Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video
An anonymous reader writes "Last week's very
public fight between the CRTC and Netflix escalated on Monday
as Netflix refused to comply with Commission's order to supply
certain confidential information including subscriber numbers and
expenditures on Canadian children's content. While the disclosure
concerns revolve around the confidentiality of the data, the far
bigger issue is now whether the CRTC has the legal authority to
order it to do anything at all. Michael Geist reports
that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that
could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
When it's American broadcasters going after Canada's icravetv, American courts had no problem getting a US court order that basically ended the service, because it was a rebroadcaster.
Can anyone seriously argue that Netflix isn't also rebroadcasting TV content?
Two weights, two measures. What a mess! And really, whatever solution will be a mess.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Good. Fuck the CRTC and any other organization asking for information that's none of their business.
Get some popcorn ready. If you live in Canada and follow this stuff, this is going to be good.
I do wonder if Netflix can successfully lobby for Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs and simultaneously shrug-off any regulation aimed at it.
Also, I feel like netflix is like our tech super hero, fighting the ISPs and government and whatnot... for only 8.99/month!
to see that legal stupidity and .gov overreach lives in other places outside of the US, this still makes me a bit sad.
In that their enabling statutes are poorly-suited to evolving alongside the subject matter they're supposed to regulate. :/
Though FCC was widely complicit in its own decline, with ISPs wedging municipal internet concerns (and consumers) between sandbagging reclassification of ISPs and the Brand-X decision.
I don't know why the CRTC is operating outside its ambit, but it seems a fair bet that it's because of the incompetence of the agency administration.
I keep seeing everyone saying that this is a mess to sort out. Why so? Netflix (an American company) could just no longer serve Canada. Problem solved. Canada can have all the Canadian TV that it wants.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Good for them. The CRTC can go straight to hell.
It is generally the case up here that in order to watch many shows online, you generally have to verify that you have a cable subscription, This is often done through a sort of google+-ish login on each individual broadcaster's website that verifies your cable account with the cable provider that you claim to use.
Now this isn't true for all shows, but certainly true for many... and by my own observation, seems to be particularly applicable for shows that happen to be US-made, and where (obviously) a local broadcaster has paid for the rights to air that program in Canada.
I suspect that if Netflix required such verification, they would not likely be having this problem. It would also not be a problem if the person was watching something that was not a show being aired on a Canadian network (eg, a movie, or else an old tv show that is no longer on the air).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The CRTC can literally lick me from whence I crap. I'm so tired of their Draconian policies being crammed down our throats all these years, and for what? I would say that the work that they do, only serves to satisfy mandates that aren't even relevant anymore.
Rarely are large corporations the "good guy" in any modern narrative - both from their own actions generally, but also a anti-corporate meme in journalism (as long as we studiously avoid reference to their own corporations, of course).
I'm glad for this, because the only entities that have the power/lawyers/money to tell government to pound sand anymore are megacorps.
-Styopa
CRTC = Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Radio? No
Television? No
Telecommunications? Maybe
In as far as Netflix is using "telecommunications" infrastructure... I guess that gets the camel's nose into the tent?
But the same could be said of any web site - why doesn't the CRTC ask YouTube, or even Slashdot for subscriber data? What's the difference? They are all web sites pushing on-demand content to users - not broadcasting. Besides, even if they were "broadcasting", one could argue they would only have an interest in making sure the content was not inappropriate, not who the potential recipients were.
If you are a fan of net neutrality then you should be just as wary of governments gumming up things as carriers playing favorites.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
As a Canadian I have always felt that CRTC was a govt & communications compagnies cartel to keep prices for Internet/cell phones plans high in Canada while
keeping foreign companies away.
Former and current employees of Bell and Rogers, members of their former lobbyist groups, and lawyers and other "VIPs" who have strong ties to Rogers and Bell. They're about as neutral on this matter as PM Harper is about his evangelical religious ties. Not very. The CRTC is looking out only for the entrenched players in this market, not consumers. Just yesterday a report came out that once again showed that Canada pays more than any other developed country except Australia for it's wireless phone pricing. The CRTC ignores this fact. Bell and Rogers are the incumbents and don't want anything changed. hell, Rogers has testified in front of the CRTC that wireless rates could be much lower here ... they just don't want to (obviously). And when competition threatens? They twist the CRTC's arm and they are safe again. The CRTC needs too be abolished and we need some real competition up here. The fact that Rogers and Bell so easily control the CRTC and the CRTC just bends over for them and it's decisions is disgusting.
