Canada-wide
C.M.E.S. Responds to CRTC Rejection of Innovative Community TV Licence Application (Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2008-19)
Ultimately it's about the money. Canada's $80 million annual broadcast distribution levy has created the modern hybrid community channel, a community-corporate partnership where the entire tax is returned to the company to be used for business promotion.
When CRTC commissioners rejected the C.M.E.S. application to provide the community channel for the Telus TV distribution network, they considered three issues. The middle issue is that C.M.E.S. might not be able to provide a community channel without revenue from Telus. From its own resources C.M.E.S. is being asked to fund this channel. The CRTC suggests advertising, going into not-for-profit competition with commercial TV.
In fact cable companies are seeing dramatic advertising revenue growth on community TV ─ $5 million in 2005, money that once would have been available to broadcasters to help fund Canada's entertainment industry. Now some cable companies have become so financially dominant they can refuse to pay the tax that helps finance the Canadian Television Fund.
The third reason given by the CRTC for rejecting the C.M.E.S. application is that distribution of shows for Alberta and BC would come from Calgary and Vancouver. Production would take place in all fourteen communities covered under the Telus licence, independent shows controlled by residents in those communities, but the CRTC did not consider that to be sufficiently local. Until Terrace and Lethbridge can have a full local schedule financed by local subscribers they can't have anything.
The mayor of Medicine Hat disagreed, the mayor of Prince George disagreed, and twenty-five other people representing municipalities, universities or themselves disagreed; but that was not enough to convince the CRTC. Once Vancouver's community channel had eleven neighbourhood offices. Now we see centralized programming throughout the Lower Mainland and beyond. Thousands of volunteers have been replaced by a few paid professionals. Is it finally time for municipalities to manage the system, guaranteeing channel access in the same way that public libraries are open to everyone, especially since for community TV a funding structure is already in place?
The first reason the CRTC uses to reject participatory public access TV in BC and Alberta begins by acknowledging C.M.E.S. strengths. C.M.E.S. is genuinely structured for community control of its management, operations and programs. C.M.E.S. has operated on a volunteer basis for more than a decade, along with other community TV groups in Canada who constantly have to turn away volunteers. In spite of that, the CRTC doubts that starting out with part-time workers and volunteers is practical. Until everyone can be paid no one can be paid.
Canada's $80 million community channel tax on imported US TV signals is paid annually by all Broadcast Distribution Undertakings (an exceptionally clumsy phrase, usually shortened to BDUs.) In English-speaking Canada cable companies administer the tax they pay, much as if you managed the details of how your income tax is spent. Not-for-profit societies may receive the channel funding if community programming otherwise would not be available. This is the clause that C.M.E.S. has just tested unsuccessfully. If BDUs breach the Key Elements of the CRTC 2002-61 Community Channel Policy they also forfeit the levy money but the CRTC monitors compliance only when there's a public complaint. Parliament has been told that "virtually no information exists on what happens as a result of cable company expenditures" (Our Cultural Sovereignty, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, June 2003, page 368).
Judging by their decisions, CRTC commissioners believe in strong businesses. Once Canada spent money to encourage political participation, recognizing the importance of public discussion to a nation. At the moment an almost religious faith in rugged individual anti-social economics blinds too many policy makers. The vogue for small government was not supposed to entrench big business but that's where the power has gone.
This decision against C.M.E.S. is equally problematic for Telus who will find it even harder to meet the local standard laid down here. When the Broadcasting Act included community television as one of the three pillars of Canada's broadcasting identity, when Pierre Juneau and Frank Spiller set out to involve us all as television producers, not just as consumers of American shows, they knew that the community channel would need secure funding. Like health care and education and its own armed forces, Canada needed to support community TV financially. Later when the argument came into fashion that all government services could be provided more efficiently by private businesses, the $80 million annually for community TV was irresistible to the private sector. The result was that all other social services began to suffer from the lack of discussion and promotion that had been provided by community television.
If the CRTC is true to its public trust, the only possible reason it might have had to reject the C.M.E.S. application is that C.M.E.S. did not set its sights high enough. Throughout the hearing process no one ever expressed any doubt that C.M.E.S. could operate a community channel. At the Kelowna public hearing C.M.E.S. director Brock MacLachlan pointed out the financial Catch 22 where credit unions and foundations require core funding before grants and loans will be given. C.M.E.S. made it very clear in Kelowna that its application was all about the money.
BDUs talk about competition but in fact a few cable companies retain the lions' share of subscribers, whether the competition is from little multipoint businesses or big telephone companies. Now in the Canadian Television Fund hearings a couple of cable companies like surly teenagers have become big enough to take a swing at their parent. If our government can be bullied then we have no government at all; or, even worse, we have government by large corporations. Without effective and sufficient taxation we always will have weak government. It has to be about the money.
Law courts and concentrated capital are powerful but nothing is as powerful as an idea that is right for its time. Community TV was founded on eight Key Elements, listed on page 333 of Our Cultural Sovereignty. These Key Elements are conspicuous by their absence on corporate community channels.
The best explanation for the CRTC decision against C.M.E.S. would be CRTC fears that the Telus web-based system won't succeed against its cable competitors. C.M.E.S. energy and, worse still, the enthusiasm of volunteer producers would be depleted to no purpose. That would explain why Telus got the licence in 2003 but the C.M.E.S. application was delayed til late 2007. The CRTC most likely recognizes that a favourable decision for the Telus system may not be enough to reinvigorate community TV. Nonetheless the C.M.E.S. application was necessary to see whether volunteers had the determination to carry the process through to a decision.
