Canada-wide

Municipal World Article:

An article written by Catherine Edwards about the potential role of public libraries as the nuclei for the digital community media centres of the future.

CACTUS Intervention Against Bell Moving Away from Linear Community Channel

CACTUS' intervention against an application by Bell to the CRTC to allocate part of its local expression spending toward an Internet platform, and away from a linear community channel.

Bell's Application for Bilingual Community Channels in Ottawa and Montreal

CACTUS' intervention to Bell's application to retain 4% of its revenues to offer bilingual community channels in Ottawa and Montreal.

Television Providers Petition CRTC to Offer Community Channels Divided by Language

Prior to 2006, there was only ever one 'community channel' in a given neighbourhood. In 2006, Rogers petitioned the CRTC to divide its Ottawa community channels along linguistic lines. Other cable and satellite TV providers have been following Rogers' lead lately, a worry trend that takes Canadian 'community TV' ever further from its roots and more and more a copy of what's already available on commercial local TV.

But why?

The CRTC expects cable and satellite television service providers to spend 5% of their revenues on Canadian production. If they elect to offer a 'community channel' in a given licence area, they are allowed to retain between 1.5 and 2% of the 5% for the operation of the channel. The remainder flows to the Canada Media and other production funds that support professional production nationally.

Almost all cable and satellite companies have elected to operate a community channel given this choice, because it gives them some control over how a portion of their contribution to Canadian production is spent, and enables them to leverage local branding and advertising.

In 2006, Rogers proposed to the CRTC to offer two community channels in Ottawa: one programmed exclusively in French and the other in English. Prior to that time, there had always been two community channels in Ottawa, one in the east and one in the west, because the city had been divided into two cable service areas. However, anglophones and francophone volunteers and community producers were welcome at both facilities, and each aired a mix of content, depending on the programs being made at any given time. There was usually more anglophone programming produced from the western studio location on Richmond Rd. (one-time Ottawa Cablevision, and then Maclean Hunter) and more francophone programming produced in the east of town (the one-time Skyline channel), reflective of where most anglophones and francophones lived. Each facility was supported with 2% of the revenues collected from cable subscribers in that half of town.

Anglophones and francophones, as well as other minority and special interest groups mingled at both facilities, cross-fertilizing one another's ideas and contributing to a vibrant mix of programming that reflected the neighbourhoods where they lived.

Rogers' proposal to the CRTC was that it could better serve anglophones and francophones if it were allowed to retain 4% of the revenues collected in the whole city for community programming, of which 2% would support an anglophone community channel headquartered in West Ottawa, and 2% would support a francophone community channel headquartered in East Ottawa.

The CRTC accepted Rogers' argument. When the CRTC's community TV policy was reviewed in 2010, Rogers' one-time special case was made a permananet part of policy, paving the way for other broadcast distribution undertakings (or BDUs, which include cable, satellite, and other TV service delivery companies) to apply to the CRTC to be allowed to do the same thing. In the fall of 2013, Bell petitioned the CRTC to be allowed to retain 4% of its revenues in Ottawa and Montreal in order to offer two separate community channels. In the fall of 2013, Videotron petitioned the CRTC to be allowed to retain 4% of its revenues in Montreal (one of the largest licence areas in Canada) in order to operate two separate community channels. In January, Rogers petitioned the CRTC to be allowed to retain 4% of its revenues in Fredericton and Saint John in order to offer two separate linguistically divided community channels in those cities.

Aside from the flawed principale of separating communities on community media--when the point of having community media is to bring them together (not to mention third-language groups... where do they go?) --CACTUS has also intervened in each of these proceedings to point out that these companies' rationale for needing double the money to operate two community channels doesn't hold water.

In the private system, yes. If you wanted to program two channels in two different languages, you might need double the money, particularly if you produced the programming from two separate programming facilities. (In each of the instances noted above, the company in question has not proposed to create a second programming facility, only to offer additional programming in the second language from the same production facility.) However, under a community model, it is the volunteers who produce the programming, not staff. If you have a budget of a million dollars to train and support a population of say 1 million people to make programming, it doesn't cost more if 500,000 of those people happen to be English, and 500,000 happen to be French. It's still the same total number of people you need to train and assist during the production process. You just need to hire bilingual staff, which isn't hard in the bilingual cities where BDUs have felt there is a case to offer two community channels.

The fact that the BDUs can make these arguments and the CRTC accepts them over and over is discouraging, because it underscores the fact that not only do the BDUs really have no concept of what community media is about (or perhaps more fairly, they've lost it over the last 15 years), but the CRTC doesn't seem to either.

If you're interested to read CACTUS interventions against these divided community channels, click the links below. If you live in the communities affected by these applications, we encourage you to contact your regional CRTC Commissioner to voice your concerns.

