|
In this public notice, the Commission sets out an integrated
policy framework for community-based media. The framework includes a
replacement for Community channel policy, Public Notice CRTC 1991-59, 5 June 1991, a new licensing framework for community-based
television undertakings and a replacement for A licensing policy
for low-power radio broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1993-95,
28 June 1993. The complete text of the new policies is attached
to this public notice as an Appendix.
|
|
The Commission notes that its policies
for campus and community radio have recently been revised and are
set out in Campus radio policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-12,
and Community radio policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-13, both
dated 28 January 2000. |
|
Background
|
| 1. |
In Call for comments on a licensing framework for low-power
community television undertakings in urban areas, and in other
markets not covered by existing policy, Public Notice CRTC 2000-127, 1 September 2000 (Public Notice
2000-127), the Commission
invited public comment on a licensing framework for low-power
community television stations. |
| 2. |
In Review of community channel policy and low-power radio
broadcasting policy, Public Notice CRTC 2001-19, 5 February 2001
(Public Notice 2001-19), the Commission invited public comment on
issues relating to its policy frameworks for community cable
television channels and low-power radio stations. In that notice,
the Commission advised that the comments received in response to
Public Notice 2000-127 would be considered in conjunction with the
review of the community channel and low-power radio policies, to
allow the development of an integrated policy framework for
community-based programming undertakings. |
| 3. |
In Proposed policy framework for community-based media,
Public Notice CRTC 2001-129, 21 December 2001 (Public Notice
2001-129), the Commission issued, for public comment, its proposed
policy framework for community-based media, including the community
channel, community-based television and low-power radio.
|
|
The Commission’s objectives for community-based media
|
| 4. |
The Broadcasting Act (the Act), at section 3(1)(b),
establishes "community", along with "public" and
"private" as one of the three elements that comprise the
Canadian broadcasting system. Section 3(1)(i)(iii) states
that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system
should "include educational and community programs".
|
| 5. |
In light of the Act’s objectives, the Commission proposed the
following overall objectives for community-based media in Public
Notice 2001-129: |
|
- To ensure the creation and exhibition of more
locally-produced, locally-reflective community programming.
|
|
- To foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative
choices by facilitating the entrance of new participants at the
local level.
|
|
General comments received in response to Public Notice 2001-129
|
| 6. |
The Commission received 228 written comments in response to
Public Notice 2001-129. Of these, 173 focused on issues related to
French-language community media and 55 addressed
English-language community media. The Commission received comments
from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) and the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), as well as from
individual licensees. A large number of comments came from
individuals and community organizations with an interest in
community broadcasting. The Fédération des Télévisions
Communautaires Autonomes du Québec (the Fédération), representing
37 not-for-profit community television corporations in Quebec,
submitted detailed comments. In addition, the Ministère de la
Culture et des Communications du Québec (MCCQ), certain
municipalities, and unions participated in the process. |
|
7. |
The comments received from licensees and their associations, as
well as from community groups and individuals, were generally
supportive of the proposed objectives for community-based media and
of most of the specific proposals for policy and regulatory change
set out in Public Notice 2001-129.
|
|
8. |
The CCTA noted that the proposed policy "provides an
integrated approach to community-based programming undertakings that
is balanced and creative." The CCTA considered that,
"subject to the comments and suggestions set out in this
submission, the policies proposed generally represent an appropriate
and comprehensive approach to community-based media."
|
|
9. |
The CAB stated that it generally supported the Commission’s
proposed policies and that the implementation of these policies
"will contribute to the attainment of the two important
objectives" quoted above.
|
|
10. |
The Fédération stated:
|
|
[ TRANSLATION] The objectives of the policy proposals are
highly noble – ensuring further creation and presentation of
locally-produced community programs that reflect local realities.
We also appreciate the fact that the Commission wants to encourage
diversity of voices and alternative solutions by promoting new
entrants in the local market.
|
|
11. |
The Independent Community Television Co-operative (ICTV) of
Vancouver stated:
|
|
Overall we are pleased with the direction and intent of the
proposed changes to community television policy outlined in
2001-129. Our reading of the proposed policy suggests that it
sounds like a long overdue revitalization of the founding goals
for community access television in Canada and a bold vision for
its role within the Canadian broadcast community in the 21st
century.
|
|
12. |
The Community Media Education Society submitted that Public
Notice 2001-129 is "the most important policy paper for
community television since Canada started having community
television, and Canada is where community television began."
