Hello everyone,
I wanted to follow up on my presentation from earlier this term with some thoughts as I ran out of time. Just to recap: my presentation was on the CRTC’s new Online Undertakings Registration Regulations. Towards the end of the presentation, I referenced the CRTC’s “Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329” which is a document that reveals the CRTC’s process behind the creation of the Regulations. For me, the most interesting part of the policy document was the arguments that intervenors (i.e. corporations and associations that would be affected by the Regulations) presented for and against various elements of the Regulations and how the CRTC responded to those positions. I will attach the policy document below if you would like to take a closer look, but I will highlight some of the exchanges that stood out to me.
The parties disagreed on whether social media services (SMS) ought to be captured by the Regulations. Intervenors with interests in protecting traditional broadcasting undertakings, such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, argued that SMS “directly compete with radio and television services for content, audience, and advertising” and thus need to be captured (para. 157). On the other hand, corporations such as Meta, TikTok and Google argued for an exemption on the grounds that “the broadcasting activities on [their] services are minimal and entirely ancillary to the predominant purpose of [their] services” (para. 162). For Meta, its primary purpose is “to help people connect with friends and family, to help build communities and to help grow businesses” (para. 162); and for YouTube, it is “the dissemination of user-generated content” (para. 164). Nevertheless, the CRTC did not grant an exemption for SMS because of their “increasingly dominant role” in the advertising markets (para. 169). So, this aspect of the decision ultimately came down to money, not principle. Also, the CRTC emphasized registration (and in turn, collection of information) as an important first step towards further regulation, which mildly worries me about what the future holds.
Same with podcasts, the parties debated whether platforms such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify ought to be captured by the Regulations. Apple argued that podcast platforms should be exempt because they are “merely a directory” for users to access free content generated by independent podcasters (para. 207). Opposing intervenors, such as Corus and Rogers, contended that these platforms offer paid-subscription podcasts as well, and in that respect, “[they act] as an online undertaking and [their] revenues should be captured” (para. 214). As for the CRTC, it concluded that podcasts and podcast platforms are captured by the Broadcasting Act. However, the CRTC provided minimal analysis and merely repeated statutory definitions: “the Commission finds that podcasts constitute programs under the Broadcasting Act, given that they are comprised of sounds intended to inform, enlighten or entertain. Further, […] the Commission finds that the transmission of podcasts over the Internet […] constitutes broadcasting” (para. 217). Personally, reading this section cemented an image of the CRTC as lacking in transparency and accountability.
Finally, I found it amusing that the CRTC described the podcast platforms’ function as a directory for independent podcasters as “akin to a program guide” (para. 220). It seemed to reveal the CRTC’s inability to let go of the past (i.e. television) as well as its determination in forcing novel online undertakings into the traditional broadcasting framework.
Thanks for reading and good luck on your exams!
By Jay Kim