Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest ClinicCentre for Law, Technology & SocietyUniversity of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

Tel: (613) 562-5800 ext. 2914Email: tisrael@cippic.ca

THE NEW MEDIA:

Maximizing Canada’s Online Presence

Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer

November 16, 2011

CRTC Stakeholder Consultations on New Media Broadcasting

First:

Short term: No evidence of dramatic cord cutting or falling broadcast industry revenue; CMF showing annual increases in revenue

Long term: Harm to innovation and service migration

Do Not Regulate Online Content

Harm to long term online competitiveness CDN Content

Access/Spectrum ‘scarcity’ is non-existent online

For more details on why not to regulate, see CIPPIC’s submission to BTNC CRTC 2011-344, <http://www.cippic.ca/sites/default/files/20110707-CIPPIC-CRTC_2011-344-FINAL.pdf>

Do Not Regulate Online Content

What Can CRTC Do To Make Canadian Content More Competitive Online?

If not content regulation than what?

Regulatory options

‘Fact-finding’ options

Wholly Un-Regulatory options

(How can we get there 1st)

Obstacles to Competitiveness of Canadian Content online?

Demand problems

Incentive issues

Attention Scarcity

As we shift from a world of scarcity to one of abundance, we are seeing Canadians play an important role.  Record labels like Nettwerk Records in British Columbia or Arts & Crafts in Toronto are at the forefront of using the Internet to promote their artists and benefit from its great potential. Notwithstanding some doom and gloom, the Canadian digital music market has grown faster than the U.S. market in each of the past four years. We rank 7th worldwide in digital sales, virtually identical to our 6th place ranking for offline sales. M. Geist, Testimony before Heritage Committee, March 2010, <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4907/125/>

I. Demand

Achieve content objectives through telecom policy

‘If you build it, they may come’

Leverage telecom policy to feed demand

SOURCE: OECD, Fixed and wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, Dec 2010: <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls>

FTTH < 1% of Canadian Wired Access <http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/2011/cmr5.htm#f533>

OECD average is > 12%<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/20/39575781.xls>

Falling Behind on Fibre

SOURCE: OECD, Fixed and wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, Dec 2010: <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls>

TRP CRTC 2011-291 approaches universal access: 5/1 Mbps by 2015

Quality should be ‘adequate’ for any online service; Technologically neutral

Wireline v. Wireless

I. Demand

5/1 Mbps by 2015

Speed targets are reasonable & achievable

Objective should be universal adoption not universal access

Competition alone does not guarantee affordable access

Universal Adoption

FCC Cheap Internet Program Partnership with Industry (ISPs, PCs)

Offers eligible families high speed Internet access + a Computer for $9.95/month<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192673-fcc-tech-companies-launch-cheap-internet-program >

Calls for a similar initiative in Canada:Mark Goldberg, <http://mhgoldberg.com/blog/?p=4253>

Universal Adoption

Universal Adoption Empirical Studies in US on importance of

community access programs<http://www.maritamoll.ca/content/op-ed-community-access-one-pillar-digital-economy>

FCC-sponsored study by SSRC in US concludes: “Our study identifies a range of factors that make broadband services hard to acquire and harder to maintain in such communities. Some of these issues could be addressed relatively easily, such as greater transparency with respect to fees and billing, or better bundling of services to suit the communication needs of low-income groups…But the study also suggests that libraries and other intermediaries will remain central institutions for broadband access in many communities, and consequently for the forms of social and economic participation—from job searches to education—that increasingly take place online.”

SSRC, “Broadband Adoption in Low-Income Communities”, March 2010, <http://webarchive.ssrc.org/pdfs/Broadband_Adoption_v1.1.pdf>

Universal Adoption Digital Literacy also critical to adoption, online

competitiveness<http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/corporate/media_kit/digital_literacy_paper_pdf/digitalliteracypaper.pdf>

Coherent approach to spectrum required

Open Spectrum facilitated community access initiatives

<http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/OpenSpectrumPolicyBrief_EN.pdf>

Digital Strategy? Commission Input? Outreach Mandate?

