CRTC: Navigating Convergence Part 2

Continuing from my prior post on the CRTC's recent "Navigating Convergence" report, I'd like to move on to a subtle, but particularly troubling aspect of this report: language.


While this report attempts to paint an objective picture of the current state of the broadcasting and content market in Canada, the language used in the report provide an insight into the underlying beliefs driving the Commission's understanding of the situation. While reading the report, I was struck a number of times by a choice of words that implied a positive or negative effect, without any attempt at examining the underlying assumptions.


Some practical examples:

While subscriber growth has slowed, the growth in data revenue has remained strong. ARPU grew from $49 per month for wireless services in 2004 to $60 per month in 2008. Analysts credit much of the growth to increases in data usage for such services as e-mail, text, web surfing and, increasingly, the delivery of audio and audio-visual content. [emphasis added]

Growth, strong, grew, credit, growth - all positive connotations. And yet, we're ultimately talking about rising prices. (ARPU = Average Revenue Per User)

While the threat of competition has a disciplining effect on incumbent behaviour, the reality of non-facilities-based competition is such that for the majority of consumers, alternatives are not considered compelling.

Non-facilities-based competition has been implemented with far greater success outside of Canada, as Benkler and others have recently shown. With a single sentence, this report dismisses all such options as impractical.

It should be noted, however, that the broadcast distributors have foreseen the threat and are planning to leverage the Internet as an alternative way to distribute programming content; for example, in November 2009, Rogers Communications Inc. launched a broadband television portal where subscribers can access broadcast content online regardless of who their Internet provider is.

That's quite an optimistic claim for a completely unproven model from a company not known for its focus on customer needs. I haven't met a customer yet who appreciated their recent "upgrade" to their PVR guides, and this will be significantly more difficult to get right.

However, over time the content made available by unregulated sources and from outside of Canada may have the effect of depriving the regulated broadcasters of some of the advertising and subscription revenues that are the basis of many of the contributions listed above, including Canadian exhibition and expenditure rules.

 The word `depriving` is particularly interesting here. It actually appears twice in this paragraph, and gives a clear impression that these new sources of content are somehow less deserving of these revenues. There is no doubt that this migration of revenue would affect the Commission`s programs for encouraging the production of Canadian content, but there is no examination of alternative models of encouraging such production. Even worse, there is no attempt to look at new potential opportunities for CanCon outside the existing, traditional distribution channels.


I reacted strongly to language such as this throughout the report. Even if such wording or implications were unintentional, I believe they are still quite telling.