Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

22 Comments

news

The Fourth-Stupidest Thing the CRTC Has Done this Month (So Far)

20110214crtc.jpg
A 2007 art installation by Iain Baxter&; photo by Mr Kevino from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


Whatever the exact opposite of being on a roll is, the CRTC has spent the last month doing just that. Proposing to lower the standards which prohibit false or misleading news didn’t get as much attention as their plan to let Bell and Rogers impose usage-based billing (a plan so noxious and so blatantly favouring big business that even the Conservative Party balked at such a corporate-friendly move), but it was arguably even worse. Given those two massive errors, the CRTC’s decision to kill CKLN (though the station got a temporary stay) looks downright reasonable in response, although in actuality it’s a cold-hearted move by a bureaucratic regime that’s all too happy to give corporate media a pass whenever it sees the need.
In light of all that, the CRTC’s recent decision to prevent AUX TV from airing more music videos seems like a standard, day-to-day affair. Except, of course, that it isn’t. It’s yet another slap in Canada’s face from the federal agency that’s less responsive to Canadians’ wants and needs than any other. If the CRTC were Environment Canada, we would probably be required to eat toxic waste for breakfast once per week. There wouldn’t be a good reason for doing it; we’d just have to.


AUX’s request was simple. It is currently allowed to air music videos for only 35% of its airtime during any broadcast month. The station wished to remove this restriction so that it could air more videos. AUX pointed out, quite reasonably, that none of the other ostensible music channels in Canada have a “too many videos” restriction. MuchMusic certainly doesn’t.
Indeed, AUX is the only channel left in Canada doing what MuchMusic used to do: using music video programming to promote Canadian culture. AUX makes a point of focusing on up-and-coming Canadian artists in all genres: it has pushed K’naan, Japandroids, Owen Pallett, and You Say Party! We Say Die!, among many others. AUX does this because it knows it can do so cheaply, much in the way that MuchMusic used to do before it became an unwatchable void of suck.
So, AUX asked for more video airplay time, which would almost certainly assist it in promoting Canadian culture. This is a complete no-brainer; after all, one of the CRTC’s mandates is the promotion and protection of Canadian culture. Who could say no to that?
Well, the CRTC could, and did. The explanation? If they let AUX TV air more videos, it would put AUX in direct competition with MuchMusic. This reasoning is a holdover from the old days of CRTC licensing, when cable stations had to justify their existence by fulfilling a distinct niche. It worked a lot better ten years ago, before every one of the specialty channels became the same mix of low-rent reality programming and old American TV, when we didn’t live in a country where History TV airs marathons of M*A*S*H and documentaries about rodeo cowboys; where one of A&E’s best-rated shows is Dog the Bounty Hunter; and where you can’t tell Slice, TLC, W, HGTV, or the Discovery Channel apart without their little brands in the bottom corner of your screen.
The increasing homogenization and crapification of Canadian cable aside, the CRTC’s argument is even less sensical because, as we’ve written before, MuchMusic desperately avoids airing music videos in prime time. MuchMusic airs about an hour of videos between noon and midnight every day; most of the music videos actually show up in the dead of night. AUX, on the other hand, airs music videos in prime time. The idea that AUX airing more videos would put it directly in competition with MuchMusic is a bad joke, because there is no competition. MuchMusic wants to air as few videos as possible, because they get in the way of the American reruns that the station really wants to show.
The CRTC made exactly the wrong call, picking the option almost guaranteed to produce the least satisfying outcome for all concerned. Who benefits from AUX not airing more music videos? Canadian music artists? No. Canadian music fans who want to actually see more videos during daylight hours? Nope. AUX? Obviously not. MuchMusic? Not even them, because they don’t care. This is literally a decision that benefits absolutely nobody, which is why it’s so amazing: usually when the CRTC makes a horrendously bad decision, it at least has the appearance of being because Rogers or Bell whispered in their ear that they wanted to make more money.
But this? This is so witless that we are forced to wonder if maybe we’ve misunderstood the CRTC all along. Maybe they aren’t a shell of a government agency beholden to corporate media giants to the point of uselessness. Maybe they’re simply so stupid that uselessness is their natural state, and all along we’ve been blaming Bell and Rogers for influencing the acts of lunatics. It’s possible. After all, the CRTC honestly thinks MuchMusic airs music videos.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • mcfudge

    Well said!

  • http://twitter.com/rkplim Rob Lim

    I can only the CRTC's incompetence is part of a master plan by the Conservatives to make young urban tech-savvy people who trend left hate big government.

  • Functionalist

    At least when they were so blatantly anti-consumer, it was the understandable work of corporate lowlifes from Bell and Rogers; now they're Kafkaesque.

  • Jacob

    I typically try to justify the existence of the CRTC in arguments, but it's getting harder by the day.

