Search

Broadcasting - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Gatineau, 23 July 2025

Reference: 1011-NOC2025-0002

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

Subject: Requests for information regarding the proceeding initiated by The Path Forward – Working towards a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-2, 9 January 2025

This letter sets out questions (also called requests for information or RFIs) related to the proceeding initiated by The Path Forward – Working towards a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2025-2, 9 January 2025.

The RFIs set out in Attachment 1 focus on the various issues addressed in the notice and on the information added to the record to date and are directed to specific parties. The responses to the RFIs will allow the Commission to further develop the record in relation to comments it received during the hearing held from 18 June to 4 July 2025 and to address any gaps in the information parties provided. The distribution list is set out in Attachment 2.

Responses to the questions included in this letter are due by 7 August 2025. Please repeat the questions before your answers and use the secure service My CRTC Account (Partner Log In or GCKey) for filing the information. Parties who do not have an account and are not submitting confidential information may use the Intervention web form for these RFIs.

All parties will have the opportunity to provide comments on the questions and responses when they submit final written submissions. Please note that the Commission has announced in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-2-3, also published today, that final submissions will be due on 27 August 2025.

Confidential Information

As set out in section 25.3 of the Broadcasting Act and Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010, a person may designate certain information as confidential.

A party designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation of why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Furthermore, a party designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document omitting only the information designated as confidential or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Accessible formats for people with disabilities

The Commission requires regulated entities and encourages all parties to file submissions in accessible formats (for example, text-based file formats that enable text to be enlarged or modified or read by screen readers) for this proceeding.

To provide assistance in this regard, the Commission has posted on its website guidelines for preparing documents in accessible formats.

Where submitted documents have not been filed in accessible formats, parties may contact the Public Hearings group to request that Commission staff obtain those documents in accessible formats from the party who originally submitted the documents in question in an inaccessible format.

If you have any questions, please contact Jacquilynne Schlesier (jacquilynne.schlesier@crtc.gc.ca) and Sylvie Julien (sylvie.julien@crtc.gc.ca).

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Scott Shortliffe
Vice-President Broadcasting

Attachments (2)

  1. Requests for Information
  2. Distribution List

Attachment 1: Requests for Information

Section 1: Carriage

Carriage on online undertakings

0859291 BC Ltd., operating as CHEK-DT, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Accessible Media Inc., Amazon Canada, Anthem Sports and Entertainment, Apple Canada Inc., Atlantic Digital Networks (Toon-A-Vision), BCE Inc., Blue Ant Media Inc., Bragg Communications Inc. (carrying on business as Eastlink), Buena Vista International, Inc., Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel Zero Inc., Cogeco Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., DHX Television Ltd. (operating as WildBrain Television), Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Google LLC, Independent Broadcast Group , Motion Picture Association-Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Ontario French-language Educational Communications Authority, Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Paramount Global, Pelmorex Weather Networks Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Rally Enterprises & Communications Corp., RNC Média inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, Rogers Communications Inc., Roku, Inc., Société de télédiffusion du Québec, St. Andrews Community Channel Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., The News Forum Inc., Timeless Inc., TLN Media Group Inc.

  1. Q1. Paragraph 9.1(1)(i) of the Broadcasting Act allows the Commission to require that online undertakings, which distribute the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings in a manner similar to distribution undertakings, carry programming services without specific terms and conditions.

    Several interveners have suggested that certain online undertakings provide the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings in a manner similar to a distribution undertaking within the current broadcasting system.

    1. What are the key characteristics or operational features that would identify an online undertaking as one that distributes the programming services of another broadcasting undertaking in a manner similar to a distribution undertaking?
    2. Please identify examples of such online undertakings and explain why they meet the criteria of paragraph 9.1(1)(i).

  2. Q2. Should the Commission find that some online undertakings meet the criteria of paragraph 9.1(1)(i) and determine that it would be appropriate to mandate the distribution of programming services pursuant to paragraph 9.1(1)(i) of the Act:

    1. Which types of programming services should benefit from distribution pursuant to paragraph 9.1(1)(i) and why? What criteria should the Commission use to assess whether a programming service should benefit from distribution under praragraph 9.1(1)(i)?
    2. Should the Commission consider issuing a call for applications to assess which programming services should be granted distribution pursuant to paragraph 9.1(1)(i)?

