Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges Canada's Power To Regulate Online Video

An anonymous reader writes Yesterday's report on the regulatory battle between Netflix and Canada's broadcast regulator has now grown as Google has jumped into the fight. Faced with similar demands from the CRTC, Google has refused to provide it with requested information, arguing that it is not part of the Canadian broadcast system and not subject to CRTC regulation. "The Google position is notable because it is presumably not based on the question of presence within Canada, since Google maintains a significant Canadian presence. Rather, the core challenge will likely focus on whether a service such as Youtube (which once went by the slogan “Broadcast Yourself”) can properly be characterized as broadcasting for the purposes of current Canadian law."

Comments

Not just today: Yesterday too

[brokenin2]

From yesterdays post:

Michael Geist reports that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a tiny bit of new news here. It's gone from speculation to being confirmed, but really, this is just a repost of the same thing.

Re:Not just today: Yesterday too

[sumdumass]

Not really a repost. The new part is the "presence" argument which takes it from being likened to canada wanting to regulate a store in Germany because a Canadian purchased something mail order once to a "you do not have legal authority" argument.

The previous argument was somewhat forefront in the other article discusion.

Re:Not just today: Yesterday too

[fluffy99]

Except Google has servers in Canada. So the argument would be more like a German store, but they ship from a warehouse in Canada.

Re:Not just today: Yesterday too

[sumdumass]

That was my point. Without google, its obvious. With google, its changed

Re:Not just today: Yesterday too

[rd4tech]

That was my point. Without google, its obvious. With google, its changed

Switching from Google to (for example) Microsoft services will hurt more Google, than everybody else.

Broadcast rights

[Imagix]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting China to abide by that.

Re:Broadcast rights

[vux984]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

This fixation on whether or not its 'broadcasting' is just a distraction. If the governments wants to regulate streaming video it will just revise the legislation granting the regulatory body authority over streaming video within the country.

Then what's Netflix/Google going to do?

Think about it. If netflix gets a pass, then Bell/Telus/Shaw just have to switch from a 'broadcast model' to a 'streaming model' and then they too will be exempt from Canadian Content rules. And they are on the verge of launching their own streaming services as we speak ... hell they all 3 already offer video on demand libraries.

The result is that eventually nobody will "broadcast" anything, and the canadian content rules will be mooted.

The end game is either

a) that the CRTC will be granted regulatory oversight on streaming video providers operating in Canada to enforce Canadian content guidelines in some fashion on all operators.

or

b) that the rules on Canadian content will be repealed entirely on all forms of video distribution.

Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs, and is lawyering for the sake of lawyering. If netflix "wins" then Canada can just change the CRTC mandate at the stroke of a pen to include them anyway.

The only argument worth having is within Canada with Canadians to decide whether Canadian content rules are desirable or not. If they are, then apply them to streaming service operators. If they are not, then get rid of them.

Its that simple.

Re:Broadcast rights

[bobbied]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

Not to mention that it would put Aereo.com back in business...

Re:Broadcast rights

[Opportunist]

Good luck getting the US to abide by that!

The MPAA would fight something like that tooth and nail.

Re:Broadcast rights

[sabri]

Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs

No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).

The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.

Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.

This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that traditional broadcasters transmit "over the air", which utilizes a very limited public resource, and Google and Netflix don't. While you're right that the Canadian Government can simply revise their own laws, than for a regulatory agency to go beyond its mandate. In the former case, legislators can be held accountable by voters, in the latter case, politicians play the blame game.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix doesn't need to do anything. They're not subject to Canadian laws because they're not a Canadian company and they have no presence in Canada either. Google would be easier for them to regulate as they do have a presence there and as such they're supposed to be adhering to the law. So if the authorities change the definition of broadcast or so that services that stream on demand are included, that would change things and they'd have to adhere to that.

However, Youtube shouldn't be included like a regular broadcaster as the videos are submitted by users and requested for viewing by viewers. Google has very little control over how much content is Canadian in origin versus non-Canadian. Google doesn't pay for the content, just the costs associated with hosting and streaming it.

Netflix does pay for licenses and could pay to license a certain amount of Canadian materials, but since they're not subject to Canadian law, there's really nothing that the Canadians can do about it.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Immerman]

And there's more than just access control involved as well - I don't know about the CRTC specificaly, but the broadcast regulators are also typically concerned with the allocation of a limited public good, specifically the available frequency spectrum within specific regions. The result is a horrible morass of loosely related regulations that have built up over decades. The optimal solution might actually be to start fresh with a separate regulatory organization specifically targetting the new "broadcast" medium, rather than trying to shove it under the umbrella of a teetering legacy beuracracy that is trying to cram fundamentally new technology into an old regulatory framework.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Em Adespoton]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

No :)

Country restrictions don't have to do with broadcast/streaming rights, they have to do with copyright. Streaming is MORE scary to the broadcasters than broadcasting, as they have less control over it. So arguing that "not broadcasting" -> no country restrictions is actually the opposite of what the broadcasters would be likely to decide. They want MORE restrictive licenses for online streaming than for broadcast distribution where they can easily license the few players in each region.

Re:Broadcast rights

[mark-t]

If the supreme court decides that they are if they want to service Canadians, then they are.... their choice at that time will be to either comply with that, or to opt out of servicing Canada entirely. I expect they will probably choose the latter, and this will piss off a lot of people.

But the alternative would be to permit it, and essentially allow companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.

Re:Broadcast rights

[DM9290]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

the real argument should be whether or not the internet ought to be regulated by the CTRC, rather than some purely academic argument over the definition of "broadcast". Parliament should modernize the law to make it non-ambiguous rather than let the whole country sit in suspense while lawyers argue about what the law ought to mean. Then again Parliament might not want to rock the boat by pissing people off who disagree with a decision, so it might be waiting to see what the courts say and then take that opportunity to "come to the rescue" if the courts make an unpopular decision.

