|
The CRTC heard a new proposal Monday during its review of the community television policy framework -- from one its members.
At the commission's hearings, launched Monday to review the community television policy framework, commissioner Michel Morin raised the idea of cable companies and community groups sharing responsibility for funding community television.
The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) was the first to appear Monday, and said it wants to create a new community television fund called the Community Access Media Fund (CAMF).
Under the existing system, cable providers with more than 20,000 customers must direct two per cent of their subscriber revenues into their community television channels. In 2008, the levy collected from those funds amounted to $116 million.
CACTUS proposes that the two-per cent levy collected by the cable companies be administered by a new community media fund, creating community-run, multimedia training and production facilities in 250 communities across Canada.
The group also asks that the CRTC set aside spectrum in those communities for over-the-air, community television broadcasts.
But on Monday Morin asked whether CACTUS' proposed fund, CAMF, could take just one per cent of the cable companies' funds and raise the rest of its money at the community level.
The cable companies could keep one per cent of their subscriber revenues to fund their own community television channels.
"If the model I propose was put in place, we would have three per cent of revenues to fund community television," Morin said. "Your members would be motivated to raise funds just like you see with PBS in the United States."
CRTC commissioner Rita Cugini also questioned whether the CAMF could be held accountable for the administration of funds.
"That revenue is not generated by the CAMF, it's generated by the BDUs [broadcasting distribution undertakings]," Cugini said. "You're asking us to give you the authority to spend that money."
Catherine Edwards, a spokeswoman for CACTUS, told Morin that, without a stable revenue stream, some communities would have difficulty raising enough funds to produce local content.
Shaw Communications Inc. also appeared before the commission Monday.
Jean Brazeau, Shaw's senior vice-president of regulatory affairs, told Morin that the revenue-sharing proposal would make the community television sector weaker across the board.
"Under your model there would be two community channels competing against each other," Brazeau said. "I think the result of that would be two inferior community channels being produced."
Shaw also opposes the CACTUS proposal. The company says the existing community television system serves communities well.
"We strongly recommend the continuation of the current policy framework because it has created an abundance of local programming and access opportunities while strengthening the broadcasting system," Brazeau told the commission.
Shaw's representatives maintained that CACTUS' criticism of the current model -- a lack of accountability, funding allocations, and community access -- do not exist.
"We have no issues with any kind of inability to provide access on a regular basis to groups," Alex Park, Shaw's vice-president of interactive advertising and programming, said.
"We are concerned that there are proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist."
Konrad von Finckenstein, chairman of the CRTC, asked CACTUS whether it is necessary to solve the community access issue through television when there are alternative ways to reach citizens.
"If we had this heyday situation in the 1960s and 1970s [for community television], why did it disappear and why should we go back to it?" von Finckenstein asked.
"The world has changed, with huge technological improvements and a completely differently structured industry."
Edwards, the CACTUS spokeswoman, said the group's proposal is forward-looking, with goals to incorporate new media initiatives into traditional television productions.
The CRTC also heard from the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA) Monday, representing smaller cable companies.
"We simply do not accept CACTUS" premise that there is some sort of wholesale denial by cable companies of citizen access to airwaves," Chris Edwards, vice-president of regulatory affairs with the alliance, told the commission.
"At least in communities where our members serve, we see just the opposite."
The CCSA agreed with Shaw that the community television framework works well now. The group argued that some flexibility is needed to improve community television in small communities.
Edwards, of the CCSA, asked that the CRTC relax the definition of "local content" to give community channels access to local advertising revenues and to offer more flexibility in sponsorship agreements.
Shaw made similar suggestions, but some commissioners expressed concern that access to local advertising would put community channels in direct competition with the over-the-air broadcasters such as CTV, Global and the CBC.
"If your recommendations are accepted vis-a-vis advertising, what guarantees would there be that community TV content currently on Shaw would not morph into more ratings-driven content aimed at gaining market share and generating ad revenue?" commissioner Marc Patrone asked.
Park said that Shaw has experimented with limited advertising under the existing model and that all of the revenue generated has gone back into the community channels.
Rogers Communications Inc. did not appear before the committee Monday, but released a survey showing that 70 per cent of its customers value their Rogers community television service.
The telephone survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel, said that 70 per cent of Rogers customers oppose any changes to the community television framework.
The Strategic Counsel surveyed 600 people in March, and the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Source: The Wire Report, 04/26/2010
|