The real challenge is in Canada's major cities: creating a participatory public access community channel under independent control with full BDU funding. Whether this is done by municipalities or not-for-profit community groups, it must be done. The Community programming undertaking provision in CRTC 2002-61 states that the community channel must be operated according to CRTC 2002-61 Key Elements. If it can be proven in Vancouver that this is not being done, then $5 million is available there annually to support civic issues, public discussion and all-around fun. The same opportunity exists in Calgary and all of Canada's communities, large and small. This is the only tax most BDUs ever pay. It's all about the money.
Richard Ward
Director, C.M.E.S.
Link to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2008-19
*** End of document ***
CRTC Awards Compensation to Citizen's Advocacy Group for Cost of Preparing Submission
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has won a major victory for Canadians who want a say in telecommunications policy in Canada. In Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2007-14 issued today, the CRTC upheld PIAC's request for compensation for the preparation of a submission to a public hearing on whether or not to eliminate regulatory constraints on telephone companies' basic rates.
The public hearing (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-10) was instigated in response to a letter from Bell Canada requesting deregulation of basic phone service fees. PIAC was strongly opposed to such a move, and included with its submission a request under s.44 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure for compensation for the costs of preparing its submission. Under s.44, the CRTC can award costs against a regulated company to an intervener who represents a class of subscribers with an interest in the outcome, who has participated in a responsible way, and who has contributed to a better understanding of the issues. The CRTC ordered that PIAC be compensated in the amount of $20,182.74.
Bell Canada (on behalf of itself, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications) had argued against the application, suggesting that PIAC had not been responsible, that they had unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and had made unsubstantiated allegations during the hearing. The CRTC found unequivocally that PIAC had participated in a responsible way and had contributed to a better understanding of the issues.
Our Quebec Friends' View on 2007-10
As many of you may know, there have been community TV organizations operating independently from cable operators in Quebec for much of the history of community TV in Canada. They are represented by the la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec.
In their own words:
Les télévisions communautaires autonomes sont des organismes à but non lucratif et sont réparties dans 15 des 17 régions du Québec. Distribuées sur le service de câblodistribution de leur région, elles rejoignent jusqu’à 1 400 000 téléspectateurs et téléspectatrices. La Fédération est membre du Réseau québécois de l’action communautaire autonome, du Chantier de l’économie sociale, du CSMO-ÉSAC et de la Corporation de développement communautaire de l’Érable. Le fonctionnement de la Fédération est subventionné par le ministère de la Culture, des Communications et le la Condition féminine du Québec
We'd like to welcome the Fédération and its members as CACTUS contributors and include the following article about the Fédération's reaction to 2007-10. This is reprinted from the Fédération's quarterly "Bulletin", which you can read in full at the Fédération's web site at: www.fedetvc.qc.ca. The current "Bulletin" contains articles about Quebec's bingo laws (member of the member channels subsist in part on bingos), as well as fund-raising activities at some of the member channels. But first, the Fédération on 2007-10:
Une déréglementation majeure des modalités d’exploitation du canal communautaire est à nos portes!
La Fédération est sur un pied de guerre depuis la parution, le 5 avril 2007, de l’Avis d’audience publique de radiodiffusion CRTC 2007-10 portant sur la Révision des cadres de réglementation des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion et des services de programmation facultatifs.
Lors de la soirée d’ouverture du congrès 2007, Gérald Gauthier, agent de recherche et de développement à la Fédération, a dressé un compte-rendu de la situation. Il a rappelé les grands enjeux de ce processus de déréglementation et comment ils affecteront les TVC autonomes si le CRTC allait de l’avant.
En fait, pour une seconde fois en moins de 10 ans, l’avenir de la télévision communautaire de proximité est à nouveau menacé. La présence à l’écran des émissions locales et d’accès de chacune des communautés pourrait être diluée sur un canal communautaire desservant plusieurs zones de desserte. Le canal communautaire pourrait ne plus être au service de base des abonnés. Il pourrait devenir un service facultatif accessible seulement aux abonnés qui paieraient un volet supplémentaire. Il s’agit d’affirmations conditionnelles, mais bien réelles au regard de la flexibilité réglementaire exigée par les câblodistributeurs canadiens.
Cet Avis est donc présenté dans un contexte où le CRTC propose une approche qui vise à réduire la réglementation au strict minimum tout en voulant soi-disant assurer la poursuite des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Cette approche doit se fier le plus possible aux forces du marché selon les termes utilisés par le CRTC. C’est que les câblodistributeurs et les distributeurs par satellite évoluent de plus en plus dans un environnement concurrentiel. De plus, l’émergence et les progrès de la technologie numérique de distribution de services de programmation aux abonnés nécessitent d’importants investissements. Le passage à la haute définition (HD) va aussi demander des investissements majeurs. Dans ce contexte, les câblodistributeurs cherchent à réduire les coûts d’exploitation de leurs réseaux. L’interconnexion des systèmes de câble d’une région à une autre est une manière de réduire les coûts fixes. Or, selon eux, la réglementation actuelle du canal communautaire, exigeant une conformité par zone de desserte, est un frein à leurs efforts de réduction des coûts.
