Speech
Notes for an address
by Françoise Bertrand
Chairperson, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
to the International Institute of Communication
28th Annual Conference
Sydney, Australia
October 2, 1997
(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
Before I begin my remarks, please permit me to take a moment to offer my
thanks to the Canadian Chapter of the IIC, which so generously hosted yesterday's
regulatory forum.
I would like to say a special thank you to our Australian hosts. You have put
together a conference, which has enriched all of us. And your inclusion of the
first IIC Regulatory Forum have given us a prestigious start to our efforts.
Thank you to all my colleagues who have accepted my invitation. This IIC
gathering of international experts from all sectors of the communications field
provides the perfect backdrop for our deliberations. It facilitates the exchange
of critical information so necessary to stay in touch with the rapid pace of
change, which makes life so interesting for all of us involved in Tracking the
Communications Marketplace.
It was an historic moment yesterday, in the life of the IIC, to have the heads
of seven regulatory agencies together at one place. To reassure anyone with
concerns, our meeting was not the initiation of any sort of global regulatory
regime or agency.
It was very simply a forum for informal exchange of information. It was an
occasion for stimulating debate and the interchange of ideas on issues of common
concern. We hope our experience here will lead to better policy development, as
we head home to our individual countries. As our South-African friend Mr. Mapa
said so well, it is about hearing and learning.
Some might ask why regulators need such a tête-à-tête in the first place.
After all, the regulatory function is one which, by its legislative mandate is
domestic in nature. We have domestic objectives, the industries which we regulate
and supervise in the public interest are domestic. We only have authority over
what happens within our own borders.
However, that approach ignores the reality of the times. It ignores the fact
that these industries now operate in a global economy. They carry out their
functions within the context of an international communications marketplace.
Therefore to me, it is only common sense that regulators have to talk about
what they do in the same international context. That is why I extended the
invitation to my colleagues to gather here in Sydney, to begin the process of
establishing an informal but regular dialogue.
As regulators, we cannot afford to operate in isolation. We need access to the
broader picture, and that can only occur when there is a mechanism to exchange
information and ideas.
Our global concerns are derived from what has occurred within the entire
communications industry, both broadcast and telecom. New technologies have, in
many ways, created a borderless marketplace.
They have increased the complexity of established regulatory practices as we
look at a wider range of options: forbearance, self-regulation, de-regulation,
re-regulation, and an increasing role in dispute resolution.
Countries which up to now did not have to concern themselves with an influx of
foreign programming, now find themselves besieged by non-domestic signals,
created by the sudden occurrence of DTH satellites and other distribution
technologies. And, almost without exception, there is a high public demand for
the consumer choice represented by those signals.
This has heightened awareness of the importance of domestic product. There are
issues of how one should place it, making sure there is enough product and
adequate shelf space for it within the distribution systems.
There is also the challenge of finding the right navigation systems for the
multi-channel universe. We need systems which will guide citizens to indigenous
products, within the abundance of foreign products available to consumers.
The evolution of technology has taken the environment within which we, in
Canada, have been living for years, and expanded it worldwide.
As Janet was explaining, in Canada, competition is not virtual. Over the
several years, we have been progressively liberalizing entry to these markets. At
the moment, we are in the process of resolving implementation issues relating to
the introduction of competition in local telephony. Local competition in
telephony is set to begin January 1, 1998.
In Canada, we have 11 federally regulated telephone companies and 48
independent telcos. All the alternate carriers (Sprint, AT&T for example) are
foreborne from regulations. That means they don't have to file tariffs.
The cable and telephone companies in Canada are gearing up to enter each
other's markets as of that January 1, 1998 date. The CRTC has authorized trials
in broadcasting and new media by telcos. We are licensing new technologies such
as applications from a telco to be licensed as a broadcaster.
Internationally, Canada has committed, as part of the World Trade Organization
discussions, to end the monopolies of Teleglobe -
the international carrier, and Telesat -
our domestic satellite carrier, and to remove restrictions on the routing of
Canada's international traffic.
To give you some idea of the magnitude of the Canadian broadcasting system in
both official languages, here are some of the statistics:
|
90 |
private TV stations |
|
31 |
CBC TV stations (our public broadcaster) |
|
51 |
Canadian pay and specialty services (and at
least an equal number of U.S and other foreign networks and service available
for carriage) |
|
2000 |
cable systems (4 large) and over 70% of Canadian
households subscribe to cable |
|
2 |
Direct -to -Home companies in operation |
As you can see, competition is alive and well within the Canadian system. And
that includes a significant level of competition from foreign services. In fact,
60% of the television programming available to Canadians -
on our Canadian system -
is U.S programming.
No one knows better than Canada about foreign pressures on, and in, the
domestic broadcasting marketplace. We are the most open market in the world to
foreign product.
We do authorize its entry into our distribution systems, but in the truest
sense of the word, we do not regulate this product. We have very few controls
over its content.
This product in fact competes with Canadian product, but has none of the
obligations that domestic program services have to serve the public interest, or
to contribute to the development of Canadian programming.
Public interest requirements of governments and their independent regulators
are in fact becoming an increasing focus of attention in many jurisdictions. This
is happening as issues such as safeguards for consumers in a competitive
marketplace, obligations in return for the use of spectrum, the introduction of
new technologies like High Definition Television, arrive on the policy and
regulatory agenda.
