12 ms·

Netflix refuses CRTC demand to hand over subscriber data

124 points by randlet 12y ago

otoburb 12y ago
>It was also told to hand over information related to the Canadian content it creates or provides to subscribers. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a mandate to determine whether broadcasters comply with their operating license via a set quota of Canadian-specific content, along with Canadian-content fees. This quote deals with the heart of the matter because Netflix was given an exemption from being classified under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and one of the conditions to maintain this exemption was that the exempted entity would share Canadian subscriber data. I don't believe that Netflix needs to release specific subscriber details (e.g. name, number), but would have needed to release anonymized details broken down by province and potentially city. Since Netflix is choosing not to comply at all will make an interesting test of the CRTC's powers (which are typically quite extensive). I wonder how Hulu and other streaming providers are handling this? A Financial Post article provides a little more detail around this point[1]. [1] http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/19/sparks-fly-as-netflix-balks-at-crtcs-call-for-subscriber-numbers/?__lsa=bf24-9ac9 http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/19/sparks-fly-as-n...
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  How can Netflix be described as a broadcaster? If I start serving streaming video to Canadians from my home do I suddenly fall under CRTC jurisdiction?
  - otoburb 12y ago
    That's exactly the issue at hand! To answer your second question first, streaming video over the Internet was at stake in a 1999 decision around the distinction and definitions of the terms "old" vs. "new media"[1][2], resulting in the "exemption" policy for new media that is now being revisited. Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3]. EDIT: If you happen to stream content to a private audience, I think you'd be exempt just because you're too small of a target to go after. But if you tried to scale your Canadian streaming operation up, you'll probably run afoul of the CRTC without obtaining either a license or at least applying for an exemption. IANAL. [1] http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-197.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-197.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission#Regulation_of_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      >Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3]. No. The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadband delivery (very limited, is working to expand on this to ensure better service quality through the country), telephone, and over the air programming through its regulation of the RF spectrum. What the hell Canada!
      - mhurron 12y ago
        > What the hell Canada! National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway.
        noarchy 12y ago
        >National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway. Your tone will cause you to get downvoted, but there is a certain amount of truth to what you're saying. I think that some people here like to try to define themselves by how they are not American. Cancon exists, by and large, to stem the fears of a cultural invasion from south of the border. But I think this is the fear of a vocal minority. I'd contend that most Canadians don't seem to care about this when it comes time to make their choices as to what they'll watch. Most of the highly-rated television shows are American-made, even if they're being shown on CTV, Global, etc. Only hockey and news seem to be the exceptions. Add Netflix to this, and I think it shows that Canadians want to consume US content, and aren't worried about the alleged consequences.
        cdmckay 12y ago
        So you believe that if there was no Cancon laws that the Canadian cultural identity wouldn't suffer? American culture has an enormous influence on Canadians as it is, and I fear that getting rid of things like Cancon would start to erode our identity further. Americans don't need Cancon-type laws because they're the dominate culture. Smaller cultures like Canada need to be protected so that they may be allowed to develop. For example, numerous musical acts in Canada could never have existed if the government didn't fund them and give them a market to grow in.
  - a-priori 12y ago
    Is Netflix a broadcaster? In some ways, they quack like one, so the CRTC is going to act like they are one until they're told otherwise by the courts. It's in the nature of bureaucracies to attempt to expand their jurisdiction as far as the law will allow and, when a grey area exists, to err on the side of overreaching until they're specifically told they do not have jurisdiction.
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  Does this mean that YouTube needs to have a quota for Canadian specific content you need to watch in Canada?
  - wmil 12y ago
    No. Or rather not yet. The CRTC's position is that they have authority over Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo, Blip, etc but regulations aren't yet needed.
