Media Centre > Columns > May 23, 2006

RADIO POLICY REVIEW: At the end of the day, it's all about making choices

By Glenn O’Farrell

FOLLOWING A FOUR DAY PUBLIC hearing process regarding the future regulation of private radio, a complex task now lies with the CRTC's staff and commissioners. And their choices will have a profound effect on the future of Canada’s broadcasting industry.

The week-long hearing process leaves the CRTC with two alternatives: either revert to the traditional model of regulation by increasing quotas and imposing additional regulations and subsidy mechanisms; or, rationalize the existing model for a transition defined by a technologically empowered consumer. Each of these approaches draws from a different philosophical orientation and leads to two very different public policy decisions.

The traditional model is inspired by a view that the CRTC continues to exercise exclusive market entry control over sectors that fall under its regulation. This position relies on the traditional role of government to regulate access for the commercial use of public airwaves. Alternatively, the option to rethink and retool the existing model of regulation operates from the assumption that regulated radio services now directly compete with a growing number of new unregulated audio services.

It’s interesting to note that the voices encouraging the Commission to revert to the traditional model, explicitly or implicitly, also agreed that new technologies (Internet streaming audio, cell phone radio, iPods) have indeed empowered Canadian consumers by offering radio-like services well beyond the CRTC’s jurisdictional scope. None of these interveners suggested or provided evidence to support the view – because no such evidence exists – that the Commission continues to hold exclusive control of market entry to the audio space that was once occupied only by licensed radio stations.

There seems to be a general agreement that market entry can no longer be regulated. So why is it that all of these stakeholders cannot see and accept the logical extension of this fact: that there is an imperative need to rationalize the existing radio regulatory model for the fundamental shift that is being defined by a technologically empowered Canadian consumer.

Again, it’s all about making choices. For those who suggest the way forward is to revert to the traditional model for radio regulation, their choice appears to be motivated by an apprehension of where the transition leads. The apprehension is something we all share. However, we cannot sustain the traditional model merely because it’s familiar, and because we find it comforting.

There is little comfort to be had in a rules model that does not recognize that rapid advances in technology have shifted the balance of power to the consumers.

On what basis would we believe that consumers will turn their backs on the empowering and enabling features of these new technologies. There are few, if any, examples to be drawn from history where individuals vested with choice have voluntarily abandoned or relinquished such prerogatives.

Let’s be reasonable. Consumers won’t abandon the choices they currently enjoy and technology will continue to multiply and simplify access to an ever-expanding universe of audio choices – from both within our borders, and far beyond them.

Over the years, private radio has faced many challenges, some more successfully than others. However, after 80 years, the sector has outlasted many critics, mainly because radio has consistently chosen to innovate and adapt with changing times. Again today, the right choice is to recognize the need for the current regulatory model for radio to evolve and to reflect the reality that consumers can opt in and/or out of the regulated system. If we allow the regulatory model to evolve in the manner in which logic dictates it should, we can help safeguard the legitimacy and relevance of regulation itself.

Glenn O’Farrell is president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. www.cab-acr.ca