I. Quality Demand TRP CRTC 2011-291: technologically neutral

LTE wireless & High Throughput Satellite (HTS); Both are cheaper in high cost areas

Both can achieve high speeds, but have jitter/latency issues & higher marginal usage costs

Latency/jitter:

LTE: http://lte.alcatel-lucent.com/locale/en_us/downloads/Alcatel-Lucent_LTE_Transport_WhitePaper.pdf

HTS: http://www.apscc.or.kr/pub/2011Q2.pdf

Higher marginal costs:

LTE: http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/the_way_to_lte/docs/Mobile_IP_Transformation_EN_SWP.pdf

HTS: http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/satellitegetspersonal/The-Great-Broadband-Leap-Forward_36704.html

This, in turn, invites Net Neutrality violations, UBB

II. (Counter)Incentives

Convergence = Digital Counter Incentives

In TPN CRTC 2008-19, Canadian content groups spoke of benefits of P2P

Net Neutrality essential to ensure emerging digital platforms can thrive

<http://openmedia.ca/plan/technical-case>

Usage-based billing deters online activity

II. Incentives

Some incumbents moving online

Empirical research on benefits and scope of online Canadian content needed

Consider New Definitions

How do we measure ‘Canadian Content’

Broadcasting Act only applies to ‘programming’; uses of Internet platform(s) are diverse

But Canadians culture is being spread through many varied online creations

New metrics/studies needed to assess these

“The context of this present study, following the publication of federal government’s consultation paper Improving Canada’s Digital Advantage: Strategies for Sustainable Prosperity and the ensuing consultation, is the changing nature of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the way they are being used by Canadians. The proliferation of user-generated content is perhaps the most significant development in the field of digital content creation over the past decade. As noted in Improving Canada’s Digital Advantage, “new and increasingly more affordable technology is putting creative control directly in the hands of consumers and creators” (Canada, 2010, p. 24).

Yet UGC remains underutilized, understudied and, with respect to public policy, greatly misunderstood. One of the main features of UGC is that its creation by non-professionals effectively straddles market and non-market interests. A 2006 OECD study noted that “most user-generated content activity is undertaken without the expectation of remuneration or profit.”

FIMS UGC Research Team, “Mobilizing User-Generated Content for Canada’s Digital Advantage”, Dec 2010, <http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/fimspub/21/>

New Value? Cultural & Monetary value of UGC Video

Value of new types of ‘Canadian content’?

FIMS: growing categories of online creativity: Collaborative content (wikis, open source)

Individual content (blogs, online photos, etc)

Software modifications/applications (on software platforms)

All of these contribute to online Canadian cultural presence in intermingling ways

‘The Power of Open’

Ancillary Monetary Value:

TEDTalks; ccMixter; Open University;

Creative Commons, ‘The Power of Open’, <http://thepowerofopen.org/assets/pdfs/tpoo_webres.pdf>

More New Value?

Consider monetary value of cultural platforms?

Platforms/products that rely on fair use of cultural works generated an average annual $4.6 Trillion USD (2008, 2009) in the U.S. EconomyCCIA, “Economic Contribution of Industries Relying on Fair Use”, <http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000526/CCIA-FairUseintheUSEconomy-2011.pdf>

II. Incentives How to convince traditional content producers to get online?

Already happening; Canadian content obligations may deter

Studies demonstrating value of online ‘add-ons’ or transitions; NFB.ca:

“In parallel to the technical work necessary to set this up, the NFB developed a very detailed business plan mapping out the commercial potential of the transactional offer. We brought on PriceWaterhouseCooper to validate the assumptions and the results we projected for our business plan. In sum, that work showed there was significant commercial potential in the move to micro-payments and “freemium” (free and premium) transactional system.”

CBC: “remains the top ranked Canadian media content site today”­ Deloitte, Report, “The Economic Impact of the CBC/Radio Canada‐ ” (June 2011), ­ <http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/Economic-Impact-Deloitte.pdf >

III. Attention Scarcity

How to stimulate Canadian content online visibility?

What is Online Canadian Content up against?

Drawing Attention to Online Can Content Allowing online platforms to thrive:

NFB.ca: Over 2,000 films/original interactive works;

over 11 million views of NFB films on NFB platform;

Do-it-yourself: Consider expanded outreach role for CRTC on new media

Expanded direct online presence, interaction with Canadian new media efforts

Interaction w/other Gov/stakeholder efforts at providing tools to stimulate online Canadian media

Open data initiatives spark mashups, new types of content

NFB.ca proposal Convene stakeholders to consider joint initiatives:“NFB can work with the private sector to develop a “national screening room”—a fully functional OTT service that would welcome all Canadian content. It would be non-exclusive so that producers could make works available on many platforms. It would be controlled and run by the private sector but powered by NFB’s back-end architecture.”