Should Netflix be subject to CRTC regulation?

[August1991]

Is Netflix like a cable provider, or is it like the Internet?

Bell is about to create a competitor to Netflix, and Bell apparently promises to provide Canadian content:

“The Canadian system needs companies with the scale to compete against foreign content companies like Netflix, Apple, Google and Amazon,” George Cope, chief executive for the country’s largest telecommunications and media company, said at hearings in downtown Montreal.

Bell and Astral executives referenced repeatedly the rise of Netflix, which has gained about 1.34 million subscribers in Canada since launching two years ago — a number that rivals that of Astral’s pay-television services, like HBO Canada and The Movie Network.

....

“There are global bidders bidding for this content,” Mr. Cope added, pressing home the point to the commission. “Combining our content buying capability” was “one of the main reasons [Astral CEO Ian Greenberg] and I came together on this.”

“And while international players do not invest in Canada or focus on Canadians, at Bell we always have and always will.”

FP

[cybercoma]

I have no sympathy for Canadian telecomm corps. Even less so when they try to use laws and regulations to hinder corporate competition.

[TimG]

The CRTC can't stop Canadians from buying services from a US provider over the Internet. If the CRTC tries to shutdown Netflix's operations in Canada people can always go to the US site directly. The only real limits are imposed by the content owners which license content by geography (a limit that is easily circumvented with VPNs).

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

Who or what was it that stopped me from watching a movie on Amazon Prime Video the other evening?

Probably someone who talks free trade out both sides of their mouth while blowing something else out their rear end.

[TimG]

Who or what was it that stopped me from watching a movie on Amazon Prime Video the other evening?

The content owners (e.g. the Hollywood studios) do not sell global distribution rights to their shows. They must be purchased country by country. Amazon choose not to pay for the right to sell to Canadians. Netflix has made the choice to pay for the right to sell to Canadians.

[eyeball]

The content owners (e.g. the Hollywood studios) do not sell global distribution rights to their shows. They must be purchased country by country. Amazon choose not to pay for the right to sell to Canadians. Netflix has made the choice to pay for the right to sell to Canadians.

Okay, I guess I'll stay mad at Amazon for walking me through their process, taking my credit card number and address and such and then letting me know they don't want my business.

Too bad Hollywood studios doesn't just cut out the middle-men.

[August1991]

The CRTC can't stop Canadians from buying services from a US provider over the Internet.

So, according to you, the State should not protect a people's language or "culture".

If the State does not serve us or protect us, then why have a State? Why not have anarchy?

TimG, should individuals be free to listen/hear/do/say what they want?

Edited October 6, 2012 by August1991

[TimG]

So, according to you, the State should not protect a people's language or "culture".

That is not what I said. I said, the state cannot stop cannot stop a Canadian from purchasing a service over the Internet from a US supplier. This is a statement of technical facts of life. This means CRTC can't regulate these services even if they wanted to.

In fact, what does can-con mean for an on-demand service? It is not like Netflix can force people to want Canadian content.

[Michael Hardner]

In fact, what does can-con mean for an on-demand service? It is not like Netflix can force people to want Canadian content.

And this is where we are.

Can-Con is a relic of 'push' technology in the form of radio and television broadcasting. These laws were formed in an era when government and large industry controlled communications and culture via central programming. With more choice, the model has to change.

Firstly, eyeball's middle man is on his last legs. He's a relic. He can't be a re-seller or a blocker of content either anymore - we can always go around him.

What does it mean ? Let's brainstorm on this a bit.

Is all state based culture doomed ?

To consider this, let's think about our communications infrastructure. Think about the idea of national culture in an era that was pre-television and pre-radio - indeed, what was the state before this central programming ? You had literature and the press - still centralized but less so than radio and television. Going back further - the printing press itself unified language and "created" the concept of the modern state according to McLuhan, Innes and others.

Does our new web world take us back further than that, effectively, in terms of de-centralization ?

I would submit that local culture will become more and more important, that city-states and regional politics will rise in importance, and that if we still want to promote something called 'Canada' we need to do it in positive ways, not by preventing people from obtaining American or world culture.

If I were strategizing how to do this, I would create independent agencies to help start-up cultural endeavours and fund them based on their successes... cutting off funding when they achieve self-sufficiency.

Fascinating topic... it's all conjecture so you can't be right or wrong !

[TimG]

Firstly, eyeball's middle man is on his last legs. He's a relic. He can't be a re-seller or a blocker of content either anymore - we can always go around him.

The middlemen like Amazon or Netflix are here to stay because people want content aggregators. They do not want to chase down a website for each movie producer which only gives them shows by that producer.

Does our new web world take us back further than that, effectively, in terms of de-centralization ?

The world of the future is a world of multiple parallel identities. Each people will be part of many communities - some based on geography - some based on interest.

If I were strategizing how to do this, I would create independent agencies to help start-up cultural endeavours and fund them based on their successes... cutting off funding when they achieve self-sufficiency.

We already have this - except self sufficiency usually means producing content for US audiences.

