WGC makes the Case

FROM THEIR PRESS RELEASE:

The WGC asked the commission to recognize that consumer behaviour has changed, and that the Internet is now an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. They can do this, asserts the WGC, by implementing a new framework bringing more Canadian TV programming online and fostering the creation of original online content.

“Canadian audiences want to be able to access Canadian television content on any platform,” says Rebecca Schechter, President, WGC. “Their demand has pushed ISPs to become part of the Canadian broadcasting system. Yet only a fraction of Canadian TV content is available online – and just try to find it, buried as it is under mountains of U.S. programming.”

The WGC is advocating for a minimum level of 60% streamed Canadian TV content on broadcasters’ websites and branded channels, and policies ensuring Canadian content is more accessible. In addition, the WGC is proposing incentives and other ideas to foster promotion of Canadian content online. Despite the ISPs claims that they are not broadcasters, the cultural relevance of the Canadian broadcasting system is not diminished because there is a new pipeline.

The WGC made it clear that it has no desire to see user-generated content regulated, and its proposal will in no way restrict what people can see and do on the Internet.

The WGC is also calling for the creation of a new fund – established through a modest ISP levy – to support the development of professionally produced Canadian new media content.

“Because Canadians want this content,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, WGC, “the few public funds devoted to new media in Canada are drastically oversubscribed. The levy will support new original programming, and strengthen the ISPs’ offering to their customers, Canadian audiences. The ISPs are the gateway to the Internet. They are protected from foreign competition, but are completely unregulated and charge whatever they want for Internet services. We are asking for 1.5% of their total revenues – which last year was $5.7 billion. This will not break the bank or the Internet.”

In their appearance, the WGC reps looked prepared. They tried to show some examples of sites that "broadcast" in new media now (Degrassi and the ZOS site) -- with limited success due to the orientation of the room -- but they made a presentation that was considerably more nuanced than many of the arts groups that have gone before.

Some key points:

• The WGC thinks that any content levy could easily be absorbed by the ISP's -- because it proposes exempting smaller ISP's who might have trouble paying. Driving an increase in bandwidth due to increased demand for video traffic will increase the profits of the ISP's -- who already charge more for people who download more heavily. It's in their interest to drive people to download more so they can charge more.
  
• Fund could fund Broadcaster add-ons for existing shows, or all-new shows for the internet only.
• ISP's are trying to pull a bait and switch. They are not broadcasters, but they are part of the broadcast system, and they are trying to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to that system like every other player in the system.
• CanCon on the internet should be defined as 75% of the money spent in Canada, and the top 5 creative positions going to Canadians (recognizing that diff projects might have different creative needs, ie: a designer not a director, a writer who also codes, etc.)
• Proposing a system by which new web-broadcasting ventures could "opt in" to a voluntary CanCon cert. system where they would then be able to access funds for new media production. Let's call this the "Jim Henshaw point." :)
  

I think it's more than possible for reasonable people to disagree about an ISP levy. But not from a position of dishonesty about how the Canadian broadcast system truly works.

Like the broadcast system, ISP's are protected telcos and cablecos who are shielded from competition. They receive regulatory advantage every day they operate. The question is whether they should be made to give something back to the system. The WGC made a presentation for the 'Yes' side, and what's more, they did it without hysteria, and showing that they understood how the internet differs from the traditional broadcast system.

It will be interesting to see if opponents to the levy idea can bring themselves to argue their point on a level playing field, or if they'll conveniently omit how ISP's benefit from the kind of "protectionism" that they're decrying in the cultural community.

EDIT: Heard from a few more folks, and yup, I did think the questions were a little odd. The CRTC seemed to throw a lot of very technical questions at the Writers group. Considering the fact that they had the CFTPA this morning, who have more staff and resources and who co-sponsored the report, it was an odd area to focus on with the Writers.

The whole notion of "what is CanCon in the new media world" got only a cursory glance. Very strange.

Anyway, with that, I think we're capped here at Dead Things Labs about writing about these hearings. There'll be plenty of coverage of the ISP's and Broadcaster submissions that you can parse for yourself, and people like Michael Geist cover the whole Net Neutrality thing better than I could ever hope to.

It will be nice not to type the letters "C-R-T-C" for awhile. And anyway, I just got a go-ahead to go to script on one of my projects, so Daddy gets to be a real live screenwriter again. Yaaaay!