CRTC Hearings: OpenMedia Calls for Bill C-11 Implementation to Not Harm the Digital Ecosystem

Our coverage of the CRTC hearings into the Online Streaming Act continues. Today, we cover what OpenMedia has to say (among others).

We are reaching the last portions of the current round of the CRTC hearings. It has been another long series to say the least, but a long series that a lot can be learned from. This includes what people’s positions are, how some positions feed on each other, why some of the stances are quite reasonable, why other stances are so wildly off the mark, and getting a much more full understanding of the new law in general as a result.

Our coverage has been wide ranging and covers numerous players. This includes the hearings of Spotify, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Google/YouTube, Bell, Rogers, Corus, Shaftesbury, Digital First Canada, ACTRA, Unifor, FRIENDS, Michael Geist, Tubi, CBC, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. So, if you want a better idea of what I have been reading through, the links in that list will point you in all the directions I have been in over the last while.

Today, we are covering the hearing that involves digital rights organization, OpenMedia. One thing I did notice right away wasn’t anything that was said, but rather, who was part of the hearing. This is because the hearing crammed three organizations into one: OpenMedia, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the National Pensioners Federation. The thing that is notable here is that the CRTC had no problem rolling out the red carpet for lobbyists, granting them individual hearings where they could make their cases. FRIENDS got their own hearing. Bell got their own hearing. Rogers got their own hearing. ACTRA got their own hearing. CAB got their own hearing.

Yet, when it comes to what is in the interests of Canadian consumers, that got mixed into a jumble of other seemingly “miscellaneous” hearings. It’s almost as if the rights of consumers were little more than an afterthought. After all, the CRTC organized these hearings and determined who gets to speak in the first place. So, it’s not as though this was somehow an accident. To compound things, the rights of consumers was barely even mentioned in many of these hearings. At one point, there was the comment that the interests of the lobbyists are the interests of consumers (nothing could be further from the truth, there). Once a group actually representing consumers are included (and it was good that they were permitted to have a say at all), it’s seemingly treated as some minor miscellaneous voice rather than front and centre. It’s a frustrating thing to see.

Still, they did have a voice, so we will jump into this hearing and try to make sense of this jumble. The transcript of this hearing can be found on the CRTC website, so you can follow what as said along with me. For clarity, Lawford is PIAC, McAuliffe is the National Pensioners Federation, and Hatfield is OpenMedia. There are other names strewn about as well in there to make matters even more confusing when reading the transcript.

In the opening statement, OpenMedia put forth a very unifying comment about how whatever funds get raised from the Online Streaming Act, those funds should go back to helping to grow Canadian culture and allow the digital ecosystem to flourish:

11161 MR. HATFIELD: OpenMedia community members sent over 200,000 messages during the legislative process and they expect you to implement C‑11 in a fair and rights‑respecting manner. OpenMedia appearing here today is extraordinarily important to the many people in Canada who rarely get the opportunity to appear at a CRTC hearing themselves.

11162 We appreciate that our discussion today is centered on a relatively narrow set of initial discussions about who pays into the system and how much they should pay. But your later decisions about who can access the funds on what terms will have clear consequences for how much should be asked, and of whom.

11163 The funds drawn into the system today must be used to sponsor the growth of a flourishing, self‑sustaining online ecosystem for our culture, not taken from digital platforms to use in offline cultural production.

This is generally a very common sense call to make and it is extremely unfortunate that this is a rare thing to see in these physical hearings. When it comes to generating wealth in the online ecosystem, it is often Canadian creators themselves who are generating that wealth. These creators are often told by legacy media and others that the internet is generally a waste of time and no one makes money on the internet among other comments. They chose to ignore that messaging and forge out on their own to try their luck anyway. In a number of cases, Canadian creators wind up being successful despite the many obstacles put in their path.

These creators generally form a partnership with the platforms. The platforms host their content and the creators access the platforms audience. Additionally, the audience on those platforms get more great content. So, it’s basically a win-win-win for all involved. The problem, however, is that legacy media companies are frustrated with this arrangement because they feel that they should have a monopoly on that audience. The idea of someone outside of their spheres of influence making it big makes them seethe with rage because no one outside of their sphere of influence should be allowed to become successful as far a the legacy media organizations are concerned. The legacy media organizations want to retain that control over who succeeds and fails in the world of multimedia, end of story.

What legacy media organizations are envisioning with this process is a system where they just extract the wealth and profit from the online ecosystem and keep it for themselves. If a small business creates a video that generates, say, $25,000 on a platform, well, the legacy media feels that they should be entitled to that wealth. This despite the fact that the legacy media had nothing to do with the generation of that wealth or the creation of that video in the first place.

