dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
976
bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada

1 recommendation

bklass

Premium Member

CRTC decision on OTT broadcasters raises spectre of IPTV prioritization

Those who followed wholesale Internet proceedings will remember issues related to delivery of IPTV and the relation to Internet access offerings.

Read the dissenting opinion for an interesting view of the unfolding implications.

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archi ··· -486.htm
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

wow... brutal. I couldn't agree more with Raj's opinion in this case.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
Guess BHELL went golfing again.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj to bklass

Member

to bklass
Holy shit, the dissent was far better articulated, documented and profound than the majority decision.

Who are the nameless members who signed off on this?
resa1983
Premium Member
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON

resa1983 to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
Geez.. Most of the page is the dissenting opinion.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
I don't know on this one.

I'm thinking of the ilk that Leiacomm is trying to operate like a BDU. Bell simply wants the same regulation, just because they're not going to be a terrestrial service doesn't allow them to play outside the rules.

AKA, if Leiacomm wants to operate under DMEO exemption, then they can't have their cake and eat it too...unless the CRTC is going to change the rules overall, which I doubt they will do.

It would open the perverboial floodgates WRT Zazeen and their IPTV offering and the potential other offerings that come out of the woodwork.

I'm not saying that Bell is in the clear, but that it is up to them to decide who they want to license their channels/services to, they shouldn't have to be forced to under duress.

Anywho, that's probably the dissenting opinion contrary to the dslreports.com crew. But that's me.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy

Member

I don't disagree with you nitzguy from a certain perspective but at the same time the decision makes no sense given the rules. Personally this is why I want to see a "must license" rule (after an exclusivity period) to allow anyone to compete in the market on even grounds no matter how they want to deliver it.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to JMJimmy

Premium Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

wow... brutal. I couldn't agree more with Raj's opinion in this case.

Yep.
1-800-CRTC-FUCKSUPAGAIN

The lights are on but nobody is home in Gatineau.

Treegravy
Premium Member
join:2011-04-21
Canada

Treegravy to bklass

Premium Member

to bklass
...and Netflix declines to reveal Canadian customer subscriber numbers and other data to the CRTC: »www.thestar.com/news/gta ··· ata.html
howard_rabb
join:2014-09-23
Canada

2 recommendations

howard_rabb to nitzguy

Member

to nitzguy
Ahoy! I'm the owner of Leiacomm and I thought I'd chime in.

the 2009-660 New Media Exemption which was then updated in 2012-409 makes these rules pretty clear. The 2011-601 ruling on vertical integration also backs these rules up. The CRTC created the very rules we are trying to play within. We are not playing outside of any rules, we are playing in the exact rules that were created for our exact business model.

The CRTC created an exemption for exactly our kind of business and in the vertical integration hearings identified that internet distributors could find themselves at a disadvantage should the large VI companies try to withhold content. These were the exact reasons behind our filing.

The CRTC's job is to create policy and then enforce it. In the case of the dismissal of our part 1 application they dismissed our application, but it was not based on any active policy or the Broadcasting Act.

We are studying this decision (and the dissenting opinion closely) and will have to decide what to do next.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

I guess that means a Federal Court challenge or an appeal to the Governor In-Council, or roll over and play dead.

If the latter, the indumbents win now and forever (at least for your lifetime).

Sorry - just telling it like it is.

cybersaga
join:2011-12-19
Selby, ON

cybersaga

Member

Unfortunately, justice is only for the rich. So I'm sure it depends on funding. Tough spot for a company that hasn't even launched yet.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by cybersaga:

Unfortunately, justice is only for the rich. So I'm sure it depends on funding.

Not so, Grasshopper.

You seem to be a newbie here so perhaps you aren't familiar with
»Petition to the Governor in Council against UBB