Bell's Application to Retain 4% of Revenues for Dual Community Channels in Ottawa and Montreal.

CRTC Commissioner for Ontario: Raj Shoan (416) 954-6269
CRTC Commissioner for Quebec: vacant 514-283-6607

Videotron's Application to Retain 4% of Revenues for Dual Community Channels in Montreal.

CRTC Commissioner for Quebec: vacant 514-283-6607

Roger's Application to Retain 4% of Revenues for Dual Community Channels in Fredericton and Saint John.

CRTC Commissioner for the Atlantic: Elizabeth A. Duncan
(902) 426-2644

Read more...


US Ruling Threatens Community Media

A US appeals court has thrown out the concept of net neutrality, which had heretofore ensured that different kinds of Internet traffic are given equal access to bandwidth, and had prevented Internet providers from charging different rates to different kinds of traffic.

The US ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten the long-term health of community media, as more and more people acquire information and entertainment on-line.

Click here for the full Wall Street Journal article.

People often ask, "Why do you need community TV channels anymore with the Interent? You've got YouTube."

There are lots of answers to this question:

  • You have to give up your copyright on many services such as YouTube, and they are being more and more commercialized. The community doesn't own or control them.
  • YouTube doesn't aggregate local audiences, and isn't live.
  • YouTube doesn't provide training and media literacy skills and equipment access for people who are not already media-savvy.
  • YouTube doesn't provide meeting places in the community for people to make media together and debate the issues that are important to them. YouTube doesn't facilitate the 'process' of community media, which is as if not more important than making the media content available to share with others afterwards.

The US ruling highlights another problem, however, which is that regardless of the platform of the day by which community media content is distributed, it will always need protection to make sure that it is accessible to everyone in the community. It may be a struggle for access to space on cable and satellite for community content today, but that struggle will just be repeated on new media platforms if Internet providers can privilege their own content and make community media expensive to download or block access completely.

Click here if you would like to sign a RootsAction.org petition to oppose the ruling.

Read more...


Participate in CRTC's "Let's Talk TV" Conversation with Canadians

The CRTC is hosting a public consultation called "Let's Talk TV", to consult the general public about how it thinks the broadcasting system should evolve in the digital and multi-platform environment.

The consultation will have several stages. Before Christmas, it was very free form. Canadians were encouraged to post informal comments on the CRTC's web site, in response to questions in three categories, including programming content as well as technological access to services.

Groups and organizations were also encouraged to host "Flash Conferences" examining the same questions. These conferences could be informal get-togethers in people's houses, coffee shops, a townhall, a teleconference or web consultation. CACTUS held a "Flash Conference" in January. Our report can be found on the CRTC web site, along with the reports of other groups and organizations. (Click the link below, and then click "Flash Conference Reports" in the middle column where it says "Get Up to Speed on the Conversation.)

Flash Conference Reports

Here's what the CRTC's report on stage I had to say about community and local programming:

"Support for community programming also varies. Some call into question the relevance of community channels as well as the quality of the programming they broadcast and whether the Community channel has become nothing more than a promotional tool for BDUs. Others openly support their raison d’être as well as the support they give to volunteers and members of the community in terms of a professional environment to develop and produce their programming.In certain regions of Quebec (such as Trois-Rivières and Chandler) and Ontario (such as North Bay), the need for a strong and well-funded community channel providing locally reflective and relevant programming receives much support. This support comes from individuals, the creative community and other institutions such as parish churches. Some participants argue that local commercial network rebroadcasting transmitters provide little news or information relevant to their communities – a gap that is filled by community television. Others identify cultural, democratic and economic need for a strong community television sector."

The CRTC has now moved into stage 2. It is posing a specific series of questions asking you to make choices about price versus value. To complete the CRTC's "Let's Talk TV Choicebook", click here and complete the questionnaire by March 14th:

Let's Talk TV Choicebook

We encourage you to participate, especially if you missed the first round. It's important for community channel to be kept front and centre in the CRTC's agenda, as well as for thoughtful TV-viewing Canadians such as yourselves to weigh in on the full spectrum of questions regarding the future of our broadcasting system.

The CRTC says there will be an oral hearing in the fall of 2014.

Read more...


Submission to CRTC by Steering Committee for ICTV Montreal

This is a letter to the CRTC from a citizen group calling itself the Steering Committee for Independent Community TV in Montreal, asking the CRTC to delay a decision on Videotron's request for a second community TV channel in Montreal (in English), while it develops a model for community TV that would be open to the whole community.

This letter was submitted on October 7th, 2013.