  3. Q3. Online undertakings vary in how they offer programming (e.g., linear, Free Ad-supported Streaming Television Channels [FAST], Subscription Video-On-Demand [SVOD]). Some also provide access to third-party programming services (e.g. inclusion of content within an SVOD library, inclusion of channels in channel listings, downloadable apps integrated into the service, etc.). Should there be specific parameters or criteria that should inform how programming services benefitting from distribution under paragraph 9.1(1)(i) are made available? Should these programming services be required to follow a specific format (e.g., linear, FAST, SVOD)? If yes, who should decide on that format?

  4. Q4. In the traditional system, some programming services benefit from “must carry” status, which requires that BDUs include them as part of the basic service so that that all BDU subscribers receive them. Other programming services benefit from “must offer” status which requires that BDUs grant their subscribers access to the service. For certain types of online undertakings that meet the criteria of paragraph 9.1(1)(i), could the level of distribution required be specified (e.g. mandatory inclusion of a programming service’s SVOD app on the home screen of the online undertaking vs. mandatory inclusion of the app on a list of apps available for consumers to download)? If so, should the Commission specify the level of distribution?

  5. Q5. Certain interveners have proposed that connected device manufacturers and software providers may be considered to be operating as online undertakings.

    1. Should the Commission consider that persons controlling the software platforms on connected devices as well as access to those platforms are acting as online undertakings? Why or why not?
    2. If these software platforms are operating as online undertakings, should the Commission consider certain aspects of the physical connected device, e.g. dedicated buttons on remote controls, as part of the online undertaking?
    3. Please provide insight into the types of commercial arrangements that determine what services are made available on such devices or platforms.
Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., BCE Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Google LLC, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, Rogers Communications Inc., Roku, Inc.

  1. Q6. If the Commission were to require distribution of certain programming services under paragraph 9.1(1)(i):

    1. What, if any, technical limitations impact the number of additional programming services that could be made available through your online undertakings?
    2. Aside from any costs paid to or revenue shared with the programming service, what are the costs to your organization of adding additional programming services to those offered through your online undertakings? What factors influence those costs?
    3. Are there any required costs that must be incurred by the programming services in order to be carried on your platform, such as licences for specific software or services that must be used?
    4. What is the typical timeline and process for adding additional programming services to your online undertaking? What factors influence the timeline or process?

Broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) requirements

Access Communications Co-operative Limited, BCE Inc., Bragg Communications Inc. (carrying on business as Eastlink), Cogeco Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Rally Enterprises & Communications Corp., Rogers Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, TELUS Communications Inc.

  1. Q7. Please provide the following information and include any underlying assumptions:

    1. the total number of basic package subscribers (please provide a breakdown of those who subscribe solely to the basic package as well as those who subscribe to one or more traditional programming services à la carte in addition to the basic package. Exclude subscriptions to other higher-tiered packages).
    2. the number of basic package subscribers who bundle their television service with another non-television service, such as wireline telephone or internet.
    3. the aggregated total of subscribers across all your broadcasting distribution undertaking systems.
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Access Communications Co-operative Limited, Accessible Media Inc., Anthem Sports and Entertainment, Atlantic Digital Networks (Toon-A-Vision), BCE Inc., Blue Ant Media Inc., Bragg Communications Inc. (carrying on business as Eastlink), Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Channel Zero Inc., Cogeco Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., DHX Television Ltd. (operating as WildBrain Television), Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Independent Broadcast Group, Ontario French-language Educational Communications Authority, Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Pelmorex Weather Networks Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., RNC Média inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, Rally Enterprises & Communications Corp., Rogers Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, St. Andrews Community Channel Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., The News Forum Inc., Timeless Inc., TLN Media Group Inc.

  1. Q8. What would be the implications (positive or negative) if the Commission were to remove its regulatory requirements surrounding the provision of a basic service, whether by modifying the composition of the basic service or eliminating the maximum retail price of $25? Similarly, what would be the implications of amending the 1:1 Rule for independent discretionary services?

