Canada-wide
CRTC Audits Reveal Widespread Abuse of the "Community Channel"
CACTUS has obtained copies of audits done by the CRTC for selected cable community channels for one week in each of the years 2002 through 2005. We are pleased to note that in the exchange of letters between CRTC staff and cable companies, the Commission expresses concern about minimum levels of access by the public, that promotional messages not exceed two minutes per clock hour, and that there be accurate log-keeping.
CACTUS is nonetheless concerned at the CRTC’s findings:
2002 Audit (April 21-27)
- Eleven of the 13 systems audited (including Shaw, Cogeco, Access, Eastlink, and Rogers), could not be evaluated because of missing tapes, tape malfunctions, and inconsistencies between logs and tapes. For example, promotional messages played inside programs were often not logged.
- The auditor notes for Rogers Toronto, “The producer is often classified as “volunteers”, however, when the credits are examined, there is often no mention of volunteers, but regular producers and stations managers.”
- Also for Rogers in Toronto: OHL hockey contained 24 promotions in one episode and 41 in another, none of which were recorded in the logs.
- For Rogers Guelph, the auditor writes: “An hour long show called On Line with Rogers, classified as “A” (local), answers viewers’ question while at the same time is similar to an hour long promo of their services.”
- Rogers in Guelph classified 14 programs as “access programming” which the auditor determined were produced by staff.
- Cogeco in Kingston classified promos for Cogeco and for MTV as “access programming”.
2003 Audit (May 25-31)
- The audited systems fared slightly better, although inconsistent logs, missing videotapes and a failure to classify programs as “access” or “licensee produced” was still the norm rather than the exception (including Access, Eastlink, Cogeco, and Rogers).
- Of the 4 of 8 systems that could be evaluated, Eastlink in Aylesford, NS reported only 16% access programming.
- Eastlink in Summerside, PEI, classified programs it had obtained from Rogers as “access programming”.
- Shaw’s Calgary system claimed the segments in its daily newswheel as “access programming” although the auditor notes that there are no volunteer names in the credits.
- Shaw Burnaby did not classify its programs.
- Shaw Lethbridge claimed Rogers and Canadian Prostate Cancer Network programs as local programming.
- Rogers in St. Thomas failed to respond to the Commission’s request for logs.
2004 Audit (April 18-24)
- Again only half of the audited systems could be evaluated because of logging inconsistencies.
- Rogers was routinely in non-compliance with both the two-minute per hour maximum for promotions (sometimes exceeding this maximum by as much as 7 minutes) and often doubled the 15-second limit for sponsorship messages.
- Rogers in Ottawa classified the professionally hosted and produced studio program Talk Ottawa as access programming, “unassisted by the licensee”.
- Cogeco in Peterboroguh claimed as “local programming” a program that was produced in a different township.
- Eastlink in Halifax and Sydney, NS reported no access programming, made no distinction between local and regional programming, double-counted some programs as local programming in both licence areas, and played double the length of promotions permitted per hour each day of the audit.
- Persona in Sudbury claimed its news segments were “access programming” although the auditor notes that there is “no evidence that the producer is not employed by Persona.”
- Persona in Sudbury played double the amount of allowed promotions each day of the audit and promoted services other than broadcasting.
The auditor for 2004 notes “There does not appear to be any promotion of community access on any of the channels monitored.”
2005 Audit Week (April 24-30)
- Eastlink in Halifax and Sydney classified the same series as access programming in both licence areas.
- Persona in Sudbury again claimed that its news program was “access”. Persona states in correspondence with the Commission that “community individuals, groups and organizations promote and share their activities and information either by requesting coverage in a segment or an interview”.
- Persona was again found to be using its community channel to advertise non-broadcasting services, which the company attributed to a “traffic error”.
- Although Rogers Ottawa classified 64.4% of its schedule as “access programming”, the auditor notes that “access programs” include OHL Hockey, Ottawa Citizen Business Television, and Decorative Paintner, which feature community groups but do not identify the party provided access. When requested by the CRTC to provide the names of the producing parties, Rogers did not respond.
- Commenting on Shaw Vancouver, the auditor raises questions about multi-segment programs such as The Express and Studio 4, in which segments are claimed as “access” when no volunteer names appear in the credits.
The auditor concludes: “Although Rogers and Shaw may be in compliance with access regulations statistically, their definitions of access are questionable.”
