Community Content Standards and OTT Providers: Potential Challenges and Approaches

Final Report
Submitted to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

March 23, 2012

Foreword

This report was commissioned by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the CRTC, Commission) in January 2012. In its examination of the subject, it has been designed as an exploratory piece of research and perspective, and is not intended to be prescriptive in any way.

While the report does raise issues that may have public policy consequences, the purpose of this report is not to offer guidance on any public policy response. Instead, it provides an overview and analysis of a subject area that has seen rapid development and change in a brief period of time. To this end, while the author has made every effort to ensure that the information is current and accurate at the time of writing, significant changes may be occurring or have occurred in some subject areas by the time of publication.

This report reflects the research and views of the author, and should not be construed as representing any views of the Commission.

CONNECTUS Consulting Inc. (CONNECTUS) is pleased to present to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC, the Commission) a report on Community Content Standards and OTT Providers: Potential Challenges and Approaches (the Study).

The Study is centrally focused on the issue of audiovisual (i.e. video and audio/radio-type) content offered by “over-the-top” (OTT) providers in the context of community content standards that are well established in Canadian broadcasting.

More specifically, the Study examines:

• The potential for challenges to emerge with respect to content offered by OTT services that does not meet the same community standards protection in place for the traditional, regulated broadcast sector; and
• Potential approaches to these challenges in the context of alternative approaches, including those used in other jurisdictions.

In addition, the Study provides an analysis of the opportunities and challenges of these potential approaches, specifically in the context of the Canadian marketplace.

Thus the key question answered by the Study is, “What is the potential for the emergence of challenges to community standards from the OTT element of the unregulated system, how might they emerge, and what types of approaches might be taken to deal with them?”

To address this question and key related issues, our report is organized as follows.

We open with an Executive Summary of key findings from the Study, including a summary grid of potential approaches to the challenges posed to community standards by OTT services.

Part I – Background on Codes of Standards and OTT Services provides a descriptive summary of the codes of community standards that generally apply to regulated Canadian television and radio services, and notes a number of OTT services that have entered (and will continue to grow in numbers within) the Canadian marketplace in competition with regulated broadcasting services.

Part II – How OTT Services Approach Community Standards in Canada examines the extent to which a number of prominent OTT services, both video-based and audio/radio-type services providing primarily music content, approach community standards from the standpoint of self-regulation.

Part III – Potential Challenges to Standards from OTT Services identifies range of challenges to community standards that are presented by current and prospective OTT services in Canada.

Part IV – International Approaches to Challenges – Community Standards and OTT Services examines the manner in which issues arising with respect to community standards and OTT services might be approached in the U.K., Australia and the U.S.

Part V – Potential Approaches to Challenges – Community Standards and OTT Services in Canada presents a series of options with respect to the challenges posed to community standards by OTT services, assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

Part VI – Conclusion to our report.

The Appendix to our report provides an illustration of a ratings classification system in use by an OTT service. A Bibliography of sources referenced and Author’s Note completes our report.

Executive Summary

CONNECTUS Consulting Inc. (CONNECTUS) is pleased to present to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC, the Commission) a report on Community Content Standards and OTT Providers: Potential Challenges and Approaches (the Study).

The Study is centrally focused on the issue of video and audio/radio-type content offered by “over-the-top” (OTT) providers in the context of community content standards that are well established in the Canadian broadcasting system. It examines both the potential for challenges to emerge with respect to content offered by OTT services and potential approaches to these challenges in the context of alternative approaches, including those used in other jurisdictions.

Thus the key question answered by the Study is, “What is the potential for the emergence of challenges to community standards from the OTT element of the unregulated system, how might they emerge, and what types of approaches might be taken to deal with them?”

By any measure, Canada has developed among the most comprehensive set of broadcasting standards anywhere in the world. A series of Codes – administered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) for private broadcasters and by the CRTC for the CBC and CBSC non-members – has been developed with the input of broadcasters, community representatives and legal experts, and modified over time to reflect an expanding and evolving Canadian broadcasting system.

These codes of practices include The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics (Revised 2002); The CAB Violence Code; and The CAB Equitable Portrayal Code; the Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices Governing Pay, Pay-Per-View and Video-On-Demand Services and The Pay Television and Pay-Per-View Programming Code Regarding Violence

Together, classification ratings, advisories and the watershed hour combine as the most “visible” of community standards and serve as the basis upon which many viewing decisions are made, especially by parents for their children. The administration of the codes of standards that guide the Canadian broadcast system is complex, requiring the delicate application of balance between evolving community standards and subjective taste – without resorting to censorship.

Codes of community standards and their balanced application are an essential part of the Canadian broadcasting system, but that system is itself rapidly changing in dramatic fashion with the explosion of content services currently exempt from regulation – i.e. platforms and content that fall outside the parameters of CRTC regulation, and that are widely available to Canadian consumers.

While content exempt from regulation has been available to Canadians on a personal computer or handheld device via the Internet for some time now, access to such services is now widely available via the Internet to television receivers through devices such as blu-ray players, gaming consoles such as X-box, Wii and PlayStation, and other computer-like sidecar devices such as Apple TV, Roku and Boxee. The rapidly advancing functionality of mobile devices such as tablets and phones is further expanding the availability of content to anyone, anywhere

Over-the-top services deliver an astounding range of both video and audio/music content to a growing number of Internet-connected devices. With respect to specific services available in Canada, they include those that provide libraries of movies and television programming on a free, subscription, rental and/or purchase model such as Netflix, iTunes, JumpTV, Zune, CinemaNow and Crackle. Music services – audio and/or music videos – can be streamed (or sometimes downloaded) from YouTube, Vimeo, Vevo, Zune Music and iTunes. Audio services providing music and/or talk radio content include Slacker, Rdio and Iceberg.

Two market realities underpin the availability of OTT services in Canada. First, about 80 percent of Canadian households are now connected to the Internet – a figure that rises to 93 percent in homes with three or more people. Of these households, more than one-third have their main televisions connected to the Internet via some type of device at least some of the time.

Second, OTT services are taking root in the Canadian marketplace, particularly as content offerings grow and price points remain attractive. Netflix, for example, had one million subscribers less than one year after its Canadian launch and some 50 percent of Canadians have now viewed a movie or television program via an OTT source.

But because OTT services operating in Canada are currently exempt from regulation, traditional policy levers that are applied to licensed broadcasters do not apply to OTT providers. This means that OTT services are using other means to address community standards, largely through self-regulation.

Most – but not all – OTT video services offering movies and television content provide a range of methods for identifying the age-appropriateness of content, and further provide tools for filtering content. These methods and tools employed by OTT services such as Netflix, Zune, iTunes, CinemaNow and YouTube include ratings classifications, supporting classifications (as in Netflix’s use of Common Sense Media Ratings), parental controls and locks, and explicitly stated terms of service identifying target age groups.

Thus OTT services such as Netflix, iTunes and Zune have been developed and distributed – if not outright marketed – with the spirit of community standards intact. Even those OTT services that seem to pay less attention to standards are using their Terms of Service or Terms of Use to identify the appropriate age threshold of access, and in some cases to note the importance of parental roles in restricting access to inappropriate content.

Given the lack of enforcement that may accompany ratings classifications and statements set out in the Terms of Service of OTT providers (that is, OTT services may be self-regulating, but 12-year olds are not), it is important to note that virtually all devices – game consoles, blu-ray players, Internet-ready HD televisions and sidecar devices like Apple TV and Boxee – are equipped with V-chip software that enables the setting of parental controls, locks and filtering tools.
OTT services that provide primarily audio or radio-type content – largely the streaming of music – take a more relaxed approach to community standards. While warnings of explicit content are typically provided for specific music selections, there are fewer filters for age restrictions and access to content is relatively easy (usually involving no more than an email address and a password).

However, while OTT audio/radio-type services are readily available, their level of penetration in Canada varies depending on the individual service. Other research findings indicate that some 50 percent of Anglophone Canadians stream audio from the Internet, but only 1 percent subscribe to an online audio service. Nonetheless, the relative ease of accessing OTT audio content may have implications for new OTT video services appearing on unregulated platforms outside the traditional value network of content distribution, and in turn points to some of the challenges to community standards posed by OTT services in general.

In identifying the potential challenges to community standards posed by OTT services, we make two preliminary points.

First, content offered by most OTT providers has been first created for the traditional television and radio environment, and generally meets the spirit and letter of existing television and radio codes. While there is more reliance on parents to be vigilant in their knowledge and awareness about content screening and supporting tools like filters, most OTT services have developed at least some level of self-regulation for community standards – although gaps are still evident.

Second, the presence of OTT services in the Canadian marketplace is likely to increase going forward. A number of new video content services are on the horizon, including offerings from licensed broadcasters such as Astral and Corus (HBO Go, expected to launch later in 2012), Zip.ca streaming (up to now, a DVD-rental service) and services from the U.S. not yet available in Canada, such as Hulu, Amazon Instant Video and Wal-Mart Vudu. Content is also likely to diversify – and device providers like Boxee and Roku are already moving to expand their content offerings into more adult-oriented territory.

This means that the OTT space will continue to provide an even greater array of unregulated content to Canadians, potentially posing additional challenges to accepted community standards that may include:

• Protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content.
• Reliance on OTT providers to self-regulate.
• Absence of OTT accountability for content.
• The need for parents and guardians to serve as standard-bearers and filters for content accessed by children in various age groups.
• Based on the regulatory response, if any, to the above challenges, the prospect of censorship for content provided outside of regulation.

Other jurisdictions such as the U.K., Australia and the U.S. have noted the challenges to standards posed by new video content services accessed via the Internet. The U.K., for example, has undertaken an in-depth qualitative study of audience perspectives on methods of applying standards in the unregulated broadcasting space. Protection of minors ranked as the most prevalent concern by far among U.K. study participants. A series of regulatory scenarios has also been developed, ranging from a high level of regulation capturing all services to a complete absence of regulation beyond legal obligations.

The Australian Department of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy is currently undertaking a review of the impact of convergence on the domestic broadcasting system, noting that OTT services could be directly regulated, could self-regulate, or could be provided with incentives for opting in to a regulatory scheme. Regulators in the U.K. and Australia have each noted the importance of promoting media literacy for parents.

U.S. regulators have demonstrated less concern about community standards and OTT services, leaving a number of non-government organizations to the task of providing supporting information about content. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on the constitutionality of the Federal Communication Commission’s indecency provisions for regulated broadcasters, with a decision expected later in 2012.

With respect to the potential challenges posed to community standards by OTT services in Canada, different options with different obligations are available for consideration. The key assumptions underpinning any approach are (i) more, and more diverse content will likely be available through the growth of OTT services in the future and given this, (ii) some type of standards benchmarking – through direct regulation and/or self-regulation and/or monitoring – is likely reasonable going forward.

The grid on the following page summarizes potential approaches to the challenges to community standards that may be posed by OTT services going forward. In general, findings from this Study suggest that the most prudent near-term course of action is two fold: continue monitoring the OTT space against the community standards that have so uniquely characterized the Canadian broadcasting system, and develop a strategic approach that would effectively address those challenges should they arise. Additional research on consumer perceptions of OTT services and the need for standards, together with research on parental concerns and solutions, might be warranted.

Part I – Background on Codes of Standards and OTT Services

Codes of Standards in the Canadian Broadcasting System

By any measure, Canada has developed among the most comprehensive set of broadcasting standards anywhere in the world. Administered by the independent Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) and covering the broadest range of regulated private television and radio activities, a series of Codes has been developed with the input of broadcasters, community representatives and legal experts, and modified over time to reflect an expanding and evolving Canadian broadcasting system and to take into account the shifting taste and tolerance of the Canadian public.¹

Community standards are embodied (and fully detailed with respect to their application through examples of complaints and adjudication) in the following Codes:²

• The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics (Revised 2002) is a comprehensive range of standards that details 18 categories of ethical guidelines and supporting examples, including general programming, sex-role stereotyping, violence, religious programming, treatment of controversial issues and advertising.
• The CAB Violence Code provides detailed guidelines concerning violence and its portrayal in programming, with particular attention to portrayals of violence in children’s programming and in programming aired at times when children may be viewing.
• The CAB Equitable Portrayal Code was developed in 2008 to replace the CAB Sex-role Stereotyping Code for Radio and Television Programming. The Code provides guidelines concerning stereotyping, negative and inaccurate portrayal, use of language and exploitation, with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
• Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices Governing Pay, Pay-Per-View and Video-On-Demand Services and The Pay Television and Pay-Per-View Programming Code Regarding Violence identify guidelines and acceptable programming practices with respect to pay, pay-per-view and VOD services, recognizing the differences with conventional programming and lock out features provided by digital set top boxes as a filter for unwanted programming.

A key part of these community standards is a system that provides ratings classifications and related symbols identifying a program’s intended audience by age: “C” for Children, “C8” for children over the age of eight, “G” for General Audiences, “PG” for Parental Guidance, “14+” cautioning parents that programming may not be suitable for children under the age of 14, and “18+” for programming intended for adults only. Classifications differ slightly for French-language broadcasters, identified as “G”, “8 ans+”, “13 ans+”, “16 ans+” and “18 ans+”. Similar systems of classification are in place for movies, and for television programming and movies from the U.S.

Community standards for broadcasting also include a system of viewer advisories that inform audiences about specific program elements such as “scenes of violence” or “sexuality”. Ratings classifications and viewer advisories are noted in each of the above Codes, as is the requirement to air programming intended for adult audiences after 9:00 p.m. – i.e. the watershed hour.

Together, classification ratings, advisories and the watershed hour combine as the most “visible” of community standards and serve as the basis upon which many viewing decisions are made, especially by parents for their children.

Broadcasters (i.e. radio stations, television stations and pay, pay-per-view and VOD services) are required to adhere to these established Codes and related practices through (i) conditions of licence applied by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) at the time of their licensing and/or (ii) membership in the CBSC. Obligations aside, though, broadcasters take these standards and their role as responsible members of the community very seriously.

Perceived violations of the Codes – typically identified through complaints submitted by members of the public to the broadcaster or the CRTC – are dealt with systematically and thoroughly. If necessary, complaints to private broadcasters are adjudicated by a balanced panel of industry and community representatives representing the CBSC – and broadcasters may be sanctioned as a result of an independent finding that a particular standard was violated.

The thoroughness and transparency with which the Canadian broadcasting system is held accountable to community standards is evident upon review of any decision published by the CBSC. For example, a recent complaint adjudicated by the CBSC examined a single episode of Family Guy (an American sitcom carried by a regulated Canadian broadcaster) with respect to four clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics, three clauses of the CAB Violence Code, and eight clauses of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.³

In other words, the administration of the codes of standards that guide the Canadian broadcast system is complex, requiring the delicate application of balance between evolving community standards and subjective taste – without resorting to censorship.

While Codes of community standards and their balanced application are an essential part of the Canadian broadcasting system, that system is itself rapidly changing in dramatic fashion with the explosion of content services currently exempt from regulation – i.e. platforms and content that fall outside the parameters of CRTC regulation, and that are widely available to Canadian consumers.

The Growth of OTT Services in the Canadian Marketplace

The availability of OTT services has been largely driven by technology innovations including the growth of cloud computing and the availability of programming via Internet access, “independent of a facility or network dedicated to its delivery” such as a cable or satellite distributor – the distinctive feature of “over the top” content services.⁴

But while content exempt from regulation has been available to Canadians on a personal computer or handheld device via the Internet for some time now, access to such services is now widely available via the Internet to television receivers through devices such as blu-ray players, gaming consoles such as X-box, Wii and PlayStation, and other computer-like sidecar devices such as Apple TV, Roku and Boxee. Laptop computers, tablets and external hard drives come equipped with HDMI ports for direct connection to television receivers. Internet-enabled smart TVs are entering the marketplace. In basic terms, such devices act as a conduit between the Internet and a television receiver, enabling the streaming or downloading of content above and beyond (over the top of) conventionally available television or radio services.

Beyond this, the rapidly advancing functionality of mobile devices such as tablets and phones is expanding the availability of content to anyone, anywhere – from watching a program in the privacy of one’s home to watching a movie on a student’s device during the morning bus ride to elementary school.

In a discussion of community standards and OTT services, this distinction of how and to what terminal device content is received is important for several reasons.

First, while the mobile platform is growing rapidly as a platform for receiving and viewing content, Canadians still use the television as their central source of audiovisual content. While viewing content online has grown, television is still by far the predominant vehicle for consuming entertainment, news and other types of programming.⁵

Second, the television has maintained its place as the central location for family viewing. In addition, children and youth ages 8 to 18 spend more time with television than any other media – with music/audio the number one type of content preferred.⁶

Third, the ubiquitous nature and growing choice of over-the-top services is a leading factor in “cord-shaving” or “cord-cutting” among Canadians – i.e. trimming or outright dropping of a cable or satellite service television distribution service in favour of digital OTA signals, an Internet connection and an intermediary streaming device.⁷

In other words, over-the-top services deliver an astounding range of both video and audio/music content to a growing number of Internet-connected devices. With respect to specific services available in Canada, they include those that provide libraries of movies and television programming on a free, subscription, rental and/or purchase model such as Netflix, iTunes, JumpTV, Zune, CinemaNow and Crackle. Music services – audio alone or music videos – can be streamed (or sometimes downloaded) from YouTube, Vimeo, Vevo, Zune Music and iTunes. Audio services providing music and/or talk radio content include Slacker, Rdio and Iceberg.

Other services such as Hulu and Nickelodeon Family & Kids may eventually find their way to Canada, and in response to the competitive threat posed by over-the-top services, some Canadian broadcasters provide or are planning their own OTT-type offerings – such as Rogers on Demand (VOD service available with a subscription to Rogers Digital Cable) and the proposed Astral Media/Corus Entertainment HBO Go online video streaming service to be launched later in 2012.⁸

This wide range of content that is exempt from regulation is available to Canadians with an Internet connection – about 80 percent of Canadian homes overall (which rises to 93 percent in homes with three or more people). Of these households, more than one-third have their main televisions connected to the Internet via some type of device at least some of the time, and one-half of online households state a preference for renting movies online as opposed to renting from a store.⁹

In addition, just as Canada once led the world in cable television hookups, over-the-top services are taking root in the Canadian marketplace, particularly as content offerings grow and price points remain attractive. Netflix, for example, had one million subscribers less than one year after its Canadian launch; some 50 percent of Canadians have now viewed a movie or television program via an OTT source; and OTT services in general are expected to attract more Canadian consumers over the next five years. Some 80 percent of Canadians are aware of Netflix and, in a revealing trend about OTT services in the U.S., Netflix now accounts for some 22 percent of all Internet traffic averaged across a 24-hour period – more than free content sites such as BitTorrent and YouTube.¹⁰

All signs point to considerable growth in the number and penetration of OTT services as they grow in familiarity and availability to Canadian audiences. Advancements in technology – especially the mobile platform – will continue to facilitate access to content by anyone, anywhere.

Part II – How OTT Services Approach Community Standards in Canada

Because OTT services operating in Canada are currently exempt from regulation, traditional policy levers that are applied to licensed broadcasters do not apply to OTT providers. This includes established community standards as articulated in the above noted Codes, as well as related support mechanisms for and enforcement of those standards by the regulatory system.

But OTT services have other means at their disposal for the development of community standards, largely through self-regulation. In other words, for various reasons such as business viability and sustainability in the market – and perhaps the potential for undesired regulatory oversight – OTT providers may view self-regulation as advantageous to their businesses.

Using the existing system of community standards in Canada as a basis, the reliance on self-regulation by OTT providers prompts a number of important questions:

First, have OTT services adapted any protocols such as ratings classifications or viewer advisories about content?

Second, do OTT services demonstrate sensitivity with respect to access to their content by younger viewers or listeners? For example, are there types of content that OTT services will not provide, such as sexually explicit adult films of the type exhibited by some VOD services?

Third, do OTT services provide any other support for the filtering of their content such as parental control devices like locks or passwords? Is logging in to OTT content an implicit assumption of filtering and control on the consumer side? Is a vehicle for complaints or concerns about content available to users? Is there a formal decision-making process with follow-up and enforcement?

Finally, what are the potential challenges to standards that may emerge as more content is created for unregulated platforms, outside of traditional value networks?