Conformément aux prescriptions du Cadre stratégique pour les médias communautaires (Cadre stratégique) publiés le 10 octobre 2002 par le CRTC à la suite d’une longue bataille visant à rétablir la place des TVC sur les canaux communautaires, les modifications apportées en 2003 au Règlement sur la distribution de radiodiffusion (le Règlement) obligent en effet les distributeurs à offrir les services de programmation dans le respect de certaines normes précises. C’est particulièrement le cas avec le canal communautaire. Ce dernier, lorsqu’il est offert par le câblodistributeur, doit présenter une programmation prioritairement locale au regard de la zone de desserte pour laquelle le câblodistributeur est autorisé à exploiter la licence de distribution de radiodiffusion. La programmation locale doit alors représenter 60 % de l’ensemble de la programmation hebdomadaire. La programmation produite par les membres de la communauté desservie doit, pour sa part, refléter 30 % de la grille horaire hebdomadaire. Les télévisions communautaires autonomes (TVC autonomes) sont les principales productrices du contenu local et d’accès des collectivités sur les différents canaux communautaires.
Déjà, malgré le Cadre stratégique pour les médias communautaires et la consolidation de plusieurs aspects cruciaux par des modifications au Règlement, des protections minimales telle l’obligation de diffusion de 60 % de programmation locale par semaine de radiodiffusion dans une zone de desserte autorisée, ont pu être contournées par des conditions de licence octroyées à des câblodistributeurs. Les modifications par conditions particulières de licence sont des pratiques qui se généralisent partout au Canada. Au Québec, Cogeco Câble peut désormais calculer le pourcentage de programmation locale et celui d’accès sur un regroupement de zones de desserte autorisées. Il s’agit de son approche par secteur. De son côté, Vidéotron a obtenu une condition de licence qui lui permet de calculer ses pourcentages de programmation locale et d’accès sur deux zones de desserte autorisées de classe 2 : les licences de Saint-Félicien et de Dolbeau-Mistassini. Comme mentionné plus tôt, du point de vue des câblodistributeurs, l’interconnexion des zones de desserte et le virage numérique militent en faveur d’un assouplissement de la réglementation, particulièrement celles qui régissent l’exploitation du canal communautaire. Or, pour les TVC autonomes, une déréglementation outrancière mettrait en péril les principes fondamentaux de leur existence. Ces principes sont : le maintien du lien direct en tout temps sur le canal communautaire (ce qu’on appelle la baie de diffusion locale), le maintien des plages horaires intéressantes notamment aux heures de grande écoute et la primauté des programmations locales et d’accès sur la programmation extérieure à la zone de desserte autorisée telle que cette dernière avait été établie dans la licence existante au 10 octobre 2002.
L'Avis d'audience publique 2007-10 se penche sur des enjeux fondamentaux qui, dans le présent contexte d’une déréglementation encouragée par le gouvernement fédéral, pourraient déstructurer considérablement l’élément communautaire télévisuel au sein du système canadien de radiodiffusion. Ces enjeux sont : la création d'une classe unique de licence pour les câblodistributeurs, un accès plus simple à des clauses de dérogation au Règlement, le retrait possible de la distribution du canal communautaire au service de base des abonnés, des modifications importantes aux articles 27, 28, 29 et 35 du Règlement – des articles liés spécifiquement à l’exploitation des canaux communautaires -- et, tout aussi primordial, il y a le retrait possible de l'obligation de distribution en mode numérique et au service de base des stations de télévision de faible puissance axées sur la communauté et les entreprises numériques offertes aux abonnés de ces zones de desserte. Pour les TVC autonomes, les possibilités d’assouplissements proposées dans l’Avis d’audience publique CRTC 2007-10, si elles devaient se concrétiser, signifieraient une diminution de leur présence à l’écran et un tas d’autres incertitudes.
Dans l’éventualité de territoires de desserte beaucoup plus vastes qu’ils ne le sont actuellement, que restera-t-il de la prépondérance de la programmation locale et d’accès? Est-ce que les TVC autonomes auront leur mot à dire sur les plages horaires au regard de leur programmation? Pourquoi le CRTC questionne-t-il l’obligation qu’on les câblodistributeurs d’offrir le canal communautaire au service de base des abonnés? Est-ce que le canal communautaire serait voué à devenir un service facultatif? Que deviendront les modalités du financement de la programmation communautaire dans le cas d’une classe unique de licence et si le canal est offert sur une base facultative?
Le Cadre stratégique ouvrait aussi la porte à la possibilité d’obtenir des licences d’exploitation d’entreprises de programmation de télévision communautaire (faible puissance ou circuit numérique). Le CRTC a statué que les câblodistributeurs avaient l’obligation de distribuer le signal de ces stations en mode numérique et au service de base des abonnés. Ces possibilités de nouvelles licences représentent une alternative au canal communautaire. Il s’agit même du seul filet de sécurité valable à un canal communautaire qui ne répondrait plus aux besoins réels de programmation des communautés. C’est par l’obtention d’une licence de radiodiffusion que les TVC autonomes atteindront la véritable autonomie. Or, dans le présent processus de déréglementation, le CRTC se questionne sur la pertinence d’obliger les câblodistributeurs à distribuer les entreprises de programmation de télévision communautaire axées sur la communauté en mode numérique et au service de base. La Fédération s’oppose fermement à cette dernière éventualité. Une entreprise de programmation communautaire autorisée en vertu d’une licence doit jouir des mêmes privilèges que les stations de télévision locales privées ou publiques. À défaut de pouvoir être offerte au service analogique par certains câblodistributeurs, une entreprise de programmation de télévision communautaire autorisée doit alors bénéficier d’une distribution en mode numérique sur le service de base. Que deviendrait l’attrait de ces licences s’il n’y avait plus d’obligation de distribution au service de base des abonnés?