    Fire everyone on the CRTC. Now.

    (Actually, wait until after an election, please. I don't want to see the roster Harper would staff it with.)

  • 00AV

    We need Konrad the Fink and the rest of his merry band of inept fools canned faster then an Egyptian parliament.

  • http://twitter.com/JasonParis Jason Paris

    The CRTC can't keep track of all the channels its licensed basically and what the reality of the programming on said channels is. This is a decision that doesn't serve anyone, except as an example of stupidity.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Or push for the CRTC's dissolution, so the doors will be thrown open to American and British media companies and their thick wallets.

  • http://twitter.com/abraaten abraaten

    This is indeed assnine.

    Here's something most Canadians aren't aware of: von Finckenstein, the head of the CRTC, used to head up the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB). This means he's familiar with the Canadian Competition Act, after presiding over several large cases. Yet when he moves over to the CRTC, that organization starts churning out some of the most ridiculous and anticompetitive decisions the average Canadian has ever witnessed.

    For someone who previously headed up the Canadian Competition Bureau, von Finckenstein's CRTC is downright anti-competitive in nature. This AUX decision is a perfect example of one regulatory body (the CRTC) making decisions that are in direct conflict with the mandate of another regulatory body (CCB). The CRTC appears to discourage competition to ensure niche markets are served. The CRTC seems to think that discouraging competition will ensure MORE choice. The Canadian Competition Bureau, however, believes that more competion leads to lower prices and more product choice. So which is it?

    I'm no expert in the Canadian Competition Act, but I have read it over several times, and every time I read it I wonder: Why aren't we as Canadians acting against these anticompetitive decisions (AUX, UBB) through the Competition Bureau, rather than whining about it within the CRTC's domain? It brings several questions to mind:

    1. Is the CRTC somehow exempt from complying with Competition Policy because it has jurisdiction over the telecommunications Industry?
    2. Why do the CRTC's decisions appear so out of line with Competition Policy, given that its chief officer formerly headed up the agency responsible for enforcing the Canadian Competition Act?
    3. Is it possible to file a complaint with the Competition Bureau to ask them to investigate the CRTC itself under the conspiracy/collusion clauses of the Canadian Competition Act, and if so, would the bureaucrats at the CCB want to take action against their former boss?
    4. Can the Competition Bureau even take action against another regulatory body that appears to enforce, enable and ancourage anticompetitive outcomes in the telecommunications industry, or are other agencies of the Crown immune from the Competition Act?

    I thought that when von Finckenstein moved over to the CRTC we would see a wave of regulatory realignment as the CRTC's old and outdated regulations were harmonized with competition law to improve outcomes, but every week the CRTC confirms the opposite is happening.

    Happy reading:

    http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/…

    OFFENCES IN RELATION TO COMPETITION
    Conspiracies, agreements or arrangements between competitors

    45. (1) Every person commits an offence who, with a competitor of that person with respect to a product, conspires, agrees or arranges
    (a) to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of the product;
    (b) to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of the product; or
    (c) to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of the product.

  • lipniki

    Revoking the license of CKLN wasn't just “downright reasonable in response” in comparison to the other matters you write in your article describing as “two massive errors” by the CRTC. Having examined the CKLN case pretty carefully, I wonder if the CRTC knows a lot more about circumstances than they let on, and just restricted themselves to finding areas in which they actually had solid jurisdiction in order to act.
    There's a lot of talk about how supposedly “political” the CKLN CRTC decision was. The only “political” activity that was going on was at CKLN, their preoccupation and obsession with that eventually buying them a revocation. The way CKLN speaks, you'd think they wanted a pass on everything and anything. Simply they don't think they need regulation, despite holding a CRTC license that has terms.
    In the CKLN case, I believe the Commissioners knew a lot about what they were ruling on, more than any blogger, newspaper reporter or listener to the station would ever want to know. I always thought the CRTC was a wrist slapping organization. I might have been wrong about that assessment, but they obviously felt that wasn't an appropriate response to the CKLN case based on the documentation they examined.
    I just wonder how much CKLN's non-compliance cost the taxpayers in terms of the CRTC examining them and bringing them to the show cause hearing. It must have been millions.

  • http://twitter.com/BlogFox Brad Fox

    The problem has nothing to do with the CRTC – because the CRTC has absolutely no mandate to make any decisions about what they *should* do, or *want* to do, or even what would be in the interest of the Canadian people.

    The CRTC is only allowed to interpret the Broadcasting Act (or the Telecommunications Act) which hasn't been updated since 1991 (or 1993 respectively). So if the commission seems twenty years out of date, it's because their mandate is literally to look at modern issues through a lens that's that old.

