OTTAWA – Telus’ Michael Hennessy says that it all comes down to priorities.
In advance of his company’s presentation in front of the CRTC on Tuesday, the SVP of regulatory and government affairs said that the current fee-for-carriage discussions are “doing everything backwards” because they failed to set priorities, and to recognize consumer sovereignty in today’s digital world.
“Our fundamental position is that what we’re talking about now is a tremendous waste of our time and resources because we’re not giving consumers enough credit, and listening to how they want to define the television world, or the entertainment and informational world that they’re going to live in”, he told Cartt.ca. “Until we do that, and set priorities around that, we’re having an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ discussion."
Describing fee-for-carriage as “a band-aid potentially being put in the wrong place”, Hennessy suggested that TV consumers are the ones who should ultimately decide what they’d like to watch, be it on a la carte basis, or via ‘skinny basic’ programming package of their choosing.
“I think it’s a tough question because obviously it could undermine the financial elements of the system”, he said in reference to a pick and pay model of basic TV programming. “But if you don’t start from there, then you’ll never find something that balances the ability to stay in business with the demand that you have to serve in order to have a business.”
Hennessy proposes that the government, particularly Canadian Heritage, be responsible for fostering debate around a digital media strategy designed to create opportunities for Canadian content creators.
“Fee for carriage is not going to fix anything or create opportunities for Canadian creators to take advantage of a digital world”, he continued. “We should be talking about how to exploit technology so that our producers and creators have the opportunity to develop viable models to distribute their content, and consumers are satisfied that they’re getting what they want at a price they think is reasonable.”
