Considering these same rules have applied to television ever since I can remember and have yet to lead to any sort of disaster or loss of choice, don't you think you're being rather hysterical over the same rules being applied to the internet?

Oh, yes. Thank you for correcting me. So nice of you to do so. Other than the flop of the CRTC's relationship to TV and radio as a mechanism for content excellence and the massively intrusive and likely impossible task of handling the internet in a similar manner, you may have a point.

Excuse me now as I can't decide which channel to watch - BBC 1, ESPN or that late movie from New Zealand.

I guess the idea is that Canada needs a national internet agency? All should go through the Canada portal, and at least 33.33% of all content viewed (or some other such percentage) must be Canada-based?

Or is the idea to tax internet providers, and funnel said money to Canadian content providers.

Get on the gravy train, Alan -- you could end up being paid to blog! By the government, in the name of national unity...

The NIA! Excellent. The NIA could be charged with establishing, promoting and dealing with violators of the NIP, the National Identify Policy. But it would also be a principle of the mandate of the NIA that AH (actual history) would not sully the NIP.

I bet the staff of the NIA would wear orange and ultramarine jumpsuits at the office.

As it is nearly impossible to control or regulate internet use/access, the CRTC is left with promoting CanCon through subsidies. They are merely trying to find ways to justify their existence. A $100 million subsidization package for internet content from Canada? Yeah, I can see Harper going for that!?!?!

You are clearly being hysterical.

Alan, clearly you need to join the union.

You are drowning in a sea of video and words from overseas, and you need protection.

This certainly looks like an attempt for the CRTC to do little more than disburse money to its favorite clients.

What is the nature of online video content? If we are drowning in online content, this seems to refer to amateur home-made quality videos. Ignoring philosophical questions such as whether a Canadian gets hit in the nuts by a football, does any see it if they don't download it on You Tube, is there any indication of a shortage of amateur Canadian content (e.g.).

If we are talking about professional content, are there many videos available web-only that were not TV shows first? "Direct to web". Dr Horrible, perhaps?

Perhaps if we're interested in meaningful Canadian content on the web, perhaps we're best to ask the government to strong-arm the CBC and NFB into making its extensive video (and radio) archives available. All we have to do is upload.

Oh, lord. If they were actually relevant, the CRTC would be doing things like building national internet infrastructure so that our words don't have to be filtered through the NSA every time we surf (there's no real backbone between Calgary and Toronto, so traffic between us and Vancouver has to go through the US). And advocating for net neutrality? That would be a good use of their money. And as David said, promoting professional content on the WORLD WIDE web would both fund Canadian cultural endeavours but export it to all.

Yeesh.

I think Ben is on to something. I want funding for my piece "Snow Sound"

BTW, I wrote a website that features professionally made Canadian videos ;-)

I'm not sure what your comments even mean, Alan. So let me try this from another angle.

Recently it was announced that law enforcement agencies would be able to eavesdrop on the internet after obtaining a warrant. Is this something new? No, it's merely an extension of what already exists into a new medium. Now a person could get hysterical over this and make wild claims about it leading to a Big Brother society but in all the years that law enforcement agencies have been able to listen in on telephone calls has it ever lead to a Big Brother scenario. No, in fact I can't say there's any evidence we've ever suffered any negative effects from it.

The same thing is occurring with this issue. Regulating Canadian content isn't new. The CRTC has been doing it with other mediums for years and this is merely an extension of existing policy into a new medium. And just as the current policy hasn't resulted in any negative effects neither will this extension.

<i>Perhaps if we're interested in meaningful Canadian content on the web, perhaps we're best to ask the government to strong-arm the CBC and NFB into making its extensive video (and radio) archives available.</i>

The NFB recently put their films on the net and the CBC has been slowly putting stuff from their archives on the net for years.

I think I would ask your to take your silliness elsewhere, Robert. Your comments is well placed to a large degree but saying things like "I'm not sure what your comments even mean" or introducing the incredibly sexists word "hysterical" are just 2004 baiting. I am sure you are a very fine fellow but you have to take the fact that I don't link to you, don't comment at your site and don't engage with you else where as a hint.

I do not run an argumentative shop. It has taken a lot of work over six years to achieve that. You are free to post but stick to the ideas. So, for example, if you think that the CRTC's work has not been a flop in relation to content, say that - but provide examples rather than restating a position. Why has the CRTC been good? Positions in themselves are not interesting but your ideas might be. We all have very different views here and no one expects to win an argument... except David.

No one expects to win the Spanish Inquisition! Ummm ... I mean the argument.

No one expects to win the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is relentless argumentation; relentless argumentation and frequent hyperlinks. *Ahem* Amongst our weaponry are...

I strongly support putting more and more content online from the NFB and the CBC, from the archives.

If we must subsidize something -- I do not say we must (in fact, I'd prefer that we not), but we seem to -- I'm for subsidizing that.

If I could go to the CBC website and watch the full referendum night 1995 coverage on a Youtube-like platform, I'd think it very, very cool.

