Broadcasters question new CRTC service standards when old ones weren’t met

It’s a road the CRTC has been down twice before in the past six years, but the commission’s newly appointed chief of broadcasting and telecommunications says the regulator’s latest effort to address service standards and turnaround times on paperwork will be different. In a 2000 document, (Circular No. 440), the commission laid out a roadmap for improving both the number of applications addressed within a given period; the document also contained another more aggressive set of targets for implementation in 2003. "Back then…there was an attempt made to establish service standards, just so the industry would sort of have some degree of certainty as to how long things take," executive director of broadcasting and telecommunications Len Katz says. "My understanding is, we didn’t do a very good job in meeting the phase 1 service standards, and I don’t think we ever implemented the phase 2 ones." Since taking over the reins on the broadcasting side in December last year, Katz has embarked on an ambitious program to revamp and rationalize operations, and one of the fruits of that program is Broadcasting Public Notice 2006-16, which sets out new goals for application processing times and becomes effective on April 1. Those goals include a two-month standard for issuing a determination on at least 80% of the applications dealt with administratively, and a six-month standard for dealing with at least 80% of applications that take the public notice route but don’t involve interventions or questions of policy (80% in eight months if intervenors do step forward). Also part of the streamlining process is a restructuring, announced at the time of Katz’s appointment to the broadcast side, that will see the creation of three separate executive directorships – for broadcasting, telecommunications, and industry analysis, economics and technology – reporting to Katz, as well as the off-loading of labour-intensive broadcast functions, such as the analysis of Canadian certification requirements, financial returns and radio logging tapes, to the Secretary-General’s division of the commission (CCR, Dec. 21/05). Katz hints that these efforts might allow for further efficiencies that could increase the speed at which paperwork is processed, exceeding the goals set out in PN 2006-16. "The that we’ve quoted on here even reflect a number of the streamlining efforts that will be introduced in the months ahead as well," he says. "I can tell you, rest assured, that we will be doing whatever we can to reduce the workload on all of us – the staff as well as the industry – where there is no longer a need for process that historically has been in place," he says. Katz says this latest effort is the "byproduct" of a broader government-wide initiative, mandated by the Treasury Board, to establish standards of service in dealing with external customers who pay for paperwork processing. While he notes that broadcasting is different because licensees don’t pay per application, but instead by a funding formula, the intent is the same. "What we’ve tried to do here is in order to meet the Treasury Board obligations, we had to consult with industry, so we posted these out there and basically said we will meet these in all circumstances," he says. Many broadcasters who have had past dealings with the commission laud Katz’s arrival and say they’re confident he’ll bring about positive change in procedure. Many also remain wary, however, pointing to the processes omitted from the standards and the organizational structure of the unit itself as concerns that need to be addressed. "By and large I think they hit these benchmarks," says Donna Robertson, co-president and chief legal officer at Vancouver-based cable distributor Novus Entertainment Inc. "A lot of things that they used to deal with through a real process, they now just do automatically." However, she adds, the commission should also examine its response times for the more important procedures not on the list. "It’s the other things that they need to deal with more expeditiously, and that’s complaints and competitive issues and things of that nature, things that are contentious," she says. However, Mirko Bibic, chief of regulatory affairs at Bell Canada, says the newest set of yardsticks will be meaningless without a parallel plan for internal reform at the regulator. "What’s key is execution and meeting the standards, and in order to meet the standards the CRTC is in my view likely going to have to address its core administrative procedures, otherwise there is the very significant risk that the standards won’t be met," he says, highlighting the commission’s past attempts in 2000 and 2003 to set benchmarks – and its failure to meet them. "In one case, the standard is 75% in six months; in they met that standard 5% of the time." Bibic also says the standards have been crafted in such a way that they should prove easier to meet than the performance bars the commission set for itself in earlier iterations. "My perspective on this is that the new public notice proposes standards that are more lax or more open-ended than the 2003 version, and I would have expected to see the reverse: tougher standards and more less-open-ended standards," he says, pointing to the 2006 standard for applications dealt with administratively, which was set at an 80% resolution rate within two months. "Well, it used to be, in the 2003 version, 85% in two months," Bibic notes. In his comments to the Public Notice filed on March 2, Bell Canada director of regulatory matters Paul Armstrong says the CRTC is vague on the details of its plan to meet the new standards, "nor