DaveyJJ
Netflix is just posturing here, claiming that they don't want to give out "highly sensitive information that might get leaked to their competitors." Their canadian competitors already have those numbers. If you're Rogers or Bell or Telus or Videotron, you just have to look at your customer's internet traffic to get the stats (and you can be darned sure they've all done this, since they're preparing to set up competing services).
So, since the "sensitive market information" is already easily compilable by their competition in the Canadian market, what's the real reason behind not trying to work out some agreement to provide the numbers? Do the real numbers disprove Netflix's claim that they "provide tons of Canadian support" and already fulfill the requirements?
Or is the real reason the "camel's nose in the tent" argument? That if they give in on this, it creates a precedent that opens the door to more CRTC regulation. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Just "whence" not "from whence." The latter is redundant. If you're going to be rude, at least get the semantics right.
Canada is a Gestopo state.
This is North Korea levels of stupid. Go to hell CRTC. Nobody wants to see Netflix start shit like "this video is not available in your area". Also, if Canadian programming doesn't get enough support, then maybe it should become better. People in the US and Canada love British shows, maybe if Canadian shows were any good, they would get naturally popular as well. Fucking dumbasses.
Even within the US exactly who has jurisdiction is a legal quagmire at best. Once it becomes an international issue all bets are off. If Canada can have a serious effect on an American business should Nigeria have equal rights? I'll stick with my opinion that all people have an absolute moral right to utter and receive unregulated speech even if disaster or national security is at stake, Although that is a far out position it is the only position that protects speech at all. The reason why is anything can be declared secret once any little thing is allowed to be secret. For example there are many thousands of pages of investigation of the JFK assassination that is secured from the public scrutiny under the false guise of national security. I ask all of you just what could be of a nature to cause harm that existed in 1963? We live in a world where information one month old is largely worthless as technology and abilities change daily or weekly. So just what is it about the murder of JFK that needs to be secret to protect our nation? Can I say bullshit?
Someone might want to inform the CRTC bureaucrats of the consequences of pissing off at least 4-million voters — election of the party that promises to rid us of the CRTC. (Really, this would be about 25% of the electorate assuming that each Canadian Netflix account corresponds to a household with 1.6 voters.)
Gouge us, go to war, waste tens of billions of dollars, the public doesn't care. But cut off our entertainment — it's torches-and-pitchforks time!
Final:
Canada 2; Corporations 0.
I got an idea from someone else's comment on a past news article. Netflix just needs to setup a Canadian Pet category and have all of us Canadian subscribers send in pet videos. They'd get thousands very quickly and throw that percentage far over the line. I don't think the law says it has to be professionally produced content. The biggest plus with this idea is that there would finally be something interesting to watch on Canadian Netflix! Our new releases page is still full of stuff from 2012 and earlier.
it's an archaic form of the language anyway. if you're going to correct someone's use of language, at least make sure it's something anyone cares about.
So what should happen:
Netflix releases data with an NDA against redistributing it or using it for other than a very strict purpose. Seed the data with some false users/address and take out a few PO boxes.
If Bob Nonexistent gets letters from Bell or somebody else because the CRTC gave the info out anyhow, then sue for breach of contract.
Some good overview and a few comments here:
http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/...
The CRTC seems to think we Canadians are all children and need to be protected from foreign content. If CBC content was really that good, it wouldn't need protection. The same with Bell and Rogers. If they were good companies they would be expanding into other countries rather than trying to keep out competition. The entire CRTC should be purged and restaffed.
Have been changed -- the exemption some of you seem to think is in force is no longer the one written in 1999.
There were chnages in 2010 and 2012
Appendix to Broadcasting Order CRTC 2012-409
Exemption order for digital media broadcasting undertakings
A. General
1. For the purpose of this order, the following definitions apply:
“television programming” means programming designed primarily for conventional television, specialty, pay or video-on-demand services.
“terms of carriage” means the rates, terms and conditions pursuant to which a programming service is provided by one broadcasting undertaking to another.
“new programming service” means a licensed pay television or specialty service that has not previously been distributed in Canada and includes, but is not limited to, a high definition version or a new multiplex of an existing programming service.