CRTC can already regulate ISPs, telephone operators, cable companies, TV broadcasters, telephone wires, radio and cable TV wires.

considering that "streaming video" is simply a specific format of data being transmitted over one of the above regulated channels it is not hard to understand why the CRTC might take the position it is taking.

Re:Broadcast rights

[vux984]

When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it.

The Canadian content laws are about
1) promoting and ensuring there is a voice for Canadian culture

2) promoting and sustaining the film / production industry within Canada (American shows produced substantially in Canada qualify as Canadian content.

If the technology for distribution of video changes from primarily broadcast to primarily singlecast then the law must be evaluated and updated to determine whether it still needed and if so to apply to to the current technology.

and if the CRTC wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content [...] it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.

Which is paraphrasing EXACTLY what I wrote. Thank you very much.

The interesting question isn't whether netflix 'counts' as 'broadcast' or not. The interesting question is whether Canada wants Canadian content rules to apply to them or not. If the Canadian people do (as represented by their government), then its trivial to make it so by legislation.

This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.

Except that is nit-picking. The answer to the question of whether the CRTC has jurisdiction over netflix is a silly legal argument; the answer to which doesn't really matter in the slightest except as a passing interest to the directly involved parties.

It isn't that interesting because it doesn't really matter what the final answer is. If Canada want the answer to be "yes" then Canada will adjust the law accordingly.

So the only question that matters is whether or not Canada wants the answer to be yes or no.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is useless legal nihilism, bordering on a tautology. To restate your position: "If a law is desired, then it will come to pass. Therefore, there is no point debating what the current law states as it can always be changed ex post facto if a different outcome is desirable."

Well, no shit.

By your reasoning, we may as well close down the judiciary because every decision could potentially be changed by some future law.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're looking at history, I suggest you read about the Big 8 / CKLW and get back to us.

The CRTC is exactly why Canada no longer controls the music industry. We can only assume we'd control the video industry without them, too.

The CRTC is the single most destructive force that has ever existed against CanCon, working to snuff out quality Canadian content to replace it with crap that only exists to take government funding and turn it into the cheapest possible show for the money.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

well the crtc may not be popular with all decisions they've done a lot of good with consumer in mind. Personally I am a supporter of the CRTC and most of the regulations they create.

good things:

the cell phone contract stuff
the strict enforcement of do not call registry
commercials not allowed to be 1000x the volume of other content

there's more i'm lazy and just now lost interest in your sad rant

Re:Broadcast rights

[rahvin112]

I believe the thought is they can't get the votes to get the legislature to give the CRTC (or FCC in the US) such broad ranging authority and they are exceeding their current legislative mandate. Companies and individuals should challenge government over reach. If they haven't been granted legal authority to regulate something and pass a bunch of regulations the regulatory body SHOULD be slapped down in court otherwise we've got a serious problem with governance and separation of powers.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see if these also hold true:

All those illegal Mexicans in the US are not subject not US laws because they are not US citizens?
Those drug cartels operating in foreign countries are not subject to US laws because they are not operating in the US?
Those on-line gambling sites are not subject to US laws because they are not US companies?

Does that mean that NetFlix can relocate to the Cayman islands and completely avoid US taxes while simultaneously servicing US accounts?

If they take money from Canadians, and offer services in Canada they are subject to Canada laws.

Re:Broadcast rights

[mysidia]

The MPAA would fight something like that tooth and nail.

They wouldn't. It's still transmission and performance of copyrighted work. If it's not broadcasting, then the MPAA has more control over it, e.g. no possibility of compulsary licensing being required to allow retransmission.

Re:Broadcast rights

[vux984]

By your reasoning, we may as well close down the judiciary because every decision could potentially be changed by some future law.

Of course not. The majority of court cases are not against an entity that can simply change the law as suits it. Doe vs Smith for example.

Similarly A court case challenging the constitutionality of a law is similarly interesting, because the government has to either rework the law to fit within the constitution or amend the constitution (which is not particularly easy).

But yes, when a court case IS brought before the judiciary against the entity that has the power to alter the law to suit itself more or less at will, then, exactly right, it really is NOT particularly interesting what the outcome will be, and the interesting question is what the government (and by extension the voting public) WANT the outcome to be.

Re:Broadcast rights

[vux984]

I believe the thought is they can't get the votes to get the legislature to give the CRTC (or FCC in the US) such broad ranging authority and they are exceeding their current legislative mandate

The conversvative party is running a majority government, and the party under Harper very much votes as a block. Further despite the ramblings of idiots saying the CRTC has got to go, there is no real political will to do that.

"Hollywood North" is a massive industry, that benefits heavily from Canadian Content law, and the convservatives bow to the will of industry, on the flipside funding and protecting Canadian content is sacred to the NDP which is more of a socialist party -- so really they are on board with it too. The laws actually have broad support.

The only companies that object to them are the broadcast companies themselves (Bell / Telus / Shaw / etc ) -- but if they can't escape the rules themselves damn right they are going to make sure any competition coming in form the states is bound by them.

Joe Consumer who is just pissed he can't get American netflix, and that there is too much Bryan Adams and Nickleback on the radio is really the only ones truly against this -- but the question is whether the rules are good for Canada as a whole or not.

And honestly, when you think about it, big picture, they probably are a good thing... at least in some form.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, permitting it would in no way be akin to 'essentially allowing companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be'. Repeal of the law would simply mean that they trust their citizens enough to let them decide what to watch privately, on demand, and using bandwidth that they themselves have paid for! Canada would be free, as it always has been, to create whatever laws that they feel necessary to ensure that each Canadian citizen does proper penance to Bryan Adams before listening to The Beatles on public airwaves.

Of course, ditching the law would make it safe to drive more than 90 minutes through Ontario listening to the radio without having to hear 3 fucking Kim Mitchell songs, but for now we can only dream........