Given the inconsistencies in logging and reporting, multiple instances of non-compliance with both access expectations and the level of commercialization of their channels, and the apparent failure of the country’s largest cable companies to address the same violations year after year, CACTUS is surprised that the CRTC ceased auditing cable community channels in 2005, and waited five more years to hold a public hearing.
We also believe that the public has a right to know what has been happening with subscriber fees spent on “community expression” since 2005. It is within the CRTC’s power to request BDU community programming logs for the most recent programming year, and we believe they should be made available for public scrutiny in time for the hearings.
We therefore submitted a final request to the Secretary General of the CRTC on March 2nd, 2010, to request these logs from the BDUs, under section 28 of the BDU regulations, and to make them public on the CRTC’s web site. On April 6th, we received a letter denying this request, on the grounds that “logistical challenges and third-party privacy issues do not make this feasible at this time.”
We would respectfully ask, if not now, in the context of a policy review, then when? Transparency and accountability are fundamental to the creation of broadcasting policy that serves the public interest.
The community-owned and operated solution proposed by CACTUS would answer the needs for both transparcency and accountability, by putting the funds for “community expression” collected from cable subscribers directly in the hands of communities, which would file annual reports on amounts and genres of programming, as well as parties provided access.
Click on the links below to review the full audits provided to CACTUS by the CRTC:
2002 Audit
2003 Audit
2004 Audit
2005 Audit
Schedule Analysis of Cable Community Channels
In the final week of January, CACTUS examined the programming schedules of the 110 English-language cable-operated community TV channels posted as part of the community TV policy review (2009-661). This table provides a summary of our findings: that there are only 10 distinct programming services in English Canada.
Only 19 Distinct Cable Community Services in English Canada
CRTC public notice 2009-661 states that there are 139 cable-run community television channels in Canada. It posted the list of the companies that run them and where they are located shortly before the February 1st dead-line for written submissions to the community TV policy review.
According to an on-line analysis done by CACTUS in January of 2010 of programming schedules posted for these companies and communities, of those 139, 110 are English-language programmings services. Of those 110, only 19 have programming schedules that are "distinct" from one another: that is, more than 50% of the programming schedule is produced locally. The remaining services replay more than 50% of their programming from larger centres.
A table summarizing our findings can be found here.
It's important to note that even if a programming service is "distinct" and is mostly produced locally, the programming is not necessarily produced by the community itself. Statistically, it is more likely to be produced by cable company staff. According to cable company data collected by the CRTC, only 27% of the programming on cable community channels are reported to be produced by community residents. The rest is produced by staff or acquired from other sources. Several systems are playing commercial radio throughout much of their morning schedules (Shaw's Western channels, for example), or third-party programs such as the Armed Forces News.
Furthermore, CACTUS believes that the 27% 'access programming' claimed by cable companies is probably high. Reports of cable companies claiming 'access programming' when community members are simply invited onto programs as guests or are interviewed in a segment are widespread.
Our review of the web sites of the company's largest cable companies supported the view that the majority of programming is staff-produced. The producer contact names given are usually staff names, and employee lists include paid hosts, reporters, and producers.
Before the community sector was deregulated in 1997, the cable staff of community TV channels were usually called "co-ordinators", "facilitators", or "community animators". Their role in supporting the community to produce content for itself was clear.
In the 1980s, CRTC documents reported the existence of 294 distinct community TV channels in Canada. That number has been steadily declining, probably because of the zone-based approach to cable licensing that has been adopted by the CRTC, which has allowed cable service areas to be consolidated.
The good news is, that for no new cost, and by leveraging the power of communities to program for themselves once more, hyper-local community content can once more be created by every community... coast to coast.
Click here for the CACTUS proposal for 21st-Century Community Broadcasting at NO NEW COST.
21st Century Community Broadcasting at NO NEW COST
CACTUS unveils its plan for 21st century broadcasting, at NO NEW COST. For a quick summary, financials, and FAQs, see 21st-Century Community Broadcasting at NO NEW COST.
For more background, see A New Vision for Community TV, on the Navigation bar to the left.
21st Century Community Broadcasting at NO NEW COST
The roll-out plan for 250 community owned and operated multi-media access production and distribution centres.
Support Community Media Now!
The dead-line for public comment for the CRTC public notice of consultation 2009-661 is now closed.
Thank you for everyone who took the time to support the call for a return to community access in our country--and more specifically--to the vision of community media access production and distribution centres in every town, run by communities themselves.
Over 2000 of you supported this message, whether by endorsing the CACTUS campaign letter and requests, or by adding your own comments and experiences where you live.
