bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada
1 recommendation |
bklass
Premium Member
2014-Sep-22 1:28 pm
CRTC decision on OTT broadcasters raises spectre of IPTV prioritizationThose 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 |
|
|
wow... brutal. I couldn't agree more with Raj's opinion in this case. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to bklass
Guess BHELL went golfing again. |
|
booj join:2011-02-07 Richmond, ON |
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 |
to bklass
Geez.. Most of the page is the dissenting opinion. |
|
nitzguy Premium Member join:2002-07-11 Sudbury, ON |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
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. |
|
|
to bklass
...and Netflix declines to reveal Canadian customer subscriber numbers and other data to the CRTC: » www.thestar.com/news/gta ··· ata.html |
|
2 recommendations |
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. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 1 edit |
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 |
|