  2. Q9. Are there other requirements placed on BDUs concerning the distribution of programming services that the Commission could eliminate or amend to provide BDUs with more flexibility, without undermining the policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act?

Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., BCE Inc. Buena Vista International, Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel Zero Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., Google LLC, Motion Picture Association-Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Roku, Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications

  1. Q10. Some interveners have proposed that online undertakings use geolocation to define mandated distribution areas or markets, both locally and nationally. Is geolocation data available for your service? If so, are there any restrictions or technical limitations that would prevent its use for distribution purposes?

Canadian Association of Broadcasters

  1. Q11. During the hearing, you emphasized the importance of platforms providing clear plans and demonstrable proof of any technical or operational limitations affecting their carriage of Canadian services. Are you aware of any instances where you or your members have been denied access to the platforms of foreign online undertakings due to such limitations? If so, please explain.

Section 2: Discoverability and Prominence

Apple Canada Inc., Amazon Canada, BCE Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Google LLC, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, Quebecor Media Inc., Roku, Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Spotify AB, TELUS Communications Inc.

  1. Q12. Please provide the Commission with a list and description of the different routes available to an end user in Canada for finding Canadian audio and audiovisual content or where they might be exposed to Canadian content on your online platforms and/or through your connected devices. Based on your definition of Canadian audio and audiovisual content, please include the percentage of usage (e.g., numbers of Canadian program views or tracks listened to) that each access point has generated over the last six months. Please indicate which definition you are using.

  2. Q13. Can an end user seeking Canadian content on your platform identify it or distinguish it from non-Canadian content? If so, how? Are there any other measures that could be implemented to ensure that end users are easily able to find Canadian content across all platforms?

  3. Q14. Please describe how you monetize the visibility of content and applications on your platforms including any software platforms installed on connected devices. For example, are there commercial arrangements (e.g., paid placements, promotional fees) that influence the prominence of third-party services or content on the user interface or viewership, including but not limited to content selection?

  4. Q15. Please provide any internal data, research, or analysis that demonstrates how these types of commercial arrangements influence user behaviour, including but not limited to content selection and viewership, as well as impact on third-party service subscriptions.

  5. Q16. Does the user interface or content presentation differ between the platform accessed via an external device (e.g., a streaming dongle, which plugs into a TV’s HDMI port to enable streaming of content from the internet, or set-top box) and the platform integrated directly into smart televisions? If so, please describe the nature of these differences and their implications for content visibility and discoverability.

Apple Canada Inc., Amazon Canada, Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. Q17. Some connected devices can come with multiple streaming services and applications pre-installed.

    1. What criteria are used to determine which streaming services or applications, both audio and audiovisual, are pre-installed on your connected devices sold in Canada?
    2. How are these decisions influenced by commercial agreements, user demand, and the location of the devices?
    3. Are there standardized terms or processes for third-party providers to negotiate such arrangements?
0859291 BC Ltd., operating as CHEK-DT, Apple Canada Inc., Amazon Canada, Blue Ant Media Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel Zero Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., Google LLC, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, RNC Média inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, Roku, Inc., Stingray Group Inc.

  1. Q18. Please provide examples of your negotiated agreements between undertakings, in final or draft form, that include provisions related to online prominence and discoverability of programming services.

Apple Canada Inc., Amazon Canada, BCE Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Google LLC, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Roku, Inc., Spotify AB, TELUS Communications Inc.

  1. Q19. Please comment on the Independent Broadcast Group's (IBG) proposal that the Commission set out key principles of discoverability and prominence, for example, prioritizing Canadian services on the home or landing page, or at the top of program guides, and requiring online undertakings to detail how they will meet these principles by way of conditions of service.

