------------------------------ From: John_Stevenson@MAGIC-BBS.CORP.APPLE.COM Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 14:27:23 EST Subject: File 2--Response to Canadian Regulation of BBS (Re CuD 6.18) I should not have been taken aback to hear that my rather hastily written reply to Lord Qorthon's post concerning possible regulation of BBSes in Canada ended up getting published in the CUDigest. Nor should I be upset that some questionable assertions about the history of broadcasting or FCC regulation of radio have been called into question. However, I am afraid I must disagree with bigsteve@DORSAI.DORSAI.ORG(Steve Coletti) on a couple of points. My attempt to give a general overview of the reason for the creation of the CBC and CRTC should not be taken as exhaustive. The 1920s did see the Canadian government concerned about American content on Canadian radio stations. Indeed, the CBC was modeled after the BBC, and had the right to both broadcast _and_ regulate licences. Whether these licences came through the post office or not (and I haven't come across this in my research) the CBC retained control over the sector as a whole, requiring commercial stations to become CBC affiliates and present CBC programming to certain quotas. Insofar as "control" of stations was concerned, there was a concern that Canadian stations would become affiliates of American networks such as NBC and CBS in the 1920s. Ownership was another issue altogether, and became the province of the CRTC when it came into existence in the 1960s. I'm afraid Steve is incorrect concerning Canadian content regs. The CRTC has never required that any broadcaster in Canada present "mostly Canadian content". Canadian content for music programming was established in the early 1970s at somewhere around 20%, and was only recently raised to 30%. This had very little to do with American pressure and everything to do "subsidizing" the Canadian music industry. > Only those persons who have to monitor or control the transmitter >needs some sort of certification. You no longer need a license to read >the meters or turn the transmitter off in an emergency, or on if the >Chief Engineer tells you to. This is done by a permit. You fill out >the form, the C.E. signs it, you mail it to the FCC with a processing >fee, ($5.00?), and you are a flunky. You can bet most of your famous on >air personalities and not allowed near a transmitter and therefore don't >need a license or operator permit. Steve's point concerning the "restrictiveness" of American licencing is well taken. However, in recent conversations with community broadcasters in the US, I have been told that if the on-air DJ is the individual "in control" of the transmitter, they must have a licence. I assume this means having the ability to turn the transmitter on and off in case of harmful interference with aviation and navigation radio systems. There was a proposal, long dead now from what I understand, to charge $35 for these licences. This would have caused quite a problem for volunteer-run stations, where the staff would have been asked to pay to be on the air. Here in Canada, you don't need a licence of any kind to be "the DJ who is also in control of the transmitter". There is a fairly large non-commercial radio sector here, with many stations programmed by volunteers. A typical campus station, for example, might have more than 100 people who at one time or another during the week have control of the transmitter. I would expect that keeping track of all these folks and there friends who might fill in for them would be a pain in the ass. As well, the CRTC does not fine people - for anything. The FCC, in contrast, has a long list of fines for various technical and other reg violations. The "seven words" are an example - we don't have to worry about them in Canada. I've had complaints at my station about some "objectionable" material that has been _defended_ by the CRTC. Those FCC fines could cripple a small noncommercial station. Oh well, you folks don't have Canadian content, POPs, max repeat factors and the like. Eye of the beholder, I guess! > What is unfortunate is that while the "standards" for broadcasting may >attempt to regulate morality, the division of the regulatory body that >issues those rules is a separate entity from the one that regulates the >wire/fiber based telecommunications industry. Each set their own rules >and penalties. While it may be illegal to "broadcast" something >indecent, there is nothing stopping you from being a foul mouth over a >private telephone conversation, analog or data, in either country's >regulations. This is an excellent point. In Canada, these two areas are quite distinct within the CRTC. > Instead of having anxiety attacks the next time a BBS's regulation fee >is proposed or rumored, we should all begin to think that it will be >inevitable and how we would like the money to be spent. Before the >commercial users try to legislate the local BBS out of business, just >like the cell phone industry made it illegal for radio scanners to tune >in the cellular band, we might want to beat them to the punch and have >some sort of self perpetuating small BBS support system in place they >can't stop. Maybe regulation is a good thing, if we can do it right. I am very skeptical about the possibility of BBS regulation in Canada at the moment, as I think I made clear in my reply to the Lord's post. Afterall, where is the pressing public need to regulate BBSes? We are not dealing with a broadcast spectrum of limited size, requiring a careful allocation of the resource. Unlike other media, the audience for BBSes is growing but still quite small. Aren't current laws against, say, distributing illegal material (such as certain kinds of pornography) or pirated software enough? As I raised in my reply, how much would it cost to keep on top of the "illegal" boards? It all seems like too much trouble for overburdened Canadian regulators. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=