Re:Broadcast rights

[CohibaVancouver]

If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?

The content restrictions come from the content provider, not the streamer. Netflix Canada is less good than Netflix USA because the companies that provide content to Netflix say "You can't show this content in Canada."

Re: Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada doesn't make laws, as Canada is represented by an unpopular, barely elected corrupt buffoon who thinks he's King Obama or Elizabeth or that jackass in TurkmenistÃn. FFS the entire concept of Prime Minister is lost on Harper, so he bumbles along signing anything that his owners put in front of him like the FIPA, pipelines guaranteed to leak all over the true North strong and free, etc. Please do not equate Harper's idiocy with the will of the Canadian people.

Re: Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the idiocy of the Canadian people is much greater.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Noees the Big 8/ CKLW died cause of CanCon ......horseshite. I will admit that the CRTC FM desicions were a part but it was more FM stations versus Big 8 AM station that brought them down

" Just as, if not more, responsible for the decline in CKLW's ratings as the 1970s wore on was the rise of FM radio as an outlet for contemporary music, as the station gained a direct FM Top 40 competitor, WDRQ, in 1972, and its listening audience was also fragmented between album oriented rock outlets such as WWWW, WRIF and WABX and adult contemporary stations like WNIC and WMJC. The Canadian government's initial unwillingness to licence FM frequencies with pop or rock formats stranded Canadian stations on AM while an entire demographic of listeners began the exodus to US-based FM outlets anywhere the signals were in range. For many younger listeners by 1978, CKLW was the station they listened to only if they had an AM-only radio in their cars."

  I had family and friends who were Big 8 fans but when they had the chance to listen to FM stations playing the similar music they mostly jumped ship. Oh and thoses fans were on both sides of the border. Video killed the radio star ... and FM stations were a big part of the downfall of the AM stations.

Re:Broadcast rights

[omnichad]

And strangely, Netflix USA has plenty of Canadian content. The problem is the middlemen. The content creators shop their works around to distributors. The distributors sign licenses for their country. Then, when Netflix comes along, the distributors all have exclusive rights by country. Netflix is forced to sign with multiple distributors to have the same content in multiple countries.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Stewie241]

>> the strict enforcement of do not call registry

LOL... riiiiight

Re:Broadcast rights

[mark-t]

Actually, permitting it would in no way be akin to 'essentially allowing companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be'. Repeal of the law would simply mean that they trust their citizens enough to let them decide what to watch privately

Just because you happen to perceive what you imagine as the outcome as a beneficial thing does not mean that it does not amount to a foreign company that happens to have enough influence with Canadians essentially blackmailing Canada into changing their laws to more amenable to that company's business model.

For what it's worth, I happen to deeply value the Canadian content restrictions that exist here for broadcasters... we are almost overwhelmed with American culture as it is up here, the restrictions that exist help greatly to preserve what distinction we still have... and whether or not you believe that to be important, that distinction has always been valuable to Canada as a whole, or else that law would not be there in the first place.

Re:Broadcast rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Therein lies the crux of the issue - for Broadcast it DOES have value, because there is a greater public good in protecting the use of limited resources shared by all, and paid for by all via taxation. The Internet is overwhelming private - I should be allowed to download what I damn well please via the bandwidth that I pay for myself. Simple - public dollars, public rules to dictate what's on it. Private dollars being spent means the spender gets to choose, or at least it should. There is no greater public good served by forcing an individual citizen, alone in the privacy of his home, to listen to Bryan Adams over bandwidth that he paid for. It is, in fact, immoral on a number of levels.

The Internet really makes these laws seem silly - I mean, this is all bits we're talking about, so why limit it to Video files? I think we should pass a law that intercepts all email packets destined for Canadian mail servers and randomly inserts "Eh?", "Beaver", "Hockey", and "Hoser" until those words constitute 5% of the total text of the message. Digitally superimpose a picture of Don Cherry on every JPEG downloaded?

Re:Broadcast rights

[mdielmann]

But the two are fundamentally different. With broadcast TV, there is a limited number of sources I can access. This still applies to VOD. Therefore, one can reason that requiring something that promotes Canadian culture is a benefit to us, which is what the purpose of the law is. Note that I'm not required to watch any of that Canadian content on broadcast TV or VOD by my cable provider of choice.

With internet video streaming, I'm not limited to a certain number of sources - in fact, the number of sources is quite large, almost infinite. And I choose what it is I will watch, with the origin of the content being relevant only if I choose for it to be. Note that I only have to watch what I wish to watch.

That is the key difference. In broadcast, a limited medium, the rule allows me to watch Canadian content if I choose to. With the internet, a much less limited, user-accessed medium, no rule is required to allow me to watch Canadian content if I choose to.

Now tell me, given the current paradigm of the internet, how exactly is the CRTC going to promote Canadian content without requiring me to watch it? Requiring Netflix or Google to pay 'comparable' rates for shows no one wants to watch sounds a lot like extortion to me (against both the providers and the consumers). If they want to promote Canadian content, they can start their own streaming service and provide it to Canadian IP addresses for free. They can even include ads for all I care! All they have to do is include it as a condition of the government money they give to these shows to happen here.

And if you think that's a bad idea, do you really think it's worse than requiring Netflix or Google to buy Canadian shows that people don't want? Please keep in mind, the driving force behind their service is to provide content people want to view. (Well, for Netflix. For Youtube, it's to allow any clown to upload their videos and hope someone watches. I'm sure Google will be happy to price match ad profits, like most other channels.) If they could get quality Canadian content for a reasonable price based on the expected viewership, I'm sure they would be all over it.

Re:Broadcast rights

[vux984]

With internet video streaming, I'm not limited to a certain number of sources

Sure you are. Due to regional rights issues, legitimate streaming sites each need the rights to stream to Canada (and any other country, so there is a very limited number of legit places to stream from).

That is the key difference.

If that's the key difference, then it may as well be no difference at all.