This adds complexity for us the regulator, as we encourage competition in the
marketplace, yet attempt to ensure that the public interest is being served.
However, even though we are experienced in dealing with these stresses on our
domestic communications industries, we do not assume for a moment that we have
all the answers. Which is yet another reason why we held yesterday's forum.
As regulatory agencies, we need to understand the impact of policies of other
countries on our domestic players. We have to be able to understand the way
industries operate in other countries.
We need to have a grasp of the alliances and joint ventures being structured
as part of operating in a global economy. And we have to anticipate their
ramifications on the development of our communications industries, and the impact
on our domestic telecommunications and broadcasting systems.
As our communications companies operate in this much larger domain, they are
creating new international partnerships. We want to have a good knowledge of how
these partnerships evolve, what they need to flourish, and the changes they bring
to the dynamics of the ways in which these companies operate.
We need to comprehend the pressures that these new global arrangements bring
into our domestic marketplace, so we can balance the public interest and maximize
the benefits to citizens, maximize value to consumers, and maximize profits to
business.
We also have the additional dimension in Canada of being a nation with its own
internal cultural diversity. We're not alone. Finland also, as we have learned
yesterday, shares that situation. Not only do we face the challenges of these
external pressures, but as well we must balance the cultural needs and
aspirations of francophone consumers within the overall Canadian context, where
70% of the population is anglophone.
We believe a further plus we can bring to the table is that under the Canadian
regulatory system, both broadcasting and telecom come under the jurisdiction of a
single regulatory agency. Therefore we are well-positioned to address convergence
issues, and to share our learning curve with our colleagues around the world.
To equip ourselves better for this new environment in our domestic context,
our agency, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, has
just completed what we call our Vision exercise.
All companies undertake periodic reviews of their business plans, of their
strategic positioning, their views of how they fit in. It was time for the
regulator to do the same thing.
We believe the results of our exercise will permit us to both adapt to the
changing environment, and at the same time, adapt the environment itself, to make
it work better for consumers, citizens, and business.
As regulators, we must address not only technological change, but the impact
these changes have on our responsibilities to preserve our cultural sovereignty
in what has become a borderless communications universe.
Corporations have to worry about their bottom line as expressed in financial
terms. Our bottom line is to balance social and economic objectives in the public
interest.
How will we bring this Vision to life? We believe Canadians will see a
different Commission evolving. The old CRTC would say "we shall regulate it". The
new Commission will say "regulate if necessary, but where appropriate, we would
prefer to let industry self-regulate under supervision".
The old Commission was protectionist in its approach -
which fit the requirements of the time. The new CRTC will be much more driven by
promoting opportunity to let Canadians show they can compete in the new
environment. And our dialogue with consumers, with citizens, with industry, will
be broader and more interactive.
That leads us back here to Sydney. To be an effective regulator of the
Canadian market, we believe we must also look at the global environment as part
of the economic, social and cultural pressures which are being felt in our
domestic milieu. Therefore, we must expand our international dialogue as well as
our domestic consultations.
Our Vision and its attendant agenda lays out the Commission's road map for the
future to all players in Canada. It is a very public guide to our review of
policies, rules and regulations.
We are at a watershed moment in our existence, and this was, in fact, the
impetus for wanting to create a forum to share our views at the international
level.
We hope this international dialogue will gain momentum, allowing us to
understand and address issues over the longer term. It will hopefully become part
of the strategic planning process for each of our agencies. Our plan is to meet
again on an informal basis as an expanded group in London next March and meet
more formally at the next IIC annual conference in Rome.
We have agreed on two principles:
- regulation is here to stay, as Tony Shaw explained
- regulation has to evolve and transform itself to the challenges of the
global market.
We have agreed to look at a number of issues for example:
- what is the degree and reality of competition in each country?
- what is our role in the evolution of the Internet?
- and the assurance of the Universal Service.
We also have to explore how new technologies will best serve the public
interest. All of us in the regulatory business know that our governments will
want assurances from us that we are aware of what is going on in this domain.
They want to know that we are ready to provide safeguards
to citizens, consumers and businesses, and to mediate the often conflicting
demands of the public interest.
We collectively need to maintain a solid monitoring brief and keep each other
aware of developments through the regular exchange of information.
That will give each of us a better sense of whether it is necessary to
step in, to what degree we step in, and at what time we step in,
for the benefit of consumers, citizens, and industry.
This measured response, based on international understanding, will result in
balancing the system to ensure it works the way both government and the private
sector need it to work.
This is a challenging time for all involved in the communications industry:
businesses and regulators. We need all of our wits about us, as we cope with the
incredible pace of change, and the sometimes conflicting demands of marketplace
competition and our cultural sovereignty mandates.
This conference has been a unique moment. The dialogue we have initiated here
in Sydney, and which will continue in London and Rome, will ensure that we are
effectively using all the tools available, to help us best serve our economic,
social and cultural goals in the public interest.
Thank you.
- 30 -
Contact: CRTC Communications Branch, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Tel.: (819) 997-5427, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 994-0218
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date Modified: 1997-10-07 |