|
|
13. |
The Independent Film & Video Alliance (IFVA) congratulated
the Commission on its proposed policy and took the position that
"a strengthened community television policy will provide a
counter-balance to the reduction in diversity in the Canadian
broadcasting industry that the media ownership mergers have
caused."
|
|
14. |
While most individual interveners were generally supportive of
the Commission’s policy approach, a few voiced criticisms. Brian
Peterson failed to see how any proposed regulation in this package
would truly compel any cable service provider to open more access to
community groups in a substantive way. Jan Pachul stated that
"The CRTC is continuing its elitist regulatory policies
favouring existing cable and broadcast operators. The CRTC has never
explained why it is in the public interest for cable operators to
run community channels."
|
|
15. |
The MCCQ asked the Commission to clarify grey areas on the issue
of access:
|
|
[TRANSLATION] Of course, efforts have been made to define the
community aspect more effectively, and the resulting new
quantifiable requirements for cable companies. But there are still
grey areas that need to be clarified and the new requirements are
still difficult to control.
|
|
16. |
Several of those interveners who expressed general support for
the Commission’s policy approach also provided substantive comment
on certain proposals or made suggestions for additional policy
elements.
|
| 17. |
The Commission appreciates the comments submitted during the
different phases of this proceeding. The submissions have made a
significant contribution to the Commission’s final policy
determinations. In the following sections, the Commission reviews
and makes determinations on those aspects of the proposed policy
that received substantive comment, as well as those that, in the
Commission's view, require further examination. These aspects are:
|
|
The community channel policy:
|
|
- Local community television programming
|
|
- Community and complementary programming
|
|
- Professional major league sports programming
|
|
- Community television programming in Toronto, Montréal and
Vancouver
|
|
|
|
- Promotion of access opportunities
|
|
|
|
- Advertising and sponsorship
|
|
|
|
- A new class of community television programming service
|
|
Licensing framework for community-based television programming
undertakings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Advertising and financing
|
|
- Carriage by broadcasting distribution undertakings
|
|
Policies specific to community-based low-power television
undertakings:
|
|
- Calls for competing applications
|
|
- Developmental community-based television
|
|
- Replacement of existing policy for remote stations
|
|
Licensing policy for low-power radio undertakings:
|
|
- Defining markets with scarce low-power frequencies
|
|
- Priority system for assessing competing applications
|
|
Other matters:
|
|
|
|
- Canadian talent development
|
|
- Adherence to industry codes
|
|
18. |
Proposals not addressed in this notice are adopted as originally
set out in Public Notice 2001-129. The complete texts of the new
policies are set out in an appendix attached to this public notice.
|
|
The community channel policy
|
|
19. |
The Commission notes that all parties who provided comments on
the role and objectives for the community channel supported those
set out in the proposed policy.
|
|
Local community television programming
|
| 20. |
The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the
Distribution Regulations) define the term community programming. The
Distribution Regulations, however, do not provide a definition for
local community television programming.
|
| 21. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission defined local community
programming as "programming that is reflective of the
community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed service area
or by members of the community in the licensed service area.
Programs produced in other licensed areas within the same
municipality will also be considered local programming."
|
| 22. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that
"licensees who provide community programming services should
devote not less than 60% of the programming aired in each broadcast
week to the broadcast of local community programming".
|
|
Position of the parties |
| 23. |
There was general agreement with the proposal that a minimum of
60% of the programming aired in each broadcast week should be
devoted to local community programming.
|
|
24. |
Both the CAB and the Fédération suggested that the definition
of local community programming be clarified in light of the
possibility that the Commission may issue regional licences to cable
distribution undertakings. Concerns were expressed that a regional
licence may permit the community channel operator to provide
programming reflective of the larger regional area and no longer
reflect the individual communities in the original licensed service
areas.
|
|
25. |
In addition, the Fédération and the MCCQ requested that
alphanumeric bulletin boards be excluded from the definition of
local community programming as they are not considered programs, as
defined in the Act.
|
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
|
26. |
The requirement that a minimum of 60% of the broadcast week be
devoted to local community programming will be applicable to all
cable licensees that elect to distribute a community channel, and
will be implemented through an amendment to the Distribution
Regulations. For greater clarity, the Commission will refer to local
community programming as local community television programming.
|
|
27. |
The Commission notes that under any regional licensing model, the
original licensed areas will generally be retained for regulatory
purposes. The Commission considers that linking the definition of
local community television programming to the original licensed area
as a subset of the regional licence will ensure that the smaller
localities served under the current licence will continue to be
served with distinct community channels, even if the cable company
obtains approval for a regional licence.