Approaches to Self-regulation by OTT Services Operating or Available in Canada

The following section of our report identifies some of the methods of self-regulation that are used by OTT services as proxies for community standards. We note that while a number of audiovisual OTT services have been reviewed in this respect, it is not an exhaustive analysis – particularly in the case of online audio services. Such a review is also overlaid with the complexity of examining any differences between de facto standards evident when the service is accessed online (i.e. through a computer or directly to an Internet-ready HD television receiver) and when it is streamed to a television receiver by an external sidecar device like a game console or blu-ray player.

The tables to follow identify a number of OTT services – both video and audio/music – that are available in the Canadian market. Each was reviewed for specific elements of self-regulation, including:

• Rating classifications for content
• Parental controls/locks
• Other means of filtering or identifying content and/or content restrictions
• Other observations and comments about these methods of self-regulation

A detailed example of standards self-regulation by an OTT provider – Netflix – is provided at the Appendix to our report.

Three general observations can be made based on the above summary.

First, OTT services such as Netflix, iTunes and Zune have been developed and distributed – if not outright marketed – with the spirit of community standards intact. While the sheer volume of content means that some offerings will slip through the cracks in terms of classification and other standards, it is clear that OTT services have at least attempted to provide their content in the spirit of those standards that characterize the regulated Canadian broadcasting system.

Second, even those OTT services that seem to pay less attention to standards are using their Terms of Service or Terms of Use to identify the appropriate age threshold of access, and to note the importance of parental roles in restricting access to inappropriate content. For example, Crackle states in its Terms of Service that,

The Crackle Network is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, please do not use the Crackle Network. Some Content on the Crackle Network may be intended for mature audiences and, depending upon your age, you may be restricted from accessing such Content.

You affirm that you are the applicable age of majority or older, or that you have obtained the consent of your parent or legal guardian or that you are an emancipated minor. You also affirm that you are fully able and competent to enter into these Terms and to abide by and comply with them.¹¹

Third – given the lack of enforcement that may accompany ratings classifications and statements set out in the Terms of Service of OTT providers (that is, OTT services may be self-regulating, but 12-year olds are not) – it is important to note that, even when OTT services provide content that may not be appropriate for younger audiences but still easily accessed by younger viewers, virtually all devices – game consoles, blu-ray players, Internet-ready HD televisions and sidecar devices like Apple TV and Boxee – are equipped with V-chip software that enables parental controls, locks and filtering to take place.

As but one example of this, the Xbox 360 LIVE game console now functions as a multimedia set top box which connects to the Internet to enable access to Netflix, YouTube, Zune, Crackle and other services. Parental controls are easily located and activated – either through an online account or through the console itself – in “Family Settings” on the main menu (or “dashboard” in Xbox terms).¹²

Screen capture – Xbox 360 LIVE Dashboard Menu with Family button highlighted

What can I control?

• Ratings and Content: These settings let you restrict games and video content based on the content's rating. You can also set whether or not unrated or explicit content can be played on this console.
  Tip You can set up exceptions for individual games that are outside of the rating restrictions you have set.
• Family Timer: This setting allows you to limit the time that your console can be used on a daily or weekly basis.
• Xbox LIVE Access: This setting allows you to decide if your family can connect to Xbox LIVE from this console.
• Xbox LIVE Membership Creation: This setting allows you to control whether or not new Xbox LIVE memberships can be created from your console.

Each of the above menu items is accompanied by instructions on how to activate, change and delete all settings. Other, similar devices used to access OTT services from the Internet are equipped with similar functionality.

However, the approaches to self-regulation observed in OTT video services are less evident from OTT audio or radio-type services (which largely provide music content), as set out below.

Other popular Internet-based audio/radio-type services such as Pandora and Spotify are not yet available in Canada.

With respect to community standards and the OTT audio/radio-type services set out above, three general observations can be made.

First, while OTT audio/radio-type services are readily available, their level of penetration varies depending on the individual service. For example, some 50 percent of Anglophone Canadians stream audio from the Internet, but only 1 percent subscribe to an online audio service.¹³ With the exception of Rdio, each service reviewed for this report is advertising- supported, although Slacker provides a tiered subscription model that eliminates ads in exchange for a higher monthly fee. Among OTT video services, only Crackle – which has the least restrictions of those services reviewed – has commercial advertising.

Second, and with the above paragraph in mind, access to audio/music content appears generally less restrictive than is the case for OTT video services; three of five services reviewed above provide easy access to any type of music selection. For children with an email account and password, “Year of Birth” filters and Terms of Service advisories likely mean little. Again, additional information on consumer behaviour and content decision-making in families would be useful in assessing the above services in the context of community standards.

Third, there is likely a “lesson learned” from OTT audio/radio-type services in that less attention appears to be paid to community standards, or to the necessity of capturing these standards. This may have implications for new OTT services appearing on unregulated platforms outside the traditional value network of content distribution, and in turn points to some of the challenges to community standards posed by OTT services in general.

Part III – Potential Challenges to Community Standards Posed by OTT Services

Prior to identifying prospective challenges to community standards that may emerge from OTT services, two points raised earlier are worth reiterating.

First, content offered by most OTT providers has been created for the traditional television and radio environment, and generally meets the spirit and letter of existing television and radio codes. While there is considerable reliance on parents to be diligent in their knowledge and awareness about content screening and supporting tools, most OTT services have developed at least some level of self-regulation for community standards – although gaps are still evident.

Second, the presence of OTT services in the Canadian marketplace will likely increase going forward. A number of new video content services are on the horizon, including offerings from licensed broadcasters such as Astral and Corus (HBO Go, expected to launch later in 2012), Zip.ca streaming (up to now, a DVD-rental service) and services from the U.S. not yet available in Canada, such as Hulu, Amazon Instant Video and Wal-Mart Vudu. Content is also likely to diversify – and existing service providers like Boxee and Roku are already moving to expand their content offerings into more adult-oriented territory.¹⁴

This means that the OTT space will continue to provide an even greater array of unregulated content to Canadians, potentially posing additional challenges to accepted community standards.

In the current environment of OTT services, these challenges can be summarized as follows:

• Protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content.

Perhaps the most obvious challenge to community standards is the availability of age-inappropriate content for children. Devices are easy to use, content is easy to get, and in-home standards and tools like locks and filters may not always be in place and/or effective. Moreover, as pointed out by Common Sense Media, a key consideration for parents is whether content is appropriate “for kids of the age most likely to want to see it”. Given the on-demand nature of OTT services, the watershed hour does not play a role; content is available anytime and, increasingly, anywhere. Households determine the appropriateness of content, when, and by whom, it should be viewed.

This concern also captures the potential for OTT content to contravene other elements of established codes of practice, such as equitable portrayal and offensive content, impartiality and balance for broadcast journalism, and advertising targeting children (or aired when children are likely to be watching). Since much of the content available from OTT services has already passed through some type of filter, it really comes down to the appropriateness of that content for specific age groups.

• Reliance on OTT providers to self-regulate.

