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
CRTC Commissioner for the Atlantic: Elizabeth A. Duncan
(902) 426-2644
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.
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.)
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:
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.
What Would an Independent Community TV Channel for Montreal Be Like?
This is an appendix to a letter written by the Steering Committee for Independent Community TV (ICTV) in Montreal to the CRTC on October 7th, 2013.
The document summarizes how an independent model for community TV could offer a platform for local expression that would be accessible to the whole community.
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).
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.
Submission to CRTC 2013-1216-5, Re. Videotron's Application for a Separate Community LIcence for Anglophones in Montreal
Laith Marouf is the former director of Concordia University TV.
In this letter, he opposed Videotron's application for a separate community channel licence to serve anglophones in Montreal.
He documents the significant role that CUTV played in covering the student demonstrations during the 'Quebec spring' of 2012, and his view that the model of CUTV at the time (which was bilingual and reached out to all concerned citizens) could be a model for an independent community TV channel for Montreal.
Citizen Group Challenges Videotron for Community TV Licence in Montreal
Submitted by Cathy Edwards on Tue, 2013-10-08 15:04.Ottawa (October 8, 2013) A group is proposing to the CRTC that a not-for-profit organization manage community TV in Montreal instead of Videotron. The Steering Committee for an Independent Community TV Channel (ICTV) for Montreal says that Videotron’s existing MAtv channel fails to meet the conditions of its CRTC licence to "reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the community."
The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) has raised its own questions about whether the company meets the other basic requirements of its MAtv Montreal licence. The company is expected to devote at least 50% of its air time and its programming budget toward "access" programming, which the CRTC defines as programming made by citizens, community members, and "volunteers". CACTUS has recommended that the CRTC audit MAtv after regulatory and programming staff at Videotron told CACTUS on October 1st that they commission programming—that is pay producers—to produce their ‘access’ content.
At issue is Videotron’s recent application to the CRTC to spend an additional $6-10 million for an exclusively Anglophone "community channel" to be called MYtv, a clone of the existing exclusively French MAtv. Videotron wants approval to take this money out of the Canada Media Fund, which independent producers across Canada can tap into to produce programs like Murdoch Mysteries, Rookie Blue, and the Listener.
"It’s like rewarding Videotron for failing to serve Montreal’s minorities over the last decade, says Gretchen King, Chair of the Board of CKUT, the community radio station at McGill University, as well as a member of the Steering Committee for ICTV Montreal. "The $6-10 million that Videotron is already spending on MAtv is more than enough to fund a dynamic multicultural community channel that would reflect all the energy and creativity of this fantastic city. That’s what community TV is supposed to do."