La phase 1 du processus mis de l’avant par l’Avis 2007-10 s’est terminée le 19 octobre dernier. La Fédération a déposé un important mémoire visant à défendre les règles d’exploitation actuelles du canal communautaire et a demandé aussi des assouplissements en matière de publicité. La phase 2 consiste en une période de réplique entre les intervenants de la première phase. Cette phase, qui avait comme date limite le 16 novembre, a eu une extension jusqu’au 25 janvier 2008. La raison de ce report repose sur l’ajout d’un élargissement du mandat de l’Avis 2007-10. Le CRTC accepte d’analyser à nouveau le financement de la télévision en direct. Ce report est toutefois salutaire pour la Fédération. En effet, l’analyse des interventions rédigées par les câblodistributeurs et autres parties intéressées demande beaucoup de temps. La préparation des argumentaires ayant pour but de s’opposer aux revendications des câblodistributeurs devient aussi plus complexe. La Fédération aura besoin de ce temps supplémentaire pour peaufiner sa seconde intervention.
Dans l’intervalle, les TVC autonomes seront contactées afin qu’elles soutiennent, par une résolution, l’intervention de la Fédération. Des rencontres politiques auront lieu avec des représentants des divers partis provinciaux et fédéraux afin qu’ils influencent le CRTC au regard du maintien du minimum de réglementation encore existante pour le développement de l’élément communautaire dûment identifié à l’intérieur de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
L’audience publique qui devait se tenir à partir du 4 février 2008, a elle aussi été reportée. La nouvelle date est le 7 avril 2008.
Cet Avis du CRTC est la preuve que jamais rien n’est acquis. Les quelques gains obtenus avec le Cadre stratégique pour les médias communautaires (2002) sont à nouveau menacés. La Fédération a besoin du soutien de l’ensemble de ses membres afin de contrer les velléités de déréglementation.
Victory in Campbell River
The latest just in from Larry Widen and Lance Klaasen in Campbell River, B.C. (for the background to this story, read further down the home page articles):
The CRTV annual general meeting went well.
I sat close to a mike and was able to make two motions that passed by a good majority. The first concerned a letter from Shaw offering to buy CRTV for $3,000 to each subscriber.
MOTION #1
That the letter from Shaw be received and filed with no action taken.
MOTION #2
I move that the owners of CRTV assembled at this 2007 annual general meeting direct the current board of directors, the board of directors elected as a result of nomination accepted at this annual general meeting and all persons employed by CRTV as follows:
That the course of action set out in what has been reported as option #1, to maintain the status quo, and option #3, to sell CRTV, be abandoned and not receive any further consideration in favour of option #2 and aggressively implement a course of action to maintain, improve, enhance and expand services provided by CRTV including community programming to the full extent financially practicable
There were about 450 owners in attendance. Those who wanted their $3,000.00 complained that some who wanted to attend could not get in as there were no more seats. There is a wide range of the counts of how many could not get in. The same people called for a referendum on all three options with no success.
The local chapter of the Council of Canadians organized an information handout as members were entering the theatre relating to Public Notice 2007-10 (paragraph 73). The handout encouraged members to make public submissions to the CRTC to oppose the proposed CRTC deregulation.
Now all that remains is for CRTV is to determine how they will finance the new services needed to keep up with the competition.
The Latest from Campbell River, Vancouver Island
The following letter was submitted by Campbell River, (Vancouver Island) Community TV Technical Foreman to the Campbell River local paper:
Dear readers;
From reading the papers and listening to folks talk lately, I get the feeling that citizens of Campbell River may have recently developed a false impression about the state of CRTV. I would like to dispel some of the misconceptions people might have about the condition of their cable company.
Through talk shows , press releases and letters, certain people may have inadvertently lead the public to believe that our cable company is not worth anything anymore – and if it still is, ‘woe is us’, it won’t be for long!
This could not be further from the truth. If you acquire a copy of the President’s Report for the last 5 or 6 AGM’s, you will find that a pretty rosy picture was being presented over the years – and justifiably so! In the past few years, we’ve taken advantage of every opportunity to speak of the positives regarding CRTV. How could the picture change so dramatically in such a short period of time?
Why would Shaw offer $3000.00 per subscriber for a cable system? That amount speaks volumes to the value of this cable system! Why would they offer this unprecedented amount?
CRTV is a state of the art cable system. In fact, we are in somewhat better shape than most Shaw systems this size. Our last rebuild took us to 750Mhz with all coaxial actives and passives and to 860Mhz with all fiber actives. Many, many cable systems of various sizes in this country are still at 450 or 550 Mhz and not as ‘fiber rich’ as CRTV. The reason I mention this, is that bandwidth in cable terms is like real estate. The more bandwidth you have, the more services you can deliver. CRTV has the capacity now to deliver a lot of services. Speaking of fiber, we now have 11 (soon 12) nodes and within the next couple of years we will upgrade to fiber right into the neighbourhoods. With new technologies that have recently been perfected, we will be in a position to maximize the use of our existing fiber. We now serve all of SD72 with 100 Mbit internet through fiber as well as several government offices locally. Businesses in the future will request direct fiber connections for their high - speed connections and we will be in a position to provide that.
It’s obvious that CRTV has been upgrading constantly for the last several years. For example, we recently installed a new modem termination system which when fully integrated, will allow us to offer unbelievably high internet speeds as well as other services such as packet video. CRTV has just recently been awarded a license for video on demand, which will give our members access to an unprecedented selection of product. We are constantly adding more digital (over 150 channels) and HD product (20 channels) and judging by the response of our members, it is well accepted. Our technicians are equipped with state of the art network monitoring equipment and are striving to stay up to date with current technology. Our CSR’s in the front office do a great job providing great ‘one on one’ service to our members. They work hard as well, to keep up to date with new technologies to provide better service by being able to answer our member’s enquiries.
Yes, we will have to spend capital on a continuing basis, not only to keep up with competition as has been mentioned by others, but also to provide our members with a varied and increasingly reliable service. But in reality, we are no different than every other cable and telephone company in North America, regardless of size. Everyone will have to spend capital over the next several years to remain competitive. For us, this can be accomplished in a measured fashion with increased revenues resulting from growth and reasonable rate increases. It will be an ongoing process, but one that can be managed.
Sean Smith in the Friday Nov. 02 Mirror, brought up the possibility of Shaw overwiring CRTV. I would like to discuss this subject at length and outline the very serious challenges facing anyone wanting to overwire CRTV.
Firstly, when we hear of companies applying to overbuild systems, they are referring to areas with major population densities. They are looking at going into areas with thousands, to tens of thousand of residences per square mile. In order for Shaw to overwire CRTV from their starting point in Black Creek, they would have to build an enormous amount of plant through very low - density areas. CRTV stretches from Orange Point Road in the north to the end of Seaview Rd. in the south. Our plant was extended as the population areas expanded over a long period of time. If you had to build new plant today to cover that geographic area all at once, you would require very deep pockets. We don’t even have a densely populated downtown that they could reach to make the expenditure worthwhile.
Secondly, CRTV has the advantage of having it’s own aerial strand and underground duct system, something that is unique in BC and probably rare in Canada. Shaw, or any newcomer would have to go onto Telus aerial strand and pay ongoing route footage for that. They would also have to rent underground facilities from Telus or CRTV and pay route footage for that privilege as well.
And last, but most significantly, CRTV has a major advantage in that we already have the subscribers. It’s generally understood that whoever comes along, would have to take those subscribers away in large enough numbers to pay for the capital expenditure in a reasonable number of years. At this point, Shaw has very little to offer in terms of product that CRTV does not have. But more significantly, they are not competitive at all price - wise. They could lower their prices to be more competitive, but there are a couple of problems with that:
1) They could not generate adequate revenue to pay off their huge capital expenditure in a reasonable amount of time.
2) Folks in the Comox Valley and elsewhere would not be too happy to learn that they are paying more for the same services as their Shaw brethren in Campbell River.
I’m not saying that they wouldn’t overbuild. Rather, I’m just pointing out that there is no business case for it. Yes, they could probably overbuild for less than $3000 per subscriber passed. The question is, would they be successful in taking enough subs to justify the expense?
In short, I would like you to take some comfort in the knowledge that CRTV is a very good cable system with potential for growth. We can compete and continue to provide great services at competitive cost to the citizens of Campbell River for many years to come.
Thank you for your time.
Joseph A. Bruneau
CRTV Tech. Foreman
Winnipeg Free Press Article #2 re. Bumping Community TV Off Basic Cable Tier
What Will Become of Community TV? (Part 2)
If you were following this column 2 weeks ago, you’ll know that for the last 10 years, citizens in Winnipeg have not had access to their “community-access channel” (channel 9). These days, the channel is entirely programmed by Shaw staff, despite CRTC requirements that at least 30-50% of the content be “access programming” (initiated and executed by members of the community at large). Gone are the days of cult shows like Math with Marty, What’s New Pussycat, or the Pollock and Pollock Gossip Show, let alone hours and hours in every genre covering local sports, children’s, multicultural activities and local affairs.
The latest nail in the coffin for community TV is the current CRTC proposal to remove the requirement that the community channel be carried on the basic cable tier. Canada’s Broadcast Act says that there are three tiers in our broadcasting system: public (the CBC and provincial educational broadcasters), private, and community. Since there are so few public and community channels compared to the vast array in the private tier, the few there are should be as widely available as possible; for example, the CBC and provincial educational channels are available over the air as well as through cable and satellite. Ideally, the same would be true of the community channel. When cable was the only game in town, the community channel (the sole representive of that “tier”) was available to most Canadians. Up until 1997, approximately 80% of Canadian homes had at least basic cable service. Since 1997, satellite customers have lost access to the community channel. If the community channel is removed from basic tier, it will become even more of a rare bird, more likely to be neglected by cable operators, and to lose further funding. (Financial support for community channels fell from 5% to 2% in 1997).
By comparison, the community tier in many other countries is not a single channel. In the US, a percentage of bandwidth (often 5 or 6 channels) is set aside for community use, showing programming made not just by private citizens but by municipal governments, universities and schools, resulting in access to a rich educational local mix. In Australia, Israel, and the UK, there are national public-access channels in addition to local community channels, which play the best and most nationally relevant of the alternative voices that make their way onto community channels.
So what can we do? The CRTC proposal is not yet policy. The Commission is asking for public feedback by October 9th. Telling the CRTC what you think is as simple as accessing http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Hearings/2007/n2007-10.htm, scrolling to the end, filling out an automatic feedback form, and clicking “Send”. If you want to read the document in full (which deals with carriage rules for all channels, not just the community channel), the key paragraph is 73. If you used to participate in production at or watch Winnipeg’s community channel, tell the Commissioners what value it has had to you or community groups to which you belong. Ask that the channel be reopened for access by the community, and that it remain in the basic cable package.
