Podcasts by Mingo Hagen CC BY 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/4fxWtr

Podcasts by Mingo Hagen CC BY 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/4fxWtr

News

What the CRTC’s New Registration Requirements Mean for Regulating Everything from Online News Services to Podcast Providers

The CRTC last week released the first two of what is likely to become at least a dozen decisions involving the Online Streaming Act (aka Bill C-11). The decision, which attracted considerable commentary over the weekend, involves mandatory registration rules for audio and visual services that include far more than the large streaming services. The Commission says the registrations would give it “de minimis information about online undertakings and their activities in Canada, which would give the Commission an initial understanding of the Canadian online broadcasting landscape and would allow it to communicate with online undertakings.” By contrast, the inclusion of registration requirements for a wide range of undertakings, including some podcast services, online news sites, adult content sites, and social media left some characterizing it as a podcast registry or part of “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes.” So what’s the reality? As is often the case, it is not as bad as critics would suggest, but not nearly as benign as the CRTC would have you believe. 

To understand what is at play, some context is needed. Bill C-11 (and C-10 before it) included registration requirements from the moment it was introduced, perhaps as a response to a showdown at the CRTC many years ago in which Netflix refused to disclose confidential information to the regulator on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction and concerns about maintaining confidentiality. Given the government’s insistence that the bill was about “web giants”, one could be forgiven for assuming that the registration would be limited to those larger players. Yet internally, officials knew that the bill applied to far more than just large Internet streamers. As I posted back in May 2021, the government’s approach was to apply Canadian broadcast law to everyone: any audio or video service anywhere in the world, including news sites, podcasts, audiobooks and adult sites. The only question was what limits the CRTC might establish through new rules on exemptions (the government could also do so through a policy direction, but that remains in draft form).

The answer from the CRTC is that there is really just one exemption standard that matters: only those services with $10 million or more in Canadian revenues are subject to the registration requirement. That obviously excludes many smaller or foreign services with a limited Canadian user base and cannot reasonably be described as a podcast registry.  When combined with the fairly limited information required – the registration form covers name, address, URL, launch date, type of service, language of service – some will argue that there is little reason to object. Yet there are several reasons for concern. 

First, the CRTC rejected most requests to exclude services that do not fit the conventional video or audio streaming mold with the exception of some audiobook sites and video games. For example, that means podcasts, which the CRTC admits includes “individuals that host podcasts on their own websites or make them available on a subscription service platform other than a social media service are not explicitly excluded from the Broadcasting Act under subsection 2(2.1)” are in. So too are: 

  • Social media services (“the Commission finds that it is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time to exempt from the Registration Regulations online undertakings that provide social media services.”)
  • Adult websites (“the Commission considers that it would be asymmetrical to exempt online services that provide adult content, while traditional broadcasters offering such content remain regulated”)
  • Online news services (“it would not be appropriate to exempt online undertakings that provide news services from the requirement to register”)
  • Thematic services (“the Commission finds that it would not be appropriate to exempt the broad category of thematic services”)

Given the government’s regular insistence that “platforms are in and users are out”, it begs the question why some users are, by the Commission’s own admission, now in.

Second, the CRTC’s analysis frequently points to this decision as the thin edge of the wedge with the registration requirement being the first step toward a far broader regulatory framework. In fact, the rationale for the CRTC to include many of the services is that without such information it is not well positioned to regulate. This creates an obvious contradiction: the Commission claims that the registration requirement is de minimis requiring the disclosure of only limited information but then also argues that such information is important to future decision making on compliance with the Broadcasting Act objectives. 

For example, on podcasts, it states:

There are a variety of podcasts that can provide a wide range of content relating to information, opinion and entertainment. Without information about online undertakings that transmit or retransmit podcasts, it would be more difficult for the Commission to ensure the achievement of the objectives of subparagraph 3(1)(i)(iv) of the Broadcasting Act, which relate to, among other things, providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and of subparagraph 3(1)(i)(i), pursuant to which the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes.

The justification is similar for thematic services:

exempting thematic services from the requirement to register would hamper the Commission’s ability to assess whether these services provide broadcasting services in English and in French, which in turn would make it more difficult for the Commission to fulfil broadcasting policy objectives, such as that set out in paragraph 3(1)(k) of the Broadcasting Act, which provides that a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians. 

And for online news services:

exempting online undertakings that provide news services from the requirement to register would prevent the Commission from having an adequate understanding of the players providing such services. Without information about the online broadcasting undertakings involved in the Canadian broadcasting system, it would be much harder for the Commission to develop policies aimed at implementing the above-noted policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act and conform to the proposed Direction

This honestly makes no sense to me. Is the CRTC saying that it unable to assess the state of podcasts, streaming thematic services or online news without a registry? Or that it can’t find contact information without a registry? Does it not have Internet access and the ability to conduct searches? Has it conducted no analysis over the past decade on any of these issues? The CRTC tries to have it both ways by downplaying the information required, but then framing that information as essential to conduct regulatory analysis.