***

But we don't need the CRTC for that.

saying things like "I'm not sure what your comments even mean"...are just 2004 baiting.

No it isn't. It's me not understanding what, "Excuse me now as I can't decide which channel to watch - BBC 1, ESPN or that late movie from New Zealand." means in relation to my original comment. From what I can see, your comment only reinforces my point that you haven't suffered any ill effects from the Canadian content rules that are applied to television and will therefore suffer none if they're applied to the internet.

Oh, see you hadn't referenced that particular comment through a HTML link. What I clearly meant by that comment, I thought, is that these are stations I cannot get in Canada... which is a dear loss to me. I also particularly want NESN which is as important a cultural source to me as is tartan.

Personally, I am mad as hell that I pay for BBC Canada and BBC Kids yet a percentage of my and my kids viewing options on those channels are Canadian. Why is Holmes on Homes on BBC Canada? Because some bozo thinks I cannot possibly want to watch BritComs and Corrie whenever I turn it on. Somedays, they must think, I forget that instead of watching Black Books I could watch Mike rant on about how he "cannot understand how someone could call ___ a finished ___ project". There is a Home and garden network? Amazing. Never knew. Dolts.

Making more CanCon available on the web will not make me view it. I have my online interests, some of which are Canadian, most not, but short of blocking 70% of the content, I cannot imagine how this will benefit anyone, except the recipients of the funding.

What I clearly meant by that comment, I thought, is that these are stations I cannot get in Canada...

I doubt that's the CRTC's fault though. The number of television stations that can fit the spectrum, while expanded in recent years, is still limited. And it's the CRTC's job to decide what stations are carried in order to best serve the Canadian public. Which means they are required to provide the most diverse selection possible based on criteria such as interest, availability, concerns of competitors, etc.

More often than not a channel is denied permission to broadcast in Canada based on the pressure applied by competitors. Then of course there are other pressures. For example, Al Jazeera wants to broadcast in Canada and I'm already seeing the rumblings in some conservative circles of a campaign to block it.

"...it's the CRTC's job to decide what stations are carried in order to best serve the Canadian public..."

Please, Lord, save us from such circles. That is the point of the post and every other comment makers understanding, too. No wonder you get in arguments elsewhere. I think you are done if that is the best you can do.

I remember a number of years back, such circles decided that the municipality in which I lived would broadcast new stations that they decided "best served the public". Every channel proposed was news, golf, sports and the aforementioned "Home and Garden Network". A number of us started a letter writing campaign and eventually got the station to admit defeat and have a poll. They reviewed the results, relented and included a swath of more children and nerd oriented channels (Space, Teletoon, a few retro movie stations etc.).

Such circles rarely see beyond their own demographic (being mainly boomers and others that have the time, money and inclination to make decisions based on how to best serve the public).

That is the point of the post

Not really. We got sidetracked discussing television and my point had to do with the limitations of the spectrum. The internet doesn't have these limitations therefore there's no need for the CRTC to make the same kind of decision in the name of serving the public good. And I haven't seen anything that says the CRTC wants to artificially create these same limitations on the internet (ie. they're not suggesting Canada be limited to receiving a limited number of websites).

What the CRTC clearly wants to do is essentially extend the Canadian content rules onto the internet. And as I first asked, how have those rules as applied in the other broadcast medium impacted you in a negative way. Outside of being required to pay a couple of dollars into a fund that is invested in creating more Canadian content I don't see how forcing CTV for instance, to carry a certain amount of Canadian programming hurts you.

It is still the point of the post (your point being what I include in "not the point") but that is good. We may be able to work with you ;-)

But look at the last line in the post and the link to a post about constitutional autonomy. If the CRTC were not interested in content, only bandwidth due to spectrum, in radio and TV all that they would need to do is hold an auction as they do for other radio services. But they do not. They allocate and give preference to things like CTV to the detriment of NESN and ESPN due to wacky ideas of content. So, the Canadian content rules keep me from experiencing my full range of choice which is a restriction on my autonomy from the state. State restrictions on the marketplace of ideas undermine democracy from a s. 7 of the Charter point of view.

This is entirely beside the point that the content that is allowed is so bad and in fact undermines Canadianess through systemic support of sheer banality. That approach applied to the internet will require some sort of structure to enforce Canadian preference upon us all or will be just a huge waste of effort. Without some sort of monopolistic control of access, support of content is irrelevant.

I find the fact that this blog is not 50% en francais upsetting. When I read it I feel so... uncanadian. If only there were an agency with superpowers to make all those uncanadian things go away. I am Canadian, I love Tim Hortons, Paul Gross and hockey, I am Canadian, I love Tim Hortons, Paul Gross and hockey, I am Canadian, I love Tim Hortons, Paul Gross and hockey, I am Canadian, I love Tim Hortons, Paul Gross and hockey - na na I can't hear you BBC.

Why can't the CRTC just give money to Bombardier like all the other agencies? Now that's Canadian!

They allocate and give preference to things like CTV to the detriment of NESN and ESPN due to wacky ideas of content.

Now we are just running around in circles. There are more broadcasters than there are spaces in the spectrum so it's simply not possible to carry them all. As I said earlier, this forces the CRTC to make choices based on a number of criteria. While "wacky ideas of content" is one of them, it's not the only one. Plus, the "wacky ideas of content" aren't particularly onerous as evidenced by the fact that Fox News is now available in Canada. If they can meet the CRTC's requirements I fail to see why NESN or ESPN can't as well.

As for holding an auction, you'd end up with completely unpredictable results that may not serve the public interest. For instance--and this is an extreme example to illustrate my point--what if India bought up most of the available spectrum. Would you really want the spectrum filled up with 500 stations playing Bollywood movies all the time. I doubt it especially if it meant sports channels got left out in the cold. Because of the limited spectrum the CRTC is required to insure that as many markets as possible are represented.

You should read what Graeme at Nunc Scio says about this. He says it better than I ever could and it'll show you why I used the word hysterical in my first comment.

Can I link to Richler vs. Salutin on Canadian culture now?

It's apt, I think.

Circle? We are doing nothing of the sort, Robert. I think you have shifted to your point again. This is not a circle. That is an abduction.

I encourage you to consider again the constitutional point. I do not care if you like or dislike CTV. The effect of these things on you is a matter of opinion and irrelevant. Also, you are displaying blogger comment maker sequencing syndrome, picking at the last comment. Bad form.

Again, go up and review section 7 of the Charter on autonomy. See you next week.

PS - hysterical is sexist and I don't care who you think justifies it.

Ben: excellent linkage. What would Richler have said someone that says I should be satisfied with CTV and a shadowy committee protecting the "public interest".

And Robert, Nunc Scio's "So please, everyone just relax" is sort of code for "ignore me." Not much there by way of a post actually. Bit of a silly moo. I am sure you can do better that.

hysterical:</sgrong>
1615, from L. hystericus "of the womb," from Gk. hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb" (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Hysterics is 1727; hysteria, abstract noun, formed 1801.

dammit.

See? Sexist! Not that anyone would know it or intend it but it is a good smarty pants bit of knowledge.

It's important to know who wears the smarty pants in the house.

We have smarty socks so as to be more ecumenical.

One more piece of silly (weird) trivia: there have been several revivals, some as late as the '50, of doctors prescribing (the worst kind of) female circumcision to "cure" female "hysteria." And yes, some women have actually consented. (A few of them got pretty angry about it somewhat later, though.)

Further to "so please, everyone just relax", it is important to note that ad hominem has the partner pro hominem. Just as an ad hominem is pointless so is any personification or personal identification with the quality of ideas that are tossed around in blogs.

Any discussion of an idea which honestly suggests it is made by "people who..." or "people like..." or includes phrases like "I’m monitoring Twitter..." or "let’s wait..." are compromised by dependence and have way too much of the personal vested in the game. Smacks of junior leadership club, too. Me, I assume I am mainly wrong and thereby make the discourse more interesting.

Renee --

Gracious! In the 19th century, doctors went the other way, and induced orgasms to treat female "hysteria".

The wheel of history...

Hence the need to not associate too strongly. Things shift.

Already linked up your first RMcL response.

But hysteria is the icing, so to speak, on the cake. Thank you Renee and Ben.

Never mind the pants or socks question - but for the hysteria the vibrator (PBUI) would not have made its appearance until much later in human evolution.

I rest my case.

(Oh, and to try and stay on topic - the CRTC, knowing it technically is incapable of imposing content standards on the net - that work around the error thing - has now decided it is a taxing body. Now, at the moment the production funds are funded by way of conditions of licence. However, the ISP activities of the majors and the minors are not, well, licenced. (And, yes, it is an interesting question as to whether the cable and twisted pair carriage of non-analog signal is an activity which may be licensed by the CRTC as either a broadcast or telecommunications undertaking; but it is also one which can be litigated for donkey's years. (I was indirectly involved with the satellite tv litigation and it went for five years without effort.) )

The CRTC would have to maintain that the part of the cable that takes the internet signals to your house is the same thing as the part that takes the television signals - but it isn't because it is partitioned. And the situation is even dicer with respect to DSL because telecom regulation is a) governed under a different act, b) entirely content neutral.

Basically, the CRTC has a colour of right to regulate cable carried internet content(which is not to say it is a very dark colour) and none at all to regulate telco delivered internet.

Essentially, they are screwed and ACTRA with them. I guess us Canadians will just have to get on with telling our own stories without the CRTC.

(However, in the unlikely event that they do create a pot of cash you bet my blog will be applying.)

Oh, me too. When I was in law school, I was a "youth delegate" or some such thing on the Spicer Commission. When my fellow students indicated their disgust I said "if they are going to throw money in the river, I am getting a net."