Catherine Edwards
Winnipeg Free Press Article #1 re. Status of Community TV
This article appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press in September. Winnipeg had one of the most active and avant-garde community programming in the country at its height.
"Channel 9 : Take Back the Airwaves!"
Do you remember Wayne’s World? How about the original Tom Green Show? Do you remember when you could tune in to VPW 13 and see interactive programs made by volunteers… shows that recruited cult followings in their time, like Math with Marty, What’s New Pussycat? or the Pollack and Pollack Gossip Show?
If your memory is hazy, it’s because those days are gone. In 1997, the CRTC stopped mandating community access to “community TV channels”. The response by most cable companies, including Shaw, was to kick the public off its channels, and see whether they could be turned to a competitive advantage. Shaw hired professional reporters and came up with their now-familiar newswheel, with a weather strip along the bottom and the same one hour of local news repeated all day. Before the format change, Videon and Shaw aired more than 30 hours a week of volunteer-produced local programming in every imaginable genre, including kids’ shows, pet shows, multicultural shows, music shows (Alternative Rockstand, The Cosmopolitans), sports, variety, and even drama, often showcasing works from the Winnipeg Film Group (Survival, Apocalypse Now).
The other thing that has changed about so-called “community TV” is the ads. Prior to 1997, you could sponsor a program and the community channel and your sponsorship could be acknowledged with a verbal thank you or text credit. You couldn’t show moving video. If you’ve watched channel 10 lately, you’ll know it’s rife with ads and product placement, making it indistinguishable from commercial TV.
So what was the deal with public access to the community channel before 1997? How come you could call the cable company back then and make your own program and now you can’t? Ever since cable was introduced to Canada in the 1970s, the cable industry has been considered a license to print money. All you had to do was lay down cable and retransmit channels (mostly American) and charge for it. You assumed none of the risks of program production. Not only that, your license was a monopoly, since cities couldn’t have multiple cable companies ripping up the streets in response to service calls. So, to ensure that cable companies “gave something back” to their communities to a) balance the flood of foreign programming to Canadian homes and b) compensate cities for their use of public rights of way and of the public airwaves, the CRTC used to require cable companies to spend 5% of their gross revenues on a local channel that would be programmed by members of the community… a soapbox forum for freedom of speech on the most dominant medium of our times: television. Canada led the world in media literacy training and thinking, and this model was copied in the United States, Europe, Israel and Australia….and is still spreading, now into the developing world. The idea that democracies can only call themselves such if the average person can express themselves on mass media has been enshrined in the famous 2003 Geneva Declaration of Principles for the Information Society (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html).
So what happened in 1997? Telephone and satellite companies entered the market, cable companies were gobbling one another up (there are just 3 big cable companies left in Canada, where once there were over 50) and the CRTC lost control. By 2002, because of public outcry about cable company takeover of what had previously been true community-access channels, the CRTC reinstated its requirement that the cable operator should provide training to the public, and that at least 30-50% of the programming ought to be produced by people in the community. Few of the old volunteer contributors to the channel are aware of the regulations now, however, and Shawalthough they are required by CRTC directive 2002-61 to advise the public of their rights and to invite them to make program proposals in their billing inserts at least once a yearhas been blithely ignoring the regulations. (In a recent interview, Alex Park, Shaw’s VP or Programming,said that Shaw is meeting the requirement to provide “access” to the community by sending professional reporters out to cover your event. Er…not exactly freedom of speech or the “high level of citizen participationand expression” envisioned in the regulations, and nothing to distinguish them as a license-holder from any private broadcaster…) Shaw’s disdain of production by the community was perhaps most evident in their recent decision to throw out their entire pre-1997 archives, a priceless record of Winnipeg cultural and social history.
So what can you do? Do you have an idea for a program? You can call the program manager, Allan Sayegh at 480-3408 and ask for training, facilities and assistance to produce it. If you don’t get anywhere on a first visit, you can download and print policy 2002-61 from the CRTC web site at www.crtc.gc.ca, go back for a second visit and poke your finger at the regulation. Failing that, you can lodge a complaint with the Winnipeg CRTC office at 983-6306. (In the old days, the Canadian Cable Television Association used to field such complaints, but since its dissolution, consumers have no recourse but to go directly to the CRTC.) Failing that, if enough complaints are received by the CRTC about a given cable operator’s “community channel”, 2002-61 introduced the radical idea that an alternative group within the community could apply to operate the channel and receive the cable levy in the cable company’s stead (which amounts to several hundered thousand dollars a year in a market the size of Winnipeg). A successful challenge under the new policy has not yet been won in Canada (two concerned organizations are currently making the attempt), but it’s food for thought. Perhaps it’s time for an outside organization that could truly represent grassroots voiceslike Video Poolto be given the chance.
Catherine Edwards
Community TV in Campbell River B.C. Under Threat
Larry Widen of Campbell River, Vancouver Island, submitted this letter to his local paper. It concerns an offer by Shaw (delivered in the form of a letter to every homeowner) to buy the co-op-owned cable system for $3,000 per person. Read on...
THE CRTV QUESTION ~ IT’S ABOUT COMMUNITY PRIDE
I cannot remember the year but it was, I think, in the early 1970s that I had the privilege of serving as the president of CRTV. I am proud that during my term as president the extremely rigid provisions that must be met to sell CRTV were written into the bylaws. I mention this to make it clear that I have a personal and sentimental bias in my arguments that CRTV should remain a community owned and operated enterprise.