    1. Would it be possible to implement changes that would support the principles suggested by the IBG on your online undertakings?
    2. What business or technical challenges would result from implementing those changes?
    3. What impact would it have on the user experience if you implemented those changes?
    4. If other principles would better support the discoverability of Canadian services on your online undertakings, please explain what those principles would be and how they would support the discoverability of Canadian services.
Apple Canada Inc., Amazon Canada, Google LLC

  1. Q20. Your voice-activated virtual assistant device plays music through various audio services.

    1. Is there a default audio service associated with your virtual assistant device? If not, please explain how the device identifies which audio service(s) to draw content from.
    2. Does your virtual assistant device draw content from Canadian audio services?
    3. Are end users able to set a Canadian audio service (or several of them) as the default?
    4. Please provide information on the types of commercial arrangements that dictate what is available on your virtual assistant device, including for online audio services and for broadcasters through aggregator apps such as iHeart Radio or equivalent services?

Section 3: Rules of engagement

Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., BCE Inc., Google LLC, Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc.

  1. Q21. Please provide the Commission with a list of data that your organization shares with partners who provide programming services or content that can be accessed through any of your devices or services, including, but not limited to, sales or revenue data, audience or engagement data, user behaviour data, app downloads or usage data, or any other relevant information. Please include a description and examples of the data provided.

  2. Q22. What additional data, if any, does your organization capture about your audience or content on your platforms that is not shared with your content partners but which is shared with any other partners, such as advertisers. Please indicate the types of partners with which you share this additional data.

0859291 BC Ltd., operating as CHEK-DT, Accessible Media Inc., Anthem Sports and Entertainment, Atlantic Digital Networks (Toon-A-Vision), BCE Inc., Blue Ant Media Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel Zero Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., DHX Television Ltd. (operating as WildBrain Television), Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Pelmorex Weather Networks Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Timeless Inc.

  1. Q23. Where you have partnered with online undertakings to provide access to your programming or programming services including linear channels or on-demand services and apps, please provide a list of the data you have access to regarding the sales or revenue data, audience or viewing data, user behaviour data or any other relevant information. Please include a description and examples of the data provided.

    1. Please indicate what data you would need to support a good faith negotiation.
Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., Google LLC, Spotify AB

  1. Q24. The Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale (APEM) has called for more data to be publicly available to gain insight into the state of music in Canada, particularly, the discovery, promotion and recommendation of Canadian and Francophone musical selections.

    1. With the understanding that online services are not responsible for the metadata attached to musical selections, that they may define a Canadian musical selection differently than the Commission, and that some time and investment may be required for a data collection procedure to be in place, please detail any additional roadblocks that need to be addressed for your organization to be able to provide the following data:

      Rank, song title, artist name, International Standard Recording Code (IRSC), the release date, provenance (%) by passive and active listening, and the number of passive and active impressions for the following charts, on a quarterly basis:

      1. Top 10,000 most listened-to musical selections in Canada;
      2. Top 5,000 most-listened-to Canadian musical selections in Canada;
      3. Top 5,000 most-listened-to French-language musical selection in Canada;
      4. Top 5,000 most-listened-to non-Canadian musical selections in Canada.

      For the purposes of this question, please apply the following definitions:

      • Passive listening provenance is a listened-to musical selection that was recommended or proposed by the organization.
      • An active listening provenance is a listened-to musical selection that a user searched for or actively sought.
      • Passive impression is a musical selection to which a user was exposed (including exposures that haven’t necessarily led to a listen), following a recommendation or proposition by the organization.
      • An active impression is a musical selection to which a user was exposed (including exposures that haven’t necessarily led to a listen), following the user’s searches or direct active seeking.
    2. Please detail how your organization would define a “listened-to” song (for example, does the song need to be chosen or clicked-on by a listener, does it need to be listened to in its entirety or in part? If in part, how long does the song need to be listened to?).

    3. Please refer to the definition for a Canadian musical selection, as defined by subsection 2.2(2) of the Radio Regulations, 1986. The definition of a Canadian musical selection is currently under review and subject to change following the upcoming September 18, 2025 Broadcasting Public Hearing CRTC 2025-52 - The Path Forward – Supporting Canadian and Indigenous audio content.

      If your organization uses a definition other than the current definition, please provide the detailed definition of “Canadian musical selection” you would use when determining a Canadian musical selection and the reasons for using this definition.

