OTTAWA-GATINEAU – Most stakeholders agree that the CRTC’s new community TV policy did little to lessen cable’s firm grip on the country’s community channels. But even some of the country’s biggest cable companies appear to have some concerns.
“The closed captioning component is going to be a challenge”, said Colette Watson, VP of Rogers TV, in an interview with Cartt.ca. “As of December 31st, the funding is frozen to the levels we’re at now for four years. That’s fine, we’ll make that work. The issue then becomes, if in that same time frame we have to caption 100% of our programming, that the money will have to come from somewhere.”
And “somewhere” could very well mean cutting back on programming. The Commission said that it intends to impose conditions of licence requiring BDUs operating community channels to caption 100% of original licensee-produced programming, and 100% of original access programming by the end of their next licence term. Rogers’ next renewal is in 2014, Watson said.
Shaw Cable’s Alex Park didn’t comment on the hefty captioning requirements, but he did question the Commission’s assumption of “pent up demand” from community groups wanting access to his company’s community channel, Shaw TV.
“That traditional type of access has found other ways of materializing”, he told Cartt.ca, naming off the Internet, FaceBook and YouTube as examples. “It’s going to take us some time to build up that base of access groups and training. At the moment, we’re not overwhelmed by requests.”
BRP CRTC 2010-622 says that the Commission has determined that BDUs are capable of ensuring that at least 50% of the community channel programming is devoted to access programs. It defines access programming as that originating from a community member not employed by a BDU, and that the community member must be involved in the production team.
Park also speculated whether the decision went far enough in considering future technological developments, despite its brief mention of video-on-demand and new media.
“I found it really interesting that the tone of the decision was really about, what I would consider, traditional access to a traditional linear TV channel”, he continued. “It remains to be seen whether that concept of access has much value going forward in terms of what’s happening in the technology world. We may see more discussion about this as we go forward.”
The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) left no doubt as to their thoughts on the policy, describing it as “disappointing to the point of absurdity”.
“Overall we’re extremely disappointed with this policy”, CACTUS spokesperson Catherine Edwards told Cartt.ca. “Unlike what the Commission says, we think that there’s almost no meaningful or substantive changes at all (over its 2002 framework).”
Edwards said that the new policy failed to consider community ownership of channels, funding for the independent sector, or mandate diversity in an era of industry consolidation. She also took issue with the policy’s recommendation that the BDUs establish an industry working group to develop a code of ‘best practices’ on access programming.
“Perhaps most disappointing is that the industry working group specifies five cable companies, (Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, EastLink, Quebecor and the CCSA), but no public representation”, she added. “How can that be? This policy contains no acknowledgement that Canadians or communities have any stake at all in their community channels.”
CACTUS also cheered the dissenting opinion of CRTC commissioner Michel Morin who described the new policy as "paternalistic" toward community groups for failing to issue community access programming licences to groups that could oversee or take full responsibility for access programming.
“In my opinion, the Commission’s position is tantamount to a denial of adult status to community groups, since it is still the BDUs that will be determining the content of access programming”, Morin wrote in his lengthy dissention. “Under these circumstances, where decisions are ultimately made by BDUs, how can the Commission talk about “diversity of voices” and “independent community services”?
A BDU-owned community channel, who requested that its name be withheld, called the new policy “punitive” with “lots of take and no give”.
“Clearly, I am frustrated by this decision as it appears that the CRTC has not heard or recognized all the good that community TV, and us specifically, have done for over 40 years in terms of goodwill, free promotion, community fund-raising, volunteer training and most importantly, access opportunities to the vast majority, as opposed to the vocal minority, of community stakeholders”, the station’s manager said in an email to Cartt.ca.
Edwards reaffirmed her position that CACTUS provided the CRTC with the most “logical solution” to community TV – independently licenced community channels that are carried across all platforms.
“The Commission ignored the request of the Canadian public – which was made abundantly clear at these hearings – that the time has come for community broadcasting to be in the hands of communities, as it is in all Western countries that have a community sector”, she continued. “This is how it operates here in Canada in the community radio sector. Why not TV?"
