The CRTC released an exemption order today, permitting mobile-tv beyond the IP-based broadcasts that were previously authorized.
There continue to be a number of carve-outs, designed to prevent services that might try to bypass broadcast distribution regulations. There had been a concern that new technologies would enable a wireless device to be attached to a TV set to create a set-top box that is exempt from regulation. This was addressed in part by limiting the exemption to telephony type broadcasters, precluding point-to-multipoint technology:
The undertaking uses point-to-point technology to deliver the service; that is, the undertaking transmits a separate stream of broadcast video and audio to each end-user.
However, the Commission failed to consider that particular clause in addressing its concern about whether all radio programming would suddenly become exempt.
CWTA submitted that the scope of the exemption order should be expanded to apply to all broadcasting services that are delivered and accessed through mobile services, not just television services. The Commission considers that expanding the scope of the exemption order in such a way would, in essence, exempt all radio services, including commercial radio and subscription radio services, since most radio services can easily be provided to mobile devices. At the very least, it would be difficult to differentiate between “mobile radio undertakings” and conventional radio undertakings.
I disagree: it wouldn’t be difficult at all. Conventional radio is point-to-multipoint. This exemption order already requires that the technology be point-to-point. Conventional radio can’t get confused with a mobile radio service delivered over a cel phone.
If wireless carriers want to use this exemption for radio, I’d still suggest that audio programming can easily become TV programming, by associating a display of the name of the program the way you see music stations on satellite or digital cable. That kind of enhanced, personalized, stereo programming even makes sense when limited to a small screen.
I also noticed that the CRTC applied Canadian ownership criteria to thoe service providers who qualify to offer mobile TV. In doing so, it missed an opportunity to pressure the major wireless carriers by allowing MVNO operators to develop innovative services in competition with the underlying carriers, instead of needing to rely on their good graces. The Commission relied on the Broadcasting Act requirement that “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.”
Could it have looked at the point-to-point technology and made a statement that this isn’t broadcasting? Could it have relied on its statements, echoed throughout the notice:
The Commission remains of the view that the services offered pursuant to this exemption order are unlikely to have a significant impact on traditional broadcasters due to the limitations of the wireless technology employed, the battery life and screen size of the handset, the reduced image and audio quality, and the type and range of programming choices offered by the mobile broadcasters.
If the Commission had wanted to inject a little more competition on the mobile wireless side, was there a missed opportunity? If foreign ownership restrictions are lifted on the telecom side, did the CRTC create an advantage for the existing Canadian carriers?