Questions 19 to 21
The public notice states:
"c) BDU contributions
33. As noted in paragraph 28, BDU licensees have the option of contributing 2% of their contribution to Canadian programming to community channels, including the community programming undertakings, for local expression. No requirement exists to allocate any of this money specifically to the production of access programming or to the community-based television programming undertakings.
Q. 19 Do BDU contribution levels remain appropriate for the operation of a community channel? Why or why not?
Q. 20 Should a proportion of the BDU contributions be directed to
(a) the production of access programming? If so, what would be the most effective means of doing this? If not, are there other funding means that may be more appropriate? and/or
(b) the production of local programming through the LPIF? Why or why not?
Q. 21 Should the community-based television programming undertakings have access to BDU contributions for local expression, as is currently the case for community channels and community programming undertakings?"
CACTUS' Interpretation
Q. 19 The overall level of BDU contributions for the operation of community channels is appropriate. The amount spent in 2008 ($116,000,000) is enough to operate community-access media centres within the reach of 90% of Canadians. However, we would recommend that for the long-term health of the community sector, that this absolute amount be derived not just from cable BDUs, but from all types of BDUs equally, so that the health of the community sector is not tied to the economic viability of any one type of BDU. For example, in the short time, satellite BDUs should also contribute. In the long term, as ISPs function more and more like BDUs in the distribution of video content, we would anticipate that they would also contribute.
Q. 20
a) The entire 2% BDU levy for community programming should be for access programming. It should be put into an independent production fund (we suggest the name “Community-Access Media Fund” or CAMF) to which communities themselves could apply, through elected boards of directors drawn from communities.
b) The 2% levy designated for community programming should be for community programming. It should not be directed to the LPIF, since the LPIF has been designed in such a way as to serve the private and public sectors. The two funds should be separate.
Q. 21 All non-profit community-based programming services that have committed to facilitate public access on a non-discriminatory basis should have access to the new fund we propose, CAMF. Rather than encouraging multiple categories of community programming undertakings that reach audiences on different platforms, CAMF should favour applications by community programming undertakings that make efforts to be as universally accessible as possible to their communities on multiple platforms; for example, by retaining an over-the-air license in addition to having must-carry status on the basic cable tier, in addition to webstreaming and using other new media as they become available. They key is the over-the-air license, so that communities can find these channels for free over the air at a minimum, and so that both production and distribution infrastructures are owned by the community. Other service providers should be required to include them in their basic tiers, as is currently the requirement for all local over-the-air services.