That’s why it is common sense that if there is going to be the creation of various funds, then those funds should be directed to Canadians who are generating that wealth in the first place. If Canadian creators are creating video’s on TikTok, for instance, then it would make sense that they get access to some of the funds generated by these funds in the first place. For legacy media, however, they believe that the funds should generally be off limits to those creators as they take that wealth for themselves. That’s partly why, throughout these hearings, many of these lobbyists are fighting over what percentage of the revenues goes to their respective operations instead. Personally, I consider the legacy media companies calls just straight up theft from creators.

Of course, it’s not just theft from creators. It is also theft from consumers as well. If consumers pay a subscription to a platform, then this legislation envisions that money going to legacy media. The best case scenario is that those subscription rates go up substantially to pay for the Online Streaming Act requirements to pay legacy media. So, if you are paying Netflix to watch The Walking Dead, what you are ultimately doing is paying not only the subscription rate, but also the Online Streaming Act tax on top of it all so that legacy media like the CBC can continue producing shows you have no interest in watching (i.e. Family Feud Canada). It’s a ridiculous system that harms Canadian consumers in the end.

OpenMedia expanded on their call for a funding model that benefits Canadian creators instead of propping up the legacy media of the past:

11167 MR. HATFIELD: OpenMedia does have a suggestion based on our members’ interests that will benefit digital producers and content consumers and signpost the way to the future.

11168 We noted the CMF’s new digital creators project and we support it in principle, but we would encourage the Commission to greatly expand the focus and funding for digital creators, increasing funding each year as base contributions come in. We propose 5 million be set aside for this purpose, and to increase funding by 5 million per year to a total of $25 million in year 5. This will incent present players to invest in and believe in digital media and encourage present and future Canadian online creators to stay and thrive in the business.

The CMF digital creators project is, in fact, something we touched on before. As we noted, the fund sets aside a paltry $500,000 for the entire online creator ecosystem (which is absolutely massive). It was a hugely controversial figure because the CMF was set to get $600 million in extra funding, yet they only set aside a fraction of a percentage of the funding for the very creators partly responsible for the generation of that wealth. Not surprisingly, many observers consider the amount an “insult”.

Even worse, the CMF set criteria that is so insanely onerous that no one in their right mind would attempt to take the CMF up on their offer to begin with. Essentially, you have to have hundreds of thousands of views and tens of thousands of followers before you would even have a starting chance to qualify. What’s more, you have to be posting content that is not something that 90% of what is on YouTube is about, you can’t have sponsorship deals already in place, and you must jump through numerous other hurdles in order to qualify for any funding at all. Again, this fund was set up just to impress politicians and is designed to exclude pretty much every online creator in existence.

So, it’s great to see a push that recommends setting up a proper funding model for the small digital creators who are helping to build the online ecosystem. At the very least, one would hope that a funding model would be set up that recognizes the challenges and realities facing small Canadian creators trying to make it big in the world today.

During the question and answer period, there were questions about the issue of “balance”. For example, there was this exchange:

11185 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. That’s very helpful context.

11186 So you’ve talked about the need to balance and, you know, we have, on one end of the spectrum, a lot of danger, is the word that you used, in terms of asking the online broadcasters to pay too much because the fear there is that they may exit. At the other end of the spectrum, we have danger again, which is, in your words, the uncontrolled abandonment of the system.

11187 So I think what you’re suggesting is we try to find something in the middle, and then you’ve added the three goals. So we need to ensure we’re equalizing contribution requirements, providing some relief for traditional broadcasters and increasing the contributions to the funds overall.

11188 And I’m wondering as part of all that as we try to figure out where that all shakes out, what is the ideal outcome here for Canadians?

11189 You just talked about how you represent Canadians and what their views are. What is it after we do all the middle ground and get to all the goals ‑‑ what’s that ultimate outcome?

11190 MR. LAWFORD: I’ll start and perhaps some others will add.

11191 We also try to emphasize the word “transition”. This is going to be a turbulent time and it’s going to take some time, so what we’re trying to preserve is access for people that use the traditional system and those that might be using more online approaches in the hopes that the germs of a new approach, for example, local medias fund, will be started in this hearing and be allowed to grow. So if that’s the direction that the broadcasting system goes in, Canadians can play a part, all Canadians, not just folks in the established system.

11192 So we’re really trying to frame this as there’s going to be a period where both have to exist and the obligations that people are used to, as you heard, on like CPE, for example, on the traditional broadcasting side have to be translated into the new language for the online undertakings.

11193 And so that’s a tricky process and I think there’s no one answer. It’ll be different as you go along, but as long as it’s principled, it should be all right.