Re:Broadcast rights

[mark-t]

You are suggesting that simply because public communications, and ones made explicitly with commercial intent, might need to be held to certain standards in Canada, that private communications should be also. If you are going to try to build a strawman, please try harder.

Re:Broadcast rights

[mdielmann]

Allow me to correct myself, since you're merely trying to make me say what you're saying.

With internet video streaming, I'm not technologically limited to a certain number of sources...

Yes, laws can add artificial limitations. I think whether they should is the topic under discussion...

how would one burn a Netflix?

[turkeydance]

light it with a Google?

Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like google can force Canadian users to upload more...

Re:Come on...

[maliqua]

I think the big difference is netflix uses bought licensed content and a subscription model which makes it compete with what is currently accepted as broadcasters.

i don't think the rules should apply to youtube or other distributors of self published content. Think of the reprocussions of regulating content sites like youtube would be far reaching and devastating, the porn industry would be figuratively fucked for a change.

Re:Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix also produces their own content.

Re:Come on...

[omnichad]

Except that Netflix is hardly different than a DVD rental store in many respects (distribution).

But anyone can self-publish even without the likes of Youtube. All you need is a server with bandwidth and advertising dollars. And there's less of a need than ever for a central distribution point like Youtube for all but the smallest content creators.

In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequencies

[raymorris]

In the US, and probably many other places, the original argument for strict government regulation of broadcast goes like this:

The radio spectrum suitable for broadcast is limited (there can only ever be ~20 TV channels).
It won't work to have multiple broadcasters competing on the same channel.
The spectrum is a public resource.
The public, through their bureaucrats, must choose certain broadcasters and grant them exclusive rights to a channel.
Because the public is granting the broadcaster exclusive rights to a limited resource, they have the right to make demands in exchange.
As representatives of the people, government has the right to make arbitrary demands of broadcasters.

Based on that reasoning, the regulation of cable TV is much less, and of the internet far less.
The internet is not a limited medium, there can be millions of channels, and nobody is being granted exclusive rights to anything.

Of course the majority view in Canada is coming from an entirely different perspective. Canadian reasoning is:
1) ???
2) ???
3) Bureaucrats in Ottawa should tell me what to do, in all aspects of my life, whenever they feel the need. A _reason_, such as a physical limit to the number of channels, is unnecessary.

Sorry I don't know the first part of that reasoning. Maybe a Canadian can explain it to me.

Is there any compelling reason for the first link?

[Opportunist]

Tell me why that first link has to lead to that beta junk. Couldn't you just make it point to goase, it would've been less painful to the eye.

streaming is not broadcast

[wbr1]

I can see regulating limited spectrum, but streaming is different. Limiting streaming is corporate protectionism at best and censorship at worst.

Re:streaming is not broadcast

[mdielmann]

While I agree completely with what you're saying, it can be argued that the Canadian content rule has the exact same result. The difference is, one is limited and corporate controlled. The other is much less limited and generally user controlled.

fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them. Good move CRTC, they want to play on our soil they should do it on our terms.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mark-t]

And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law? Please also bear in mind that one of these companies is Google.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them. Good move CRTC, they want to play on our soil they should do it on our terms.

Thanks for admitting Canadian content is inferior and cannot compete with American content without special help.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Do it on CRTC terms. We Canadians will be happy to suffer whatever shitty, broken service we're left with after our regulators finish fucking it up.

Outlaw american hegemony. Especially their imbalanced trade flooding our country with money buying up our hydropower, beef and oil. They can stick they're hegemonic money up their fat butts. We don't need it.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mark-t]

It's not that it's inferior... it's that it's outnumbered.

If the USA were immediately bordered by an industrialized country ten times *IT'S* size in terms of population it would probably be dealing with the same sorts of issues.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[BradMajors]

As a result of the CRTC, we have Canadian artists and Canadian companies making content that is indistinguishable from American content so that the Canadians can sell their content in the American market. The CRTC rules do not result in more "Canadian content". The CRTC is a protective mechanism for Canadians to have more jobs.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[maliqua]

believe it or not Canada has in the past in many situations had laws that differ from the united states, and in those situations most of the time the american companies have decided to continue to follow our laws.

You'd be surprised many of your international corporations adhere to even stranger laws in other countries.

and you know what, if we lose out on a few episodes of Orange is the new Black, our nation will survive

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mark-t]

How would that affect Canada if Google search were not available there? I know that the matter at hand does not involve Google search, but it does involve Google, and if they do not want to comply with Canadian law, they could potentially withdraw all of their services from being accessed within Canada, which does, admittedly seem a lot like blackmailing Canada into allowing a foreign company to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. That's why Celine Dion and Brian Adams only made it because of the money the CRTC liberated for them from the populace.

Oh wait, that's not what happened at all.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Your.Master]

"How would that affect Canada if Google search were not available there?"

The biggest thing is screwing up the service integration of Android phones -- there's the opportunity that Blackberry and Microsoft have been salivating over. The next biggest is @gmail.com email blinking out, which would be chaos (maybe you want to exclude gmail from the services that are withdrawn?) and people would probably scatter first to ISP-allocated email (because they already have that, like it or not) and then maybe later to various competitors. Search from a PC is the next biggest, but that one gets solved when everybody's techie nephew or niece goes around switching homepages and search boxes to bing.com and uninstalling Chrome, or failing that when all the major browser other than Google push out updates that redirect existing google settings to their favourite default (IE - Bing; Firefox - locale-specific, usually Bing; Opera - dunno; Safari - between Bing and Yahoo).

As a wholesale, things would have to get far worse than its ever likely to be before that made any sense for Google.

Pulling out of Canada would hurt Google more than it would hurt Canada. Essentially, if Google pulled literally all their services from being accessed in Canada, even for a relatively short period like a month, they could *never* come back, because such an action is indistinguishable from extreme technical unreliability. I strongly suspect such an action would lead to people in other countries fleeing their services (particularly businesses). So it's not going to happen.

