Canadian satellite radio
p2p news / p2pnet:- A Canadian cabinet committee set up to examine the issue of satellite radio licenses has made a decision: don`t decide anything. And their lack of accord reflects a deep split within the government, says the Globe and Mail.
The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission) recently gave the green light to three groups, two of them formed with America`s largest satellite radio companies, to launch subscription digital radio services in Canada.
Canadian Satellite Radio (CSR) hooked up with Washington-based XM Satellite Radio Holdings, while the CBC and Standard Broadcasting partnered with New York-based Sirius. A third pay service was to have been run by CHUM and Montreal`s Astral Media, who were planning on using land broadcast towers for their digital service. However, CHUM and Astral backed out.
Among the most vociferous voices opposing the original CRTC approval was the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting which said the deal created a pipeline for U.S. radio programs direct to Canada, with little in return for our country.
However, digital radio means crystal clear digital sound, and some receivers can show text information, such who and what you’re listening to, on a tiny screen.
Heritage minister Liza Frulla, who`s also a central figure in the copyright amendment controversy, wants the federal cabinet to review the CRTC approval because of concerns about low levels of Canadian and French-language content the two satellite radio operators will be required to provide, says the Toronto Star. The two satellite radio operators have launched a massive campaign in support of their licences, complete with full-page newspaper ads and rallies on Parliament Hill by Canadian musicians.
Their supporters contend it is unreasonable for Canada to demand satellite radio stations comply with content rules in an era when technology allows anyone here to get radio, television and Internet service from around the world. Besides, they argue, there already is a fast-growing `grey market` of U.S. satellite radio subscriptions held by Canadians.
On the other side, opponents say the CRTC required the two licence holders to provide only 10 per cent Canadian content on their stations. Existing regulations in the Canadian Broadcasting Act require AM and FM stations to provide 35 per cent Canadian content. Conventional radio operators say the CRTC decision is unfair because they will be forced to compete with stations that don’t have to carry so much Canadian music.
What happens next? The PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) or Privy Council, “could tell the ad hoc committee it must make a recommendation, or hand the issue to another cabinet committee,” says the Globe and Mail. “That decision would then go to the full cabinet tomorrow.
“Cabinet, which has only one scheduled meeting before the deadline, could also make its own decision. As well, it could grant one of its committees the authority to decide without full cabinet approval, which would also be rare.”
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Globe and Mail – Satellite Radio Issue Sumps Committee, September 7, 2005
central figure – CRIA uses Kazaa as PR hook, September 6, 2005
Toronto Star – Canadian-content rules under attack, September 7, 2005
September 7th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Does the Canadian Government prohibit Canadians from purchasing subscriptions to subscription based services on the internet that have “insufficient Canadian and or French Language content?” No? I didn’t think so. Then what’s the big deal? This is hardly ‘traditional’ broadcasting because it uses encoded digital technology in an unsaturated frequency band for which general purpose receivers (such as transistor radios and television sets) are not sold.
There are probably thousands of Canadians who have a friend or relative in the US subscribe for them and then ship them the equipment and other material so they can listen in Canada. There’s no great electromagnetic curtain of static draped across the US Canadian border. The RF is from satellite radio reaches Canada just fine. Why not let those who want to make use of it do so? It’s probably that there is some turf-war going on within the Government about what agency gets to deal with it.
September 7th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
This is such an enervating subject. It’s hard to find anything even remotely exciting or a ’side’ to cheer for in this. Everybody is out to lunch on this one. Government social engineering, the same ‘old radio’ players, narrowcasting – a dog’s breakfast.
September 7th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/1047
The following letter was sent to a number of key MPs, as well as to the editor of the Hill Times.
ACTRA, CIRPA, SOCAN and the “Friends of Canadian Broadcasting” have taken out a full page advertisement in the September 5 issue of the Hill Times promoting government intervention into a recent CRTC decision on satellite radio.
I was pleased that the CRTC decision recognized that subscription satellite radio is not the same as broadcast radio. I support a full spectrum of production, distribution and funding models for creativity, and believe that the greatest threat to Canadian creativity comes from those who wish to impose past models onto all creativity.