11194 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah. I mean, I think we’ve taken some of the stated objectives of this change to the Broadcasting Act very literally. So it is about telling Canadian stories online and how do we tell stories and build culture in an increasingly digital environment.

11195 And so that’s where, you know, my colleague, Ramneet, and I have been saying it is so important that we are reaching people in the ways of speaking, the formats that work for them, and young Canadians have a particular online experience that we need to make sure we’re actually encouraging and rewarding and translating some of the maybe more traditional Canadian storytelling into things that are going to flourish and succeed and find their audience in those spaces.

It’s a very important point to raise in response. The habits of Canadian’s consuming media has changed in the last 25 years. Once upon a time, Canadian’s generally consumed media through traditional radio and television. That shift has happened where more and more media is consumed online. This is because people can better pick and choose what kind of media they want to consume and get that media on demand.

It’s a perspective that is stating the glaringly obvious at this stage, but it sadly needs to be stated because there are those who still think that newspapers are still the go-to source for staying informed about everything. That’s kind of laughable especially in the context of newspapers increasingly being sources that do little more than carry water for whatever political party they are backing rather than actually being a source that objectively reports the news these days.

In another exchange, apparently, it was news to the commissioners that the current funding model doesn’t really support digital creators. This is not really news, but apparently, it was for that commissioner:

11215 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thanks for being here. I have a question for OpenMedia. So, you just proposed in your submission that the Commission should direct the Canada Media Fund to expand funding for digital creators and set aside five million dollars a year. However, as you may be aware, the Commission can’t direct the Canada Media Fund to do anything; we don’t have jurisdiction over its decisions ‑‑ its funding decisions. But I want to get to the core of what you’re asking or what you’re trying to say, because are we to understand from your suggestion that you believe the current funding system doesn’t prioritize digital creators enough?

11216 MR. HATFIELD: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think we’re trying to look at the long game and the picture of where we’re trying to get. And so, I mean, many of our community members are seniors, and for some of them, the traditional outlets are absolutely essential. And so, you know, we’re very happy to be appearing here with Trish and that side of the picture. But we’re trying to look at, like, where will we be five, ten, fifteen years down the road? And we can see that for many of our younger community members, so much of our culture is going to be produced by digital creators in conversation with each other and with their audiences, and so, not providing some level of support for both new players and for some of the traditional creators to transition to those spaces, I think, would be a huge miss ‑‑ and not setting the system up for success, certainly.

11217 MS. BHULLAR: I also just want to add, I feel like it’s an accessibility question for a lot of creators too I’ve spoken with ‑‑ creators numerous times throughout this process, and a lot of them have just struggled getting past a lot of the bureaucratic processes and are really struggling with some of the administrative stuff that comes up with these processes ‑‑ applying for funds, all of that stuff. So, there isn’t really even any support to access these funds for a lot of creators that are up‑and‑coming and really want to be able to, like, flourish. They just don’t feel supported enough.

We actually put this to the test a while back. During the Bill C-11 senate hearings, the CMF told senators that they support Canadian creators. In fact, they went so far as to say that they are actively looking for creators to fund, going so far as to contact platforms directly to ask about creators they can fund. For reasons that should be REALLY obvious, we didn’t believe a word of it.

So, in response to these comments, we directly contacted the CMF ourselves. In our message, we weren’t asking for funding. We weren’t even asking for special favours or how to help grow our YouTube channel. What did we ask? A very basic question: should we apply for any of their funding projects. That’s it. We set the bar so low, you could accidentally trip over it. To the surprise of no one, the CMF refused to even respond to our inquiry at all. It proved one thing: the CMF has zero interest in helping online Canadian creators. Nada. Zilch. None. The results aren’t surprising, but we needed the proof and we got it in spades.

Ultimately, yes, it’s not news that the system doesn’t help Canadian creators working in the online space. So, for both people responding, what they said was absolutely true.

In another exchange, OpenMedia noted that we shouldn’t be creating Canadian culture just for museum purposes:

11229 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I want to ask a question about how we set Canadians up to be competitive in this new online streaming industry. There is a lot of people who have said that we should invest more in the beginning of the pipeline ‑‑ you know, setting people up for success with training in the audiovisual industry. Can you give me some thoughts on that and, you know, how we can set Canadians up for success?

11230 MR. LAWFORD: I’m going to let Matt start.

11231 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah. I mean, I think many, many digital creators in Canada now would say, “We’re already pretty competitive.” Like, there’s some pretty great creators doing very well out there. I think the question from our perspective is, how can we bring in even more than we have currently? And how can we make sure that a variety of groups that face more barriers to access any kind of expressive system have a good access there? So, our community, in their comments, they have a lot of enthusiasm for training of various sorts, for equipment startup costs, potentially for certain types of content for some level of subsidization.