It would also be a giant middle finger to any third party trying to sell Android devices in Canada, which is of course the companies as are trying to sell in the US and so forth.

People used to talk about this with Microsoft and the EU back when Windows was more dominant (Microsoft didn't say anything like that, cynical slashdotters did), and it obviously didn't happen because it would have been ridiculous even in that case. But in that case, it wouldn't have been so bad because they weren't talking about retroactively removing Windows from EU computers. Here we're talking services, so if they go, they are gone in a flash.

So this goes back to maybe removing all video services like YouTube, and maybe some services that nobody uses, but leaving all the critical non-video services. I think Google / Netflix would still take it in the chin not just in Canada but also abroad as others see that Google was willing to squeeze customers, but it's more plausible. I can imagine a world in which Google or Netflix feels it is untenable to service Canada because of the legal ramifications, although I don't think we're there right now or in the near future.

Google and Netflix are still probably the losers in that exchange. The result will be somebody else coming in and serving that niche in Canada, a force which may eventually be able to expand outward into Google and Netflix territory -- a force they would want to nip in the bud with their superior market presence. It's not like the secret of streaming video technology is unknown to Canadian engineers, and its not like Netflix or YouTube are so critical to Canadian day to day life that to cut off Netflix access would cause an overnight revolution.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mysidia]

And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law?

Well, they could claim they have some sort of regulatory nexus over Google/Netflix for the next 5 or 10 years, just because they ever had a service offered in Canada, and withdrawing services today doesn't change the fact that the regulations will still apply to them related to the past activity and for the next 5 to 10 years.

You already have customers in Canada. It doesn't matter if you announce today that you are turning off all these services. As long as you still exist as a company, and you still provide these video streaming services anywhere, you already created your presence here, and are subject to regulatory enforcement actions.

Also... blah blah.... we acknowledge that Geolocation is widely circumvented, and you will still be providing these services in Canada to users who are using proxies or tunnels in other countries and appear to be connecting from a different country.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mark-t]

Another option for Netflix would be to actually comply to Canadian regulation for Canadian subscribers. This may not be desirable, but it's probably still technically doable.

I have no idea what they expect from Google though.... content uploaded to Youtube is being put there by and large by individuals, not by broadcasters who would have paid any sort of broadcast license in the first place. If Canada wants more Canadian content on youtube, then perhaps Canadians should be putting it there.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be want to thank the " Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada" for some of the positive privacy related changes to Facebook.... You can also look to facebook as an example of a company making changes to accommodate Canadian laws.

Somehow i dont see canada "collapsing" due to a loss of netflix, most netflix users probably just VPN back to the US anyhow to get around the limited selection NetFlix Canada offers.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[mark-t]

I'd be more worried about the impact that a loss of Google would have.

And people don't use VPN to get around the limited Canadian selection, they simply change their DNS settings to use a static dns IP that is located in the USA instead of whichever DNS server their ISP offers them. I imagine that if Netflix is actually made to comply with Canadian law when dealing with Canadian subscribers, that little loophole is probably going to get plugged quite thoroughly, which will piss off a *LOT* of people.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them. Good move CRTC, they want to play on our soil they should do it on our terms.

Incorrect. As examples I give you Nickleback and Justin Beiber. Neither are big in Canada, it was the US that made them what they are.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, that is exactly why the situation would come up.
Not because of something like "economy of scale" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

30 million Canadians next to 310 million Americans...
Say, how is that Spanish language integration working out in the US?
Last time i went to a US bank machine, i was offered services in Spanish.

When you live next door to a large country, some of their 'culture' blends in.

Lets look at some classic "american" content shall we?

"Gone with the Wind" (one of the highest grosing films of all time) with its :
French actress
English Actor
English Actress
American Actress
American Actor

Or some "top quality shows like "shameless" and "the office" which were 1:1 copies of the British versions up until at least season 2.

Pretty hard for "shameless" not to be a hit, the UK version is now in season 11.

Watch the US and UK episodes sometime.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[ArcadeMan]

How many times do we have to say it, friend? We're very sorry about Céline Dion and Brian Adams.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[knorthern knight]

> If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being
> able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care
> about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them.

Ahemmm...
* Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians
* Hank Snow
* Oscar Peterson
* Paul Anka
* Ronnie Hawkins (US born, but made it big after moving to Canada)
* Leonard Cohen
* Joni Mitchell
* Neil Young
* and a whole bunch of lesser-known artists

All made their mark before the first "CanCon" legislation/rules took effect on January 18, 1971. At that point, Canadian radio started seriously sucking. (Yes, I was around back then; get off my lawn). We heard the same small group of Canadian artists over and over and over. There was a standing joke that "AM Radio" really meant "Anne Murray Radio".

Re:fuck american hegemony

[ahodgson]

Google and Netflix are still probably the losers in that exchange. The result will be somebody else coming in and serving that niche in Canada, a force which may eventually be able to expand outward into Google and Netflix territory -- a force they would want to nip in the bud with their superior market presence. It's not like the secret of streaming video technology is unknown to Canadian engineers, and its not like Netflix or YouTube are so critical to Canadian day to day life that to cut off Netflix access would cause an overnight revolution.

Possibly, say Rogers and Bell. Who are, coincidentally, trying to setup a streaming service. And who more or less control the CRTC. Hrmm....

Re:fuck american hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

It would affect me searching-wise for about few seconds until I open bing, and as for email/calendar probably half a day (with few weeks of trickling after) until I sort/explain to people/update stuff. My android phone is a year old and I've always wanted to be an iPhone hipster :) free market at it's best :) I don't think that Google withdrawing is realistic though. Google (and most sane companies) is more likely to pay % money out from a given profit base, than forgo the entire profit base together with the profit just to show teeth. They are not in the teeth showing business, they are all in the money making business, which makes me wonder what the Netfllix guys are smoking. Give up, pay your % and go on happily making the rest of the millions.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[omnichad]

Yeah...if this wasn't a move driven by lobbyists for the Canadian cable industry, you might have a point. But you know it is.

Re:fuck american hegemony

[omnichad]

I've literally heard of none of the people on your list. Maybe that's because they made their mark before 1971, but that's a completely useless bit of information ot a lot of people.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding of the CRTC involvement is for Canadian Content. See Wikipedia Canadian Content The CRTC gets in the way when it's not really "broadcasting". I used to subscribe to Last.fm and I was allowed to listen to last.fm on my laptop, but the CRTC had Apple remove the iPhone last.fm app from the Canadian store as listening to music on an iPhone was just too close to listening on a personal radio which IS broadcasting.

Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Bruce66423]

The purpose of the BROADCAST regulator derives, historically, from the limited number of channels available on TV, so it was argued that there was a public interest in controlling who put what on the air. The internet is surely more like the press, where there are no such limitations, so there is no justification for regulation. That the broadcast regulator is trying to butt into internet activities does seem like mission creep - always popular with the regulators as generating more jobs for their people, and with politicians who gain some leverage over the media. NOT good for freedom of speech however...

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Silvrmane]

Time and Life magazines used to have to publish Canadian versions of their magazines for the Canadian market, with Canadian content because these protectionist measures most certainly DID have such limitations placed upon them.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[dbc]

You're argument is similar to what is listed in: http://legal-dictionary.thefre... as the US legal definition. However, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... shows that the Canadian definition is even more tightly tied to transmission by radio waves than the US definition:

“broadcasting” means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[itamblyn]

In Canada it is a bit more complicated. We have a policy here which mandates that a certain percentage of all broadcast media be Canadian content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content).

It means that radio stations have to play Canadian music, and that television networks must show Canadian shows.

As you can imagine, there are strong opinions about this. For example, what constitutes Canadian content? If it is an American made show that is shot on Canadian soil (Toronto playing the role of Big-American-City), should that count? Or if the writers are Canadian, but the show is produced in the US, how should it be counted? What about a celebrity gossip show, primarily about Hollywood stars, that is hosted by Canadians? I'm not making these examples up by the way.

In radio, Can-con can lead to odd things too: when there is a new Canadian band, airwaves become oversaturated with their music quite quickly, to the point where the domestic audience gets tired of them. DJs want to play popular music (mostly of US origin), but must also meet Can-con rules. A new, popular Canadian band can actually be hurt by too much exposure in a short period of time.

So the CRTC here isn't just about issuing licenses for limited airwaves. It is also about enforcing rules on the content.

My personal opinion is that Can-con (mandating some % of material be broadcast) is probably not the best approach to supporting Canadian artists. I don't think it makes sense for TV, radio, or internet.

That said, it is pretty clear to me that under the current rules, Netflix and Youtube should fall under the same umbrella. I don't see an argument how the government has the authority to set rules about radio and TV but not the internet. I suppose you could claim that wireless spectrum is a public space, therefore within the purview of the government. But that arguement falls apart since most people have cable anyway. To give you a sense of how inconsistent things currently are, if you have a cable modem, part of the signal (TV) is subject to Can-con, but if you stream (internet) it is not.

Again, I'm not coming out in favour (note the u :) of Can-con on any media provider, but the current case against Netflix etc is consistent with the law as it is written.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Altrag]

Magazines are a terrible example. They're no different than broadcast television from a content perspective -- some small number of people put in articles which are read by a large number of people.

A single magazine is more comparable to a single channel on TV -- nobody's forcing you to watch (read) that channel (magazine), but if you decide to do so you're stuck watching (reading) whatever the content provider happened to shove in there.

Direct streaming's most comparable business model from the past would be something like movie rental. You go in, pick what you want, watch it and then its gone and you have to intentionally pick it again if you want to watch it again. The payment model may be different (hell a single movie rental by the time Blockbuster shut down up here was around the same as a month's Netflix subscription!) but in terms of user choice and content selection, its a significantly better comparison than any printed, television or radio medium.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Altrag]

This isn't the problem at hand though. The problem at hand is that the incumbent broadcasters are also required to dump a certain amount of money into a public pot which then is used to fund Canadian media and arts. Currently Netflix and Youtube and similar are exempt from this tariff and since our incumbents are all pissy about Netflix (in particular,) they're trying to push anything they can to force Netflix to either (significantly) raise their prices or leave Canada all together.

This is just one small battle in a massive war our incumbents have been waging against Netflix (of course they have to wrap it in generic language so that they don't seem biased -- or accidentally leave a door open for Hulu or someone if they succeed in bullying Netflix out of the way.) Honestly if Netflix loses this we'll see our subscriptions maybe go up to $10. I mean that would be annoying since they just recently raised it to $9 but its still around 10% cheaper than a cable subscription with a reasonable amount of channels -- and you still get to watch on demand -- so its hardly going to kill Netflix in this country.

The % material thing will likely come around sooner or later, but its going to require a hell of a lot more justification on the part of the CRTC and incumbents because the on-demand model effectively means that the users are voting on whether or not we give any craps about Canadian content, and thus that battle has a potential for a huge backfire if it turns out we actually prefer to watch Game of Thrones instead of Corner Gas given equal opportunity.

And while the incumbents own pretty much all licensing for Canadian content, the CRTC as it runs right now is actually quite likely to force them to provide Netflix a reasonable licensing agreement if they try to suggest that Netflix' library should have x% Canadian content in it (regardless of whether anyone actually watches it.)

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[itamblyn]

Interesting. I didn't realize it was the tariff that was the issue (for the moment at least). To be honest, I am OK with a tax of something like $1 / month that goes toward producing Canadian content. And something like an on-demand model, where my vote is recorded based on what I watch, seems like a decent way of deciding which content is supported. I agree with you that this current business has less to do with supporting Canadian content, and more to do with the fact that incumbents are scared by Netflix. I don't have a cable subscription and never will. Most of my friends are in the same boat. Paying for low quality content mixed with commercials feels like having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning. Fun if you're pretending it is 1972, but otherwise pretty silly. Unfortunately, the CRTC, historically the place that former media executives go to retire, is unlikely to see it this way. They are basically in charge of regulating their old buddies.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Altrag]

I think the tariff is like 2% or something, so way way less than $1 on a $9 sub. But you multiply that by the #subs that Netflix has and it starts adding up.

As for the CRTC.. there's definitely some cronies going on there, but the past couple of years there's been enough citizen upheaval (I can't post the openmedia.ca website enough! lol) that they actually spend time considering what they're doing now rather than blindly going with the big media companies. Not that they don't still fall on that side of the fence plenty, but its not a near-guarantee like it used to be.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada it is a bit more complicated. We have a policy here which mandates that a certain percentage of all broadcast media be Canadian content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content).

It means that radio stations have to play Canadian music, and that television networks must show Canadian shows.

But obviously that doesn't apply to Netflix any more than it would apply to a radio or television station on the US side of the Canadian border. Even in Google's case, that would seem to apply only to Canadian specific sites, e.g. youtube.ca , rather than to all Google sites.

It's also not clear what that rule means in an on demand situation. If a Canadian isn't watching enough Canadian shows on Netflix, would she or he get shut off from American shows until enough episodes of Canadian shows were watched? I can just see how that would work: "Honey, before you shut off the TV, remember to stream some of that local crap that the government insists we watch. That way we won't have to actually watch it. It can just stream in silence overnight."

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[omnichad]

I would personally call "other means of telecommunication" another name for "The Internet." A broadcast receiving apparatus could be a Roku if a computer is not specific enough.

Then again, here in the US, the Internet isn't considered telecommunication. Otherwise, net neutrality would have taken hold long ago and cable Internet customers would be paying into a Universal Service Fund to expand broadband to rural areas.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[omnichad]

TV is on demand (in that respect) too. You turn on your TV when you want to watch it. You aren't forced to leave it on for Canadian content if you don't want to.

Re:Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[dbc]

Go read the whole thing at the link I posted. The Canadian law is pretty clear about there being RF transmissions involved.

There's an easy solution to all of this

[Silvrmane]

Google and Netflix just need to pay off the right politicians and all of this will go away.

Re:There's an easy solution to all of this

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Canadian law were the same as American. Google and Netflix wouldn't even have to pay them off, which is illegal, but only lobby them

Re:There's an easy solution to all of this

[omnichad]

The lobbyists working for the cable industry beat them to it. They're not going to win on that front. Public opinion might be the one big move they have, and so they're trying to get into the news about the issue.

Parent summarizes well

[mark-t]

This is the crux of the matter.

And I honestly couldn't begin to speculate which way the Supreme Court of Canada will decide on this one.

If I may interject my own thoughts on the matter, however... it seems to me that if they rule that Netflix, et al, must be subject to CRTC's authority if they make their service available to Canadians, Netflix may well opt out entirely of serving Canada. Google might make the same decision. This would be bad for Canadians. If the court rules otherwise simply because of the economic impact of that, then the ramifications of this essentially give a foreign commercial entity that has enough of a Canadian presence power over Canada to dictate what Canadian laws are actually allowed to be. How would the USA feel if a foreign company that happened to have a significant influence in America, or with Americans essentially blackmailed them into changing their laws to be favorable to their chosen business model?

I'm not sure whether I'm more terrified or interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be.

Re:Parent summarizes well

[Altrag]

China springs to mind. I'd be very surprised if the US hadn't made at least some concessions to China over the years to ensure that Walmart stays stocked and iPhones remain cheap(ish).

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[tepples]

The radio spectrum suitable for broadcast is limited (there can only ever be ~20 TV channels).

The same is true of cellular Internet unicast video, except there, the limit is on the number of simultaneous viewers in a cell.

The internet is not a limited medium, there can be millions of channels, and nobody is being granted exclusive rights to anything.

The ISPs have exclusive rights to the last mile.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

The CRTC has some similarities with the US FCC (Federal Communications Commission)

Reading comments such as yours are interesting. You admit you dont understand the function of the CRTC but post on it anyhow?

You even write "Of course the majority view in Canada is coming from an entirely different perspective. Canadian reasoning is:"

How did you come to the conclusion what the majority want?

One of the CRTC's mandates is to try to foster "Canadian content". This might be the wrong mandate for them, but it is part of their current responsibility forcing them to take some weird actions like this.

Personally I am not fond of the CRTC so dont take me as "pro crtc, they do everything right"...

"
3) Bureaucrats in Ottawa should tell me what to do, in all aspects of my life, whenever they feel the need. A _reason_, such as a physical limit to the number of channels, is unnecessary."

Totally different from the US, where Bureaucrats in Washington dictate things such which words you can not say on TV or the radio, etc.

I was hoping for 1) and 2)

[raymorris]

My post was in reply "no reason any country ..."
That's true I don't know much about Canada's regulation, and as I said in the SUBJECT line of my post, I wasn't talking about them, but about general principles.

I was hoping a Canadian could give some insight into the different perspective there.
Sure the US was founded by a "fuck the king" revolution, and many came here in part because of religious or other persecution by the government of their homeland, so you'd expect the US to _traditionally_ be suspicious of too much government. I don't know Canadian history or culture well enough to understand what seems to be the prevailing attitude that bureaucrats have a divine rifht to rule. Does Canada have a long history of beloved monarchs before the modern era?

Re:I was hoping for 1) and 2)

[rikkards]

Think of it more as a kid moving out of their parent's house at the age of 22 and saying that they still love their parents. The US was more of a 5 year old leaving home against the parents will while flipping them the bird.

