HAVING READ THROUGH some of the reams of paper (virtual, thankfully) submitted on the CRTC’s proceeding into its regulatory framework for community television, the most prescient comment I read came from the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance.
While urging the Commission to be more flexible (don’t all submissions, by some sort of unwritten law, have to urge that?) the CCSA’s Chris Edwards wrote: “The term ‘community’ should be used to denote a ‘community of common interest’ rather than a specific geographic area.”
Its submission was about the seventh I read and when I saw that line, I nearly shouted, “YES!”
Now, the Alliance’s submission then goes back to referencing geographic lines, since that’s how cable companies big and small continue to be defined – by the region or regions to which they provide TV, Internet and other services.
But that little nugget, the part about “community of common interest” put into direct focus what I and many others have been thinking as BNC 2009-661: “Review of community television policy framework” approaches. (The public hearing starts Monday and Cartt.ca will be there.)
But before I dig myself too deep of a hole here… I do want to recognize the hundreds of thousands of hours of great local television which cable company employees and volunteers have produced and continue to produce. Often times, the local community channel (whether produced by cable or by other independent owners) is the only place to see local content of any sort. Their work should be commended.
I’ve been a volunteer. I watch community TV sometimes. I’ve helped judge awards for community programming. But like any other media outlet, what those channels produce is very often being done online now. Its raison d’être is challenged by our constantly morphing media world.
So I wonder, is the industry and our Regulator spending all this time and money to talk about the future policy of something which Canadians are already taking control of via the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Foursquare?
Facebook pages, Twitter lists, YouTube channels and many other lesser-used social networking and video options are all ways users can communicate, transmit or pull others into their own community of common interests, to paraphrase the CCSA submission. In 2010, the local Rotary Club still needs to tell the world what it’s all about on the local community channel and in the local papers and radio. But increasingly, it can do it all by itself. In the future will it control how and where and what it communicates via its own YouTube channel linked to its Facebook page and Twitter feed?
Or what about my daughter’s soccer games. I could record a game and upload the video to YouTube myself and e-mail all the other parents on the team to have a look. Am I a community channel then?
The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) argues that gaining access to cable community channels isn’t as easy as it was back in the 1970s and that those community channels should be taken away from cable companies and the funding (2% of cable revenues) directed to a non-profit group running the channels who would dole out access to the channel.
I understand their complaints. There was a time where almost anyone could walk into a local cable company, ask to get on TV and have that wish granted. Often times, it was terrible television. With a web cam, those folks don’t even have to leave their homes to get online. Often times, it’s terrible video.
While I read the submissions, I wonder how many Canadians are clamouring for access to their community channel and being stifled, or would want to bother facing a community board to ask for community channel access when, with YouTube, Facebook friends lists and Twitter followers, we can already broadcast ourselves to all the people we know – and to all the people they know?
That isn’t to say of course, that the current cable community channels aren’t doing fine work, because they are. Nor do I think they should close up shop. While I can record and send an e-mailer of that soccer game I mentioned and cover just about all the fans (the three dozen or so parents and grandparents), the same can’t be done with, say, a university basketball game, which are carried on Cable 14 here in Hamilton, for example.
For one, the interest is greater. And, as a fan, I need the announcers and graphics, camera angles and additional info to make sense of a program like that. And I can’t get that community content online. Yet.
And, I hasten to add, those of us who spend a heavy amount of time online are not the typical 2010 Canadian. Facebook may have a billion users (I’m two of those), Twitter 100 million (I’m one) and people are uploading 24 hours of video every minute to YouTube (I’m helping there, too), but the for the majority of Canadians, their time online is far more limited as they work at factories, in restaurants, stores, garages and so on. So traditional media (community channels included) remains – and will for a while – be the best way for the Rotary Club to get its word out.
Maybe when everyone has a smartphone and wireless broadband, a day rapidly approaching, that might change.
So what do we do with community TV then? Cable community channels collectively get nearly $120 million per year in funding and according to the CRTC, get 0.2% of the TV viewership. With the media world changing as we’ve outlined, maybe there are better, different ways to spend that money to serve those “communities of interest.”
We’ll start to see on Monday.