2. The undertaking provides broadcasting services, in accordance with the interpretation of “broadcasting” set out in New Media, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-84/Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-14, 17 May 1999, that are:
a) delivered and accessed over the Internet; or
b) delivered using point-to-point technology and received by way of mobile devices.
3. The undertaking does not give an undue preference to any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue disadvantage. In any proceeding before the Commission, the burden of establishing that any preference or disadvantage is not undue is on the party that gives the preference or subjects the person to the disadvantage.
4. The undertaking submits such information regarding the undertaking’s activities in broadcasting in digital media, and such other information that is required by the Commission in order to monitor the development of broadcasting in digital media, at such time and in such form, as requested by the Commission from time to time.
"You have already reached your quota for non-Canadian content. We now present reruns of 'The Beachcombers' whether you like it or not."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The damn stinking CRTC (Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission) is approximately equivalent to the US FCC, except that its more bureaucracy, and not technically very bright. Worse, they give the big broadcasters 'hints' and 'suggestions'. There is no teeth, no bite. Large broadcasters with hundreds of specialty channels claim they can't make money by broadcasting over the air, so they get to shut down over-their-air stations. When the FCC wanted stations to broadcast PSIP (program service information protocol) that broadcasts tv listings over the air up to 2 weeks in advance for any given channel, along with a short blurb about that particular program, as well as the time. The FCC sent a memo to be attached to the stations license. It wasn't optional. In Canada, the CRTC offered hints. There is nothing mandated, time can be off, stations can offer as little or as much as they like, or can drop it altogether. ... And now having typed all that, the toady CRTC wants to overreach and try to get Netflix and Google to cough up data so that the cable companies can win. Just when content was starting to get good, and Canadians could easily bypass the stupid 'Canadian Content' laws. Fuck them! Good for Netflix, don't give the CRTC anything. They don't have jurisdiction. They are overreaching. The clown in charge even stormed out. I only wish that the Netflix lady would have offered him an obscene Italian hand gesture, followed by the phrase: "Go piss off you old fart."
In many cases regulations actually promote business as they create new requirements
Increasing the cost of regulation compliance in order to stimulate jobs in the compliance industry is the broken window fallacy.
CRTC commissioners are gently co-opted by the industry they regulate, and are often reluctant to endanger job prospects in the industry once their term expires.
CRTC commissioners are appointed by the government, in a quasi-political process. The length of appointments are standard, but they do not all expire at the same time, so often you have commissioners appointed by different governments. I am told by commissioners that the government doesn't try to influence the commissioners too much, but these are people who have come to the attention of senior politicians and have many friends in the political process.
The political interference is low, but the real problem lies with the industry. A former commissioner once explained it to me. There are many opportunities for broadcasters, telephone company execs, satellite companies, etc. to mingle socially with commissioners. At some point, a senior executive will ask a commissioner a bit about how they enjoy the job, what they like best, etc. Slowly a dialogue ensues, often over several months. At some point the exec praises the commissioner's grasp of the industry issues, and asks what the commissioner plans to do once the term expires. If the commissioner is vague, the executive talks about how his company is always looking for people with "regulatory experience" and that salaries are usually much higher than what a commissioner earns. The exec says something to the effect of, how it would be improper to talk about it now, but if you're interested, come see me at the end of your term and we can talk.
Another exec may have a similar conversation with that same commissioner, because it doesn't hurt for that commissioner to see the "demand" for their services from the industry.
And that, is why the consumer gets screwed by the CRTC on most routine decisions. Examples:
The CRTC, facing complaints from AM radio stations about the increase in top forty FM stations, required FM stations to play a majority of NON-hit music. (eventually rescinded years later)
The CRTC allows Cable TV operators to deny "a la carte" purchase of specialty channels, and allowed cable companies to sell packages of channels which always included several channels that were not wanted by the majority of subscribers.
The phone companies get to charge you almost $3 a month extra on your phone bill for touch-tone dialing, even though you can't order a rotary dial service. The truth is that touch-tone dialing actually saves money for the phone company.
Now, the public is realizing how much they've been screwed by Canada's telecom industry. "Cutting the cord" in terms of dropping cable TV and getting Netflix, dropping the wireline phone company in favour of VoIP, is saving some families thousands per year.
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow