Outgoing CRTC Head Says Technology Is Eroding Canadian Culture 404
Patchw0rk F0g writes "Canada's outgoing CRTC head, Konrad von Finckenstein, has some choice words for his successor: Internet and wireless technology has disarmed federal regulators of their weapons to protect cultural identity. The retiring Finckenstein cites over-the-top broadcasting, new Internet technologies and (perhaps most importantly) the fact that the CRTC is antiquated and can't keep up with these emerging technologies as factors in the (still)-growing culture-loss of Canada to the U.S. 'We have now moved into an era where the consumer is in control, and where thanks to the Internet and mobile devices, you cannot control access any more,' he said in one of his last interviews."
Translation from Canadian CorpoSpeak (Score:5, Informative)
"Technology is eroding the iron hegemony of Bell and Rogers! Sheeple Canadians are starting to wake up and realize they are being bent over a barrel and are getting restless!"
The CRTC is an unelected, largely unaccountable old-boy's club for power-players and lobbyists from Bell and Rogers. The CRTC's only mandate is protecting the duopoly of Rogers and Bell, nothing else.
Nationalist Culture (Score:3, Informative)
All the posts I'm reading are "Canada has no culture". Seriously?
Of course Canada has a culture; Quebec has a more unique example, but for English Canada there are a lot of cultural similarities between their culture and the United States' culture, so most of those characteristics are subsumed under the US cultural umbrella. Canada's resulting perceived culture is more fragmented, less in your face than other cultures. We could easily lose these fragments and become more 'international' (though most English speaking Canadians get information from english speaking countries, so that means the US and UK mostly). All nationalist cultures will face this in the coming years.
The question, really, is does this constitute a problem? It's a question of identity: 'what cultural groups do you identify with?'. Nationalism has a very real hold on our identity. We need that feeling of belonging to something, and everybody is born into a nation. However, online experience has already show us that 'virtual reality' provides that feeling of belonging and the groups with which we identify and to which we belong have changed drastically. This is a fragmentation of previous groups, and of course the previously established cultural groups are going to fight back.
Of course, the results of this fragmentation remain to be seen. Maybe it's better to belong to a group that all your neighbours belong to so that we share something in common with them, and some weak nationalism has a greater value then we currently understand. Maybe the explosion of smaller groups will allow a stronger connection within the group while a weaker without. I personally think that both are useful, and that Canadians should want to understand their culture, just as all other nations should want to understand their own culture. Having to legislate it in fear of losing it shows mistrust on one side and disinterest on the other, an ugly combination.
Re:Anachronism (Score:3, Informative)
He's actually complaining that they can't control what we watch, or where we get it from, and that it also threatens cable companies' revenues. You are correct, in that he's trying to keep the iron grip in tact.
As a Canadian, we usually have to deal with a certain percentage of Canadian programming and channels. For example, for every 2-3 non-Canadian channels available to be subscribed to there had to be 1 or 2 Canadian channels as well. Actual percentages differ but that is the general idea.
Now that they can't control the above channel lineup due to media being available online to stream (NetFlix, etc) they are now worried about two things:
1) We can watch whatever we want, in whatever percentages we want, without being limited to what's available from our local broadcaster
2) We don't have to subscribe to our local broadcaster, which is the real reason they're worried about this - it is causing a decline in cable subscriptions
I welcome this change, as do many Canadians, as is apparent by the decline in subscriptions and adoption of (more affordable) online streaming services.
If these companies really were offering value for our money, this wouldn't happen - but having to purchase 45 channels when we only really watch 4-5 of them is ridiculous. Being forced to upgrade to digital TV, and pay even more, when we can't even utilize it due to older TVs etc is also ridiculous.
For "basic" cable service, only a few years ago, used to cost around $50/month. If you order it today, it will cost around $90/month. There aren't many more channels to be had that are actually useful; the channel line-up is closer to 200+ channels, but many of them are in foreign languages, are pay-per-view, or are simply radio stations or "home shopping". Not much more value for the added amount we've been forced to pay, unless you speak languages other than English or enjoy watching infomercials or pay-to-watch content.
