GATINEAU – A group of Canadian television viewers and consumer-oriented organizations says that it’s time for the CRTC to change the way it regulates the broadcasting system; this time, by putting Canadians, and not a specific industry, front and centre.
“The broadcasting system – and its business and regulation – must move back towards one that serves Canadians,” reads an intervention by the Groups for the Public Interest to the Commission’s Let’s Talk TV Conversation with Canadians.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Consumers’ Association of Canada, Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia, National Pensioners Federation, Option consommateurs and Canadian Ethnocultural Council, collectively known as the Groups for Public Interest, argues that the Canadian broadcasting system, at its most basic level, should provide consumers with greater access to an array of programming from a range of TV service providers at affordable prices.
Groups supports the Commission’s proposed regulatory framework – a skinny basic with a la carte availability for discretionary services or the ability to create customized packages – calling it good for Canadians. Without such a regime, it continues, Canadians will continue to see less flexibility in their TV channel choices.
Groups also points to a report by independent consultant David Keeble which demonstrates that there is currently not a lot of flexibility built in to the broadcasting system. According to the report, consumer choice in Canadian television averaged a score of 50.2, where 0 represents no flexibility in packaging and 100 represents maximum possible flexibility. It also quotes a Harris/Decima study that found that 61% of survey respondents said that they would subscribe to a TV service provider if they had more flexibility in channels. That ranked second only to lower prices.
While some stakeholders contend that a skinny basic combined with pick and pay will lead to less flexibility, Groups is quick to point out that the Commission isn’t considering eliminating large basic programming packages.
“The Commission’s approach is not about abolishing pre-assembled packages; it is about giving consumers alternatives. Allowing consumers to choose between pre-assembled packages, pick-and-pay standalone services and build-your-own-package options finally provides a much-needed shift in the broadcasting distribution model towards serving Canadian households and away from guaranteeing broadcaster revenues,” Groups writes in its intervention.
The public interest groups, scheduled to appear on the second day of the hearing, also offered comments on the possible shut down of over-the-air (OTA) transmitters and proposed changes to simultaneous substitution, proposals that warrant some consideration as several of the individuals who have submitted comments and are scheduled to appear at the Let’s Talk TV hearing have also opined on these issues.
Groups believes that simultaneous substitution continues to bring value to the Canadian broadcasting system through advertising revenues, but says that if broadcasters are also pay per view and video on demand providers, it may be time to consider alternatives.
Robert Dilworth, a Toronto resident who says he worked in the broadcasting industry for nearly 40 years, argues in his submission that simultaneous substitution and distant signal retransmission should be eliminated. He says these two measures have been “detrimental” to “a strong Canadian broadcasting system” that allows for the creation of compelling content and empowers consumers to make choices.
According to Dilworth, who is also scheduled to appear on Day Two, even if the value of simultaneous substitution is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s irrelevant because the damage to the Canadian television system has already been done.
“The CRTC must champion the program rights of those who are contributing to the Canadian television system”, he adds. “The CRTC must empower them with the flexibility to schedule Canadian programs in an optimal time to maximize their audience.”
On the OTA front, Groups says that signals must remain available in that manner to ensure that all Canadians can access the broadcasting system. That view is shared by intervener Daryl Kinsman, who describes himself as an “informed consumer with no horse in the race”. He argues that OTA represents a big opportunity on multiple fronts – including a chance to engage the youth demographic who are already well accustomed to using the Internet for their TV viewing (often referred to as the cord-nevers and cord-cutters).
“No amount of tinkering with the mainly monopoly VI BDU environment will bring them back; it’s part of what drove them away,” he writes. “One large barrier to their participation in the national dialogue is the cost of ‘television service’ yet from my experience, few of them know about digital TV even though they use modern TV sets with their computers, video games and DVD players. Should we not attempt to (re)include them in our television strategy?”
Besides, Kinsman adds, Canadian broadcasters have done little to exploit the tremendous potential available through digital OTA where three or four channels could be broadcast in a 6 MHz channel. Kinsman is scheduled to appear on Day Six.
Gregory Taylor, author of Shut Off: the Canadian Digital Television Transition and postdoctoral fellow at the Ted Rogers School of Management, agrees with Kinsman’s sentiments.
“With the notable exception of Southshore Broadcasting in Leamington, Ontario, the multicasting option remains underexplored in Canada, despite that being seen as a key benefit of the ATSC digital broadcasting standard adopted by Canada,” writes Taylor. “Creating a more vibrant OTA sector via multicasting could assist in “maximizing choice and flexibility” (para 40) instead of trapping the Canadian public into BDU contracts with little viable alternatives.”
Services such as Bounce TV and Soul of the South Networks are two channels that are seen as part of a resurgent OTA market in the U.S. As well, WGRZ in western New York uses its digital OTA allotment to broadcast three channels – U.S. network programming, all-day local weather, and 2-3 all day retro TV.
Blind and visually impaired Canadians have also weighed in to the TV policy debate. Two individuals, who are both scheduled to appear on Day Eight of the public hearing, argue that the CRTC isn’t doing enough with regards to described video (DV). Gatineau resident Dean Steacy and John Rae of Toronto both suggest that the Commission ensure more DV by requiring all newly acquired programming and renewed licences to offer DV, and that the Regulator mandate new equipment functionality.
The two-week long hearing — with 117 parties currently slated to appear — starts September 8.
ED NOTE: This is the 15th story of our ongoing, summer-long breakdown of the official submissions made to the CRTC for its Let's Talk TV, TV Policy Review. The first 14 are linked below. Please let us know what you think of the series at editorial@cartt.ca. We'll keep it confidential if you like.
Rogers and Corus want to overhaul Terms of Trade with producers
Does the industry fear what the set-top box data might say?
What’s the value of individual services – and how can consumers complain?
The CRTC must act to save local television
Different rules for different language markets
Genres have long been monkeyed around with. Do they still need protection?
Is basic bloated? Does it need a diet?
Pick and pay in Canada strikes out with U.S. media heavyweights
U.S. border stations want to use Let's Talk TV to wrest cash from Canadian BDUs
Should Yankee go home? The changing role of U.S. channels in the Canadian broadcasting system
No “Netflix Tax”, company warns CRTC
Snap Judgements: Everyone wants more choice – tied to a lot of ifs, ands, buts…
Original artwork for Cartt.ca by artist Paul Lachine, Chatham, Ont.
