“One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it.” – Peter Drucker
By Bill Roberts
NOW THAT WE HAVE TWO major mergings of BDUs and large national broadcasters underway, plus an inclination to enhance non-Canadian ownership potential, perhaps there is just cause and fair reason to review the recent 9.1.h. decision by the CRTC.
This is especially critical for the diverse voices and ownership structures of the smaller and independent broadcasters within the Canadian broadcasting system.
In the first instance – and seeing now how fast the landscape morphs – the extent to which the CRTC makes rules to be applied at a future date, quite possibly by an entirety different Commission whose discretion it has somewhat fettered, while refusing to hear years-long-waiting applications now, even those that would meet the rules presently established, seems increasingly less grounded.
Some of the small and independent broadcasters have been “parked” since 2006 on this lonely 9.1.h. blacktop.
And this is somewhat strange, in that the reason given by the CRTC pivots on “seeing how the system develops in the meantime,” yet it establishes the rules now without any knowledge of how the system’s so-called development will occur.
Is that not a logical inconsistency and contradiction given the rushed state of affairs today?
Would we not be better served to get on with it and not hesitate on 9.1.h.?
Indeed, we can see quite clearly how quickly our media and screen environment is changing including with FibeTV, AppleTV, GoogleTV and a steady encroachment of non-Canadian voices and ownership.
Since 2004, the CRTC has permitted 103 non-Canadian TV services to the list of satellite eligibility, including seven major U.S. programming services.
But since 2000, the Commission has not formally called for new Canadian applications for television programming services for the basic tier – the tier where high domestic content, creative risk taking, and niche programming intrinsic to Canada’s identity can best survive the digital tsunami sweeping the globe.
Consequently, while the “little guys and gals” of the Canadian TV spectrum have been (so far) denied a fair and optimistic hearing on 9.1.h., the “big guys and gals” have had several opportunities to claim and occupy centre stage.
The “fee-that-dare-not-speak its name” is a case in point, as it hijacked the BDU hearings of a couple of years ago – all very moot now, one might imagine, having being deferred to the Federal Court (a case that was heard this week with very little fanfare).
Moreover, on the 9.1.h. matter, of the 31 interveners who filed comments on the CRTC’s criteria, only three sought a postponement – none of that trio was a broadcaster.
Certainly 9.1.h. should not have the crude test of “if you’re left standing after the digital transition of 2011 we’ll hear your case in 2012 or 2014”. That just seems coarse… this is not a “Survivor” knock-off, we’re a country.
Let’s respectfully re-consider the CRTC’s 9.1.h. decision in terms of where we stand with technology and business developments today.
Since there is nothing in law to prevent a future Commission applying a different policy later – say in 2012 or 2014 – licensees or potential licensees may organize their business affairs to meet rules established in 2010 only to find out that in 2012 or 2014 a different Commission has altered the criteria.
Compounding this is the CRTC’s ability and flexibility to hear some “big” applicants asking for an exception to those “basic rules”, e.g. TVA. Of course regulatory flexibility is to be desired – but it should be meted out with respect to “little” players as well.
Nobody wants to roughly question our BDU colleagues or the CRTC – indeed we need to find more and more ways to pull together and not pull apart. After all, these are our esteemed public servants, informed media adjudicators, respected business partners, and very often our friends.
But the only difference between a rut and a grave is their dimensions.
The television acquisitions by Shaw and Bell are game-changers.
Sometimes, faced with new facts, it’s a welcome act of very good sense to re-visit and review the basics. And maybe just now is a fortuitous opportunity to re-examine our collective stance on 9.1.h., and to not abandon those small and independent partners to twist in the wind for the better part of a decade while our vertical and horizontally concentrated friends amass at digital light speed.
Broadcasters are familiar with re-assessing and re-invention – but as Canada is not a natural market, so much as an act of political and social will, the best public policy leadership is also imbued with a capacity and wisdom to re-consider, re-cast and implement nimbly.
To that end, immediately bringing existing 9.1.h. applications to a speedy, fair and proper CRTC hearing would be a timely, responsible and courageous re-visiting by the Commission – one reflective of the pace and potency of current media events.
We all embrace a broadcasting system that supports predominantly Canadian and diverse voices and ownership, as well as indigenous creativity and quality domestic content.
Shifting gears at the CRTC and fast-tracking a reinvigorated 9.1.h. process should be an important emblem of that shared conviction.
Bill Roberts is president and CEO of ZoomerMedia’s television group (Vision TV, Joytv, One: Body, Mind and Spirit).