- darryl42 12y ago
  Hulu is not available in Canada so the CRTC should not be interested.
- wmil 12y ago
  A blanket exception for all online services was issued in 1999, in 2007 it was amended to require financial reports when requested. So there's nothing specific to Netflix. However most streaming providers aren't available in Canada. Netflix is the only one who's gone to the trouble of acquiring streaming rights for Canada for major TV/Movies. Google (Youtube) has adopted a similar position to Netflix, but they haven't faced any requests yet.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
bryanlarsen 12y ago
As usual the best reporting of the issue is by Michael Geist: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-geist/crtc-netflix_b_5869106.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-geist/crtc-netflix_b_58...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
fidotron 12y ago
Canada has simply relied on supply side regulation of everything too long, while the Canadian market persists in wanting too many things which are not Canadian. This applies to music, film, TV, aeroplanes, and in the case of Quebec even the spoken language itself. Canada has to move to demand based thinking where if you want to sell Canadian content you have to have a need-or-wants end market for it, not simply force a quota of it on people that was produced with ever increasingly necessary subsidies thanks to how out of touch with the end market it becomes. Make Canadian content more attractive to everyone (including Canadians) and the problem would solve itself.
- smoyer 12y ago
  Maybe it's just a cultural disconnect but it's pretty rare that there's a Canadian television show I'm interested in ... though the number of U.S. shows I find interesting has dropped too. This sort of regulation (eventually) does a serious disservice to the industry. I've replaced television (of all sorts) with streamed video content and/or on-line reading. It's not about the delivery method it's about spending my free time watching/reading the most entertaining content. When I was little, if I hadn't brought books and magazines home from the library, the only "new" content I could be entertained by the television. New regulations on Internet content providers won't solve the CATV viewership problem it will simply push viewers from the (newly regulated) popular content providers to other providers. They're not going back to television unless someone dramatically improves the programming.
- click170 12y ago
  One of the artifacts of this is that Canadian music can sometimes be segregated to its own station, as if "Canadian music" was a genre. XM did this for example. As a Canadian though there are few Canadian shows I'm interested in. Maybe the occasional CBC DocZone, but that's about it. I would like to see more of BBC model over here, it seems to work out swimmingly for them. (Doctor Who, Horizon, Top Gear, This World, and that's before you get to the one-off films)
  - ajlburke 12y ago
    You might want to check out "Orphan Black" then - it's a Canada/BBC co-production and really really good.
Shivetya 12y ago
sounds all very similar to what Netflix found in France. Though since this is not broadcast over the air and user selectable I want to know how Netflix content differs from any other web content?
- aqzman 12y ago
  It really seems to me like the CRTC is going after Netflix because a lot of people watch it on their televisions in place of content they may have otherwise watched on their television.
  - noarchy 12y ago
    There is a substantial amount of pressure from Canadian telecom companies to get companies like Netflix and Youtube to conform to the same regulations that tv/radio deal with here.
- scriptedfate 12y ago
  They get paid. To do business legally in a country, you need to abide by that country's rules. One of Canada's is the "Canadian Content" requirement of broadcasters that says that a certain amount of content being broadcast in Canada to Canadians must also be Canadian. Whether the rule is dumb or counter-productive is immaterial at this juncture. Rules is rules. Netflix quacks like a broadcaster so it falls under the rule, no? Not quite. There's a "new media" exemption that says, in return for giving the CRTC, when asked, statistics on the Canadian consumers of your service, you can be exempt from that particular scrutiny. Netflix was asked. Netflix didn't give the information. Now we see what the CRTC will do. It has every right to ask for an injunction from the courts to shut down Netflix's Canadian operations. But it doesn't want to, because Canadians like Netflix and bringing this to the courts might just be the opening Netflix needs to strike down the information requirement (allowing it to operate in the clear with no conditions until a new regulatory framework is built and approved).
  - msandford 12y ago