As noted at various places in this report, OTT providers (most notably on the video side) have put mechanisms in place to provide guidance on content decisions for viewer. The question is whether there will be an abiding interest on the part of OTT services to continue with this practice – and whether the tools of self-regulation utilized will be sufficient. As noted above, the recently launched Crackle – while certainly not in the popular mainstream – takes a decidedly laissez-faire approach to content restrictions. So do many OTT audio/radio-type services.

• Absence of OTT accountability for content, such as the absence of mechanisms to deal with complaints about content (i.e. inaction or insensitivity on the part of service providers in dealing with audience complaints or concerns; provision of an initial point of contact; audited reports of complaints by the public).

While regulated broadcasters must be responsive to viewer complaints as a result of business interest, regulatory obligations, social obligations and community standards, OTT providers operate without the latter three concerns.¹⁵  This is clearly an outcome of self-regulation that is evident in jurisdictions like the U.K. – where an unregulated service need only respond to complaints if it threatens the bottom line.

• The need for parents and guardians to serve as standard-bearers and filters for content accessed by children in various age groups.

Given the OTT content that is available and at times easily accessible by children, the task of filtering can be daunting, perhaps even overwhelming – and parents need to be as technologically savvy as their children as new devices enter the marketplace.

• Based on the regulatory response, if any, to the above challenges, the prospect of censorship for content provided outside of regulation.

The question of censorship is highly contentious and highly sensitive, but is raised here for one reason: one of the successes of Canada’s system of community standards is that it holds content providers accountable for what content is provided, and when – but without censoring that content at the same time. It is has also demonstrated significant flexibility by evolving as public tolerance and/or tastes shift. A misdirected regulatory response could trigger a censorship debate that would achieve very little.

Other jurisdictions such as the U.K., Australia and the U.S. have also noted the challenges to standards posed by new video content services accessed via the Internet. Their experience in approaching these challenges is worth noting for their adaptability to the situation in Canada.

Part IV – International Approaches to Challenges – Community Standards and OTT Services

The U.K. – Ofcom Approach to Community Standards and OTT Services

The U.K. has identified the audience and audience attitudes as key factors in determining the most appropriate approach to OTT services (which are similar to those available in Canada, including Netflix).

space. Through a series of seven workshops (with 20 participants each), audience members were asked to identify the importance of regulation across all platforms in six key areas (identified in the Ofcom Broadcasting Code): protection of minors; protection from harm; offence; impartiality; and privacy.¹⁶

Protection of minors ranked as the most prevalent concern by far among U.K. audience members participating in the study, and protection from harm was also viewed as a major concern. Impartiality/fair treatment and privacy of individuals had a more mixed set of views, while offence was viewed as best dealt with by providing information and advisories to viewers about what they would be watching.¹⁷

Against this backdrop and noting that the existing regulatory system in the U.K. provides reasonable codified standards for regulated broadcasters, study participants were asked for their views on the best approach to addressing concerns with respect to protection of minors, protection from harm and other areas noted above:

Participants in the Ofcom study identified a strong preference for increased regulation pertaining to the protection of children and protection from harm. There was general support for the extension of regulation and for the continuation of existing regulation, less support for self-regulation and no support at all for the final scenario. Participants noted that regulatory and technology tools to “protect me” and “inform me” were essential. For example, with respect to the protection of minors, tools include editing content for age suitability at its source, information about content such as viewer advisories and viewer controls such as locks and filtering.¹⁹

Approaches to OTT services in the U.K. continue to be developed, but it is worth noting that Ofcom continues to monitor services, having very recently issued a complaint to the Dutch broadcasting regulator concerning the availability of adult channels from the Netherlands on the U.K. Freeview service (a service similar to cable or satellite service in Canada, but operating outside of regulation).²⁰

Australia – Approach of the Australian Government to Standards and OTT Services

The Australian Department of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy is currently undertaking a review of the impact of convergence on the domestic broadcasting system – including community standards identified in the National Classification Code and a range of commercial and community codes of practice. Similar to the U.K. and Canada, existing Australian codes focus on the protection of children and protection from harmful material while avoiding censorship.²¹

While the approach of the Australian government largely centers on the absence of standards with respect to online content, and less about OTT services, the discussion of challenges and approaches is nonetheless useful from a Canadian perspective.

Key challenges with respect to convergence and community standards are identified as:

• Rapid growth of online platforms and content outside of regulation
• Expectation of safety for young people
• Absence of filtering on many mobile devices (growing rapidly)
• Scrutiny of content through user “flagging” alone for social media, aggregators and user-generated content. No reporting of complaint numbers and no communication with users about complaints – i.e. limited accountability for their own content standards²²

Noting that regulation varies widely across platforms, and requesting input from the Australian public, the Australian government notes a number of approaches to standards for content out of regulation are possible from government, industry and, though more limited, consumers.

With respect to government, approaches could include:

• Direct regulation or regulation developed around codes of practice
• Provide incentives for industry to opt-in to a regulatory scheme, such as the offer of a “safe harbour” from regulation or civil liability if adult-content warnings or age verification measures are used
• Require industry to fund consumer education and awareness initiatives
• Difficulties with enforcing regulatory compliance are noted, but wider powers such as temporary blackouts on programming or prohibitions on advertising might prove effective ²³

For industry, approaches (driven by regulatory authorities) could include:

• Support for consumers through technology (e.g. locking devices and age verification measures)
• Enforceable codes of practice
• Incentives for self-regulation

It should be noted that age verification tools are beginning to enter the discussion of standards and content more frequently – in part because age verification is often requested without proof by content aggregators and social media websites. ²⁴

The Australian government also notes a range of potential approaches for applying standards to “video content services” (i.e. OTT services) that could include:

• Use of existing classification systems
• Clearly identifying unrated material
• A clear code of content parameters
• Speedy and audited responses (including take-down) when the service is notified about material beyond stated parameters
• Commitment to consumer education
• Commitment to external audits of compliance with self-regulating codes ²⁵

With respect to consumers, the Australian government notes a single approach:

• Improved consumer media literacy, through community programs, public awareness campaigns or other measures ²⁶

Clearly, consumer media literacy – perhaps best defined as the technology know-how of parents – may be an essential element to any approach concerning standards and OTT services. A recent study in the U.K., for example found that 82 percent of parents closely supervise their children’s viewing content, while 77 percent generally know which websites are visited by their children. Some 84 percent have purchased gadgets for their children, such as smartphones, that they (the parents) understand how to operate – which means that 16 percent, or one in six, do not understand the operation of such devices.²⁷

Perhaps equally important as the above survey is the source of the data, which was undertaken by ParentPort, established in October 2011 “to make it easier for parents to complain about inappropriate content across the media”. ParentPort was jointly developed by the BBC Trust, the Press Complaints Commission and Ofcom. ²⁸

The U.S. – A different approach to community standards and OTT content

While U.K. and Australian regulators have begun to explore issues related to community standards and OTT content, the situation is somewhat different in the U.S., on three fronts.

