Questions 12 to 14
The public notice states:
"II. Access programming
25. In the 2002 community TV framework, the Commission noted that access by citizens to the community channel has always been a cornerstone of the Commission’s policy. To underscore this principle, the Commission quoted Public Notice 1991-59, in which it stated: "The factor that most distinguishes the content of community programming from conventional television services is the ability of community programming to turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant. From this participation flows programming of a nature that is as varied as the imagination and skills of the participants." As such, in its 2002 community TV framework, the Commission indicated the following:
The Commission expects licensees to give the community the widest opportunity for self-expression by actively encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas, produce their own programs with or without the help of the licensee’s staff, and submit videotapes and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee.
The Commission considers that providing and encouraging citizen access remains one of the most important roles of the community channel. Further, the Commission is of the view that most large cable systems will have no difficulty in finding acceptable access programming. However, as noted by several interveners, the Commission recognizes that in smaller markets the demand for access may not be high and that, even in those markets where demand is high, citizens requesting access may not have the ability to be active participants in program production. The Commission believes that it is the responsibility of the cable operator to ensure that the views of all groups are represented.
26. The BDU-operated community channels have quantified requirements, as well as other obligations, to facilitate citizen access and to provide access programming.
Q. 12 Are these requirements and obligations being met?
Q. 13 Are they still appropriate? Why or why not?
Q. 14 Are there reasons to revise the existing requirements and obligations? If so, how?"
CACTUS' Interpretation:
Q. 12. CACTUS estimates that access obligations are not being met for 90% of Canadians. The two biggest cable operators in English Canada, Rogers, and Shaw, routinely define “access programming” as programming that showcases something going on in the community, not necessarily that a member of that community produces the program.
The CRTC definition of access is clear: programming produced by the community. If we adopted the Shaw or Rogers definition, any local private broadcaster producing the news could also be said to be providing “access” to each of the participants or interviewees in its stories as well. As the CRTC reasserts, access is defined by control of content and program production.
The CRTC should itself know the answer to this question. Under the BDU regulations, section 28, BDUs are required to keep logs of all community-access programming, the titles of such programming, and the names of the parties provided access.
When CACTUS asked under to Access for Information for this information, it received the answer back that the CRTC had never asked to see any of this information, since 1990. As the CRTC is empowered to monitor the broadcasting system, this is a shocking lapse in performance of its duties.
Q. 13-14 The attempt to make large for-profit corporations offer community access are no longer appropriate. The system demonstrably does not work. The companies are too big, they operate in a competitive environment, and their channels are no longer universally accessible.
The need for communities to be able to access the technology they need to communicate with one another and with the larger world are as great as ever, but the need can’t be met by BDUs with regulations the CRTC has been unwilling to enforce. The BDU channels should be recognized for what they are: local private for-profit channels. BDUs should be allowed to do whatever they want with those channels. The money earmarked for local expression should be put into an independent production fund for community media, so that communities themselves have the resources to run community-access channels going forward.
This would simplify the regulatory requirements for all concerned: BDUs, communities, and the CRTC.