|
|
28. |
Accordingly, for the purpose of this policy, the Commission
considers local community television programming to consist of
programs, as defined in the Act, that are reflective of the
community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed area, or by
members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced
in another licensed area within the same municipality will also be
considered local community television programming.
|
|
29. |
The Commission notes that the licensed areas of cable
broadcasting distribution undertakings (cable BDUs) are set out in
the licences in effect as of the date of this policy. Where a cable
BDU obtains the Commission’s approval for a regional licence, the
Commission will generally retain the existing licensed area set out
in the cable BDU's current licence and require that local community
television programming continue to be reflective of the community
within that licensed area.
|
|
30. |
With respect to alphanumeric bulletin boards, the Commission
agrees that such services would not be considered as programs under
the Act. Further, the Commission considers that the use of this
material by large community channel operators could significantly
reduce the time available for local community television programming
and for access by local community groups. Nevertheless, the
Commission recognizes that, for smaller cable systems, these
bulletin boards can provide a useful and cost-effective means of
serving the community and permitting community groups to promote
their activities. Accordingly, except as otherwise specified by
condition of licence, the Commission will allow Class 3 cable
licensees to utilize alphanumeric bulletin boards to achieve the 60%
requirement for local community television programming.
|
|
Community and complementary programming
|
|
31. |
Class 1 and Class 2 licensees are limited in the programming
distributed on the community channel to community programming as
defined in the Distribution Regulations and those types of programs
set out in sections 27(1) and (2) of the Distribution Regulations.
In addition to community programming, section 27(3) permits Class 2
licensees to distribute complementary programming on the community
channel. The specific types of complementary programming permitted
are set out in Complementary programming on the community
channel, Public Notice CRTC 1985-151, 18 July 1985. Class 3
licensees may also distribute the programming set out in section 35
of the Distribution Regulations.
|
|
Position of the parties |
|
32. |
In its comments, the CAB proposed that all non-local community
programming be reflective of the community in which it originates.
|
|
The Commission’s determination
|
|
33. |
The Commission considers that the definition of community
programming and the opportunities for complementary programming in
the Distribution Regulations remain appropriate. It is also of the
view that the new requirement for 60% local community television
programming is a sufficient tool to fulfil the objectives of this
policy. The Commission is further of the view that it is unnecessary
to require that all non-local community television programming be
reflective of the community in which it originates.
|
|
Professional major league sports programming |
|
34. |
The Commission notes that certain professional major league
sports programs have recently been carried on a community channel.
While no comments were filed in this proceeding with regard to the
role of professional or amateur sports programming, the Commission
considers that this issue requires further consideration.
|
|
The Commission’s determination
|
| 35. |
The Commission is aware that community sports activities, whether
amateur or professional, have long been an important and popular
element of the community channel. Such programs produced by the
licensee fall within the definition of community programming in the
Distribution Regulations. However, in the Commission’s view, the
broadcast of programs featuring professional major league sports,
produced by companies generally engaged in the production of such
programs, does not fulfil the objectives of this policy and,
accordingly, will generally not be allowed on the community channel.
|
|
Community television programming in Toronto, Montréal and
Vancouver
|
|
36. |
The proposed policy acknowledged that there are distinct
communities within larger metropolitan areas and that these
communities should be reflected in the community channel
programming. The Commission proposed that licensees that provide
community programming in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver
demonstrate at renewal time how they will reflect the various
communities within their licensed areas in these urban centres.
|
|
Position of the parties |
|
37. |
The MCCQ argued that Montréal and the surrounding area should
not be considered as a single community for the purpose of community
channel service. The Fédération also pointed out that with the
recent mergers of municipalities in the province of Quebec, other
major metropolitan centres have been created. The Fédération
proposed that greater Montréal be subdivided into a minimum of six
service areas, each with its own community channel operation.
Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron) recognized that there is more than one
community within the greater Montréal area, but noted that defining
a community and determining the number of community channels
required to adequately reflect the diverse population in the Greater
Montréal area are complex questions. As the number of communities
served by distinct community channels increases, the resources
available for community programming will decrease.
|
|
The Commission’s determination |
|
38. |
The Commission recognizes that no single solution may be
appropriate for the large metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montréal
and Vancouver. The Commission intends to hold renewal hearings for
Vidéotron, Rogers Cable Inc. (Rogers) and Shaw Communications Inc.