There may be other ways that you can help and increase the chance that the dream of open access for everyone and in every community can become a reality as we approach the hearings, so stay tuned!
The CACTUS Team
CACTUS Requests Basic Information to Be Made Available to Public about Community TV
Since the notice of the CRTC policy review of the community TV sector was posted on October 22nd, CACTUS has been trying to stimulate genuine debate about the future of the sector that would include input from a broad cross-section of Canadians.
The two major stumbling block have been:
1) The lack of information in the public notice itself. All it says about the current community TV channels on cable is that there are 139 in the country: nothing about where they are, who runs them, nor how much access programming they do.
CACTUS has now submitted six different Access to Information request trying to find out whether the sector is living up to its current policy mandate. The CRTC required cable operators to keep logs of the number of hours of access programming that they do, the titles of the programs, and the names of parties provided access, to enable the Commission to monitor performance. We were therefore surprised that none of this information had been offered in the public notice, but even more surprised when the CRTC informed us that since 1990, it has never once asked cable operators to see this information. We were puzzled, as we had heard anecdotally that various cable companies had been audited over the years for compliance.
Since cable companies are required to keep these logs for 12 months, our latest request to the CRTC is that they ask for these most recent logs to be made available before the hearings, to enabel Canadians to objectively assess whether the goals of the community TV policy as stated in public notice 2009-661 are being met. We are still waiting to hear.
2) The failure of publicity for the hearings themselves. We wrote and requested the CRTC four times to ask that community channels themselves be required to run neutral notices to inform the public that the review is going on. We finally found out that the CRTC had passed on our request to cable companies, but only Rogers replied. Unfortunately, Rogers' proposed wording for this notice is highly prejudicial. It does not refer to the channel's access mandate, and repeatedly refers to the channel as "Rogers TV", as if it is part of Rogers' business brand, rather than a public service.
As neither of these issues has been addressed, we remain deeply concerned that most Canadians will not have the information they need to participate meaningfully in hearings that will decide the future of the one part of broadcasting system over which they are meant to have direct input and control.
CACTUS Gets Press in MediaCaster and TechMedia Reports
The CRTC public notice has been posted for the community television review. You can read it at:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-661.htm
As with most policy reviews, the Commission poses specific questions. We will be posting an analysis of what the questions mean this week and next, as it's not always obvious, even if you are familiar with previous hearings and the minutiae of CRTC policy.
In the mean time, the press for the hearings has begun. CACTUS was quoted in both MediaCaster last week at:
http://www.mediacastermagazine.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?aid=1000345465&PC=
and (incorrectly) by TechMedia Report at:
http://www.techmediareports.ca/reports/content/10001-municipalities_should_have_a_bigger_say_in_how_community_channels_are_managed_cactus
(CACTUS spokesperson, Cathy Edwards, did not in fact propose that boards of independent community TV channels should be appointed by municipalities or locally elected officials, although municipality representation and support will be important.)
If you have press contacts that could give exposure to CACTUS' proposals for a revitalized independent community television sector, please contact us (see the About page). We need to encourage as many individual Canadians and community organizations that have used community channels to publicize their activities and events to intervene with their views at the hearings.
Thanks!
Knight Commission Presents Report to FCC Head: Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy
The widely respected Knight Commission presented its report "Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy" to the FCC on Oct. 2, 2009.
The report closely echoes CACTUS' own proposals "Community Media and Technology Centres" to enable citizens to actively participate in public discourse. Like CACTUS, the report writers suggest that these centres could be built on to existing facilities central to communities, such as libraries.
The report also recommends public financial support for these centres, and that access to information and to the means of PRODUCING information is as important to the healthy functioning of communities as "clean air, safe streets, good schools, and public health".
For the full report, see http://www.knightcomm.org/
Tyee Publishes Story on W2 Multimedia Access Centre in Vancouver
They Tyee on-line newspaper recently published the following story about Vancouver's new W2 multimedia-access centre.
A New Vision for Community TV
Centres like Vancouver's W2 promise a more democratic way to create televised media.
By Steve Anderson and Michael Lithgow, 2 Oct 2009, TheTyee.ca
Giving citizens access to digital tools.
TV is dying. What will replace it?
The Net Reboots Cinema
How long until films are wired straight into our minds?
How We Can Reinvent TV
The web now allows us to bypass the studios. At last, artists will run the shows.