Good ol' Konrad also has his head in the clouds, as the customer has little to no actual control and only a small handful of choices that reflect what's best for the broadcaster. The major cities (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) are a little better than others in terms of providers/choices, but you're usually limited to 1 cable provider OR satellite from a couple different providers, both being equally as expensive since the advent of digital cable.
Re:Translation from Canadian CorpoSpeak (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Rogers or Bell offer anything but cell phones in over half the country. If you live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in the west, and much of eastern Canada as well, you cannot get TV or Internet via Rogers with the exception of 3/4g at 500mb for $50 a month. It is the same with Bell.
But you claim to have an idea of Canadian culture.
Additionally, the mandate of the CRTC is to ensure that Canada's providers are protecting Canada's cultural sovereignty.
"the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;"
In other words, the CRTC was created to protect Canada's sovereignty over the airwaves quite simply because TV/Radio were deemed a threat to it. For the CRTC to note that this and new technologies continue to threaten our Cultural is already something that both the government and CRTC claim and believe based upon the CRTC's continued support.
Now, whether or not this is good or bad, I've no clear opinion.....
Favorite old joke (Score:4, Informative)
Canada could have had British Culture, French Cuisine, and American Technology. Instead, they settled for American Culture, British Cuisine, and French Technology.
Re:Translation from Canadian CorpoSpeak (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Rogers or Bell offer anything but cell phones in over half the country. If you live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in the west, and much of eastern Canada as well, you cannot get TV or Internet via Rogers with the exception of 3/4g at 500mb for $50 a month. It is the same with Bell.
But you claim to have an idea of Canadian culture.
Just because a company does not operate nation-wide, that does not mean that it cannot be a monopoly/duopoly. You just need to change your market definition from "Canada-wide Internet Access" to "Internet Access in B.C." or "Internet Access in Ontario." In fact, Shaw and Rogers did a swap back in 2000 to concentrate their networks along these lines: http://www.businessedge.ca/archives/article.cfm/shaw-and-rogers-in-4-billion-swap-4992 [businessedge.ca]
What the original poster meant was that, in any given market in Canada, there are at most two companies then own lines into someone's home. If you're in BC, it's Telus and Shaw. If you're in Ontario, it's Bell and Rogers. In any case, these two companies are doing their best to ensure there is not a third line coming into the house, so they can keep their prices artificially high for as long as possible.
Re:Canadian Culture? What's that aboot? (Score:5, Informative)
Everything's derivative at best. I would argue that The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are derivative of This Hour Has 22 Minutes [wikipedia.org]. I also wouldn't call shows like Kids in the Hall [wikipedia.org] short lived when it aired for 6 years.
Saying Canada has no culture and that anyone of sufficient talent ends up in the US and effectively becomes more "American" than their country of origin is a pretty nonsensical statement. The NHL is filled with primarily Canadian players but most of the teams are American. Does that make all those Canadians playing in the US more "American"? Does it make hockey more "American"?
Canada's culture is one of individualism, tolerance and acceptance. The nation needed bilingualism to survive from it's very early stages and because it was much slower to be settled than the US, the native populations thrived much longer and had much more influence on Canada as nation. Multiculturalism is built into the foundation of the country, which can't be said of most other countries in the world (especially not the US which aimed to be a giant melting pot that assimilated other cultures into their own rather than preserve and nurture individual cultural groups).
The British aren't known for lumberjacks, beavers, poutine or long harsh winters the last time I checked. They had no Terry Fox [wikipedia.org], Tragically Hip [wikipedia.org], RCMP [wikipedia.org] or Anne of Green Gables [wikipedia.org]. For such a small nation Canada has produced a wealth of artists, musicians, authors, comedians, athletes, television shows and film. If you're blind to it, then that's a shame but Canada has culture and it's a lot deeper and more complicated than you seem to realize.