On June 20, 2025, at 2:24 PM, Rogers Communications urged the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to significantly lessen the regulation imposed on cable companies. The appeal comes at a time when less than half of Canadian households maintain subscriptions to cable, satellite, or IPTV services. Rogers contends the current regulatory structure is archaic. This misallocation of advertising dollars is a huge detriment to Canadian ownership groups as the media landscape continues to change.
Colette Watson, Rogers’ president of their media division, warned that today’s events spelled doom for any Canadian ownership groups that remained. She stated that they “cannot survive another decade of disproportionate regulation.” Along with NYT’s paywall, this industry assertion demonstrates the tremendous pressure that legacy media outlets are feeling. Consumers are turning more and more to streaming services and away from traditional cable providers.
Rogers’ statement is in line with a larger trend seen in the music industry, one recently echoed by streaming giant Spotify. Xenia Manning, Spotify’s director of global music policy, emphasized the need for modern regulatory approaches, stating, “To apply yesterday’s tools to today’s platforms risks dulling Canada’s success on the global music stage.” This perspective underscores the challenges that regulators face in adapting to the rapid evolution of technology and consumer behavior in the entertainment sector.
The latter point was one Spotify has vigorously opposed regulation to intervene. They claimed that the audio streaming market is doing just fine and doesn’t need the CRTC breathing down its neck. Spotify stressed the utility of testing to determine whether there’s a real issue. A single state’s failure to sufficiently protect its citizens could warrant national regulatory intervention. In our view, the evidence is clear. There are no market failures in audio streaming that would justify the CRTC intervening in the first place.
The company’s position elaborates on the potential consequences of increased regulation, which it claims could lead to “imposing dispute resolution and commercial negotiation requirements on online undertakings that are plainly outside the scope of broadcasting.” This comment is indicative of real fear within the streaming industry about the impact of undue regulatory burdens that would quash innovation and competition.
The political context of these debates is just as important as the media environment, which is changing by the second. With a significant decline in cable subscriptions, stakeholders are questioning whether traditional regulatory frameworks can adequately address the needs of modern consumers and businesses. As companies like Rogers and Spotify advocate for more flexible regulations, the CRTC faces a challenging task in balancing the interests of traditional media with the realities of the digital age.