Unbeknownst to most Canadians, cable companies and local community groups have been wrestling for control over community channel assets: the community groups want space on the TV dial and production resources; the cable companies want to call the shots, control the programming, and move their community channels in the direction of commercial television. Approximately $80 million collected annually from Canadians and earmarked for community programming, is at stake.
Meanwhile, the digital revolution is transforming citizens into media producers and every home computer into a virtual television station. In such a radically altered media environment, the question remains: what will community TV be in the 21st century?
Community television is a throwback to a time when cable technology was new and the web was not yet born. It allowed anyone to create a program that could be seen on cable. Community television was the YouTube of its day; but things have changed. Downloading and streaming have precipitated a complicated restructuring of the television industry, brought on in part by new viewing habits. Traditional TV now seems to be on the wane.
But there are some things that are harder for the Internet to replace. Most television takes more than one person to make. The Internet cannot replace the studio space, hands-on training and possibilities for in-person collaboration and mentorship that community television allowed for. And it won't replace the sense of place provided by a community production studio; a space where people can gather, work, learn and create together.
We are at a critical moment when traditional media ownership is more concentrated than ever, and yet we have perhaps the most participatory medium in history at our fingertips. As such, citizens need access to media literacy, knowledge and media production skills more than ever before. And Community Media Centres -- modeled on the idea of recreation centres and local libraries -- may be a crucial piece of the digital divide puzzle.
The physical rendering of the Internet
The Internet has become an engine of innovation, choice and free expression because it is a relatively open platform for citizen engagement and free enterprise. This open platform facilitates free association and collaboration, which then produces exciting projects like Wikipedia, Firefox, and citizen-powered events like ChangeCamp.
As noted in previous columns, various projects in the "terrestrial" world are integrating web practices and values like transparency, openness and participatory decision making, into their work. The new push by groups in many cities to revamp community media centres looks to be part of this larger process of physically rendering the Internet.
Community Media Centres are attracting interest because they are in many ways, a physical mirror image of the Internet. If nothing else, Community Media Centres are an open platform for citizen collaborations of all types. Take a look at the description of soon-to-be launched W2 Community Media Centre in Vancouver:
"W2 will bring together hybrid art forms, community art practices, individual human development and community cultural development in a single environment. It will be home to a diverse grouping of Vancouver arts and community service organizations offering developmental programs in writing, radio and television production, painting, sculpture, photography, mixed media, video and cross-media."
Like the Internet, W2 will allow community members to engage at a level with which they are comfortable, and to freely develop their own ambitions and capacities. The Internet is nothing if not an online space where intrinsic motivation and open communication encourage and enable personal and collective exploration, collaboration and creativity. Community Media Centres could be the offline world equivalent of this open space, or rather a site where the offline and online can effortlessly merge. They are, in a sense, the next phase of social media, bringing to life the collaborative potential of the Internet in physical production spaces that mirror the complicated technological capacities of commercial studios.
Allocating community funds to communities
This fall, the CRTC will reconsider the role of community television in Canada. And they will ask Canadians what should happen with community channel policy. CACTUS (the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations), an innovative group based in Ottawa, is putting forward a proposal for community channel money to be used to create community media centres across the country.
CACTUS is proposing that a portion of the $80 million allocated to community channels be used to create a fund that community groups can apply to set up community media centres. The centres will provide training, equipment and may even acquire community broadcast licenses for radio or television. They would offer facilities for sound recording, television production, web design, broadband streaming and share resources with other community organizations that specialize in communications, for example, community newspapers, libraries, and theatres.
The best part of the plan is that this money is already being spent by cable companies. With CACTUS's proposal, Canadians won't have to pay another dime -- the media centre proposal will tap into funding that is already available.
The offline web
With the popularization of the Internet, it was only a matter of time before people figured out that online practices and values can have a place in our offline world. The beginning of what might be a long bleed of practices and values to the terrestrial may have begun with growing interest in participatory events. But why stop there?
As the desire for open systems and practices gains momentum, we can look to these and other hubs of open collaboration as an exciting new social nexus. A network of networks, you might say, much like the Internet.
Michael Lithgow is the co-founder of CACTUS, research associate at OpenMedia.ca, and a long-time community television advocate and organizer from Vancouver now living in Montreal. He was one of the founding directors of ICTV on the West Coast, former member of the Cue Up collective at Video In. He is currently a PhD student at Carleton University.
Steve Anderson is the national coordinator for OpenMedia.ca. He is a contributing author of Censored 2008 and Battleground: The Media and has written for The Tyee, Toronto Star, Epoch Times, Common Ground, Rabble.ca and Adbusters.
