Comment by otoburb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by otoburb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>It was also told to hand over information related to the Canadian content it creates or provides to subscribers.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a mandate to determine whether broadcasters comply with their operating license via a set quota of Canadian-specific content, along with Canadian-content fees. This quote deals with the heart of the matter because Netflix was given an exemption from being classified under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and one of the conditions to maintain this exemption was that the exempted entity would share Canadian subscriber data.

I don't believe that Netflix needs to release specific subscriber details (e.g. name, number), but would have needed to release anonymized details broken down by province and potentially city. Since Netflix is choosing not to comply at all will make an interesting test of the CRTC's powers (which are typically quite extensive). I wonder how Hulu and other streaming providers are handling this?

A Financial Post article provides a little more detail around this point[1].

[1] http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/19/sparks-fly-as-n...

A blanket exception for all online services was issued in 1999, in 2007 it was amended to require financial reports when requested.

So there's nothing specific to Netflix.

However most streaming providers aren't available in Canada. Netflix is the only one who's gone to the trouble of acquiring streaming rights for Canada for major TV/Movies.

Google (Youtube) has adopted a similar position to Netflix, but they haven't faced any requests yet.

How can Netflix be described as a broadcaster? If I start serving streaming video to Canadians from my home do I suddenly fall under CRTC jurisdiction?

That's exactly the issue at hand! To answer your second question first, streaming video over the Internet was at stake in a 1999 decision around the distinction and definitions of the terms "old" vs. "new media"[1][2], resulting in the "exemption" policy for new media that is now being revisited.

Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3].

EDIT: If you happen to stream content to a private audience, I think you'd be exempt just because you're too small of a target to go after. But if you tried to scale your Canadian streaming operation up, you'll probably run afoul of the CRTC without obtaining either a license or at least applying for an exemption. IANAL.

[1] http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-197.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

>Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3].

No. The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadband delivery (very limited, is working to expand on this to ensure better service quality through the country), telephone, and over the air programming through its regulation of the RF spectrum.

What the hell Canada!

Well that's not quite true. The FCC enforces rules against cable television (requiring closed captioning, for example) and satellite. I think cable is required to carry all broadcast stations as well.

I agree that I missed cable television regulation. Thank you. With regards to satellite, that would fall under their regulation of the RF spectrum.

> What the hell Canada!

National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway.

>National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway.

Your tone will cause you to get downvoted, but there is a certain amount of truth to what you're saying. I think that some people here like to try to define themselves by how they are not American. Cancon exists, by and large, to stem the fears of a cultural invasion from south of the border. But I think this is the fear of a vocal minority.

I'd contend that most Canadians don't seem to care about this when it comes time to make their choices as to what they'll watch. Most of the highly-rated television shows are American-made, even if they're being shown on CTV, Global, etc. Only hockey and news seem to be the exceptions. Add Netflix to this, and I think it shows that Canadians want to consume US content, and aren't worried about the alleged consequences.

So you believe that if there was no Cancon laws that the Canadian cultural identity wouldn't suffer? American culture has an enormous influence on Canadians as it is, and I fear that getting rid of things like Cancon would start to erode our identity further.

Americans don't need Cancon-type laws because they're the dominate culture. Smaller cultures like Canada need to be protected so that they may be allowed to develop. For example, numerous musical acts in Canada could never have existed if the government didn't fund them and give them a market to grow in.

>So you believe that if there was no Cancon laws that the Canadian cultural identity wouldn't suffer? American culture has an enormous influence on Canadians as it is, and I fear that getting rid of things like Cancon would start to erode our identity further.

Americans don't force their content on us. The irony is that our own regulatory bodies are the ones seeking to force something on us that we don't seem to want.

>Smaller cultures like Canada need to be protected so that they may be allowed to develop.

Protected from whom? Themselves, apparently. It is, after all, Canadians who seem to be welcoming American content with open arms. They've shown exactly what they want, via their daily decisions of which kinds of media to consume. And this is even with their options artificially limited by entities like the CRTC.

Musical acts in Canada couldn't succeed without the government?

That's absurd. And it implies extreme mediocrity of Canadian culture, which is also absurd.

As though the 35 million people in Canada aren't going to support local musical talent, from Vancouver to Toronto. They're not primarily going to drive eight hours to NYC and support local American talent or three hours to Seattle instead of going to local festivals or concerts.

The government can only harm the situation by subsidizing terrible products that have almost no demand, to the detriment - no matter how slight - of better products that would thrive without subsidy.

Yes, and the whole world thanks us for Nickelback and Justin Bieber.

Is Netflix a broadcaster? In some ways, they quack like one, so the CRTC is going to act like they are one until they're told otherwise by the courts.

It's in the nature of bureaucracies to attempt to expand their jurisdiction as far as the law will allow and, when a grey area exists, to err on the side of overreaching until they're specifically told they do not have jurisdiction.

Does this mean that YouTube needs to have a quota for Canadian specific content you need to watch in Canada?

No. Or rather not yet. The CRTC's position is that they have authority over Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo, Blip, etc but regulations aren't yet needed.

Hulu is not available in Canada so the CRTC should not be interested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com