(Shaw) for Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver at which community
channel proposals will be considered.
|
|
39. |
The Commission administratively renewed, for a term of 12 months,
the Vidéotron, Rogers and Shaw licences that were to expire 31
August 2002, in order to allow these licensees to take into account
the terms of the new policy in their renewal applications. In
preparation for the renewal hearings, the Commission will require
these licensees to file detailed plans showing how they intend to
reflect the various communities within their licensed areas in these
urban centres.
|
|
Access programming
|
|
40. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that licensees
devote at least 50% of the community programming schedule in each
broadcast week to the airing of access programming, i.e. programming
produced by individuals or groups in the community served by the
undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.
|
|
Position of the parties |
|
41. |
The CCTA and the English-language cable licensees that filed
comments all argued that 50% of the total schedule was an
unreasonable amount of access programming for most community
channels.
|
|
42. |
Persona Communications argued that the proposal does not take
into account situations where individuals or groups simply do not
volunteer. Any requirement should be a guideline and not a condition
or regulation.
|
|
43. |
Access Communications noted that despite heavy promotion of
community access, they rarely get more than 30% access programming.
|
|
44. |
The interveners noted above proposed that a more reasonable
access requirement would be 50% of the community channel’s local
programming, or 30% of the total schedule.
|
|
45. |
ICTV in Vancouver supported the Commission’s 50% proposal, but
argued that it should apply to original programming only, that is,
for each original hour of access programming, the cable operator may
produce one original hour of cable-produced programming. ICTV also
stated that access programming should be distributed throughout the
whole schedule including prime time and that there should be a clear
and fair program selection process.
|
|
46. |
ICTV further noted that coverage of municipal councils should not
count either as access or local community television programming
since "this is a public service of unquestionable value
supported by both independent community producers and cable
providers alike."
|
|
47. |
The MCCQ proposed that, in light of the recognition of the
French-language market in the Act, the Commission should require
that cable distributors in French-language markets, including
metropolitan Montréal, give priority to local not-for-profit
community television corporations (TV corporations) where they are
available. They proposed that licensees provide TV corporations with
a minimum of four hours of access programming per week, reasonably
distributed in the community programming schedule, and contribute to
their support by providing financial, material or human resources.
|
|
48. |
With respect to the recognition and access issues raised by TV
corporations in the province of Quebec, the MCCQ stated:
|
|
[ TRANSLATION] independent community television stations, given
their collective ownership structure, democratic management and
roots in the community, further foster citizen access and
participation because they are owned and managed by those
citizens. The MCCQ wants to ensure that those stations can
continue making a significant contribution to the diversification
of voices in Quebec. The fact that it has supported communities
with community stations for almost 30 years is evidence of its
commitment to ensuring that they have at hand the communication
tools they need for self-expression.
|
|
49. |
On the same issue, the Fédération confirmed that:
|
|
[ TRANSLATION] Independent community TV stations are more than
just a group in the community – they are non-profit community TV
production companies mandated by their communities. The structure
of community television corporations is inclusive, guaranteeing
both free and open access to local programming that reflects the
real concerns of the community served.
|
|
50. |
Vidéotron stated that:
|
|
[ TRANSLATION] if community groups provided verifiable
assurances that they could provide a certain number of programs
and maintain an acceptable level of production quality in
compliance with the regulatory framework, without active
assistance from Vidéotron, they would be welcomed. Obviously,
Vidéotron should, in those cases, monitor such producers from a
distance. Without minimal monitoring during production, the
licensee’s employees could spend their time previewing completed
programs to ensure compliance before broadcasting, instead of
investing in the production and broadcasting of community
programs.
|
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination |
|
51. |
Access by citizens to the community channel has always been a
cornerstone of the Commission’s policy. In Public Notice 1991-59
the Commission 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.
|
|
52. |
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.
|
|
53. |
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.
|
|
54. |
For the purpose of this policy, access programs are programs
produced by members of the community served by the undertaking,
either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.
|
|
55. |
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the proposal
to require that, in all cases, as a minimum, 50% of the community
channel schedule be devoted to access programming may not be
appropriate, and that 30% as proposed by the CCTA and other cable
licensees would be an acceptable minimum requirement. However, where
the demand for access exceeds the minimum requirement, the
Commission considers that, for Class 1 and Class 2 licensees,
requests for access that conform to the terms and conditions for
access set out in Cable television community channel standards,
Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, 1 June 1992 (Public Notice
1992-39), or
as it may be amended from time to time, must not be denied at least
until 50% of the community channel’s schedule has been filled with
such programming.
|
| 56. |
With respect to the proposals from ICTV, the Commission considers
that applying access requirements to original programming only is
not appropriate. Such a requirement could have the effect of
reducing the overall amount of community programming, especially in
situations where the demand for access is low. Nevertheless, the
Commission agrees that access programming should be scheduled in a
reasonable manner throughout the broadcast day, including the peak
viewing period (7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), and that the ratio of
original to repeat programs should generally be the same for access
programs as it is for the rest of the community programming.