To support my argument for continuing with a community owned CRTV it is necessary to take an all too brief and incomplete look at the community spirit that is Campbell River.
· Some fifty years ago a small group set out on an impossible dream to bring cable TV to Campbell River at a time when no private enterprise had any interest in doing so as there was no profit to be made.
· A need for a public boat ramp in Campbell River resulted in a small group doing the organizing, fund-raising and getting the authorization and producing a public boat ramp on the spit.
· Jack Caldwell, the first lawyer to set up a practice in Campbell River, and others worked long and hard to realise their objective of our own hospital for Campbell River.
· In the 50s I recall meeting a chap named Ed Meade who was promoting the establishment of a museum in Campbell River. Today we have a wonderful museum that is second to none.
· Campbell River’s Maritime Center is a tremendous project that has now to be given national status.
· The Rotary Club’s sea walk is a prominent example of what the many Campbell River service clubs have accomplished.
· All one needs to do is look around Campbell River to create an almost endless list of quality community projects that have been produced.
All of the above projects, listed or not listed, were made possible with the hard work by dedicated residents and only with the support of Campbell River’s strong community pride and spirit.
The public boat ramp on the spit has recently been torn up without any consultation with those who promoted and built it. Indeed some were out in their boats only to return to find the boat ramp gone. Community pride and spirit were betrayed in this case. Perhaps, even now, a new public boat ramp could still be included into the new waterfront park on the Spit.
Our very own fully functioning hospital is under threat by the imposition of a so-called regional hospital. If the regional hospital model is adopted our Campbell River Hospital will certainly cease to exist, if not immediately then over time due to the cash flow demands of a large regional hospital. Only the residents of Campbell River coming together with their strong community spirit can now save our community hospital.
Let us not allow the fate of CRTV to follow the fate of the public boat ramp or the possible fate of Campbell River’s own hospital. Has Campbell River lost the once strong city pride and community spirit to be able to maintain and improve on our collective community achievements of the past?
There is most certainly the temptation of a one time cash payment from the sale of CRTV in competition with the choice of embarking on a project to upgrade CRTV to a full range of services for members at a cost and quality extremely competitive in the cable market place.
The major companies know that a full service cable system in Campbell River will produce good corporate profits. True, the major cable companies have many advantages due to their ownership in industry related companies including TV signal providers. Notwithstanding the major companies’ advantages Sandy and I are more than prepared to forgo a one-time cash payment to maintain our locally owned and controlled CRTV. If Shaw or Rogers can do it with a profit we can do it at cost.
During my term as president of CRTV in addition to being assigned the task of drafting the revised bylaws I was also assigned the task of building a cable broadcasting studio and putting Campbell River Cable 10 into the home of every subscriber. With the technical advice of Ed Selby, the head technician at the time, co-operation from the staff union, community support, the hiring of a programming coordinator and volunteers to operate the studio and do the programming CRTV channel 10 made it onto the cable. With local ownership and control cable 10 has continued to enhance our community pride and spirit and must be protected. Our current community programming is by any comparison exceptional. This experience of course adds to my personal and sentimental bias in this matter.
I commend the current board of directors and management for commissioning the report that provides a course of actions required to maintain CRTV as a publicly owned cable system for Campbell River and area. I support starting to do all the technical upgrades recommended at the earliest possible date. Notwithstanding the report’s other option to sell and Shaw’s current offer to purchase CRTV and even considering my personal bias in this matter I still sincerely believe that CRTV can and should be saved.
It is very important to maintain CRTV if we are to maintain our community spirit for we cannot lose one without doing severe damage to the other. The CRTV board of directors has properly placed the challenge before us as the owners. I am certain that this community can rise to the challenge, save and enhance CRTV as well as our community pride and spirit.
I support Campbell River over Shaw, Rogers or any other cable company.
Larry Widen
Submission to the CRTC 2007-10: Keep Community TV in the Basic Cable Package
Here is a copy of my submission to the CRTC's call for comments about removing community television from the basic cable package. The deadline for submitting comments was today. Michael Lithgow
PS. The IMAGE accompanying this blog is from the poster for Too Art for TV, Too.
CRTC October 19, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Re: CRTC 2007-10 / 2007-10-2
1. I do not want to appear at the hearing.
2. In paragraph 73 the Commission writes that it “considers that it might be appropriate to eliminate the regulatory requirement that the community channel, if offered, be distributed as part of the basic service” and asks for comments.
3 I want to strongly urge the Commission to maintain the current regulatory requirement that the community channel, if offered, be distributed as part of the basic service.
4 Community access television was created in Canada as a way for cable companies to contribute to Canadian culture in return for privileges awarded through telecommunications policies, privileges that have allowed them to grow into some of the largest and most profitable companies in Canada, and into competitive and profitable participants in global markets.
5 The community channel, from its inception, was also intended to play a critical role in the Canadian broadcasting system – in fact, the third part of a three sector system alongside private and public broadcasting, as delineated in s. 3 of the Broadcast Act.
6 The community channel is recognized in s. 3 of the Broadcast Act because of its ability to do what neither the private nor the public aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system can do: namely, allow Canadians to participate in cultural expression through the important medium of cable television and ensure that local expression makes up a part of the cultural reality of Canada’s broadcast system.
