Consumer interest should be considered in new third-language channel policies: panel

A Canadian Heritage-appointed panel is recommending a new regulatory framework specific only to third-language channels that would do away with the current one channel per genre regulation. "…The current rules seem to suggest that no general purpose third-language programming provided by a non-Canadian service will be allowed. This was described as a restriction that was unduly broad and did not take into account the significant interests of the third-language audience," reads Integration and Cultural Diversity, a report issued September 27 by the three-member panel on access to third-language public television services. "A second consequence of the current rules is that they seem to grant a perpetual monopoly to existing Canadian service providers – regardless of the nature of the service being offered by the non-Canadian service and regardless of the cultural interests of the third-language audience." Panel member panel Clifford Lincoln, former chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, tells Canadian Communications Reports that there should be a way for non-Canadian third-language channels to get approved for carriage in Canada in the interests of the viewing public and to help curb the grey market. He says the preference is for third-language broadcasters to partner with Canadians to enter the market, but that scenario might not always be a possibility. "Competition is not necessarily a negative issue; it can be also be positive. What we are saying is that the public should be given alternatives, that the competition test shouldn’t be based on narrow definitions (of one channel per genre), but should also take into account cultural aspects – what impact it has on the cultural community involved," he notes. The report reads, "Competitiveness is looked at from the impact on existing services. Far less attention is paid to the third-language audience’s ability as consumers (and thus, as a market) to support an additional service…The fact that two services might compete (in the same third language) because they both offer programming of a generalist nature, should not immediately result in the denial of the service for a second service." The negative effects of competition on existing Canadian third-language channels could be lessened, the panel suggests, by requiring similar channels to be bundled together. Lincoln also says that foreign third-language channels granted carriage in Canada should be forced to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system. That contribution would consist of a minimum 10% of their previous year’s revenues being invested in a new fund for third-language programming. The panel also recommends that the federal government consider matching the contributions made by the third-language broadcasters. The panel doesn’t envision any grandfathering, stating that non-Canadian, third-language channels currently eligible for carriage in Canada should be required to agree that, as a condition of remaining on the carriage eligibility list that they will contribute not less than 10% of their revenues to the new fund. Integration and Cultural Diversity has been submitted to the CRTC as part of its review of the approach to assessing non-Canadian third-language services for carriage in digital in Canada (Broadcasting Notice 2004-53). The deadline for comments in that proceeding is October 13. The CRTC undertook the process after controversy arose when it didn’t approve Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI International) for carriage here in digital (CCR Update, Aug. 19/04). The formation of the panel, consisting of Lincoln, Gowlings lawyer Roger Tasse, and Anthony Cianciotta, president of Capri Release Inc. and a member of Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, was also sparked by the RAI refusal. The lack of availability of third-language services fueling the grey and black satellite TV market was also raised before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which recommended a panel be established to suggest ways to ensure that more third-language channels became available in Canada (CCR, May 21/04). In keeping with existing CRTC policy, the commission denied the request to allow RAI to be carried in Canada because it has some of the same Italian programming as Canadian TV specialty channel Telelatino, and was deemed to be competitive. Lincoln sees no problem with some programming overlap amongst specialty channels, and draws a comparison with sports broadcasting. "What we are saying is that there should be no exclusivity. You know, right now Telelatino is negotiating with various broadcasters in Italy. RAI can give its programs to A, B, or C. At the same time, we don’t think that RAI should have an exclusive right in Canada to confine its programming to itself," he notes. "But there can be more than one channel in a particular language. It’s what happened in sports. First, we fostered TSN. But now there’s Sportsnet, RDS and Fox Sports. There are all kinds of precedents, where there has been latitude (in the one channel per genre regulation) in the past for various reasons. Now, there are several sports channels and they compete with each other." The three-member panel was originally mandated to examine access to third-language public broadcasters, such as RAI. But as the report states, the panel "rapidly came to the conclusion that it was impossible to carry out its mandate if restricted to the notion of ‘public broadcaster,’ as it is commonly understood in Canada. There is simply too much diversity in the way the expression is used to make sense of the panel’s mandate." Therefore, for the report, public broadcaster was defined as "the principal, or a significant, broadcast(s) in a foreign country that provides generalist programming culturally relevant to a particular language group in Canada." Lincoln sees little commonality between the Integration and Cultural Diversity report, and Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting, the broadcasting report released by the Standing Committee he chaired (CCR, June 20/03). "I don’t think there’s much overlap," he states. "The other report, compared to the one on third-language services, was very broad. But one common element is the (standing committee’s) recommendation with regard to the CRTC. The Standing committee report suggested that the mandate of the CRTC be reviewed." The third-language report calls for reform of the CRTC of a sort. It calls on the CRTC to be more flexible and act in a proactive way to enhance the capacities and development of third-language services within the Canadian broadcasting system. Lincoln hopes that the report will have some impact on the CRTC’s review of access to third-language channels, and he continues to insist that Our Cultural Sovereignty is not collecting dust. "(Canadian Heritage minister) Liza Frulla was on the standing committee and she was the one who suggested the title of that report. She mentioned at her first media conference since becoming minister that the report would be a guide for her," he notes. "She is clearly interested in that report."

Consumer interest should be considered in new third-language channel policies: panel

Broadcast | October 8, 2004

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us