does BPN 2006-16 represent a commitment by the commission to the establishment of service benchmarks that would result in accelerated decision-making." In his letter, he also takes the commission to task for forging ahead with new less-demanding standards without scrutinizing its failure to meet the earlier ones: as of December 31, 2005, "the commission failed to meet even one of its 13 benchmarks in six categories. The result of the revised service standards should not be less demanding completion objectives for the commission." Ken Engelhart, VP of regulatory affairs at Rogers Communications Inc., agrees with the sentiments expressed by the two Bell executives. "These standards aren’t going to help much one way or another, and I think in some ways these standards are not that challenging," he says. "The standards should be more stringent, but…even meeting the existing standards would be a big improvement." Both Bibic and Engelhart would like to see the commission bring back the tiered approach it included in the 2003 version of its proposed standards. "In the new public notice, it doesn’t say what really happens with the other 20% that aren’t met in two months or six months or eight months, whereas the 2003 version had kind of a tiered system where it was 75% in two months but then 95% in three months," Bibic says, adding that applicants should be advised as early as possible if their case won’t be heard within the usual period. Katz says commission staffers have spent a considerable amount of their time ironing out the wrinkles in filings after they’re first submitted by providing advice, not on the content or commitments therein, but on form and procedural matters, and vows to end the practice. "Staff doesn’t have the final decision on any of these things, it’s not staff’s role to craft the application – it’s the applicant’s role," he points out. Commission staff will continue to issue guidance and communicate what’s expected from applicants as clearly as possible, but will no longer scrutinize the applications in the kind of detail they have been, and then refer them back to the originator if found wanting. "We’re looking at a wholesale change to the fundamentals of the application process," Katz says. " making sure that the applicant is on the hook for his application, but at the same time working with them so that they understand what it is we’re looking for so there are no surprises, and then it’s up to them to file as complete an application as they possibly can." But Engelhart says many of the delays at the intake stage are caused by individual analysts’ preferences, who have their own ideas as to what constitutes a properly filled-out form. "Sometimes the analyst who’s looking at it just decides ‘well, it shouldn’t be this way,’" he says. "In their mind, it’s a deficiency in paperwork; in our minds, it’s sometimes a new requirement that we weren’t aware about, or some idiosyncratic requirement of some particular staffer." And, following such a policy may in fact have a beneficial effect – albeit unintentional – on efforts to meet service standards such as the ones proposed, and may prove hard for CRTC managers to abandon. "By sending it back and saying ‘Start again’ it lowers their average processing time dramatically from a statistical perspective, but in terms of getting the job done it takes exactly as long – it’s just that the statistics look better," he says. Engelhart adds that part of the role of the commission’s staff has always entailed helping applicants navigate the bureaucracy of Canadian broadcasting, and that function should – and likely will – remain, to some extent. "There is not a regulatory regime in the world where the staff don’t have to help the regulated companies find their way through the paperwork," he says. "It’s just, ‘welcome to the world of bureaucracy.’ You need the bureaucrats to guide you through it." Despite some reservations, all agree that Katz has worked a minor miracle in implementing – and adhering to – similar standards on the telecom side, where he has served as executive director since the middle of last year. "When I came into the telecom group, we did establish service standards for telecom, and now meeting them – exceeding them, quite frankly, as well," Katz says. "I’m sure if you spoke to the phone companies there would be nobody who would have any criticism of the turnaround that we do right now on tariff approvals." There’s certainly no criticism of those efforts forthcoming from Rogers’ Engelhart. "They did a fabulous job in telecom of moving paper much more quickly than they had in the past," he says. "Len Katz, who was the head of that regime in telecom, did a tremendous job, and everyone on the telecom side has agreed that things are much faster now. I’m confident with him as the head of broadcasting and telecom, things will move much more quickly in broadcasting." Bibic concurs: "In terms of internally and administratively managing the files so that standards will get met, I’m confident that will get done." Summary of CRTC’s proposed broadcast service standards for the 2006/2007 fiscal year Type of application and processing routeTime taken to process applications from date of receipt1. Administrative route All applications dealt with administratively80% in 2 months2. Public notice route (excluding licence renewals) Without interventions and not raising policy issues80% in 6 months With interventions80% in 8 months3. Licence renewals by public notice route With or without interventions80% in 8 months

Broadcasters question new CRTC service standards when old ones weren’t met

News | 03/13/2006 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us