Third, the information itself may be limited, but the implications and obligations carry some significance. From a speech perspective, the regulator is effectively saying that a podcaster or news outlet that generates a certain threshold of revenue must register with the government, a position that runs counter to freedom of expression rights without government interference. The Commission repeated response to this concern is that many won’t actually be caught given the monetary threshold, which does not address why anyone should be caught for these activities. Further, this is mandated disclosure of personal information (including the inferences of revenues for individuals) which carries privacy implications. And while the information isn’t hard to compile, the analysis determining whether one qualifies is not always going to be simple (a news site is only required to include revenues from audio or video, which may not be easy to determine for those that are subscription based).

Fourth – and perhaps most troubling – is that the CRTC repeatedly signals that registration is in fact the entry point to more regulation. The podcast, thematic services, and online news examples are clearly part of a potential regulatory initiative based on meeting Broadcasting Act objectives. In other instances, the Commission just comes out and says regulation is on the way. For example, for adult sites:

there are several forms of regulatory intervention that are likely warranted in regard to online undertakings that broadcast adult content programs, which will require substantive action on the part of the Commission

For social media services:

Through the proceeding initiated by Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2023-138, the Commission has only just begun to explore the concept of social media and the role, if any, that social media platforms may play in the broadcasting system, should they engage in activities that are subject to the Broadcasting Act. That proceeding is only a first step — future proceedings will likely be necessary to delineate more clearly a regulatory approach to these services

In fact, when discussing what revenues are considered for the purposes of registration, it states it openly:

it is the Commission’s view that the revenues of social media services derived from their own broadcasting activities, which could include, for example, advertising or subscription revenues, should form part of those services’ annual revenues as these activities would not be excluded from regulation.

It is not clear on what basis the Commission believes that online advertising now falls under the Broadcasting Act for the purposes of regulating social media services.

The takeaway from the decision is obvious: registration is the first step toward regulation with the Commission already envisioning the prospect of regulating a wide range of services. Bill C-11 was never just about “web giants” and the latest CRTC decision confirms that an extensive regulatory framework is in the works that is likely to cover podcasts, adult sites, news sites, and a host of other online video and audio services.

 

65 Comments

  1. The bullheaded and willful conflation of the relationship between the audience vs broadcasting (non-responsive push platforms) and audience vs. social media (responsive push/pull) platforms is remarkable.

    Creators on social platforms respond to audience metrics and behaviours to build audience. The CRTC approach doesn’t just censor creators and platforms, it censors the audience by substituting the first choice as the regulated government choice.

    I realize they use CanConned culture arguments to justify this. But it’s astounding to see how little they care for the current behaviour of Canadians who are choosing other/diverse options.

    • Our company requires a well-organized and detailed remote data entry assistant to work with our team of data entry specialists. Analyze the data and feed it into our online systems and social media platforms. yA This is remote work, full-time or part-time.
      To ask a question, click……. Regular Payouts

  2. Our company need a thorough, well-organized Remote Data Entry Assistant to assist our team of data entry specialists. Update our websites and social media profiles using the data following analysis. This is a remote, full- or part-time job.
    .
    .
    Find Out More—————————————>>>https://webcash16.blogspot.com/

  3. What exactly is it they are trying to do here? Can anyone please tell me in simpler terms?

    A lot of what I’ve read and heard about this whole CRTC situation and Bill C-11 is roundabout talk, from both sides. I feel as though the CRTC do not know what they are trying to do, and that the critics do not know what they are criticizing.

    • Quite plainly, it’s control. Beyond anything. Navigating and regulating the internet is incredibly difficult with how much content there is out there.

      China started early in the game, so to they’re citizens it seems normal as to what they can access.

      But attempting it this late in the game is difficult, lets say they were allowed to do outright censorship, us citizens would notice right away the difference in what we could access to a government controlled network

      Keeping it confusing and an on going process gives them time weed through and narrow in on what they control, and they will gradually make the broader internet less accessible.

      Basically trying to make it less noticeable as they refine they’re censorship reach.

      And if there’s any doubt in that, ask yourself why they say one thing then sneakily do the opposite (like
      How individuals wouldn’t be censored, then low and behold, individuals can be censored)

      Ands that’s right there in they’re confusing c-11 statue statement

      • Can you expand on how individuals can be censored with C-11?

        • I disagree with the term “censor”, but I agree with Christian’s idea that an individual’s expression could be impacted. In particular with respect to the revenue from social media services and micropublishing sites such as Substack there is a potential side-effect. If they become required to contribute or subject to CanCon I can see a temptation for those companies to walk away in the same way that Meta and Google is from news as a result of the Online News Act. This would reduce or eliminate the capability for individuals to publish potentially contrary ideas, effectively causing them to be censored.

          • I have personally been censored on at least 20 occasions within the last few months on youtube without explanation. Even though I have provided nothing but facts in regard to false narratives of youtube Chanels misleading individuals on a number of topics.
            This is an attempt to silence any individual providing information contrary to the accepted narratives the government wants provided.
            This is just the beginning, after the WHO is given a global role in governance for a litany of reasons in March we will see much more of this all around the world.

