GATINEAU – After watching day one of the CRTC’s hearing into its policies on community television, we settled on couple of key takeaways.
1) It would appear unlikely the Commission will adopt the CACTUS plan where the estimated $130 million already devoted to cable community channels via 2% of subscriber fees would be redirected to a new fund backing dozens of new independent, not-for-profit community channels/multimedia centres across the country.
2) The CRTC commissioners do seem to want a higher level of access, accountability and transparency from the cable companies who already offer their own community channels.
First into the live CPAC.ca stream this morning were the fine folks at CACTUS (the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations), volunteers who have spent many months working hard preparing for this appearance (they send us e-mails at all hours of the night, for example). Their plan calls for an ambitious, radical redesign of how community channels are currently run and funded in Canada.
As many know, the major cable companies have to devote 2% of their revenues to a community access channel. CACTUS and others believe the MSOs are doing a poor job at spending that money right now by airing regional programming across many local community channels and limiting access to who can get on the channel.
“They are sharing so much programming now they really are regional networks,” said CACTUS spokesperson Catherine Edwards about the community channel offerings of the major cable companies, each of whom have consolidated their studios to just a few communities.
Back in the old days (upon which far too many panellists reminisced), just about anyone with a bit of passion about a certain subject could have a show on their local cable company. That’s no longer the case among the big community channels added Edwards, a former volunteer co-ordinator with Shaw Cable.
Cable companies have made their channels far more slick and professional-looking, airing news, documentaries and minor pro sports, which limits access to those who want to get on TV and talk about their communities or host a political talk show.
CACTUS wants to create a Community Access Media Fund (CAMF) fund where all the money in which BDUs collect would be funnelled into it and disbursed around the country to 250 not-for-profit multimedia centres in 171 cities with populations of over 10,000 which would train volunteers in media arts (TV, radio, new media). These communities would also be community OTA broadcasters, too, with must-carry status on local cable.
“It could become a cornerstone in Canada’s digital strategy at no new cost,” said Edwards who later compared its level of open access to ShawTV’s, where she noted there were once 1,200 volunteers in Vancouver and that number has dropped to a quarter of that. “There is an enormous problems in terms of access,” she added.
CACTUS was prepared and presented its case well, but commissioners appeared loathe to create yet another funding body using cash collected from Canadian consumers, especially for something as untested as CACTUS.
“What you propose is quite radical,” said CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein.
Commissioners kept asking whether or not CACTUS could accept some sort of compromise (“Are there no intermediate steps to take first?” asked the chair), ranging from what it could accept by modifying the current regime to allow for more access from the general public, to commissioner Michel Morin’s idea where CACTUS-style outlets would get 2% of the funding only if they could raise 1% on their own from the communities they propose to serve.
While CACTUS stuck to its guns, noting its type of community access is done in other countries (but saying it’s open to discussing Morin’s idea), von Finckenstein asked them to think about a compromise position such as mandated programming levels, stricter monitoring and more access when it comes to submitting final written comments on May 17th.
“If the issue is access and local production, do you have to throw the model out totally or mandate specific access or specific levels of local production?” the chair asked when closing his line of questioning.
When Shaw Communications faced the panel, commissioners peppered its executives with questions about access and transparency, asking how Shaw decides what to put on ShawTV, how and when it meets with community members, even pondering whether or not its community channel budgeting should be made public.
While Shaw opposed the CACTUS proposal of course, the executives did seem open to consider changes which would make their programming processes more transparent.
While Shaw noted it is in constant discussions with community groups over access programming, von Finckenstein asked whether or not the process was a formal one and set out on the company’s web site. It isn’t and ShawTV programming head Alex Park said he’d look into that.
When Park detailed the meetings his programming managers have with community groups and noted under questioning they are not advertised as public meetings, he was asked if Shaw would consider making them public meetings.
“Certainly,” added Park.
However, the Shaw executives were less enthusiastic about commissioner Len Katz’s suggestion that the company hold meetings around budgeting time for people to let the company know if they can be included in the programming budget for the following year.
After lunch, the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance and some of its members highlighted the vast difference between what its member cable companies do in comparison to the larger BDUs which are really the primary targets of the CACTUS proposal
George Reid, chairman of Burgeo Broadcasting (which serves Burgeo, Nfld., a community of about 1,600 on the south shore of The Rock) is the only electronic media in town. The company boast 95% cable penetration as even those who have satellite also take at least basic cable in order to get access to the little cableco’s three community channels.
Reid told the panel his company spends 10% of revenues on its community programming. “We exist to serve our community,” he said, retelling the story of how one customer called tech support saying he was perplexed that he could see the community channel on TV even when it was off. Turns out he watched it so often the channel was burned into his LCD TV screen.
The CCSA’s largest members – Regina-based Access Communications and Brandon, Man.-based Westman Communications, both co-ops, showed how their channels were doing something completely different than local conventional television broadcasters. In fact, the CCSA has asked the Commission that its members be allowed to tap the Local Programming Improvement Fund for additional resources, given that most of its members aren’t served by a local OTA.
And with CTV shuttering Brandon’s CKX in the fall of 2009, Westman’s community channel is the only local TV game in town. While Westman has replaced CKX with the CTV Winnipeg station, “Winnipeg news is not Western Manitoba news,” said Westman CEO Dave Baxter. (Access has not asked for LPIF monies however).
The CCSA, as well as Shaw, also asked the Commission to loosen the rules on advertising to permit cable community channels to sell advertising time.
The prohibition on advertising on the community channels “is unduly restrictive in our markets,” noted CCSA consultant Harris Boyd.
While the panel seemed reluctant to let Shaw do that, chairman von Finckenstein asked whether or not loosening the rules for cable systems of under 20,000 would be acceptable to the CCSA.
“Yes,” said Boyd, succinctly.
However, most commissioners thought it unfair that any cable channels would be able to get a percentage of cable revenues, advertising as well as a piece of LPIF.
The hearing continues today with Québécor Média and La Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec up first.
