Cable co’s call for status quo in community television debate, say Internet helps meet community needs

The major cable players in the community television debate are telling the CRTC they support the status quo, and that hyper-local, community-generated content can be produced and distributed more cheaply on the Internet. The deadline for submissions to the CRTC’s April 26 hearings to review the community television sector ended Monday. Although many submissions are yet to be posted on the CRTC webwite, The Wire Report obtained CRTC filings from Rogers Cable Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Cogeco Cable Inc. Under the current model, broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), or the cable companies, are required to pay a broadcast levy that amounts to two per cent of the revenue collected from subscribers. In 2008, the levy amounted to $116 million. “We think the model works,” Colette Watson, vice-president of Rogers Television, told The Wire Report. “Cogeco submits that there is no demonstrable need for significant changes to the existing policy framework for community television,” Cogeco said in its submission to the CRTC. TVCogeco operates 37 community channels in Ontario and Québec. The company says it aired more than 12,000 hours of original Canadian content last year in partnership with 940 community organizations and volunteers. But critics, like the non-profit organization OpenMedia.ca and the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS), argue that the BDUs have not used the funds from the broadcast levy effectively. “They aren’t giving proper access and set up all kinds of barriers to entry,” said Steve Anderson, the national coordinator with OpenMedia.ca, referring to the BDUs. Anderson told The Wire Report that Shaw, Rogers and other cable providers did not provide the CRTC with their program logs to prove that their local programming served communities. Much of the cable companies’ programming is professional and commercial content that goes under the guise of community television, he said. “I don’t think they understand Rogers community channels,” said Watson, responding to the criticism. “No one has told me that we’re doing a bad job.” Rogers argues that it has provided adequate access to community television resources under the current system. According to the company’s submission to the CRTC, Rogers gave 12,040 community groups access to 34 community television channels during the 2003-04 year. By 2008-09, that number more than doubled to 29,121 community groups, the company says. Shaw said it is representing the best interests of local communities through its community television channels in Western Canada. The company said in its submission to the CRTC that it produces more than 9,000 hours of local content each year. CACTUS proposes to redirect the funds from the broadcast levy to create community media centres across the country. These centres would apply for over-the-air community television licences. But Rogers and Cogeco suggest that a better place for grassroots community media is the Internet. Rogers' CRTC submission says that “ith respect to community-based digital media services in particular, the online environment is a far more appropriate distribution vehicle than cable distribution.” The submission adds that the Internet allows community groups to reach niche audiences and deliver hyper-local content cheaply and efficiently. Similarly, Cogeco’s submission says that the Internet “offers a rich and highly cost-efficient platform for community groups to connect and interact. Indeed, we are seeing many organizations and communities of interest accessing and using social media as a means of reaching and involving their audiences.” Cogeco adds that the Internet and social media can meet the “niche, hyper-local” interests of communities. “It is also likely to be much less costly to launch and promote a virtual web-based community portal than to apply for and maintain a CRTC licence for a community-based television undertaking,” Cogeco says. But Anderson said “TV is not going anywhere soon,” adding that “there is still an audience there and it’s still relevant.” Anderson said there are still many Canadians who do not have access to the Internet at home and remain better served by community television. Anderson acknowledged that OpenMedia.ca remains committed to online media and that the Internet could compliment content on television. On that point, Watson agreed. “More than ever in this global media environment, there needs to be a place where you can come home,” she said. “What we provide is a store front. By extension, the other media will develop.”

Cable co’s call for status quo in community television debate, say Internet helps meet community needs

News | 02/02/2010 10:29 pm 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