Canadian Communication Systems Alliance

  1. Q25. Please submit information/data reflecting the types of signal transport costs incurred by your members. Where possible, please include cost variability across members/regions. If you believe that wide variability in costs reflects the lack of competition in the market, please explain.

  2. Q26. Please provide recommendations on how the Commission could strengthen its dispute resolution process and the Wholesale Code to enhance enforceability and accountability. Specifically, what measures could be implemented to better support good-faith negotiations between parties?

Canadian Media Producers Association

  1. Q27. Please propose amendments to the Wholesale Code that reflect the changes you feel are necessary and explain the reason for any changes.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

  1. Q28. In your intervention, you suggest that the Commission should establish undue preference rules that extend to all types of undertakings.

    1. Can you please provide examples of what might constitute an undue preference in the online environment?

Section 4: Alternative dispute resolution

0859291 BC Ltd., operating as CHEK-DT, Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, BCE Inc., Black Screen Office, Blue Ant Media Inc., Bragg Communications Inc. (carrying on business as Eastlink), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, Canadian Media Producers Association, Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement, Cogeco Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., DHX Television Ltd. (operating as WildBrain Television), Digital Media Association, Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Friends of Canadian Media, Google LLC, Independent Broadcast Group, Local Independent Television Stations, Motion Picture Association-Canada, Music Canada, National Campus and Community Radio Association, Ontario Library Association, Quebecor Media Inc., Rally Enterprises & Communications Corp., RNC Média inc. and Télé Inter-Rives ltée, Rogers Communications Inc., St. Andrews Community Channel Inc., Stingray Group Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., The News Forum Inc., Timeless Inc., Writers Guild of Canada

  1. Q29. If time limits were introduced for staff-assisted mediation, final offer arbitration, and the standstill rule, what would constitute an appropriate duration for each? Under what circumstances, if any, should exceptions to these time limits be considered?

Section 5: Data Collection on Equity-Deserving groups

Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Association québecoise de la production médiatique, BCE Inc., Black Screen Office, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Cogeco Inc., Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Disability Screen Office, Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Friends of Canadian Media, Indigenous Screen Office, Motion Picture Association-Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Quebec English-language Production Council, Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc.

  1. Q30. Data Collection on Equity-Deserving Groups – Does your organization collect information about equity deserving groups? In the affirmative, please answer the following questions:

    1. Data: What types of data related to equity-deserving groups does your organization currently collect, if any?
    2. Definition: How does your organization define “equity-deserving groups'”and which specific groups are included in that definition in your data collection?
    3. Guidelines: What are some guidelines or protocols put in place for the collection and publication of such data?
    4. Privacy: Several parties have expressed concern about privacy and sensitivity issues with regards to collecting information about the diversity of ownership. How could these concerns be mitigated?
    5. Challenges: If applicable, what challenges has your organization encountered while trying to collect data on equity-deserving groups and what steps have been taken to counter them?

  2. Q31. Third party: Should the Commission initiate the collection of ownership data on equity-deserving groups. If so, should the Commission collect the information itself, or should the task be assigned to a third party? In the latter, which third party would be best suited, and why?

  3. Q32. Data Collection on Equity-Deserving Groups by the Commission: Several parties have expressed interest in the Commission or a third party collecting and publishing data to assess the diversity of ownership in broadcasting.

    1. Equity-Deserving Groups: Which communities or equity-deserving groups should be considered to monitor the evolution of diversity in ownership?
    2. Position: Which position having decision-making power should be considered?

    3. Information on Control and Ownership: Certain corporations and organizations are owned by multiple shareholders or are publicly traded companies, controlled by their board of directors.

      1. For entities with multiple shareholders and publicly traded companies, how could the Commission collect their data?
      2. Should the Commission collect data about the boards of directors?
      3. Should the Commission also collect information about the CEO?
    4. Ownership: Should data be collected on all levels of ownership (i.e. licensee, parent corporations), and why?
    5. Challenges: What challenges can you see with this proposal, and how could they be addressed?

    6. Collaboration In order to identify diversity in ownership that is representative of the broadcasting industry of Canada: Should the Commission collaborate with an organization such as the Canadian Media Fund to collect relevant information?

