Most of the reports on yesterday’s Federal Court of Appeal decision have talked about how the court decided that ISP do not have the burdens of being regulated under the Broadcast Act, although the caveat in Paragraph 59 of the Decision says:
that this conclusion is based on the content-neutral role of ISPs and would have to be reassessed if this role should change
I wonder if there is a corollary. I wonder if this Court decision creates an incentive for companies that are currently regulated as BDUs to rearrange themselves to look more like ISPs. There are a number of IPTV BDUs that are already delivering their service over internet technology. At what point does a remote control become a keyboard, a set-top box become a PC (many are already running Microsoft software), a screen is a screen, regardless of size or resolution.
Why is my ISP, providing access to the linear programming of CPAC.ca different from my cable company delivering that same content on Channel 97?
The next question of course is what are the characteristics that make a streaming video website different from a broadcaster? Many broadcasters deliver their signals directly to BDUs using fibre – no transmitter towers, no spectrum?
The corollaries and potential extensions to the Federal Court of Appeal decision could make the best argument for the need for Parliament to revisit the Broadcast Act in today’s IP world.
The future of financial support for Canadian content development were at stake when the CRTC asked the Court to examine the issue. The implications of the ruling could cause the current funding mechanisms to collapse even faster.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Broadcasting in an IP era • Telecom Trends -- Topsy.com
Hi Mark
Traditional BDUs like Rogers, Videotron, Shaw and Cogeco do not play a content-neutral role in providing their services what with the community channel and program substitution – both mandated by regulation, as well as commercial substitution on American specialty channels and the placement of channels on the dial . If any of them went to IPTV delivery presumably they would still carry this baggage.
While Bell and Telus in providing their IPTV (cable service) may not be obliged to provide a community channel, presumably they still have to carry out program substitution and will probably do commercial substitution as well. I’m not sure if channel placement is an issue when it comes to IPTV delivery.
As well, I don’t think the fact that a broadcaster provides a direct link to the service providers head-end changes anything. The key isn’t in the fact that the signal goes out over the air, it’s what the BDU does with it either as a result of regulation or as a result of improving the bottom line.
So, at least as far as the traditional BDUs are concerned, while this court decision may give them an incentive to re-arrange themselves to look more like ISPs, I don’t think there is much they can do get there given that their services are not content neutral as described in the court decision.