First, the debate about regulating the Internet in the U.S. has been centered more on the issue of net neutrality than on content and standards. That is, regulatory concerns with respect to OTT services in the U.S. have focused on (i) significant increase in network congestion and traffic resulting from accelerated consumer interest in “real time entertainment” from broadband services and (ii) maintaining a level playing field with respect to accessing the network. The U.S. government recently passed legislation in support of the Federal Communication Commission’s net neutrality regulations.²⁹

Second, issues about content standards in the U.S. have often been framed within impassioned debates about free speech and obscenity (where one ends and the other begins, invoking censorship). On occasion, the debate moves into legal territory – as is the case now, with the U.S. Supreme Court electing in June 2011 to hear a case involving efforts by the FCC to broaden its “indecency” regulations as a result of the infamous Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show aired live on Fox.

(A related issue has been the uneven application of indecency regulations by the FCC; while Fox was fined for the Super Bowl incident, ABC was not fined for subsequently airing an unedited version of Saving Private Ryan before the watershed hour, and Fox was not fined for airing expletives during live broadcast award shows.)

As stated by the Supreme Court, the issue is “Whether the Federal Communication Commission’s indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Lower courts in the U.S. have already ruled that technology and the easy access to content outside the regulated system have “ripped away the underpinnings of FCC ‘indecency’ regulations.”³⁰

It is worth noting, however that the U.S. Supreme Court case is focused on whether content standards should still apply to OTA television signals in the OTT era – a much different debate than is occurring in other jurisdictions.

Third, given the hands-off approach of U.S. regulators for OTT content standards, many non-government organizations have taken up the rearguard of standards. These include the above mentioned Common Sense Media ratings employed by Netflix; group such as Television Watch which promote parental involvement in lieu of government censorship; and organizations like the Parents Television Council that emphasize religious values and the need to “clean up” television. A wide range of broadcasters and distributors include website links to the ratings system developed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and TV Parental Guidelines.³¹

Part V – Potential Approaches to Challenges – Community Standards and OTT Services in Canada

As noted above from the review of existing OTT video and audio/radio-like services available in Canada, the following challenges have emerged, or have the potential to do so:

• Protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content.
• Reliance on OTT providers to self-regulate.
• Absence of OTT accountability for content.
• The need for parents and guardians to serve as standard-bearers and filters for content accessed by children in various age groups.
• Based on the regulatory response, if any, to the above challenges, the prospect of censorship for content provided outside of regulation.

The questions are:

• Should these challenges be somehow addressed?
• If so, what are the options for approaching these challenges? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses (or pros and cons) of those options,   from the perspective of OTT providers, regulatory bodies and consumers? Which challenges would be most effectively addressed by which option?
• Do any steps need to be taken before an approach (or approaches, if any) to these challenges is/are determined?

Should the challenges posed by OTT services to community standards be addressed?

The answer to this question is yes – doing nothing is likely not an option. But it is qualified as follows.

OTT services in Canada have rolled out in a relatively benign fashion. Most have guidelines for self-regulation in place, with advisories and information of some type readily available to assist with viewer decision-making. Sexually explicit adult films or pornographic content is virtually non-existent – the Internet has obviously far more content of this nature – although violent content is easy to find and some OTT audio/radio-type services seem much less concerned about content filtering than their video counterparts.

Addressing the challenges posed by OTT services is therefore less about what is available to Canadians now than about what might be available in the future. Since some community standards are being met now, it is reasonable to use these as a benchmark – while perhaps elaborating that benchmark in certain ways – for future services.

What are the options for addressing these challenges?

Based on the Canadian experience of developing broadcaster codes of practice, and on the on-going examination of these issues in other jurisdictions, a number of options for addressing (i.e. eliminating, reducing or mitigating) the challenges to community standards posed by OTT services – although they vary considerably in their logic and applicability. Each is considered in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses, and challenges to standards that would be, theoretically, addressed.

1. A regulatory approach: apply existing codes of practice to OTT services

This approach would bring OTT services under the umbrella of those existing community standards for broadcasters – most logically, given the nature of the services, the Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices Governing Pay, Pay-Per-View and Video-On-Demand Services and The Pay Television and Pay-Per-View Programming Code Regarding Violence.

Watershed elements of the CAB Code of Ethics would be adapted to OTT audio/radio-like services, where explicit content would not be available at times when children are most likely to be listening.

Strengths: forces OTT services to adjust their content according to established standards, where necessary; makes the services accountable for the content provided; deals with explicit content provided by OTT audio/radio-type services.

Weaknesses: may serve as a disincentive for foreign OTT services to enter or remain within the Canadian marketplace, leading to less choice for consumers (also a stated concern in other jurisdictions); may be anathema to using a hammer to drive a pin – i.e. regulatory over-reaction to problems that may not exist.

Challenges addressed: an added layer of protection for children, but filters and tools are still in the hands of parents; may promote censorship; adds a new challenge in potentially restricting choices for consumers.

2. Lighter or co-regulation: develop OTT service standards with industry

This approach would require a joint effort from regulators and industry to adapt specific community standards, already in place for regulated broadcasters, to OTT services, including the use of existing (or a unique system) of classification ratings and viewer advisories; definitions and explanations accompanying viewer advisories; tools such as parental filters and locks; mechanisms for dealing with complaints; transparent reporting mechanisms or third-party audits for complaints.

This approach could also adapt incentives for industry to develop and adhere to specific standards – e.g. the “safe harbour” approach noted in those options under consideration in Australia.

Strengths: establishes a partnership between regulatory agencies and industry; focuses on self-regulation within established guidelines; establishes standards for new entrants to the market; does not rely on heavy-handed regulatory oversight and may not dissuade new entrants practicing self-regulation; addresses the key issue of accountability. Presents an opportunity to move more OTT audio/radio-type services toward community standards.

Weaknesses: industry players may resist any attempt to initiate regulatory oversight when effective methods of self-regulation are in place, potentially reducing consumer choice if OTT services choose not to do business in Canada.

Challenges addressed: adds some certainty that OTT services will adapt some level of community standards by institutionalizing mechanisms of self-regulation and requiring all entrants to adhere to them; potentially reduces consumer choice. Clearly addresses the accountability issue.

3. No regulation or new guidelines – but ensure presence of minimum self-regulation

This approach is limited to monitoring OTT services to identify (i) their methods of self-regulation, (ii) any perceived gaps in these methods and (iii) ways of addressing these gaps. Regulators would communicate concerns or issues to OTT providers and suggest ways of addressing these. If OTT providers do not adhere to basic self-regulation – for example, classification ratings, parental filters and accountability – then regulatory sanctions would apply (such as blocking the service in Canada, similar to the discussion taking place in Australia). OTT services could also be requested to produce information specifically tailored to educate parents and other consumers.

Strengths: a minimum set of standards that puts some tools in the hands of parents and requires a basic level of accountability from OTT providers; encourages OTT businesses to enter Canada, promoting consumer choice; accountability mechanism ensures transparency.

Weaknesses: may be insufficient for ensuring additional protection of children; minimum baseline of standards and accountability would need to be determined. While accountability is increased, it may not be sufficient. Fewer OTT audio/radio-type services self-regulate, presenting less to build on.

Challenges addressed: while still relying on self-regulation, some oversight is provided to ensure the presence of basic standards. A vehicle could be established to assist parents with their media filtering responsibilities.
No matter which option, if any, is taken to approaching the challenges to community standards posed by OTT services, parents will necessarily play a very active role in understanding technology, understanding the tools and methods at their disposal, and utilizing these as needed.

Do any steps need to be taken before an approach (or approaches, if any) to these challenges is/are determined?

Other jurisdictions have undertaken audience/consumer research to identify specific concerns about OTT services, and two research-related steps might prove useful in advance of determining any approach to these challenges in Canada.

First, consumer research could reveal how Canadian perceive OTT services and the issue of challenges – for example, whether a formal vehicle for complaints or some mechanism for OTT accountability should be established. This type of research would likely provide a foundation for determining the need for specific measures – i.e. whether there is a problem in need of a fix, or simply a set of solutions in search of a problem.

Second, the experiences of other jurisdictions and a recurrent theme of this report has been the role that parents necessarily play as content filters for children. To this end, consideration should be given to researching the need for a vehicle (e.g. a new initiative or modifying an existing initiative like MNet) that would provide information about OTT services for parents and potentially house forums for dialogue or complaint in the on-going absence of OTT accountability.

Part VI – Conclusion

As a final note to this report, there are some conclusions that can be made with a fair amount of certainty and others that are likely less certain.

On the side of certainty, it is very likely that OTT services, both video and audio/radio-type music streaming, will continue to arrive in the Canadian market, whether foreign or domestic. Services already here will seek new ways to attract audiences. Content will become increasingly available on the mobile platform. Children will have more and more opportunity to access content, whether age-appropriate or not. Parents will need to become even more technology-savvy, and seek ways of learning about the devices and the content that will continue to flourish.

In addition, the Canadian system of community standards will continue to work in a moderate and flexible fashion, applied in a manner that reflects Canadian values.

On the side of less certainty is to what extent that system of community standards will be challenged by the OTT space. The potential for challenge is certainly present; to this point in time, though, self-regulation has been evident among most OTT video providers and, while as not as well defined or as strong, present to some degree among OTT audio/radio-type providers. New services may ultimately test the boundaries of standards in an effort to attract audiences and revenues, but the extent to which this will happen is truly unknown.

Against this backdrop of what we know and what we don’t, and in the current environment of regulatory exemption, it would seem the most prudent near-term course of action is two fold: continue monitoring the OTT space against the community standards that have so uniquely characterized the Canadian broadcasting system, and develop a strategic approach that would effectively address those challenges should they arise.

Appendix

An Example of Community Standards Self-regulation – Netflix

Netflix is perhaps the best known of all OTT services, given its rapid penetration in the Canadian marketplace, and was therefore selected for a more detailed analysis of its approach to self-regulation.

A review of Netflix indicates that the service uses a number of methods to identify and explain the age-appropriateness of the content it provides; however, these are best described as “unevenly” applied.

This is because Netflix provides significant detail about its content when viewed online – but the application is much different when streamed through a device such as a game console to a television.

For movies, Netflix generally provides a classification rating (e.g. G, PG, 14+, 18+, etc.). The rating is evident both online and on a television screen. But when accessed online – by clicking on the movie’s title, a page appears that provides descriptive detail of the film and – usually – a summary explanation of the rating.

For example, the movie “Date Night” is a romantic comedy rated PG, explained as:

But Netflix has gone a step further by using a U.S.-based classification system called “Common Sense Media Rating”. The Common Sense rating for “Date Night” is:

Common Sense ratings for movies include several categories of content description, including Sexual Content, Violence, Language, Social Behaviour, Consumerism, and Drugs/Alcohol/Tobacco. Each is accompanied by a coloured indicator described by Common Sense as:

Green – Age appropriate
Grey – Not an issue
Yellow – Depends on your kids and family
Red – Not appropriate for kids of the age most likely want to see it.

When the “Age 14” or “Iffy for 14+” is clicked for “Date Night”, the following information is provided – more detailed and somewhat different that the “PG” film classification:³²

Reviewing the Netflix approach to standards reveals a number of other elements to their approach:

• At times, movies available on Netflix are accompanied by a “NR” or No Rating symbol. However, certain “NR” titles have a Common Sense Media rating. In the case of “The Devil’s Rejects”, a horror/slasher film, “NR” is accompanied by the following Common Sense Rating (each category in the colour red):

• In other instances, movies available on Netflix have neither a classification rating nor a Common Sense Media rating, although most have one or the other.
• While most television series carried by Netflix are accompanied by a classification rating (reflecting the American rating system), no supporting information is provided (i.e. an explanation of the rating), and Common Sense Media ratings are not provided for any television content on Netflix (although the Common Sense Media website publishes extensive reviews and ratings classifications for television programming).³³

The Netflix approach to self-regulation and the communication of standards to viewers also includes parental lock-out and filtering options:³⁴

Bibliography

All Things D, January 5, 2012, “Where did Nine Million Cable Subscribers Go?”

Apple TV

Australian Government (Department of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy) (2012) Convergence Review – Community Standards Discussion Paper

Broadband TV News (March 8, 2012) “Ofcom complains about Dutch sex channels”

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, National conventional television Panel, Global re Family Guy (“Stewie B. Goode) (CBSC Decision 10/11-2201) February 2, 2012

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Convergence Policy, Policy Development and Research Results of the fact-finding exercise on over-the-top services October 2011

CinemaNow

CNET News (June 27, 2011) “Supreme Court may reconsider radio, TV indecency rules: Justices agree to hear "indecency" case after lower court says government censorship no longer makes sense in an era of the Internet, YouTube, and the V-chip”  

Common Sense Media

Crackle Terms of Service, paragraph 17

Crackle: It’s On

Globe and Mail, December 13, 2011 “Astral taking HBO ‘over the top’ to fend off Netflix threat”

Grooveshark

Iceberg Radio

ICT Regulation Toolkit (2011) Section 5.4 Other Over-the-top services; Digital Trends (November 10, 2011) “FCC net neutrality rules live on after close Senate vote”

International Law Office (March 31, 2011) “Protection of minors: ratings rules extended to on-demand audiovisual services”

iTunes

Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8 to 18 Year-olds

Kiefl, Barry (2011) Trends in TV Use and Internet Use: The Impact of Internet TV on Canadian Programming” Joint submission of ACRTA, APFTQ, CMPA, DGD and WGC in response to Broadcasting Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-344

Mediacaster Daily News, October 4, 2010 “Broadband TV and OTT Services Continue Growth in Canada says Industry Group”

Microsoft Xbox Parental Control/Xbox Family Settings

MTM Media Technology Monitor, January 24, 2012, “Adoption Report” citing uptake of mobile and other services by Canadian consumers

Netflix

Netflix Terms of Service: Parental Controls

Ofcom (January 25, 2012) Protecting Audiences in a Converged World – Deliberative Research ReportConducted by IPSOS Mori for Ofcom

OTT Monitor (March 16, 2012) “Adult Content on OTT, Roku's "Private Channels," and OTT's Democratization of TV”  

ParentPort “is run by the U.K.’s media regulators”

Parents Television Council

Rdio

SHOUTcast Radio

Slacker

Solutions Research Group (2011) “More TVs Hook Up to the Internet via Laptops, Consoles”

Statistics Canada (May 25, 2011) The Daily: Canadian Internet Use Survey

Tercek, Robert Trends in Multichannel TV  and Online Video in the United States Filed as an appendix to a joint submission of ACRTA, APFTQ, CMPA, DGD and WGC in response to Broadcasting Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-344  Available from

The Guardian (February 8, 2012) “One in six parents can’t work kids’ gadgets”

The Huffington Post Canada (January 10, 2012) “Supreme Court debates U.S. indecency case”

The Wire Report, December 15, 2011, “Cord-cutting predicted to register this year, take $1.7B from earning by 2017”

TV Watch

Vevo

YouTube Content Ratings (by colour coding)

YouTube Ratings Classifications

Zune

About the Author

This Report was researched and authored by Richard Cavanagh, Partner, CONNECTUS Consulting Inc. Dr. Cavanagh has over 20 years of experience in researching and analyzing Canada’s broadcasting industry, with a specialized focus on social policy and accessibility issues. He has recently completed two environmental assessments examining the future of the broadcasting sector, and has extensively researched and analyzed codes of practice in the Canadian broadcasting industry.

Dr. Cavanagh holds a PhD in Social Sciences from Carleton University and an M.A. in Sociology from Queen’s University.

CONNECTUS Consulting Inc.
251 Loretta Avenue South
Ottawa, Ontario
K1S 4P6
(613) 729-8892
Richard@connectusinc.ca

¹ The CBSC administers standards and adjudicates complaints as they pertain to private broadcasters in Canada. For other broadcaster such as the CBC and campus and community radio stations, complaints are handled by the CRTC.

² All CBSC codes can be found at the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Website. The CBSC also administers the RTNDA Code of Journalistic Ethics (2011)and the Journalistic Independence Code which both deal with community standards and the practice of broadcast journalism, and are not reviewed for purposes of this Study.

³ Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, National conventional television Panel, Global re Family Guy (“Stewie B. Goode”)  (CBSC Decision 10/11-2201) February 2, 2012

⁴ Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Convergence Policy, Policy Development and Research Results of the fact-finding exercise on over-the-top services October 2011

⁵ Kiefl, Barry (2011) Trends in TV Use and Internet Use: The Impact of Internet TV on Canadian Programming” Joint submission of ACRTA, APFTQ, CMPA, DGD and WGC in response to Broadcasting Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-344

⁶ Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8 to 18 Year-olds

⁷ The Wire Report, December 15, 2011, “Cord-cutting predicted to register this year, take $1.7B from earning by 2017” ; for information on cord-cutting in the U.S., see All Things D, January 5, 2012, “Where did Nine Million Cable Subscribers Go?”

⁸ Globe and Mail, December 13, 2011 “Astral taking HBO ‘over the top’ to fend off Netflix threat”

⁹ Statistics Canada (May 25, 2011) The Daily: Canadian Internet Use Survey; Solutions Research Group (2011) “More TVs Hook Up to the Internet via Laptops, Consoles”

¹⁰ Kiefl, Barry (2011) Trends in TV Use and Internet Use: The Impact of Internet TV on Canadian Programming” Filed as an appendix to a joint submission of ACRTA, APFTQ, CMPA, DGD and WGC in response to Broadcasting Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-344;
Mediacaster Daily News, October 4, 2010 “Broadband TV and OTT Services Continue Growth in Canada says Industry Group”
U.S. data from Tercek, Robert Trends in Multichannel TV  and Online Video in the United StatesFiled as an appendix to a joint submission of ACRTA, APFTQ, CMPA, DGD and WGC in response to Broadcasting Telecom Notice of Consultation 2011-344

¹¹ Crackle Terms of Service, paragraph 17

¹² Microsoft Xbox Parental Control/Xbox Family Settings

¹³ MTM Media Technology Monitor, January 24, 2012, “Adoption Report” citing uptake of mobile and other services by Canadian consumers

¹⁴ OTT Monitor (March 16, 2012) “Adult Content on OTT, Roku's "Private Channels," and OTT's Democratization of TV”

¹⁵ It should be noted, however that OTT providers operating in Canada would be subject to the same legal obligations as regulated broadcasters with respect to Criminal Code provisions for hate speech, child pornography and other offenses.

¹⁶ Ofcom (January 25, 2012) Protecting Audiences in a Converged World – Deliberative Research ReportConducted by IPSOS Mori for Ofcom

¹⁷ Ibid, summary at pp. 8-10 with details in Chapter 6.

¹⁸ Ibid, Table 5.1 – see pp. 54-55

¹⁹ Ibid, pp. 54-62

²⁰ Broadband TV News (March 8, 2012) “Ofcom complains about Dutch sex channels”

²¹ Australian Government (2012) Convergence Review – Community StandardsDiscussion Paper

²² Ibid, p. 14

²³ Ibid, pp. 21-22

²⁴ In France, for example, the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel, has extended the protection of minors to on-demand services: availability of content classified as 18+ is limited to a watershed of between 10:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., unless the subscriber submits a copy of his or her identity card certifying the subscriber is over the age of 18. See a summary at International Law Office (March 31, 2011) “Protection of minors: ratings rules extended to on-demand audiovisual services”

²⁵ Australian Government (2012) Convergence Review op cit. p. 26

²⁶ Ibid, p. 28

²⁷ The Guardian (February 8, 2012) “One in six parents can’t work kids gadgets”

²⁸ ParentPort “is run by the U.K.’s media regulators”

²⁹ ICT Regulation Toolkit (2011) Section 5.4 Other Over-the-top services; Digital Trends (November 10, 2011) “ FCC net neutrality rules live on after close Senate vote”

³⁰ CNET News (June 27, 2011) “Supreme Court may reconsider radio, TV indecency rules: Justices agree to hear "indecency" case after lower court says government censorship no longer makes sense in an era of the Internet, YouTube, and the V-chip”  A synopsis of the debate is available at The Huffington Post Canada (January 10, 2012) “Supreme Court debates U.S. indecency case” The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, while the Fifth Amendment protects against the abuse of government authority in a legal proceeding.

³¹ See for example Common Sense Media;  TV Watch; and Parents Television Council

³² Common Sense Media Ratings;

³³ See Common Sense Media

³⁴ Netflix Terms of Service: Parental Controls

Date modified:

2012-06-29