      1. If so, what organization would be the best positioned to fulfill that mandate, and why?
      2. What safeguards should be in place and what information should be collected?

  4. Q33. Point of contact: In order to gather data for evaluating the diversity of ownership in broadcasting, which individual within a company or entity would make the most suitable point of contact to report the data?

Section 6: Common Ownership

BCE Inc., Cogeco Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., Friends of Canadian Media, National Campus and Community Radio Association, Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Unifor

  1. Q34. Certain interveners have suggested that the cross-media ownership policy disproportionately affects only certain traditional broadcasting undertakings and that changes to the media landscape have made it irrelevant.

    1. Do you believe that the cross-media ownership policy remains a necessary tool to ensure diversity and balance of editorial voices in local markets? Please discuss.
    2. Do you agree with the stance that the policy disproportionately affects only certain traditional broadcasting undertakings? Please discuss.
    3. What would be the impact of eliminating the cross-media ownership policy on media ownership and investment in local markets?

  2. Q35. Certain interveners want to see an expansion of the cross-media ownership policy, such as having it apply to all programming, distribution and online undertakings.

    1. What would be the impact of expanding the cross-media ownership policy on media ownership and investment in local markets?
    2. Given that the Broadcasting Act limits the Commissions ability to collect ownership information in respect of online undertakings regardless of their origin, how could the Commission effectively expand the policy to include online undertakings?
    3. An expansion to online undertakings would not impact foreign online undertakings. Could this disadvantage Canadian online undertakings in effectively competing in local markets? Please discuss.

Section 7: Other questions

ACCORD, Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, BCE Inc., Blue Ant Media Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Independent Music Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, Corus Entertainment Inc., Digital Media Association, Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Google LLC, Independent Broadcast Group, Music Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Ontario Association of Broadcasters, Paramount Global, Rogers Communications Inc., Spotify AB, Stingray Group Inc.

  1. Q36. Would your organization support a standardized, industry-wide approach to open programming guide data or content inventory data to facilitate a more competitive and transparent content discovery ecosystem?

    1. What are the technical or commercial barriers to providing such data in an open, machine-readable format?
    2. What terms or conditions typically govern access and use of this data for third-party developers or public institutions seeking to build content tools?
    3. What terms or conditions should govern access and use of this data for third-party developers or public institutions seeking to build content tools?
ACCORD, Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, Canadian Independent Music Association, Digital Media Association, Music Canada, Ontario Association of Broadcasters, Spotify AB, Stingray Group Inc.

  1. Q37. If your organization provides or accesses data regarding audio tracks, does that data typically include information necessary to identify an audio track as Canadian? If not, please identify the main issues in identifying audio tracks as Canadian.

    1. Would appropriately defined “Canadian music selection” Interested Party Information (IPI) and International Performer Number (IPN) codes permit your organization to readily and conveniently identify International Standard Recording Codes (ISRC) as qualifying as “Canadian music selection” or as Indigenous music?
Amazon Canada, Apple Canada Inc., BCE Inc., Blue Ant Media Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Media Producers Association, Corus Entertainment Inc., Ethnic Channels Group Limited, Google LLC, Independent Broadcast Group, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Global, Rogers Communications Inc.

  1. Q38. If your organization provides or accesses electronic program guide or inventory data regarding audio-visual content, does that data typically include information appropriate to identify a program as Canadian? If not, please identify the main issues in identifying programs as Canadian.

    1. Would appropriately defined “Canadian Content” International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) numbers permit your organization to readily and conveniently identify content qualifying as “Canadian content” or as Indigenous content?
Shaw Rocket Fund

  1. Q39. Please provide information/data reflecting children's engagement with linear, online and all other platforms as well as data reflecting viewership trends of Canadian children’s programming.

Timeless Inc.

  1. Q40. During the hearing, you mentioned that holding rights to events of national and cultural significance can increase the value of a Canadian service, not only because of the popularity of such events, but because they could justify broader distribution rights. Building on that, should services that hold rights to events of national and cultural significance be required to make those events available online for free to ensure universal access? What concrete measure should the Commission put into place to ensure online carriage rights for events of national and cultural significance?

Appendix 2: Distribution List

Date modified: