Category Archives: Television

DHX Approved for Family Channel Purchase

Let’s Talk TV – Let’s Talk About It ALL!

Well, it’s ambitious. I’ll say that for the Let’s Talk TV consultation. It can even said to be HUGE!

To recap, yesterday the CRTC released both the Notice of Consultation on the third stage in the Talk TV consultations (the first stage being the online discussion board and the second stage being the Choicebook) and as well released its response to the government’s s. 15 order to report on the feasibility of pick and pay. These two releases need to be read together.

First, to reiterate, the s.15 request was for the CRTC to provide the government with a report on the impact of any pick and pay measures for pay and specialty services and how any such measures would still ensure that the majority of services received were Canadian and that BDUs continue to give priority to Canadian services. The report is only the next stage of the process and not the final stage. The CRTC’s proposal for pick and pay options will be discussed as part of the Talk TV consultation and after receiving evidence from various stakeholders (deadline June 25, 2014) and discussing it at the hearing (starting September 8, 2014), the CRTC will then make a decision. It could easily be a decision to not implement any pick and pay because of the expectation of harm to the system (I doubt that but it’s possible). What it will not be is a decision to implement full pick and pay because of the social policy goals of the Broadcasting Act. I’m saying this because the gap between public perception and the reality of the process annoys me.

So, what is the CRTC’s proposal? The CRTC proposes that BDUs offer:

– A small, all-Canadian basic service that includes only the local Canadian conventional stations, the mandatory carriage services, the provincial edunets and in some cases community channels and provincial legislatures services.

– Promote the availability of the small Canadian basic

– Allow pick and pay on pay and specialty services

– Allow consumers to create their own packages for pay and specialty services

This proposal gives Canadians the option to stick with their packages or if they really really don’t want all of those channels go to a skinny basic and pay for individual pay and specialty services. The hearing will review specific issues with this proposal such as the impact on more niche specialty services, the impact on BDUs and the impact on program producers from such a proposal. It will be interesting to see how the consumer groups respond. I hope they all try and conduct some studies or economic modeling to put some evidence behind their responses but practically there are limits to what evidence can be provided. We just don’t know how consumers will behave if offered this proposal. How many would reduce their packages and buy just a few services, especially if those services by necessity have to be more expensive when sold on their own? I like tv and a choice of services so I’m not likely to do it. I know sports fans who might. How many are in each camp – does anyone have a clue?

This topic on its own could fill a hearing with each sector of the industry weighing in because of the potential impact of any pick and pay system. It isn’t the only topic. On the assumption that you have not read the Public Notice I’ll skim over the issues.

– Increased access to non-Canadian services

– Remove Simultaneous Substitution completely (which allows broadcasters to replace the US ads on the US programs they buy with Canadian ads they have sold – I honestly did not think removing it would ever be discussed in my lifetime) or replace it with Non-Simultaneous Substitution (which allows them to replace the ads whenever the Canadian broadcaster airs the US program)

– The importance, or not, of local programming

– How will programs be delivered in the future and do we need to change the funding model for support of Canadian programming to keep up?

– Does the CRTC need to continue to require exhibition of Canadian programs or is funding enough? Should there be regulation of promotion?

– Support of underserved audiences such as OLMCs, Aboriginal audiences, third language communities and persons with disabilities.

– Is support for independent programming and distribution services required (i.e. VI Code).

– Enhanced measurement of audiences using set-top boxes and the privacy issues that are triggered by that discussion.

– Maintain, or not, the Genre Exclusivity Policy (i.e. should History be allowed to morph into Discovery and Showcase to morph into Space)

– Simplified licensing of services

– Better communication of changes to consumers by services and BDUs

– Improved parental controls

– Competition within the BDU market

– Dispute resolution between BDUs and subscribers

Each one of these topics could be a hearing on its own. They do relate to each other and impact each other so I understand why they are bundled together but this is going to be a difficult hearing for most stakeholders. I’ve participated in these ‘all you can eat buffet’ style hearings and they are hard. You just don’t have the time or resources to address every issue so you pick your top issues and hope that other stakeholders address the ones that you can’t get to. Reading all of the other submissions alone is time-consuming but necessary. The Commission did remind smaller groups that they can apply to the Broadcasting Participation Fund for financial assistance (and I remind you as well) but it is still going to be a costly year for stakeholders.