[Michael Hardner]

The middlemen like Amazon or Netflix are here to stay because people want content aggregators.

You are right. If they add value, then they will be around. But not as gatekeepers or high-cost resellers. Also, if I make a DVD, why would I give it to Amazon to resell ?

They do not want to chase down a website for each movie producer which only gives them shows by that producer.

Google is their friend.

The world of the future is a world of multiple parallel identities. Each people will be part of many communities - some based on geography - some based on interest.

We already have this - except self sufficiency usually means producing content for US audiences.

I see a contradiction in those two statements, but as I have said there's no right answer. I have already modified my views on this (i.e. middle men) based on your response. I like these discussions because they're set apart from political discussion for the most part, and a good way to edify one's opinions.

[TimG]

Google is their friend.

It is more than simply finding a website. You have to set up an account to pay for content. The user interface may be different. The features may be different. It will cost a lot more if you want subscription based services like Netflix. From a consumer perspective they would rather deal with two or three superstores that provide everything consistently than with individual suppliers.

[cybercoma]

You are right. If they add value, then they will be around. But not as gatekeepers or high-cost resellers. Also, if I make a DVD, why would I give it to Amazon to resell ?

I know this is only one small point in a larger discussion, but the answer to your question is customer base. It's difficult to reach people. If someone else is going to do that work for you, then it saves you time and money. It's the same reason some companies bend over backwards to get onto Walmart's shelves. Edited October 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

That is not what I said. I said, the state cannot stop cannot stop a Canadian from purchasing a service over the Internet from a US supplier. This is a statement of technical facts of life. This means CRTC can't regulate these services even if they wanted to.

Sure they can. They regulate your ISP and can potentially blacklist any content they want.

[TimG]

Sure they can. They regulate your ISP and can potentially blacklist any content they want.

They can't stop a VPN. But it would never come to that. Any attempt by the CRTC to block sites based on content would not survive a charter challenge. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

They can't stop a VPN.

Sure they can. VPN tunnels connect to a remote host by IP address or DNS. Nothing hard about blocking those services at all. In fact its not harder than blocking any other kind of traffic... childs play.

But it would never come to that. Any attempt by the CRTC to block sites based on content would not survive a charter challenge.

That would depend on the circumstances. In any case thats a diferent claim then your "This is a statement of technical facts of life." statement, which suggested that it wasnt technically possible for the government to block these sites. Its really quite easy and theres already a shitload of websites that you cant access.

[eyeball]

Why would the government want to stop a willing seller and buyer from making a deal?

To tilt the playing field obviously.

I'm sure it happens all the time.

Edited October 8, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

In any case thats a diferent claim then your "This is a statement of technical facts of life." statement, which suggested that it wasn't technically possible for the government to block these sites.

Well the government could tear down every international link but it goes without saying that the government is not going to do that. Blocking general purpose VPNs is as insane as tearing down the physical links. Even China does not/cannot do that because it is technically impossible to separate media traffic subject to CRTC rules from traffic that is not affected by these rules once a VPN is established. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

Can-Con is a relic of 'push' technology in the form of radio and television broadcasting. These laws were formed in an era when government and large industry controlled communications and culture via central programming. With more choice, the model has to change.

Firstly, eyeball's middle man is on his last legs. He's a relic. He can't be a re-seller or a blocker of content either anymore - we can always go around him.

What does it mean ? Let's brainstorm on this a bit.

Is all state based culture doomed ?

If I understand this correctly Michael, the control of the CRTC and the idea of government as a defender of local culture really means making sure the people CAN"T watch, read or listen to what they WANT!

Instead, the government limits their choices to what it says the people SHOULD want!

No wonder there have always been conflicts. No wonder there has always been tv piracy.

[eyeball]

The middlemen like Amazon or Netflix are here to stay because people want content aggregators.

No, I don't want an aggregation of 100 channels. And even more to the point I don't want to pay for the 95 I don't ever watch.

[TimG]

No, I don't want an aggregation of 100 channels. And even more to the point I don't want to pay for the 95 I don't ever watch.

Come on. Join the 21th century! Channels are relics of the past. Pull delivery means aggregators are nothing more than online department stores where you only pay for what you want.

[Michael Hardner]

If I understand this correctly Michael, the control of the CRTC and the idea of government as a defender of local culture really means making sure the people CAN"T watch, read or listen to what they WANT!

Not true. They can subsidize and promote Canadian culture in a positive way while still giving people choice.

[Michael Hardner]

I know this is only one small point in a larger discussion, but the answer to your question is customer base. It's difficult to reach people. If someone else is going to do that work for you, then it saves you time and money. It's the same reason some companies bend over backwards to get onto Walmart's shelves.

Saves me time and money how ? I can search Google as easily as I can search Amazon.

[TimG]

Saves me time and money how ? I can search Google as easily as I can search Amazon.

I am guessing you are not a big consumer of paid online video content. Edited October 9, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am guessing you are not a big consumer of paid online video content.

Pay per view on the web ? Ummm... no. If I want to buy a DVD, though, I Google the title. I may find it on Amazon, but also on eBay or on the artists website.