Straight from the horses’ mouths

The public hearing for the Review of the regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distribution undertakings and discretionary programming services (CRTC 2007-10) is set to begin on February 4, 2008, but few actual members of the public are likely to appear to address the commission. Before their comments are overshadowed by the lengthy rhetoric of national broadcasters and BDUs, Canadian Communications Reports offers a look at what some Canadians took the time to propose to the CRTC. There's little doubt that "allowing us to better serve Canadian television viewers" will be offered as a rationale for many of the policy amendments the major players in the review will recommend - perhaps even as often as "in order to strengthen the Canadian broadcasting system." However, a number of Canadians have already taken their opportunity to eliminate the middlemen. With no pretence of serving anyone but those who wrote them, and little consideration for furthering the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, comments from private citizens certainly offer a fresh perspective. Addressing digital distribution, Peter Near from Milton ON submits that: "Content that is available OTA without encryption should be freely available to basic subscribers without encryption. This would allow the majority of HDTVs on the market today with QAM tuners to simply connect the digital cable to the television and consume basic cable content... pay and specialty services should be available to subscribers through commercially available equipment from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multi-channel video programming distributor."It's hard to say what impact it will have with the commission, but Near's proposal to make available on cable without an extra fee HDTV signals that are already available over the air certainly found traction with other interveners. Ross McMillan of Winnipeg, Graham TerMarsch of Courtenay BC, and Edmonton's Dave Phillips all wrote expressly to the commission to support Near's suggestion. "I see no reason why we should be forced to pay the cable companies an additional sum in order to receive the programming we are already paying for," wrote Phillips. "I should be free to choose what technology I use to view content."Toronto's Preet Khalsa, who built his own working PVR and HD receiver out of spare computer parts, also believes Canadians shouldn't be limited to using BDUs' set-top boxes: "Most other countries give people the right to choose their own equipment for the capture and use of programming. It is a fundamental right. The situation in Canada is such that the cable and satellite companies restrict the ability to receive HD programming to their specific set top boxes. This raises costs and stops innovation."Another issue addressed by multiple Canadians was the commission's suggestion "that it might be appropriate to eliminate the regulatory requirement that the community channel, if offered, be distributed as part of the basic service."Ruben Anderson of Vancouver offered that, "Removing the requirement for cable companies to carry local community access television is a knife to the heart of our multicultural communities. For many new Canadians, community access television provides a much needed bridge between their homeland and Canada, familiar voices that help them navigate the new landscape that they now live in, in Canada." And Richmond BC's Victor Palacios' one-line comment read: "Community channels are one of the last bastions of free speech and real community information."Anderson, however, did offer a possible solution. "The only way around free community access might be to require the cable companies to provide free internet access," he wrote. "Then the community channels could webcast, and anybody with cable could still access the video."As a preview to the BDU submissions, some interveners recommended more flexibility in channel packaging. "Consumers must be allowed to choose the channels they want and pay for only those channels," wrote Denise Marly of Toronto. "It is not the CRTC's role, nor the Canadian government's role to determine what TV channels consumers have to pay for."With a little more understanding of the CRTC's role and goals, N. Katsios, also of Toronto, suggested that "A requirement should be put in place that allows for a two-tiered basic service: a smaller package with only a few channels, mainly local, for those who cannot afford the high prices of existing basic packages, and a second tier that will be similar to existing packages with a few specialty services thrown in as well." Katsios also made one request that all who commented can surely agree on. "I hope that the CRTC will consider fully and seriously the comments submitted by members of the public such as myself," he wrote. "Seeing as how the CRTC is a public body, the views of the public should be part of the decision-making process for any policy review such as this one."

Straight from the horses’ mouths

Broadcast | October 2, 2007

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