On the upside – I’m definitely looking forward to some interesting discussions during the September hearing.

Is Primetime Still Important – You Betcha!

2 Replies

The Canada Media Fund (CMF) has asked me to write the occasional blog post of television issues and my first one was released today. I just want to give a little more context to why I thought it was a necessary topic – space and tone were limited there (I had to sound more pro and less convo as I do here).

If you were listening to the Rogers licence renewal hearing last week you would have heard a reminder as to why a discussion about the continued importance of prime time is important. Or if you read Andrew Coyne today, you would get another reminder. Everyone seems to think that prime time is out the door or has one foot in the doorway. The stats say otherwise.

In the Rogers licence renewal hearing, Rogers argued that they did not need to broadcast ethnic news in prime time because their audience is going digital and can pick up all their news online. They would rather air reruns of US programming in that time slot and make more money. In a unscientific but illustrative poll, Commissioner Raj Shoan asked many of the intervenors if they or their stakeholders watched Omni and particularly the ethnic news online. Very few admitted to watching online and in fact most were adamant that they and their stakeholders wanted to watch their news on broadcast and in the evening. This was what they were used to. I’m sure that this was no surprise to Rogers. Though BBM data is notoriously difficult when it comes to capturing ethnic audiences (not large enough sample sizes) they must know from feedback from their audience that the broadcast schedule is important to them. Rogers still tried to make the argument that we are in an on demand world as a way of trying to reduce regulation and increase revenues. It sounded to me like the CRTC wasn’t buying it but we’ll see.

Today’s piece by Andrew Coyne puts the on demand world a little further out at ‘a few years, maybe two’ as part of his argument that we no longer need the CBC, CanCon, the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act. His argument ignores the facts, such as those quoted in my CMF blog post, which demonstrate that tv viewing is not actually dropping. The growth of on demand, currently at least, means that we are watching more video entertainment in total given the opportunities of digital platforms. So yes, for the foreseeable future we do still need the CBC, CanCon, the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act. And regulation that ensures that there is the choice of Canadian programming in primetime when most Canadians are watching.

Content is Missing from Digital Canada 150

5 Replies

First, let’s have a quick refresher course on our long wait for a National Digital Strategy. In the summer of 2010, then Minister of Industry Tony Clement launched a public consultation (together with the Ministers of Heritage and Human Resources) on what should be included in a National Digital Strategy though the government called it a Digital Economy Strategy and put a clear emphasis on infrastructure and economy. [Note – I would link to the consultation but as of writing all those public documents are offline. I will update when I can.]. We were promised a strategy document in the fall, then spring of 2011 and then pretty much annually we’d be told that it would be coming ‘soon’. There were those of us who thought there would never be a National Digital Strategy.

Why do we need one? Other countries such as Australia, the UK, the European Union, and even the US, have created National Digital Strategies to set a plan and measurable goals. What are we going to do to move into the future, make sure that every citizen has the tools that they need, has the protections and can fully enjoy the benefits of the new digital world? How will Canada make sure that it is competitive internationally? How are we going to measure our progress? Where will we put our emphasis – economy, skills training, infrastructure, privacy, content?

Today the government released Digital Canada 150. It’s an odd document. It has five pillars: Connecting Canadians, Protecting Canadians, Economic Opportunities, Open Government and Canadian Content. [Note that Skills Training or anything else to do with the Department of Human Resources, one of the sponsors of the original consultation, is absent.] In each pillar it sets out a few items that are forward thinking and celebrates the government’s past achievements. I think we were hoping for a more forward thinking document. I was. As with a lot of the government’s activities these days, it seems to have been written with an eye on the next election. How else do you explain unbundling of TV channels as a Digital Canada topic? It’s a nice sound bite aimed at getting votes when the reality is that providing Canadians with more choice while still living up to the goals of the Broadcasting Act is a very complex exercise and is unlikely to result in both more choice and less cost for consumers.

There is a goal to extend broadband coverage to 98% of the population by providing $305 million to extend 5mbps to rural areas. This is a reasonable target speed (though some jurisdictions have set faster speeds as their goal) but is only about coverage. Universal broadband as a concept is about coverage and affordable access. Citizenship in today’s digital world means that every Canadian should have affordable access to broadband. This goal does nothing to achieve that. But the rural voters probably will love it.

Back to content though. What does the Digital Canada 150 promise us as tools to give Canadians ‘easy access to Canadian content that will allow us to celebrate our history, arts and culture’ (Digital Canada 150 pg. 21)? Two Heritage Minutes per year every year until 2017. The Canada Book Fund and the Canada Music Fund will become permanent funds. There will be continued support of the Virtual Museum, the Memory Project (veterans stories), digitization by Library and Archives Canada and the NFB. Nice, but we asked for a lot more fundamental changes to be able to provide Canadians with access to Canadian content in the digital age and beyond.

What is missing? Canada Media Fund, Canada Book Fund, Canada Music Fund and more have all had digital content or distribution tacked on to their existing mandates, generally with no increase to their funding. Consumers are no longer accessing or engaging with content through silos. For example, magazines and books are read on iPads with hyperlinks to video. There needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of the funding mechanisms for Canadian content to ensure that they meet the social policy goals of the Department of Canadian Heritage and are structured appropriately.

The government did make the Canada Media Fund permanent and that was a great thing. But it did not increase the CMF’s funding when it extended its mandate to digital media. As Canadians shift to digital platforms and cut or reduce their cable packages, the CMF’s revenue from the BDUs is starting to shrink. Additional revenue sources need to be found if Canadians are going to continue to have access to the excellent Canadian programming choices that they have now. This could be additional funding from the government or a contribution from the ISPs or the OTT services, both of which are benefitting from the consumer shift to digital platforms.

The Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act should be merged into a Communications Act. New technologies and distribution models have frequently left the CRTC unsure as to which Act applies or whether either does, leaving it to the Courts to determine. Vertically integrated companies like Shaw, Rogers, and Bell are governed by both Acts at different times. These companies are able to shift revenues to divisions, such as the ISP divisions, with no or less regulation. A Communications Act would ensure that the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications system was, where necessary, Canadian-owned and regardless of platform made the appropriate contribution to the production and exhibition of Canadian programming on that system.

The CBC has always had a mandate to provide information and entertainment to all Canadian across the country in both languages. Digital platforms make it easier for it to meet that mandate but at the same time repeated budget cuts have made it harder for the CBC to fulfill that mandate. There should be a review of the CBC’s mandate in light of the opportunities of digital platforms and a clear provision of sufficient funds so that the CBC can meet that mandate.

Another ask was for more support for original digital media through labour-based tax credits. Extending the film and video tax credit to web series and creating an interactive media tax credit would help develop a labour market of skilled talent in these newer digital content areas.

The government reformed the Copyright Act recently but it is up for review as of 2017. At that time, the Copyright Act should be amended to ensure that creators and owners are appropriately compensated when their works are exploited on digital platforms. The last amendment did not appropriately address that issue.

Skills training is a subject that was completely left out of Digital Canada 150, which is odd considering that it was a prominent aspect of the consultation. The content sector has called for improvements in training both at university and for mid-career training so that creators can take full advantage of innovations in digital content creation and distribution. There are gaps in the labour market that need to be filled if the sector is going to be internationally competitive.

Despite a full pillar titled Canadian Content, there isn’t much in Digital Canada 150 for the film, television and interactive digital media sectors.

CRTC’s Tangible Benefits Policy Review

2 Replies

The CRTC is currently in the midst of a review of its Tangible Benefits Policy. This is the policy that requires purchasers of television and/or radio assets to pay a percentage of the purchase price to programs that will benefit the entire broadcasting system. This policy was initially put in place because while there is a competitive bid process to acquire a licence in the first place, there is no such competitive process when purchasing the assets of an existing licensee. The CRTC decided to institute the Tangible Benefits Policy to help to ensure that the prospective purchaser was the best possible purchaser (i.e. had the assets to pay the benefits package as well as the purchase price) and that the entire broadcasting system would benefit from the transaction and not just the shareholders of each entity.

Over the years tangible benefits have been assessed on a case-by-case basis but in accordance with policies and precedents that have been established. At times this worked well and proposed benefits would fit roughly within the established practice and stakeholders would focus on the value of the transaction or aspects of the proposed programs that they wanted tweaked. However, once the BDUs started buying the broadcasters they got aggressive with the benefits packages and we started seeing self-serving proposals and ones that had nothing to do with the policies or sometimes even the broadcasting system (see Shaw-Global and Bell-CTV (2010)). This took up a lot of Commission staff time and stakeholder time as part of the public hearing process. From my perspective the worst development was when purchasers started coming up with new proposals during the hearing and trying to negotiate their benefits packages at that time. Stakeholders had to scramble to get enough of an understanding of new proposals to be able to comment on them in their presentations or reply interventions.

So the Commission is now reviewing the policy to try to streamline it so that there are very clear guidelines for how to prepare the Tangible Benefits packages. You might be asking yourself why now when there are no big benefits packages in our future. My response to that is – says who? I have heard many times over the years the statement that there are no more possible acquisitions because the media consolidation process has been completed, yet acquisitions keep happening. For example, Bell has acquired CTV twice and each time had to pay benefits. You just never know what the future will hold.

The Commission issued its call for comments on a proposed revised policy on October 21, 2013 and the first submissions were filed January 13, 2014. There is a right of reply and those will be filed by January 28, 2014. We can then expect a decision from the Commission some time in the early spring. Note that the Call for Comments also included comments on a revised valuation policy but that gets into accounting and valuation policies that would be better left to accounting professionals to comment on. I’m also focused here on television rather than the radio benefits policy, which is similar in concept but slightly different in the detail.

Generally the CRTC is proposing that rather than the bulk of tangible benefits being self-administered by broadcasters for their own programming, 80% would go to the CMF and the Certified Independent Production Funds (“CIPFs”) with the other 20% being discretionary (i.e. social benefits but could also go to independent production or digital media production). The breakdown between CMF and CIPFs would be the traditional breakdown of BDU revenues between those agencies, namely 80% to CMF and 20% to CIPFs.

The initial submissions are somewhat predictable. All the private broadcasters are against the benefits policy to begin with. They ignore the fundamental reason for it (lack of a competitive licensing process at that stage) and call it a ‘tax on purchasers’ (Corus) or no longer needed because there is plenty of other production financing (Rogers). If the Commission must continue the policy then they would like to keep the current case-by-case approach since that allows the most flexibility. For them. [Note that the CBC is in favour of the revised Tangible Benefits Policy as it would mean that they, or their producers, would get access to funds that they do not generally have access to.]

On the other hand, the content creators who have been major beneficiaries of the Tangible Benefits policy generally support the CRTC’s proposed new policy but would like to see a variety of tweaks to the proposal. For example, DOC would like to see a portion of the benefits go to a non-broadcast fund. The CMF and CIPFs all require a broadcast trigger, which is generally fine except that DOC is finding that broadcasters increasingly do not want to air documentaries. As an organization they are exploring other avenues to get to documentary-loving audiences and this proposal furthers that goal.

Most of the content creators would like to see the split 85% on screen and 15% discretionary, consistent with past practice (though DGC would like to see it 83.33% on screen and 17.67% discretionary). CMPA points out that the increased split will make up for the fact that as a third party fund, the CMF and CIPFs will have administrative costs that will need to be deducted (though strangely the WGC doesn’t think they should be able to deduct admin fees because the additional administration would be minimal – I don’t think they’ve been on either side of a production financing application).

One of the arguments that a few stakeholders made to support money going to the CMF is the trend that we’ve started to see towards lower BDU revenues and therefore a drop in their contributions to the CMF. Future benefits are seen as a way to make up for the expected growth in revenue shortfall.

There is some concern that the CMF’s funding criteria under its Contribution Agreement is much more limited than Tangible Benefits have been over the years. The CMPA called for benefits money being spent by CMF and CIPFs consistent with the Tangible Benefits Policy rather than the Contribution Agreement or other existing criteria. That would mean, for example, that the language split would be in accordance with the language split of the assets being acquired rather than the 2/3-1/3 of the CMF. It would also mean that some of the categories of programming that have had access to benefits (eg. feature films and local news) but are not supported by CMF and the CIPFs, would somehow still have access.

It’ll be interesting to see the replies on January 28, 2014, if there are any. I’m not sure that there’s really much more to say. Many of the points of the content creators can be worked out in a more defined policy – and many of them are quite valid points in my opinion. I don’t see the Commission agreeing with the broadcasters that the Tangible Benefits Policy should be thrown out the window or that the Commission continue with the case-by-case approach. It was just too much work for everyone involved (well – except maybe the purchasers who seemed to be coming up with vague proposals the day they submitted their applications). The recent Corus decisions seem to have signaled that self-administered benefits have had their day.

CRTC’s Corus Decisions – A Few Lumps of Coal In With The Presents

3 Replies

C’mon – I had to go with a holiday themed subject line on the last real working day before the holiday break.

Yes, the CRTC decided that it was in the public interest to allow Corus to buy the Teletoon services and Historia and Séries+. The interesting stuff (for a CRTC watcher like myself) is in the detail. A lot of detail. Don’t worry, I do have holiday baking to do so I’m only going to touch on what are for me the most interesting points.

A lot of people were watching the Historia and Séries+ part of the hearing to see whether the CRTC would agree that benefits would only be payable on the half that Corus was buying from Bell and not on the half that they were buying from Shaw. There has been a lot of confusion on whether Shaw and Corus are related or not (even at Shaw and Corus). There have been long rumoured plans for Shaw to take over Corus fully but a requirement to pay benefits would make that a costly reorganization. Well, it looks like they can go ahead. In both the Historia and Séries+ decision and the Teletoon services decision, the CRTC made a clear statement on how they see Shaw and Corus. Are they one or two? Depends.

For the purposes of determining effective control, Shaw and Corus are considered part of the same ownership group as they are both controlled by JR Shaw. But when applying the group-based licensing policy, Shaw and Corus are two designated licence renewal groups. [para 14 in Teletoon and 18 in Historia and Séries+]. So – no benefits are triggered by the acquisition of the Shaw ownership of Historia and Séries+ and none will be triggered when Shaw buys Corus. I’m not sure that I agree but the clear statement is helpful.

The decision clears up what has been a very odd situation with Terms of Trade and Teletoon. While Teletoon’s owners Bell and Astral had both signed a Terms of Trade agreement with the CMPA, Teletoon said that it was not a signatory so took the position that the Terms of Trade didn’t apply. Well, it does now and it is a condition of licence for all Corus properties. The CRTC took it further and requires Corus to enter into a Terms of Trade agreement with the AQPM (the French producers in Quebec) within one year and to start negotiations with APFC (the French producers outside Quebec).

The benefits payable under both decisions have been increased. For Teletoon they were increased from $24.9 million to $26.02 million to reflect leases and cash on hand. For Historia and Séries+ the increase was from $13.86 million to $14.48 million to reflect cash on hand. The one thing we can always count on is that the valuation will go up because the CRTC found one or more ways that the purchaser tried to reduce the benefits payable.

Most of the benefits proposed have been accepted. What interesting is the additional requirements. The self-administered benefits cannot be spent on production just for Corus properties (generally the benefit of self-administering benefits). ‘Benefits should be used to create and acquire the best possible Canadian programming to be made available on whatever services Canadians choose. As such, the benefits resulting from this transaction should be made available to a wide range of producers for broadcast on a variety of services so that they do not exclusively benefit the Teletoon services’. [para 73. The same line is in the Historia and Séries+ decision at para 72.] Corus might as well give the money to the CMF or other independent funds if it can’t be run out of their commissioning department. Combine this with the proposed benefits policy that has 80% of benefits going to independent funds and we have a clear signal of the impending death of the self-administered benefits fund.

Corus had proposed that 75% of production benefits would go to independent production. This was of concern for many as Corus owns Nelvana and that 25% would therefore go to its own productions. The CRTC agreed and Nelvana was cut out of benefits. They will go 100% to independent production. Yup, that’s definitely a piece of coal.

In the Bell-Astral decision we had what I believe was the first allocation of a portion of benefits to OLMCs. Keeping in mind that the Chair of the CRTC and the Vice-Chair of Broadcasting both grew up in OLMC communities, it is not that surprising that there is a renewed interest in supporting OLMC communities. [and I will add OLMC to the Acronym Decoder]. Both decisions require 10% of the programming benefits to go to OLMCs, consistent with the Bell-Astral decision.

There are two funds that still need to be finalized in both decisions, the Script and Concept Development Fund and the Export Fund. Stakeholders had objected to the Export Fund as not being an onscreen benefit (Corus had been very vague in its application and at times described it both as a fund to promote programs internationally and as a way to help producers find international financing) but to ensure that it will be an onscreen benefit the CRTC has required that any funds will result in the production of new programs and that those programs are broadcast on a Canadian service. Effectively it is a ‘foreign presale’ fund rather than an after market distribution fund. Corus has until January 30, 2014 to file an agreement with either Telefilm or CMF for these two funds. If Corus can’t come to an agreement with either Telefilm or CMF then the funds will go to the self-administered (but not for Corus’ benefit) funds.

The filter that benefits must be of a benefit to the entire broadcasting system has also been applied to the offscreen or social benefits. Frequently in the past there have been tenuous connections between the recipients of social benefits and the broadcasting system (I remember an allocation to the Girl Guides of Canada that didn’t make much sense). The CRTC is being very clear that Corus will have to report on how the funds were used to the benefit of the broadcasting system and hinted that a proper use would be script development, pitching events, professional development and the opportunities to meet OLMCs. One social benefit, the Corus Inner City Childhood Obesity Research Initiative, was denied for not being clearly of benefit to the broadcasting system (and being very vaguely described in general).

There were a few changes to the licence terms of the Teletoon services that will be of interest. Corus requested a CPE for Teletoon of 31% but the CRTC set it at 34% with an allocation of 9% specifically to French language programming to allay concerns that collapsing Teletoon into the Corus group could swamp French programming. Teletoon’s PNI is set at 26% and Teletoon Retro’s at 4%. That effectively increases Corus’ group PNI from 9% to 12%. This is all good news so hopefully when the benefits expire Corus will still be spending healthy money on Canadian programming.

The CMPA had requested a condition of licence that Teletoon air 90 hours of Canadian programming as well as the expenditure requirement. The CRTC did not approve it on the basis that they are leaning towards regulation that focuses on creation rather than exhibition in order to keep pace with changing audience behaviour and provide broadcasters with greater flexibility. This was also a theme in the Group Licensing Policy, though that policy did not completely get rid of exhibition requirements. What I find interesting though is that the Commission also denied Corus’ request to remove the requirement to air one hour of Canadian programming during prime time on Teletoon Retro. That was on the basis that the Commission didn’t want Teletoon Retro to have a completely foreign prime time broadcast. So exhibition requirements are still sometimes necessary.