I support Canadian Content (CANCON) rules where an intermediary can limit the choices of Canadians, such as traditional broadcast radio. This is a highly concentrated market where play-lists are decided by a DJ, the station, or increasingly the owners of a network of stations.
A market where CANCON rules shouldn’t be needed is retail. While dedicated music retail stores stock far more titles than high-volume stores such as Walmart, the reality is that the vast majority of recorded music is not available at any price. The extremely limited stock with Walmart suggests that CANCON rules should be applied to that market.
XM radio provides more choice to Canadians than many of the retail options, which is why true independent musicians are excited about this option. As a subscription service XM radio should be less regulated than broadcast radio.
Those who paid for the poll and advertisement are not protecting Canadian culture. These are primarily the same organization lobbying for ratification of the 1996 WIPO treaties, now Bill C-60, which promotes the US industry interests who are the primary authors and beneficiaries of the treaties. Ratification of the 1996 WIPO treaties will have a greater harmful impact on Canadian music than if we abolished CANCON rules entirely. This is before the possibility we may see something worse than C-60 based on the lobbying from US/EU major label controlled CRIA.
Links:
Kill Bill C-60, the primarily US-interest authored copyright bill.
http://KillBillC60.ca
Petition for Users’ Rights (and thus follow-on creators’ rights)
http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
Canadian Independent Recording Artists Association
http://www.ciraa.ca
Independents Support Satellite Radio
http://www.indiepool.com/main/csr/
Canada Music Commons.
http://www.canadamusiccommons.net/
September 7th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
The Government, especially those with Heritage (Department or parliamentary committee), don’t understand the difference between new-media like the Internet and old “broadcast media”. They consider it to be a flaw with the current design of the Internet that CANCON can not be enforced. I heard one bureaucrat (who will remain nameless) suggesting that DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) would be helpful to then allow them to target the DRM companies to enforce CANCON rules on all Canadian digital media users in the future.
What they want is that if you look at too many foreign websites without looking at some “Canadian” websites your browser may get disabled (or automatically show you some government approved “Canadian” websites).
If that suggestion seems far fetched, then please look more closely at what DRM is capable of doing. DRM has little to nothing to do with stopping “copying”, and everything to do with creating a broadcast-like centralized intermediary who can control what we can and can not do with Information Technology.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:40 am
That’s why Browsers like Firefox and Mozilla will become popular if the Canadian Government tries this sort of thing. Here in the US, I find it incomprehensible that a government agency would force you to view “approved content” or disable your browser as this is a direct violation of freedom of choice.
Yes, the US has it’s problems with mega-corporations, cartels, a corrupt government, and some bad/broken laws, but the one thing going for America is that we still have Freedom of Choice.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
The laws that regulate personal choice and control over IT (Information Technology) originate from the United States and are “laundered” by the USPTO/USTR through international organizations such as WIPO. The USA was the first country, with their DMCA, to pass the first stage of the laws that seek to remove freedom of choice in IT. The proposed Canadian law is not as bad as the US law, and it is primarily under pressure from US special interest groups (Including US government agencies which acts as a special interest group) that Canada is contemplating these draconian laws.
The purpose of “anti circumvention” laws is to protect the tie between the purchase of digitally encoded content and specifically branded access technologies — IE: the purpose is not to “protect copyright” but to remove consumer choice and personal control over private property.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ – 1996 Lehman report that launched the attack on the rights of citizens.
Our BLOG on WIPO
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/361
And specifically the counter-agenda to the USA which is the “Development Agenda”: http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/WIPO_DA.shtml
I know that the United States historically protected the freedom of its citizens, but in ways far beyond these laws that has been changing in recent decades. Please fight to protect those freedoms and don’t ever assume that you will always have them. The most dangerous thing is politics is apathy.
To learn more about how your rights are under attack, check out http://eff.org which is one of many US citizens rights groups trying to protect against the attacks to these rights launched by the US government.