Citizen Group Challenges Videotron for Community TV Licence in Montreal

On September 5th, Videotron proposed to the CRTC that it be allowed to spend between $6 and $10 million to fund a second community TV channel for Montreal, to be programmed exclusively in English. The money would be taken from the Canada Media Fund, which is used by independent professional producers to fund high-quality drama and documentaries... programs like Murdoch Myseteries, Rookie Blue, and the Listener.

The channel would be called MYtv, a clone to Videotron's existing MAtv service. The company is currently in violation of its licence requirements to "reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the community" with the exclusively French MAtv service.

The professional production community is naturally concerned, given that the new channel would drain scarce resources that would otherwise have supported the production of programming that could be seen nation-wide.

A citizen group has proposed a third solution, that would meet the needs of both Montreal's minority communities AND the professional production community. The Steering Committee for an Independent Community Channel (ICTV) for Montreal, is challenging Videotron for its basic licence to administer the community channel. Current CRTC policy states that if a cable company is not meeting its licence requirements, a community-based undertaking can have it, along with the 2% of that cable company's revenues from the licence area to support it.

Click here to see ICTV's complaint against Videotron, and licence application (scroll down the list of Part 1 applications until you find 2013-1746-2 and double-click it).

ICTV Application

A zip file will open on your computer showing a list of documents.

The key one (containing the complaint against Videotron and the description of ICTV's vision for community media in Montreal) is in the document called:

DM#2058002 - 2013-1746-2 - APP - DOC5-Rev - Appendix 1A - Supplementary Brief - ICTV-TVCI Montreal

If you live in the Montreal area and would like to support ICTV's application (and corroborate the fact that Videotron is in non-compliance with its MAtv licence), please contact CACTUS at (819) 772-2862.

ICTV's application has been garnering a lot of press. To read it, click Community TV in the News on the navigation bar to the left.

Read more...


Draft Powerpoint

US Public-Access, Government, and Educational Channels Create Free National Network

(reprinted from PRLOG of Jan. 6, 2013)

Do America's struggling families deserve free TV for life?

A group of small-market broadcasters think so.

Octave Network Television has entered the media marketplace as a no-fee hdtv service provider, offering dozens of public, government and community access channels free of charge to every U.S, citizen.

8ctave's network combines the strength of hundreds of small-market, noncommercial, student-run, government, public-sourced and community access broadcast stations from across the country. Many of these 'tiny towers' are grossly underfunded, underpowered or unavailable without digital 'rabbit ear' antennas.

Public broadcasters are a vital part of national media, connecting communities, serving the public trust and acting as key components to national security through use of the FCC's Emergency Alert System, which informs and instructs the public during a crisis.

Now enters Octave, a startup bent on 'Powering Public Access' with streaming TV technology, broadcasting to millions of Americans via Roku and other internet TV receivers.

Roku is the largest streaming TV box in America, credited with creating the popular Netflix video on-demand service. Devices like Roku contain the nuts and bolts that enable Octave's free HD offerings, with units costing less than $50.

In addition to on-demand content delivery, Octave channels broadcast in TV's traditional linear format. Octave looks like 'regular' TV because it is, combining the strength and character of America's Public Access broadcasters into a nationwide network with more potential carriers than ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX combined.

According to Octave founder Edward Balboa, you need "a lot of Davids" to take on a Goliath, a role relished by the unknown recently dubbed 'The Rocky Balboa of Broadcasting.' He says folks often mistake Octave for a music channel, but that an Octave's true description isn't so do-ray-mi.

"A true 'Octave' is defined as the distance between two matching frequencies, in our case frequencies used to transmit and receive information. An Octave's bridge 'breaks' when two frequencies either don't match or are too far apart to talk to each other."

Although Octave is a for-profit corporation, Balboa doesn't seem to run it like one. He freely gives away affiliate broadcast channels to every city, public school, qualifying church and charity in America, and refuses to siphon funds from government programs to do it.

Coining his free HD service 'Obamacable' may just be a term of endearment from its founder, but Edward's public telly-vision appears to be bigger than Big Bird. He says that 8ctave gives hundreds of independent stations the ability to operate on a level playing field, speak to a nationwide audience and protect the public by using the government-mandated EAS system more effectively.

"Octaves are what allow us to see, hear and experience the world around us. Octave Television offers a free, unbiased HDTV service that allows complete participation in our democracy, solving problems together as an informed population. We'll never grow, learn, thrive or understand each other until every American can freely communicate."

Communities wishing to add their voice to 8ctave Public Access may make channel inquiries via email to programming@octavetv.com.

For pictures, actualities and interviews please contact:

Edward Balboa
8ctave Network Television
213-787-3904 / 213-444-3180
programming@octavetv.com

Read more...