    Broadcaster? Not hardly. If Netflix were a broadcaster then at 8PM local time, everyone watching Netflix would be watching the same show. Assuming that Netflix was only a single channel, anyhow. But hey, let's suppose that Netflix has not a single channel but say, 1000 channels. That's way, way way more than cable or satellite or anything like that. Okay, but Netflix has nearly 7000 movies and a bunch of TV shows, so it's not a 1000 channel broadcaster. Let's say that Netflix has one channel for every movie and every show in their collection. That's something like 10000 or more channels (which is way way way more than any other broadcaster in the history of the world has ever offered) and it STILL wouldn't work! Why not? Because you can start watching a Netflix title WHENEVER you want. But let's be reasonable, let's say that they'll run as many channels as they need so that you never have to wait more than a minute to start streaming. Since most of their titles are movies and a movie is on average around 90 minutes long, that's 10k*90 = 900k channels. There you have it folks! In order for Netflix to be a "broadcaster" you've got to assume that they're roughly equivalent to a cable company with in excess of 900,000 channels. If that could be considered "quacking" like something then I quack like a billionare!
LukeB_UK 12y ago
>Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton University journalism professor Dwayne Winseck This bit scares me. The view of an open internet isn't a 'late 1990s' view, it's the view it should always be.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - cwyers 12y ago
    Especially in the case of Microsoft, it's more complicated than that. Microsoft is subject to multiple jurisdictions, being a multi-national. US courts are ordering the part of Microsoft that's under its jurisdiction to do something in another jurisdiction that Microsoft feels is against the law there. It's not that Microsoft feels itself above the law, it is in the position of trying to satisfy mutually incompatible laws, because the US and EU both claim jurisdiction in this matter.
- abandonliberty 12y ago
  Yes, it's unclear. The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Open internet doesn't mean unregulated and lawless. In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet. Patently false in theory and extremely debatable in practic.
    - DavidAdams 12y ago
      Keep in mind that laws may also exist to inhibit the powers of regulatory agencies. I believe that's what wyager is suggesting.
patrickmay 12y ago
Does Netflix have a physical presence (servers) in Canada? If not, isn't it the Canadian ISPs who are technically "broadcasting" by allowing their users to stream Netflix' content?
- scott_karana 12y ago
  That probably wouldn't be a good precedent to set. :P
  - patrickmay 12y ago
    True. I was trying to think like a lawyer. That never ends well.
- jmreid 12y ago
  I know that Canadian ISPs have the Netflix appliances located in their data centres, so technically yes they do serve content from within Canada sometimes.
crazy1van 12y ago
> "Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton University journalism professor Dwayne Winseck, who characterized Wright's appearance as "theatre." Yes, those terrible 90's where a massive industry was born thanks to the internet. An industry that continues to enrich the lives of the entire civilized world while creating tons of wealth. This nightmare must be stopped! Seriously, there may be reasons for a regulated internet, but this particular argument seems silly.
- johngalt 12y ago
  Would politicians care about regulatory control if the internet wasn't generating wealth?
  - adventured 12y ago
    Wealth, free speech, financial transactions, encryption, communication, broadcasting, new forms of currency, data, spying, politics, public awareness, social networks, file sharing, open exchange of ideas. So many reasons for the modern, massive welfare state to hyper regulate the Internet. They've resented the freedom it represents almost since the day the Web was born.
smoyer 12y ago
Is Netfix really a broadcaster? In the cable television industry, sending content to a single subscriber or identified group of subscribers is often called narrowcast.
yawaramin 12y ago
Bewildering. Netflix isn't broadcasting any programming at prearranged times. They should be completely outside CRTC jurisdiction. As a Canadian subscriber, I applaud their guts and hope they keep protecting my privacy.
- hughdbrown 12y ago
  It does not sound to me that Netflix is interested in protecting your privacy. If that happens, well, that is an incidental benefit. "Wright said Netflix was concerned that private corporate information submitted to the commission might later find its way into the public sphere, which could make the service vulnerable to exploitation by its competitors."
  - yawaramin 12y ago
    But that's the beauty of market competition: those who protect their clients, get loyalty from their clients.
roberthahn 12y ago
I fear my comment will be lost in the weeds but here goes: Why exactly does the CRTC need subscriber data? If it's Canadian content they're worried about then maybe they should look at the content not the subscriber? And hey: I'm a subscriber. Don't I get a say in whether anyone but Netflix gets to have access to it? I probably wouldn't be so bothered if the CRTC wasn't made up of people who used to work for Bell, Rogers etc… (conflict of interest?)
merrua 12y ago
The set quota of Canadian-specific content being required to sell to Canadians seems like a good idea.

