GATINEAU – Applicants in the CRTC’s 9(1)(h) process this week have been on the hot seat during the first two days of the hearing trying to demonstrate that their respective services meet the “exceptional” test required to be a mandatory TV service.
“Given its exceptional nature, the CRTC has set the bar very high for obtaining a mandatory distribution order on digital basic pursuant to section 9(1)(h). The CRTC’s policy requires that a service seeking such an order must clearly demonstrate its exceptional nature and that it achieves important public policy objectives under the Act,” Commission chair Jean-Pierre Blais said during his opening remarks to the hearing on April 23.
In fact, in an e-mail to Cartt.ca, a former senior CRTC employee who was directly involved in writing the 9(1)(h) policy told us on condition of anonymity: “When we last re-drafted 9(1)(h), we set the bar so high that existing services would have a hard time qualifying. The Commission then, did not want to see any more qualifiers,” said the source. “As for the Canadian film channel, this will be the acid test, do we let consumers decide or does the CRTC make the decision for them?”
Starlight, the Canadian Film Channel led by filmmaker Robert Lantos, will appear in front of the Commission Thursday morning. For more background and what "exceptional" means, click here.
Stornoway Communications appeared on the first day and argued that its Fusion Television service does meet the exceptional need requirement because it helps bring youth back to the TV platform. The company proposes to do this through an interactive TV channel that incorporates the social media conversation that Canadian youth are so engaged in.
Gerry Wall, founder and president of Wall Communications, noted that if the service can repatriate youth back to TV regardless of the platform, then it meets the 9(1)h) test. “If they are watching it and participating in it, then they are part of the broadcasting system and I think that's why it's an extraordinary need,” he said.
Commissioner Louise Poirier questioned whether the company’s survey results demonstrate that consumers are willing to pay for the service. Wall noted that while the 11% may be looked at as being low, the result is pretty positive because those surveyed had to try and understand the service by reading a few sentences. “You saw a five-minute video of the service, you probably understand it a lot better after watching that video than you did when you read the application,” he said.
Poirier also wondered why the company needed a broadcast distribution licence when it could just run its content online where it will be freely available – and where its target market already resides.
“Television is still actually the most powerful platform that we actually have, and kids, while they are not watching their television screen like in their living room or their rec room, they are actually consuming television content online. They are just simply doing it on another platform,” said Martha Fusca, president and CEO of Fusion. That’s why it’s important to engage youth on the platforms that they use most, but link those to the TV platform, she added.
While Fusion was able to explain how its proposed channel would meet the exceptional need element, IDNR-TV (Natural Resources TV) was less so. Despite receiving considerable support (even from former CRTC chair Francoise Bertrand), company executives could only explain that natural resources are key part of the Canadian economy and are the foundation on which Canada was built and therefore should get mandatory carriage.
“IDNR-TV wants to be the voice of the resources, the voice of the communities, to make people understand what the reality is in the Far North region. We want to be the ambassadors for example of the City of Malartic in British Columbia so they will come in Abitibi to know what's going on,” said Ivor Barr, CEO of the long-struggling channel. “Why I'm saying that I'm very confident on the demand [is] because everybody wants us. Everybody wants the service. Even the people that don't know the service and they've heard of it, they are willing to watch it. They say, ‘oh, it's a good idea.’”
Those comments did nothing to satisfy commissioner Stephen Simpson, noting that public support doesn’t mean the channel should get mandatory carriage.
CPAC (owned by a consortium of Canadian cable companies) was on the docket on the second day of hearings and in its opening remarks, it noted that the channel meets the 9(1)(h) requirements today and has since it first launched in 1992. It also wants an increase in its wholesale fee from $0.11 per subscriber per month to $0.12.
“The need for CPAC and its role in Canadian democratic life has been well expressed by Parliamentarians of all political parties,” said Colette Watson, president and general manager of CPAC, highlighting comments from a number of federal MPs. “And support for CPAC extends well beyond Parliament Hill. CPAC has become, over 20 years, an accepted part of the basic service and something that Canadians expect to be able to turn to whenever they see a need.”
Accessible Media Inc. also took the stand on second day arguing for a renewal of its existing licences as well as for 9(1)(h) status for AMI-tv Français.
Betty Nobel, chair of the board with the CNIB Library for the Blind, noted in her opening remarks that AMI-tv has become essential for the many Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. “The network allows us to enjoy access to the same news, information and entertainment programming that sighted Canadians sometimes take for granted,” she said. “Simply put, just like AMI-audio, AMI-tv has quickly become an essential service for our community.”
Mandatory carriage of French language services from TV5 Québec was also before the commission on day two. The company presented its case for the approval of one licence with two separate services: one for Canada and the other for the international francophone community. Combined the two services would be known as Nouveau TV5.
Marie-Linda Lord, chair of TV5’s board of directors, acknowledged that the company has to meet strict guidelines set out by the commission, but said the new services will achieve them.
“We will do so by making sure that the Canadian broadcasting system – and the basic digital service – not only adequately reflect but reinforce the linguistic duality of Canadian society, favouring the realization of our national identity, a sense of belonging and the interrelation amongst the French-language commitments in minority situations,” she said.
CRTC vice-chair broadcasting Tom Pentefountas asked TV5 how its service is different from other French-language services including that being proposed, ACCENTS.
Suzanne Gouin, president and COO of TV5, acknowledged that others offer some French-language regional programming, but it’s not as regionally focused as TV5 and is largely based in Montreal. Nouveau TV5, on the other hand, will be a unifying force among Canadian francophones across the country.
“Do regions see other regions on TV? And the answer to that is no. Our approach is inclusive and that’s the difference. That is what distinguishes us from ACCENTS,” Gouin said.
What do you think? Are these services “exceptional”? Should they be must-carries? Let us know in the comments box below or at editorial@cartt.ca. We’ll keep e-mailed feedback confidential, if you wish.
