On Friday, the CRTC issued a broadcasting decision in a case that examined the terms for Bell Canada to carry a sports channel (Sportsnet) owned by its competitor, Rogers. I’m going to leave the merits of the case and the details of the resolution aside for now.
For the purpose of this discussion, the important point to glean from the decision is that the CRTC re-affirmed the principle that specialty channels – the content provider – cannot grant more favourable terms to an affiliated distributor. In this particular case, the CRTC determined, in effect, that Sportsnet’s deal with Bell would need to be on terms “that are no less favourable than those accorded [Rogers Cable].”
It strikes me that a different twist on the net neutrality issue arises from this kind of decision.
We tend to think of net neutrality as seeking to ensure that ISPs don’t engage in bit-boinking – degrading the traffic of content providers that refuse to pay for protection. Is there a corollary that examines whether content providers can or should deny an ISP access to their content on equivalent terms to other ISPs?
Technorati Tags:
Bell Canada, Sportsnet, Rogers, Net Neutrality