  4. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | Canada News Cast

  5. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – World Move

  6. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - Well Come

  7. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – Usama Fareed Dairvi

  8. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Readsy

  9. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Blaz

  10. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – Matz News

  11. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Graze

  12. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – newsbige

  13. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – All News Feed

  14. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – All News Info

  15. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – Global Western News

  16. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - News Fanda

  17. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - All About Trending Topics

  18. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – latestnewshub.xyz

  19. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - News in Canada

  20. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism – My Blog

  21. Pingback: L’enregistrement au CRTC des sociétés de podcasts et de diffusion en continu suscite des critiques – News 24

  22. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - Daily Frontline

  23. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies is a source of criticism. - PiPa News

  24. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Play

  25. Pingback: L’enregistrement au CRTC des sociétés de podcasts et de diffusion en continu suscite des critiques - Les Actualites

  26. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism – Spark News

  27. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – General News

  28. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - Usa Pdf

  29. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – Rich Dad Goal

  30. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – Clamtrx

  31. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Online24x7

  32. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News 24 One

  33. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – mychoiceone.fun

  34. Meanwhile, we still can’t watch a Canadian film in a theatre.

  35. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - galaxyconcerns

  36. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | World ABC News

  37. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - ChroniclesLive

  38. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - TechiAI

  39. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News

  40. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism – MaharlikaNews | Canada Leading Online Filipino Newspaper Portal

  41. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism – Canada News

  42. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – livenewstite

  43. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News – News Tite

  44. Pingback: CRTC Registration For Podcasts And Streaming Companies Draws Criticism | CBC News - News Wisa

  45. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | CBC News - NewsPulse

  46. Pingback: पॉडकास्ट और स्ट्रीमिंग कंपनियों के लिए सीआरटीसी पंजीकरण की आलोचना होती है - News Archyuk

  47. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - MoneyBlg.com

  48. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - Live Market News

  49. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism | Old School News

  50. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - insideheadline

  51. Pingback: La réglementation du streaming, une autre raison pour laquelle les conservateurs doivent dissoudre le CRTC – Tasha Kheiriddin

  52. Pingback: EP#233 Tuesday Rant $1Bill.cut from Defense Budget/CRTCs new Regs/More Slack Liberals.. - Crusty Canuck

  53. Pingback: Control, censor!: Canadian govt to require all “online streaming services that offer podcasts” to formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls - The Composite Eye

  54. On a $10M business being considered a “user” and not a “platform” or “business”… that argument seems disingenuous as soon as one asks how many people can be hired for $10M yearly. Anyone with that much revenue can and should be considered to be professionally making content for broadcast. Stirring up public opposition to this is rather like getting poor people agitated about an estate tax, ignoring the fact that estate taxes only apply to estates over $20M. It simply doesn’t apply to most people, and it’s unlikely that it ever will (sorry, aspiring YouTube stars).

    So, if one accepts my argument that the scope of the regulation is reasonable, then remaining opposition to the bill can only take the form of opposition to Can-con regulation in general. There’s a decent argument to be made here, but nobody seems to be making it… which suggests to me that folks like Can-con regulations, which lands us finally at a contradiction.

    So: Is all Can-con regulation bad? Or only when applied to the Internet? If the latter, what makes internet content any different from TV or radio content?

    • To me it is more basic than what you have described. If the government should decide that these “broadcasters” need to be regulated, then the next step is licensing in order to “broadcast” into Canada. Part of this would be Can-Con. This then extends Canadian law into the realm of international broadcasters. Note that currently the Broadcast Act does not do this. It is particularly noticeable if you currently or in the past receive(d) television via an over-the-air broadcast, where the station was located in the US along the border. Those stations broadcast into Canada and yet the Broadcasting Act does not apply to them. As a result, why should internet broadcasters be subject when other broadcasters in other countries are not covered?

      For instance, PBS runs a streaming service containing programs that they broadcast called PBS Passport. Nationally PBS would most likely receive more than $10M Cdn from Canadian contributions. So, why should PBS Passport be treated differently than their OTA offerings?

      This has nothing to do with CanCon and, for me, everything to do with an attempt to extend Canadian laws so that they apply to foreign entities operating outside of Canada. As a country we complained when the US requested extradition of a Chinese national for breaking American laws when outside of the US. And yet we are trying to impose Canadian laws on foreigners operating outside of Canada. To me it seems hypocritical.

  55. Pingback: Canada’s new internet regulations will soon expand to news sites, law professor warns - LifeSite - Christianity House

  56. Pingback: Canada’s new internet regulations will soon expand to news sites, law professor warns - LifeSite - Modern Christian

  57. Pingback: CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism - AMAZNEWS

  58. Pingback: CRTC Registration for Podcasts and Streaming Companies Draws Criticism - Fortrupert Post

  59. Geometry Dash says:

    The article suggests that theGeometry Dash reality falls somewhere between the extreme viewpoints of critics and the CRTC’s messaging.