124 points by randlet 12y ago

>It was also told to hand over information related to the Canadian content it creates or provides to subscribers. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a mandate to determine whether broadcasters comply with their operating license via a set quota of Canadian-specific content, along with Canadian-content fees. This quote deals with the heart of the matter because Netflix was given an exemption from being classified under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and one of the conditions to maintain this exemption was that the exempted entity would share Canadian subscriber data. I don't believe that Netflix needs to release specific subscriber details (e.g. name, number), but would have needed to release anonymized details broken down by province and potentially city. Since Netflix is choosing not to comply at all will make an interesting test of the CRTC's powers (which are typically quite extensive). I wonder how Hulu and other streaming providers are handling this? A Financial Post article provides a little more detail around this point[1]. [1] http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/19/sparks-fly-as-netflix-balks-at-crtcs-call-for-subscriber-numbers/?__lsa=bf24-9ac9 http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/19/sparks-fly-as-n...

toomuchtodo 12y ago
How can Netflix be described as a broadcaster? If I start serving streaming video to Canadians from my home do I suddenly fall under CRTC jurisdiction?
- otoburb 12y ago
  That's exactly the issue at hand! To answer your second question first, streaming video over the Internet was at stake in a 1999 decision around the distinction and definitions of the terms "old" vs. "new media"[1][2], resulting in the "exemption" policy for new media that is now being revisited. Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3]. EDIT: If you happen to stream content to a private audience, I think you'd be exempt just because you're too small of a target to go after. But if you tried to scale your Canadian streaming operation up, you'll probably run afoul of the CRTC without obtaining either a license or at least applying for an exemption. IANAL. [1] http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-197.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-197.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission#Regulation_of_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    >Getting to the root of your first question, the CRTC deems that any media delivered to residents of Canada (i.e. on Canadian soil) is within their jurisdiction. I believe most regulatory bodies operate on similar "boundaries" (e.g. United States FCC), other than maritime bodies that need to delineate a 12-mile radius from their coastline to make the distinction between "territorial" vs. "international" waters[3]. No. The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadband delivery (very limited, is working to expand on this to ensure better service quality through the country), telephone, and over the air programming through its regulation of the RF spectrum. What the hell Canada!
    - mhurron 12y ago
      > What the hell Canada! National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway.
      - noarchy 12y ago
        >National Inferiority Complex. The Canadian content laws are bullshit anyway. Your tone will cause you to get downvoted, but there is a certain amount of truth to what you're saying. I think that some people here like to try to define themselves by how they are not American. Cancon exists, by and large, to stem the fears of a cultural invasion from south of the border. But I think this is the fear of a vocal minority. I'd contend that most Canadians don't seem to care about this when it comes time to make their choices as to what they'll watch. Most of the highly-rated television shows are American-made, even if they're being shown on CTV, Global, etc. Only hockey and news seem to be the exceptions. Add Netflix to this, and I think it shows that Canadians want to consume US content, and aren't worried about the alleged consequences.
        cdmckay 12y ago
        So you believe that if there was no Cancon laws that the Canadian cultural identity wouldn't suffer? American culture has an enormous influence on Canadians as it is, and I fear that getting rid of things like Cancon would start to erode our identity further. Americans don't need Cancon-type laws because they're the dominate culture. Smaller cultures like Canada need to be protected so that they may be allowed to develop. For example, numerous musical acts in Canada could never have existed if the government didn't fund them and give them a market to grow in.
- a-priori 12y ago
  Is Netflix a broadcaster? In some ways, they quack like one, so the CRTC is going to act like they are one until they're told otherwise by the courts. It's in the nature of bureaucracies to attempt to expand their jurisdiction as far as the law will allow and, when a grey area exists, to err on the side of overreaching until they're specifically told they do not have jurisdiction.
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
Does this mean that YouTube needs to have a quota for Canadian specific content you need to watch in Canada?
- wmil 12y ago
  No. Or rather not yet. The CRTC's position is that they have authority over Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo, Blip, etc but regulations aren't yet needed.
darryl42 12y ago
Hulu is not available in Canada so the CRTC should not be interested.
wmil 12y ago
A blanket exception for all online services was issued in 1999, in 2007 it was amended to require financial reports when requested. So there's nothing specific to Netflix. However most streaming providers aren't available in Canada. Netflix is the only one who's gone to the trouble of acquiring streaming rights for Canada for major TV/Movies. Google (Youtube) has adopted a similar position to Netflix, but they haven't faced any requests yet.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