    I've actually spoken in front of the commission during the net neutrality hearings, and they were engaged and (to my eyes) honestly put time and effort into understanding tricky technical and industrial issues. I saw them use things learned in earlier testimony to really call Bell and Rogers lawyers on the carpet for clear BS they were trying to shovel through undetected… but they then had to turn around a crummy decision that gave the telcos essentially everything they wanted anyway – because there was nothing in the applicable legislation that would let them turn down the requests.

    All of these “bad decisions” (with the exception of CKLN, and If you've actually read that decision I don't think you can really call it unfounded) boil down to the real argument which is two consecutive governments like having a visible CRTC take the fall for them so that they can “re-examine decisions” for cheap political points (see UBB). Really *they're* the one's at fault for either not bringing legislation into the 21st century, or alternately empowering the commission with more interpretive power.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    There's lots of reading on this available with a simple search, e.g.

    http://www.internationallawoff…
    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publ…

    From the latter and the text of the two Acts it seems the answers to your questions are:
    1. Roughly; matters regulated by the CRTC appear to be exempt from the Competition Act (CA) according to the second link above.
    2. See #1.
    3. Per your link§75 and §103.1, it seems the Competition Commissioner or any other person can apply to the Competition Tribunal for review.
    4. Unclear, but the general answer isn't relevant per #1.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    The Ontario Municipal Board is another example of a body that holds important regulatory responsibility but doesn't seems to be exercising it in the best ways.

    You get at an important point: there are separate questions of whether things (development, telecommunications) should be regulated, and howthey should be regulated.

    Things could very easily be worse without the CRTC, and there is no good argument for a completely unregulated telecom sector. Focusing on why the CRTC is bad drowns out the necessary discussion about what kind of telecom we should have, and then what type of regulation is the best way to get there.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    I hope this becomes an election issue (“If elected, we will amend the BA/TCA/CA to etc.”)—although probably in vain, because I can't see how it could be condensed to a single word like “jobs”, “families”, “economy”, etc.

  • http://twitter.com/rkplim Rob Lim

    Aren't we dealing with the roster that Harper has staffed it with?

  • CBlues

    Channel 5 in the UK was purchased (by a Brit from a Dutch company I believe) and they are cutting back everything.

    There's no reason to think that those guys would give Global or CTV free money.

    And Disney wants to sell ABC. Do you really think that they'd give whichever Canadian network they decide to purchase free reign of their big thick wallets?

    And do you really want News Corp. controlling CTV News Channel? Especially with the new ruling letting news channels openly lie?

  • http://bit.ly/Daniel2010 dandmb50

    @dandmb50 -The CRTC has outlived it's usefulness and needs to start protecting Canadians from things that matter, like the “greedy fat fingers Bell has on the scale” for bandwidth use on the internet. They charge us to use the internet, and then say, “don't use it too much” and Bell doesn't tell us that, oh you may go over the bandwidth limit and incur extra charges and secretly just add it on your bill. We better all wake up and call Bell and other providers gauging us for internet usage. Let's not become “sheeple” and if it seems unfair say something, don't let it pass and just swallow it.

    Daniel .. Toronto
    http://bit.ly/bUfaH4

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    If there's one area the CRTC's role as regulator of content has had a huge benefit to Canadians, it's in music. Why they don't follow this model in other areas, I'll never understand. Our shrivelling film industry (the part that tries to serve up Canadian movies to Canadians, at least) would certainly benefit from some CanCon screen regulations.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    You've missed my point entirely; I was suggesting an alternate conspiracy theory, not advocating for this scenario.

    (And I was trying to imply they would be lining the pockets of certain rule-like-a-majority politicians, not throwing money at our stations.)

  • http://bit.ly/Daniel2010 dandmb50

    @dandmb50 -The CRTC has outlived it's usefulness and needs to start protecting Canadians from things that matter, like the “greedy fat fingers Bell has on the scale” for bandwidth use on the internet. They charge us to use the internet, and then say, “don't use it too much” and Bell doesn't tell us that, oh you may go over the bandwidth limit and incur extra charges and secretly just add it on your bill. We better all wake up and call Bell and other providers gauging us for internet usage. Let's not become “sheeple” and if it seems unfair, say something, don't let it pass and just swallow it.

    Daniel .. Toronto
    http://bit.ly/bUfaH4

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    If there's one area the CRTC's role as regulator of content has had a huge benefit to Canadians, it's in music. Why they don't follow this model in other areas, I'll never understand. Our shrivelling film industry (the part that tries to serve up Canadian movies to Canadians, at least) would certainly benefit from some CanCon screen regulations.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    You've missed my point entirely; I was suggesting an alternate conspiracy theory, not advocating for this scenario.

    (And I was trying to imply they would be lining the pockets of certain rule-like-a-majority politicians, not throwing money at our stations.)

  • Arran

    CRTC has killed Canadian tv. Canadians should band together on these issues.