There is more nitty gritty in the decisions but my holiday baking calls. Happy holidays to you all! Hopefully you can take a proper break and I will see you in the new year.

How the IIC Canada Conference Was Relevant for a Content Policy Wonk

What’s the Significance of a S. 15 Study?

1 Reply

You may have missed this in the Rob Ford scandal of the day, but today the Government announced that it was calling on the CRTC to report on ‘television channel choice’ under s. 15 of the Broadcasting Act. Specifically Minister of Heritage Shelly Glover said:

“our Government believes Canadian families should be able to choose the combination of television channels they want . . . This decision is an important step in defending Canadian consumers, who want choice and flexibility in their television services. Our request will ensure that the CRTC develops a more complete roadmap to unbundle TV channels.”

You may be scratching your head on this. Yes, the CRTC did just launch its Talk TV consultation and among the many questions being asked are: “If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?”. Why does the government need to do this and what is the significance of a s. 15 report?

First, the CRTC decides on its own what it is going to study and what public hearings it will hold. The one exception is if, under s. 15 of the Broadcasting Act, the Governor in Council asks the CRTC to hold a hearing or make a report on any matter under the CRTC’s jurisidiction. So the significance of the s.15 request is that the CRTC must now report on that narrow issue to the government rather than its usually reporting which is just to the public. But is that all?

We have to ask ourselves why the government would ask for a report on one question when it is going to get a report (we all will) on the many questions which are part of the Talk TV consultation. This appears to me to be a political response to a very complex issue that the CRTC is trying to look at in its entirety. It speaks to voters without having to actually implement any changes.

The government has done this before. I’m sure that you remember the very public fight that went on between the broadcasters and cable companies over Fee For Carriage (which then morphed into Value for Signal). September 16, 2009 the government requested under s. 15 a report on the implications of a value for signal regime. The issue had come up time and time again during public hearings and most recently under the April 2009 hearing on the renewal of licences for the private conventional stations (i.e. Global, CTV etc.). As part of the licence renewal decision, the Commission decided that it would hold a hearing in the Fall of 2009 on, among other things, a value for signal regime. That hearing was pre-empted by the s. 15 notice which effectively hived off the issue from the other outstanding issues and resulted in its own public consultation.

Did the outcome change because it was a s.15 report and not a regular hearing? I don’t think so. There was more of a public consultation than had probably been planned. From the perspective of an industry stakeholder we had the same submission process and public hearing. The broadcasters and BDUs had the same fight in the media and in the hearing room that they would have otherwise. There was no legislative response from the government. And the whole issue became moot when Shaw bought Global and Bell bought CTV. However, there might have been a political win from the government being seen as a champion of the consumer who was being caught between the broadcasters and the BDUs but little practical impact.

In this case, the CRTC could decide to hold a separate consultation on unbundling or just report specifically on the topic from the existing hearings. They were given the deadline of April 30 to deliver the report to the government so it is expected that they will prepare it as they are preparing the report on the public consultation. The s. 15 request adds a political layer to the consultation and but it may not have any practical impact beyond the extra workload on CRTC staff.

Update: Cartt.ca (subscription) has a link the the actual s.15 order as well as a description of the relevant parts of the order and its relevance.

What’s all this about data?

The CRTC Wants You To Talk About TV

1 Reply

Today the CRTC released its public consultation on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. I assume that most of my readers are involved in the Canadian broadcasting industry and are not members of the general public (I’m not sure about you readers from Russia or the former SSR of Georgia). So you may be asking yourself “should I get involved in this stage or wait for the industry consultation next spring?”* You might want to get involved now. If you are part of a member-based organization then I definitely think that you should get your members involved now. We’re all part of the public, right?