11232 I think the thing that you also see though is that people want to make sure their content finds its audience ultimately. So, there’s maybe some pent‑up frustration from years of feeling, like, “Yes, I believe in Can con. Yes, I want it. I don’t know if I am seeing the content that really speaks to me come from the Can con stream.” And of course there’s a wide variety of content that’s going to speak to different people, but I guess our community wouldn’t be enthusiastic about a pipeline where it just continues indefinitely and there’s never an incentive to ensure, you know, the audience is actually there, that the culture is not just being created in a vacuum but is being created for Canadians amongst Canadians. So, the desire there is to just see it’s not just numbers; it’s just, like, did a million Canadians see this? For some creators, it might be that, but did a particular, you know, local town or region ‑‑ was there a lot of enthusiasm on some metrics for the content that came out of there? Was a particular Canadian community measured in a different way actually showing signs that the audience had been found for what was produced, rather than, you know, sort of if we’re creating culture in a vacuum, are we creating culture at all? Right? This is supposed to be telling our stories to each other; it’s not just doing it for museum purposes.

Indeed, this has been a longstanding problem where there is a system that creates content for the sake of creating content. There is no thought about the audience, but rather, did “X” get created? If so, culture is being supported. The idea that it’s actually being received by an audience is, at most, an afterthought. It’s also a big reason why so many support the concept of “Cancon”, yet there’s very little “Cancon” out there that is actually making an impact on a wider audience.

Some describe the system as a pipeline of mediocrity that almost no one has an interest in watching or hearing in the first place. Anything that doesn’t fit in a specific mould is cast out of the system while people who kid themselves into believing they know what the audience wants (when they really don’t) continue to produce content that few have an interest in watching. It’s precisely these problems that force many of the actual talent to seek out their fortunes outside of the country. If they make it big, then the cultural elite in Canada may or may no welcome that talent back into Canada afterwards. It’s a very anti-creator environment that punishes people still trying to get their start for not being world famous. It’s a very stupid system.

OpenMedia also expanded on this point later on:

11240 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah. So, you know, we’re here to speak on behalf of ordinary people in their identities as consumers, but also increasingly their identities as digital producers and creators. I think we’re entering a world in which almost everyone on some level is going to be doing some level of that. And there is a few directions we could see things go wrong if things aren’t set up in the right way, and one of them is of course if we start treating almost everyone in Canada as if they’re a giant broadcasting producer, there’s huge expression risks that can emerge from that. And so, we worry about that.

11241 We also worry about the system not being accessible to support Canadian cultural creators, even on a very small level, because so much is being done and is going to be done to revitalize our culture, to build new forms of culture in Canada, and if we’re treating that as sort of an irritant ‑‑ something that’s happening on the side when the quote, unquote “real culture” is happening over here ‑‑ I think we’re going to go very awry and we’re going to miss huge opportunities to actually support an incredible cultural production in Canada.

This touches on the algorithm debate. Indeed, throughout the debate, there was a lot of comments made about the algorithms that help to decide what content is visible to a prospective audience member and what isn’t. What the lobbyists were envisioning here is that the CRTC gets to dictate the outcomes of those decisions and tells the platforms to promote specific pieces of content over everyone else – overriding user choice in the process. That very easily translates to the very real possibility of Canadian creators having their content sent into a cultural black hole because some mainstream broadcaster decided that they deserve the audience more than that small creator.

Another point this touches on is the fact that consumers are finding themselves becoming producers of content as well. This is a very fundamental shift in how things work in today’s society. We saw brief flashes of that in the past where broadcasters would broadcast footage “sent in by a viewer”. The consumer also became a producer for a brief moment in time. The internet and the platforms take that concept to the next level where it isn’t just, say, a newscast deciding to air something or not. Instead, the platforms just takes everything and it’s up to the audience to decide if they want to watch that content or not. The line between consumers of digital media and creators of digital media is very blurry and the two camps are very fluid in that people regularly go between consumers and creators much more than ever before.

This is very likely why organizations like OpenMedia are not only advocating for the rights of consumers, but also the rights of the digital first creators as well. People go back and forth between consumer and producer all of the time. I know because I’m one of them myself.

OpenMedia ultimately presented a very common sense perspective in all of this. They hit on many of the points that needed to be hit. I’m admittedly cynical in all of this and think that the CRTC will ignore this common sense in favour of whatever the legacy media lobbyists want out of this. This as they ignore the interests of digital first creators and consumers alike. Still, I think it’s a positive thing that OpenMedia was allowed to speak before the CRTC in the first place. So, that’s something, right?

Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.