Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

An anonymous reader writes: Netflix appeared before the Canadian broadcast regulator today, resulting in a remarkably heated exchange, with threats of new regulation. The discussion was very hostile — the CRTC repeatedly ordered Netflix to provide subscriber information and other confidential data. As tempers frayed, the Canadian regulator expressed disappointment over the responses from a company that it said "takes hundreds of millions of dollars out of Canada." The CRTC implicitly threatened to regulate the company by taking away its ability to rely on the new media exception if it did not cooperate with its orders.

Comments

why does the CRTC need this list?

[ganjadude]

why does anyone other than netflix need to know who their customers are?

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CRTC is in the pockets of companies that don't like netflix, aka cable companies.

Re: why does the CRTC need this list?

[NeutronCowboy]

Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?

The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[Dixie_Flatline]

I'm not sure if anyone commenting on this story is actually Canadian, but the Canadian Content mandate has existed for years. It's not about favouring Canadian production companies so much as encouraging Canadian content for cultural reasons. Being so close to the USA leaves us vulnerable to sort of being swamped, culturally.

Radio stations are required to play a certain amount of Canadian music as well. It's not really anything new.

Personally, I like the idea of that. It encourages and funds a lot of Canadian artists that might otherwise get swamped out of the market by monied American interests.

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[kristianbrigman]

Except.... cable companies program what they are going to play. Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see. What are they supposed to do, put up a notice saying 'You can't watch the next episode of "Under the Dome" until you first watch your quota of 3 of these other Canadian shows?' The rules don't even make sense for the Netflix model.

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[Mashiki]

You've got no idea of what you're talking about. The biggest reach that politicians have on this is being able to threaten to take their mandate away on broadcast regulatory issues. And it has nothing to do with libertarianism, this is due to excessive regulation not too little. And why is this happening? Because the CRTC is packed with suits from the major telcos, cableco's, and industry insiders. I'm sure someone will scream "lulz harper" but I'll point out now that this is how it has been since the CRTC got started.

The CRTC mandates: internet, pricing controls for the internet, third party pricing controls for the internet, cancon, who can or can't have a broadcast license, telephone, telephone quality, and several other things. Industry Canada on the other hand their biggest reach is spectrum.

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[JMJimmy]

The law deals with "signals which carry sound and images" - it's not technology specific. That's why, years ago, they introduced the "digital exemption" for internet based services to allow them to grow/keep entry barriers low for new services. That exemption is granted (or revoked) a the CRTC's discretion and that's what this set of hearings is for - to figure out whether to regulate, deregulate, or maintain the status quo on both traditional broadcasters and new media.

In Canada corporations are not people, they do not have free speech rights.

Re:why does the CRTC need this list?

[Dragonslicer]

Ignoring the desires of 40% of the population is a wee bit undemocratic, wouldn't you agree?

Uh, no, if the other 60% desired otherwise, ignoring the desires of 40% of the population would, by definition, be completely democratic. That's why we don't have true democracies.

Easy solution...

[Em Adespoton]

I've got a solution that will make everyone happy:
Have NetFlix partner with the NFB to distribute NFB content... globally. Nothing like providing global access to Canadian content. NetFlix could even provide it for free to everyone in Canada with an account but no current subscription. Under this setup, the CRTC wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as at that point, they will get their Canadian Content on NetFlix (not sure about the French/English ratio though).

HOWEVER

I'm pretty sure this really has nothing to do with NetFlix and EVERYTHING to do with the new consortium raising a Canadian NetFlix "competitor" (Shomi) whispering nasty things in the CRTC's ear. Yes, blame Rogers/Shaw for this fracas, as they're likely where the blame really lies.

Re:Fuck Canadian content welfare system

[JohnSearle]

Not that I necessarily agree with regulating content on Netflix; but there is a connection between media and opinions around ideologies, national unity, political awareness, amongst other topics. Being overwhelmed with cheap American content doesn't assist in educating Canadians about Canadian values and awarenesses. This is even more problematic when the viewers are still learning / developing their value systems (e.g. children).

I recall seeing some statistic that showed that an increasing number Canadians were more aware of the American political system then there own... a sad state of affairs that is due to an overwhelming amount of American media presence. It is this type of situation is what the CRTC is attempting to mitigate through regulation.

Yet Another Worthless Summary

[meustrus]

Netflix appeared before the Canadian broadcast regulator today, resulting in a remarkably heated exchange, with threats of new regulation. Blah blah blah, confidential data that CRTC may or may not have right to see but we won't tell you, blah blah blah, redundant stuff, blah blah, no more information, blah blah blah, click the link if you actually want to know what the fuck we're talking about, blah blah blah...

It's pretty much impossible to expect a reasonable discussion on Slashdot when the summary is such redundant tripe. After all, nobody around here RTFA. So all we have is basically, "Netflix and CRTC had a fight about something". I'm not Canadian, I don't know anything about the CRTC or why it has any regulatory authority over Netflix, or what these ominous-sounding "regulations" might be. And I doubt every Canadian could answer those questions either.

Although considering the article itself, maybe that's actually the best the summary could do. I learned more than the article had to say just by scrolling through the existing Slashdot comments to see if anybody else had already made the comment I'm making. These being Slashdot comments, however, I'm a little scared about the value of that information.