, and sports programming -- stuff that you can't exactly buy elsewhere. Believe me, if the Calgary Global affiliate had found a way to buy local Calgary news from L.A., they would have done it by now.

What's good about this from a broadcaster and commission point of view is that maybe, just maybe, you can kick up a catfight between those who are worried about local news, and the cut in spending and jobs there, and sports fans, and those who want spending on drama and comedy to be increased. You know, those programs that Vice Chair Arpin would rather read a book than watch.

Make no mistake. The place where the spending has gotten out of control in the last few years is foreign -- mostly American -- scripted programming. Ten years ago they spend 6 dollars on American shows for every dollar they spent on homegrown. That went up to 12 to 1 in the last few years. In the last year it's ticked up a bit -- more like 9 to 1 -- because the license renewals were coming up, and the broadcasters always spend more to pretty up before they have to traipse up before the commission.

The battle in these cases is always "How do you define the issue?"

The ISP's so far have been really good at throwing down a smoke bomb, and saying they're "fighting for your rights" in the fight against creating any sort of content fund. In a few weeks, you'll see how much they're fighting for you as they patiently explain why they should be able to prioritize sites, shape your traffic, and control -- there's that word -- what you can and can't do with your internet service.

And down the road, when everyone starts talking "1 to 1" -- we have to all be vigilant and say, "isn't this really about what we get to see on TV? " What good is it having only the same shite we see on the U.S. channels? Who cares if they're on a Canadian or US channel at that point?" Maybe point out that all those specialty channels they bought that are supposed to be showing History or whatever just shovel the same old reruns. That Showcase is NOT a better channel just because it's one more place for House and CSI reruns.

A lot of the younger, wired people will quibble because they look at CanCon alternatives and see shows that they don't watch. I know I haven't had a whole lot of success talking to twenty-one year olds about Corner Gas. But if you want a cutting edge show like they have in Britain, say...if you want your own Mighty Boosh or maybe a shot at a Canadian Robot Chicken, this is why it's your fight, too.

Someone gets to define the future. Is it you? Or the people who've benefited so clearly from the past?