Personally I see the CRTC as the same as Quebec's Language Police but on a grander scale: trying to keep Canadian Culture (for whatever that is) alive, when it's pretty much a known fact that culture is a living breathing thing and no matter what you do you can't stop it from evolving.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Altrag]

I don't know which Canadians you're referring to but most of us our just as pissed off at this kind of crap as the rest of the world.

Canadians (as an aggregate at least -- everyone's entitled to their own specific opinion of course!) don't believe in full on communism any more than the US does. The difference is that we don't believe in full on capitalism either -- lust for money is just as terrible as lust for power when it comes to controlling the lives of your citizens.

And we fight back when things go too wrong. Openmedia.ca has prevented or helped balance several bad laws in the past few years and have also been extremely active on the international front, in particular with regards to the TPP fight (ourfairdeal.org.)

We're not anti-government like much of the US seems to be but we're certainly not falling over and bowing to Harper and his cronies either.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[mysidia]

The ISPs have exclusive rights to the last mile.

As long as there is network neutrality along the last mile and through to the edge of the customer's ISP, this is a bandwidth issue, not a limited content selection issue.

Thank you Google!

[dtremblay]

It's time to kill this CRTC body and spend the taxpayer's money on real issues.

Sovereignty vs Audacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Final:
Canada 2; Corporations 0

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[guruevi]

The 'spectrum' or bandwidth of the Internet is virtually unlimited though. You just need to put in bigger pipes and even the smallest of the pipes you can currently get at an IX (1Gbps) can easily carry 1000 simultaneous viewers.

The ISP's only have exclusive rights to the last mile because we (the people) let them. For the most part, "the people" paid over and over again for this last mile as well as all the other miles (both phone and cable) through regulatory fees but either is being monopolized by a single provider. There is no technical reason that several providers couldn't offer you the 'last mile' connection. It's being done in several European countries where you have a pick of providers to offer you the last mile.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that we don't believe in full on capitalism either

So. This is "capitalism" down here?

Pardon while I go write my personal mandate Obamacare check against the balance of my CFPB monitored bank account and stick it into the constitutionally mandated US government mailbox down the street from my Fannie Mae financed house before I leave for work at my HHS subsidised healthcare IT job.

Capitalism. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

thanks

[raymorris]

Thanks. That analogy makes sense, as far as it goes.
Now I just need to figure out how to get some of our liberals from here to move there, and some of the backcountry real mean from Canada to come here. Then everyone can be happy. I thought that was going to work with California- let all the hippies and needy people, while the self-sufficient people could do their thing in Texas. Unfortunately, when California predictably went bust all the Bay area hippies headed to Austin.

Re:thanks

[rikkards]

Yeah our right leaning people are more like your left-middle. You probably wouldn't like them

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Altrag]

I means exactly what I think it means.

I said many Americans believe in pure capitalism, at least a much higher percentage of them than Canadians do up here.

I never claimed that you have pure capitalism.

The CRTC are toadies to big media

[Anonymous Coward]

The CRTC might sound like a pristine government agency, but in truth its filled with lackies and shills that very recently worked for big media in Canada, specifically Rogers and Bell (although Shaw has some syncophants in the CRTC too). These Internet/Cable/Telephone providers have a collective oligopoly and have been accused of collusion and price fixing *and* have all recently announced that they want to start online media streaming companies .....directly in competition with Google and Netflix. The CRTC doesn't give a crap about Canadian Content --especially considering the current government--. Noo. The CRTC is being a mandarin, accounting only to Canadian big media --especially considering the current government--.

It wouldn't be that hard for Netflix to comply

[dean.cubed9947]

Netflix already offers LOTS of Canadian content - I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to just say, film "Jessica Drew" in Vancouver and call it a day. It might FEEL like a pain in Netflix's ass, but as long as things like X-Files (mostly filmed in Vancouver using many Canadian actors) and Seth Rogan movies count toward Canadian Content, it's probably not that hard.

Re:It wouldn't be that hard for Netflix to comply

[ArcadeMan]

Still no Corner Gas on Netflix though. It's the Canadian version of Seinfeld, eh?

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it's not so much a difference in kind as it is a difference in degree, and a small one at that. So stop throwing around "capitalist" bullshit like a malcontent trust fund hippie.

Mental concept problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an american person or company has serious drawbacks. One of them is being completely unable to grasp the notion of a "nation-state".

In such places you do not HAVE rights (God-given or whatnot). There, the "guvmint", that is the parliament and the council of cabinet ministers will grant you rights. Whatever rights are not granted, remain with the state. Trying to upset that situation will invoke very heavy handed response from the almighty guvmint. They say no, you can't do X or Y, you disregard the order, you go to jail for years.

To put it in other words, the famous line "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles" is not about the Uber carhire company giving Germany the middle finger, but that Germany will give Uber the anal proble, should it disregard national souverignity. Nation states are also not a federation or a confederation. If you have some very historic title, you may be granted territorial or communal autonomy, like South Tyrol in Italy, but that is more of an exception. You are as much subjects as in an absolute monarchy.

Let me say, if Google behaves too arrogant and tries to disregard Canada, the french and british halves of that northernly country will be united in curb-stomping those California hipsters, who think too much of themselves.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[tepples]

You just need to put in bigger pipes

Bigger pipes for the wireless last mile requires buying more land and appeasing more NIMBYs to put up more towers.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[guruevi]

No, it means investing in better antenna equipment, I can get gigabit speeds on an unregulated frequency, a regulated frequency should be much easier. Japan has 100Mbps to individual mobile devices, setting up P2P wireless links is even easier. Even so, the country has paid said regulatory fees to ensure wired access to everyone.

Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc

[tepples]

I can get gigabit speeds on an unregulated frequency

At 100 km/h with seamless handoff from one cell to another, or just at walking speeds in a single cell the size of an apartment?