bryanlarsen 12y ago

As usual the best reporting of the issue is by Michael Geist: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-geist/crtc-netflix_b_5869106.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-geist/crtc-netflix_b_58...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

fidotron 12y ago

Canada has simply relied on supply side regulation of everything too long, while the Canadian market persists in wanting too many things which are not Canadian. This applies to music, film, TV, aeroplanes, and in the case of Quebec even the spoken language itself. Canada has to move to demand based thinking where if you want to sell Canadian content you have to have a need-or-wants end market for it, not simply force a quota of it on people that was produced with ever increasingly necessary subsidies thanks to how out of touch with the end market it becomes. Make Canadian content more attractive to everyone (including Canadians) and the problem would solve itself.

smoyer 12y ago
Maybe it's just a cultural disconnect but it's pretty rare that there's a Canadian television show I'm interested in ... though the number of U.S. shows I find interesting has dropped too. This sort of regulation (eventually) does a serious disservice to the industry. I've replaced television (of all sorts) with streamed video content and/or on-line reading. It's not about the delivery method it's about spending my free time watching/reading the most entertaining content. When I was little, if I hadn't brought books and magazines home from the library, the only "new" content I could be entertained by the television. New regulations on Internet content providers won't solve the CATV viewership problem it will simply push viewers from the (newly regulated) popular content providers to other providers. They're not going back to television unless someone dramatically improves the programming.
click170 12y ago
One of the artifacts of this is that Canadian music can sometimes be segregated to its own station, as if "Canadian music" was a genre. XM did this for example. As a Canadian though there are few Canadian shows I'm interested in. Maybe the occasional CBC DocZone, but that's about it. I would like to see more of BBC model over here, it seems to work out swimmingly for them. (Doctor Who, Horizon, Top Gear, This World, and that's before you get to the one-off films)
- ajlburke 12y ago
  You might want to check out "Orphan Black" then - it's a Canada/BBC co-production and really really good.

Shivetya 12y ago

sounds all very similar to what Netflix found in France. Though since this is not broadcast over the air and user selectable I want to know how Netflix content differs from any other web content?

aqzman 12y ago
It really seems to me like the CRTC is going after Netflix because a lot of people watch it on their televisions in place of content they may have otherwise watched on their television.
- noarchy 12y ago
  There is a substantial amount of pressure from Canadian telecom companies to get companies like Netflix and Youtube to conform to the same regulations that tv/radio deal with here.
scriptedfate 12y ago
They get paid. To do business legally in a country, you need to abide by that country's rules. One of Canada's is the "Canadian Content" requirement of broadcasters that says that a certain amount of content being broadcast in Canada to Canadians must also be Canadian. Whether the rule is dumb or counter-productive is immaterial at this juncture. Rules is rules. Netflix quacks like a broadcaster so it falls under the rule, no? Not quite. There's a "new media" exemption that says, in return for giving the CRTC, when asked, statistics on the Canadian consumers of your service, you can be exempt from that particular scrutiny. Netflix was asked. Netflix didn't give the information. Now we see what the CRTC will do. It has every right to ask for an injunction from the courts to shut down Netflix's Canadian operations. But it doesn't want to, because Canadians like Netflix and bringing this to the courts might just be the opening Netflix needs to strike down the information requirement (allowing it to operate in the clear with no conditions until a new regulatory framework is built and approved).
- msandford 12y ago
  Broadcaster? Not hardly. If Netflix were a broadcaster then at 8PM local time, everyone watching Netflix would be watching the same show. Assuming that Netflix was only a single channel, anyhow. But hey, let's suppose that Netflix has not a single channel but say, 1000 channels. That's way, way way more than cable or satellite or anything like that. Okay, but Netflix has nearly 7000 movies and a bunch of TV shows, so it's not a 1000 channel broadcaster. Let's say that Netflix has one channel for every movie and every show in their collection. That's something like 10000 or more channels (which is way way way more than any other broadcaster in the history of the world has ever offered) and it STILL wouldn't work! Why not? Because you can start watching a Netflix title WHENEVER you want. But let's be reasonable, let's say that they'll run as many channels as they need so that you never have to wait more than a minute to start streaming. Since most of their titles are movies and a movie is on average around 90 minutes long, that's 10k*90 = 900k channels. There you have it folks! In order for Netflix to be a "broadcaster" you've got to assume that they're roughly equivalent to a cable company with in excess of 900,000 channels. If that could be considered "quacking" like something then I quack like a billionare!