The CRTC has set up a lot of different ways to get involved. Find the official invitation here. You can call, email or fax your thoughts. There is a discussion forum, similar to past public consultations such as the ones on the wireless code or the CBC. And new for CRTC public consultations is the encouragement to hold “Flash!” Conferences. I don’t know the logic behind “Flash!” – flash mob? It has nothing to do with the software. The CRTC wants Canadians to gather, talk about the issues, and send the CRTC a report. Interesting. There’s a toolkit to facilitate the “Flash!” Conferences and the CRTC has limited funds to subsidize the cost of running them for smaller organizations (apply by November 13, 2014). There doesn’t seem to be a push to get Canadians to use social media other than the request to use the hashtag #TalkTV (Note: I may cave but at the moment I’m not using #TalkTV because it is already an active hashtag for people to talk about Canadian and US talk shows. I’ll stick to #CRTC and #CdnTV for now.) Update: The FAQ suggests that there will be Twitter chats and a Reddit AMA. Should be interesting.

What are the topics? In most of the material there are only three general topics mentioned.

Programming: What do you think about what’s on television?

Technology: What do you think about how you receive television programming?

Viewer toolkit: Do you have enough information to make informed choices and seek solutions if you’re not satisfied?

Those are pretty vague and general topics but if you dig into the Notice of Invitation you’ll find more detail on the questions and context for them. I’ve put them all together in one place for ease of use (for you and for me).

Programming

1. What television programs are most important to you (children’s programming, comedy, documentaries, drama, feature films, news, sports, reality TV, variety, other)? Why?

2. Do you know which of the television programs you watch are Canadian? If so, how do you know which programs are Canadian? Would it be important for you to know which programs are Canadian? Why?

3. What programs do you consider to be local television programming—programs about your city, your province, other? How important is local news to you? Why? How important is community access programming and “community TV” to you? Why?

4. Do you think the programming on television is fully reflective of Canada’s cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and demographic diversity? If not, what’s missing? How important is reflection to you? Why?

5. What do you think programming will look like in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

Technology

1. How do you prefer to watch television—on a traditional television set, online, on a smart phone, etc.? Why? How do you usually watch television programs—live, on-demand, recorded on a PVR, other? Why?

2. If you subscribe to cable TV or satellite TV, how satisfied are you with the way your channels are packaged?

3. What type of television service do you subscribe to—cable TV, satellite TV, Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) or other? Do you intend to stay with your type of television subscription in the next few years or switch to something else? What would make you stay? What would make you switch?

4. How do you think we will receive and watch television in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

Viewer Toolkit

1. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to understand your service options, including packaging and pricing?

2. Are you experiencing barriers that prevent you from changing your television packages or switching to another television distributor? If so, what are those barriers?

3. How satisfied are you that your television service provider supplies the information you need to make informed choices about programming that you may consider inappropriate for you or your family?

4. Do you have a visual or hearing impairment? If so, how satisfied are you with the tools available to enable you to share in our television culture?

5. Do you know where you can voice your concerns over television content, your television services and bills?

6. How do you think we will make informed content choices as program viewers and consumers in Canada in the next 5 to 10 years? Why? Would you be satisfied with that situation? Why?

I think these are really great questions. All of us would like to know what the general public thinks of these questions. For too long at public hearings all sides of the industry have tried to speak for the general public and what they want from our broadcasting system. I just wonder how the CRTC is going to get people motivated to get involved. There isn’t any hot button issue like there is whenever you deal with the CBC or want Canadians to talk about their cell phone bills. This is big picture thinking that most Canadians, I think, would rather someone else do for them. I suspect that organizations with agendas will be the easiest to motivate. We know how important this is so perhaps we should start with our own people. Gather and have a “Flash!” Conference in the next two months so that a report on the conference can be filed by January 10, 2014. [Shameless Self-promotion – you can hire me to help you do that.] I assume that anything gathered will be useful as well in the industry consultation. Spread the word about the consultation. The more ‘general public’ who hear about this and get involved the better for the industry.

*As part of this invitation to the public, the CRTC released its updated schedule on the industry consultation on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. There will be a call for submissions Spring 2014 and a public hearing September 2014. Expect that one to be a doozy!

Butter Tarts and Brown Drinks

Musings of a Canadian media policy wonk