7 The Commission has recognized over the years -- and it is widely recognized among experts in telecommunications in Canada - that the private and public aspects of the broadcasting system are structurally disposed to certain kinds of exclusions; that is, there are aspects of Canada’s diverse cultural reality that do not appear in the commercial broadcasting system. Perhaps most glaringly, there is a chronic and ongoing lack of local cultural and public affairs programming. Commercial broadcasters and the public broadcaster consistently make cuts from local coverage first. It is expensive to produce: broadcasters’ economies of scale make it attractive to produce programming centrally and re-distribute geographically. One regional newscast reproduced a dozen times is much less expensive to organize than a dozen local news casts.
8 And while such a model of centralized regional programming serves the needs of broadcasters, Canadians and the Commission must ask if this serves the needs of Canadians. Are broadcaster needs synonymous with community needs, when it comes to the Canadian broadcasting system?
9 Community television is recognized as the third pillar in the Canadian broadcasting system because it provides a solution to this structural problem. If broadcaster economies favour centralized regional programming and dis-favour local cultural expression, then community television provides a system-wide balancing mechanism than ensures that Canadians will have access both to the means of contributing to Canadian culture through broadcast and cable technologies and also to viewing and consuming local and diverse forms of cultural expression.
10 Community access television is not a specialty channel – it has a different legislative history whose roots are found firmly in the public policy concern for balance and diversity within the Canadian broadcasting system and mass media’s role in Canadian democratic society. This is altogether different from, say, the pet channel or science fiction channel. People watch community programming largely because it is there – they discover it when flipping through the dials, and are pleased or surprised or intrigued by the unique form and local content of what makes up most community programming.
11 Specialty channels attract viewers by competing in commercial markets using the tools of market competition, i.e. marketing and promotion. Community access channels do not have the resources or the expertise to promote their services, nor would this be an appropriate use of community channel money – resources that are earmarked to facilitate community participation. The point of community access television, what makes it the third pillar of the Canadian broadcast system, is that it is not organized within the commercial framework. Community programming is intended to complement not replicate commercial programming. If community television is required to compete on commercial terms, it will inevitably come to resemble commercial programming. Community television serves the structural weaknesses in the commercial framework that tend to result in the exclusion of local reflection and expression, and to narrow the cultural and social diversity that eventually makes its way into programming.
12 The removal of the community channel from the basic cable package (where offered) will for all intents and purposes restructure community access television into community specialty television. Mass distribution is the cornerstone of community access television’s effectiveness in maintaining healthy and diverse informational and cultural flows of local expression in the Canadian broadcasting system.
Thank you.
END OF DOCUMENT
CRTC Proposal Threatens Community Television in Canada
Community access television in Canada is once again at risk of being destroyed as an access medium for the Canadian public. The CRTC wants to remove the community channel from the basic cable package, a move that would, in effect, gut community television as an access medium. Canadians are being urged to write to the CRTC and demand that community television remain in the basic cable package. The deadline for submissions is October 9, 2007.
If you want to respond immediately, here's what to do. Click here, to see the CRTC's call for comments in CRTC 2007-10. Paragraph 73 proposes that community television be removed from the basic cable package. Find paragraph 105 and follow the links to file an electronic response. You can also write your response in a separate file and attach it to your electronic submission.
If you would like to know more about this issue, where to find supporting documents such as existing regulations for community television, or the names of organizations working to save community tv in Canada, keep reading...
Cable companies are currently required to include community television with every cable service they provide. In places like Vancouver and Quebec and across Canada, communities produce programming that provides local coverage, that celebrates local artists, that can challenge political and corporate status quos, and which tells stories from diverse perspectives many of which wold otherwise be excluded from the commercial system. This is why community television in Canada is often referred to as 'access television'. By forcing cable companies to carry the community channel, Canadians are guaranteed access both to the means of producing television programs that express unique and often marginalized perspectives, and to the means of distributing those programs to mass audiences. Canadians watch community television in part because it's there - they discover it when flipping through their channels. TV listings rarely if ever list community channel programs.
Throughout it's history, and under existing regulations (see CRTC Public Notice 2002-61, community television was mandated to make programming that complements -- not replicates -- commercial programming. This is a crucial distinction. Asking community channels to compete with specialty channels for subscriber support would force community volunteers to make decisions based on market feedback. This is not only next to impossible for volunteer run organizations without resources, but if it was possible, it would transform community programming into exactly what it is not supposed to be: programming whose existence is directly linked to audience share.
Community access television was created to ensure diversity in the Canadian broadcasting system in full recognition that commercial television and cable markets DO NOT ensure diversity. In fact, they work against it, naturally excluding voices that lack access to the means of learning production skills, access to equipment, or access to the kinds of cultural, economic and political power generally required to make television and have it distributed in a commercial market. The destructive tendency of the telecommunications industry to exclude voices that do not have ties to the corridors of political and economic power and to exclude voices that are critical of those same powerful groups, was effectively mitigated by (i) requiring cable companies to provide training, access to production facilities, and distribution of programming; and (ii) by ensuring that every household that received cable also received these local programs. Community television has never been about market share (although it is widely watched across Canada); rather, it is about democratic necessity -- the necessity of ensuring that the television programming available to Canadians reflects the diversity of Canadian society.
Community television is recognized under s.3(b) of the Broadcasting Act as the third element of the Canadian broadcasting system, alongside private and public broadcasting. Under current regulations, cable companies must share production resources with Canadians, create volunteer opportunities, provide technical training, and fill up to 50% of their community channels with independent community programs. There is no other means of ensuing that community voices will be heard through the culturally powerful medium of cable television in Canada.
If you would like more information, here are the names of a few groups working to keep community television alive in Canada.
CMES Community Media Education Society
ICTV Independent Community Television Cooperative
IMAA Independent Media Arts Alliance