LukeB_UK 12y ago

>Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton University journalism professor Dwayne Winseck This bit scares me. The view of an open internet isn't a 'late 1990s' view, it's the view it should always be.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- cwyers 12y ago
  Especially in the case of Microsoft, it's more complicated than that. Microsoft is subject to multiple jurisdictions, being a multi-national. US courts are ordering the part of Microsoft that's under its jurisdiction to do something in another jurisdiction that Microsoft feels is against the law there. It's not that Microsoft feels itself above the law, it is in the position of trying to satisfy mutually incompatible laws, because the US and EU both claim jurisdiction in this matter.
abandonliberty 12y ago
Yes, it's unclear. The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Open internet doesn't mean unregulated and lawless. In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet.
- wyager 12y ago
  >In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet. Patently false in theory and extremely debatable in practic.
  - DavidAdams 12y ago
    Keep in mind that laws may also exist to inhibit the powers of regulatory agencies. I believe that's what wyager is suggesting.

patrickmay 12y ago

Does Netflix have a physical presence (servers) in Canada? If not, isn't it the Canadian ISPs who are technically "broadcasting" by allowing their users to stream Netflix' content?

scott_karana 12y ago
That probably wouldn't be a good precedent to set. :P
- patrickmay 12y ago
  True. I was trying to think like a lawyer. That never ends well.
jmreid 12y ago
I know that Canadian ISPs have the Netflix appliances located in their data centres, so technically yes they do serve content from within Canada sometimes.

crazy1van 12y ago

> "Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton University journalism professor Dwayne Winseck, who characterized Wright's appearance as "theatre." Yes, those terrible 90's where a massive industry was born thanks to the internet. An industry that continues to enrich the lives of the entire civilized world while creating tons of wealth. This nightmare must be stopped! Seriously, there may be reasons for a regulated internet, but this particular argument seems silly.

johngalt 12y ago
Would politicians care about regulatory control if the internet wasn't generating wealth?
- adventured 12y ago
  Wealth, free speech, financial transactions, encryption, communication, broadcasting, new forms of currency, data, spying, politics, public awareness, social networks, file sharing, open exchange of ideas. So many reasons for the modern, massive welfare state to hyper regulate the Internet. They've resented the freedom it represents almost since the day the Web was born.

smoyer 12y ago

Is Netfix really a broadcaster? In the cable television industry, sending content to a single subscriber or identified group of subscribers is often called narrowcast.

yawaramin 12y ago

Bewildering. Netflix isn't broadcasting any programming at prearranged times. They should be completely outside CRTC jurisdiction. As a Canadian subscriber, I applaud their guts and hope they keep protecting my privacy.

hughdbrown 12y ago
It does not sound to me that Netflix is interested in protecting your privacy. If that happens, well, that is an incidental benefit. "Wright said Netflix was concerned that private corporate information submitted to the commission might later find its way into the public sphere, which could make the service vulnerable to exploitation by its competitors."
- yawaramin 12y ago
  But that's the beauty of market competition: those who protect their clients, get loyalty from their clients.

roberthahn 12y ago

I fear my comment will be lost in the weeds but here goes: Why exactly does the CRTC need subscriber data? If it's Canadian content they're worried about then maybe they should look at the content not the subscriber? And hey: I'm a subscriber. Don't I get a say in whether anyone but Netflix gets to have access to it? I probably wouldn't be so bothered if the CRTC wasn't made up of people who used to work for Bell, Rogers etc… (conflict of interest?)

merrua 12y ago

The set quota of Canadian-specific content being required to sell to Canadians seems like a good idea.