|
| 57. |
The Commission agrees with ICTV that live coverage of municipal
council or other community government proceedings not be considered
access programming. Such programming, if considered as access, could
dominate the access portion of the schedule to the detriment of
access programming that is more reflective of citizen
self-expression. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that live
coverage of municipal council meetings and other government
proceedings is an important aspect of the community channel’s
responsibility and will count as local community television
programming.
|
| 58. |
With respect to the submission by the MCCQ, the Commission agrees
that not-for-profit community television corporations, incorporated
under a federal or provincial charter, should have guaranteed access
rights. The Commission recognizes that these corporations have
historically played a significant role in Quebec in meeting the
objectives established in the 1991 community channel policy.
|
| 59. |
The Commission notes that throughout the public process, it has
not received complaints or negative comments regarding the various
co-operative models utilized in licensed areas in Quebec other than
those operated by Vidéotron. Since the Fédération represents 37
not-for-profit corporations in the province of Quebec, the
Commission appreciates that this model allows sufficient flexibility
with regard to the cable operator's role and objectives, and
provides assurance of a minimum level of citizen participation and
community involvement in community television programming. While
such corporate entities currently exist only in Quebec, the
Commission sees no reason why other provinces could not recognize,
in the future, similar corporations whose formal purpose is to
produce community television programs.
|
| 60. |
For the purposes of this policy, the Commission defines TV
corporations as:
|
|
Not-for-profit corporations, incorporated under a provincial or
federal charter which provides that the primary activity of the
corporation is to produce community television programming and/or
operate a community television channel that is reflective of the
community they represent. Board members must be drawn from the
local community and the corporation must hold an annual meeting
where all members of the corporation are invited to participate
and to vote.
|
| 61. |
In light of the above, the Commission intends to amend the
Distribution Regulations to implement the following access program
requirements:
|
|
- Class 1 and Class 2 licensees shall devote a minimum of 30% of
the programming aired during each broadcast week to the
broadcasting of access programs.
|
|
- Where the requests for access exceed the 30% minimum
requirement, Class 1 and Class 2 licensees shall make available
a minimum of 50% of the programming aired during each broadcast
week to the broadcasting of access programs. The access requests
must conform to the terms and conditions for access set out in
Public Notice 1992-39, or as it may be amended from time to
time.
|
|
- Where there are one or more TV corporations in a given
licensed area, up to 20% of the programming aired during each
broadcast week by Class 1 and Class 2 licensees shall be made
available for access programs from these TV corporations. Where
more than one TV corporation is in operation in a licensed area,
each corporation must be guaranteed a minimum of 4 hours of
access programs per broadcast week, upon request. This 20% is
considered part of the access program requirements set out
above.
|
|
- Class 3 licensees shall make available a minimum of 30% of the
programming aired during each broadcast week to the broadcasting
of access programs, provided that the access requests conform to
the terms and conditions for access set out in Public Notice 1992-39, or as it may be amended from time to time.
|
|
Promotion of access opportunities
|
| 62. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission noted that cable
licensees are expected to actively promote citizen access to the
community channel and to provide and promote the availability of
related training programs. The Commission also noted that it would
review the efforts of licensees in this regard as part of the
licence renewal process.
|
|
The Commission’s determination |
| 63. |
The Commission considers that, in light of its final policy on
access, it is appropriate that cable companies take specific and
effective steps to inform and promote access to the community
channel, and to provide and promote the availability of related
training programs.
|
| 64. |
The Commission expects all Class 1 and Class 2 licensees to
distribute a billing insert describing the availability of access
programming and methods by which proposals can be made. Such billing
inserts should be distributed within six months of the date of this
public notice, and annually thereafter. The Commission intends to
review the efforts of licensees in this regard as part of the
licence renewal process.
|
|
Financial support
|
|
65. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to amend the
Distribution Regulations to permit Class 1 licensees with fewer than
20,000 subscribers to allocate all of their contributions to
Canadian programming to local expression. While most interveners
supported this proposal, a number of alternative suggestions were
made regarding financial support for the community channel.
|
|
Position of the parties |
|
66. |
ICTV argued that 100% of public funds collected by cable
licensees should go to community access activities or to access
producers in proportion to the hours they provide.
|
|
67. |
Persona Communications proposed that Class 1 licensees with less
than 60,000 subscribers should be able to allocate the full 5%
contribution to Canadian programming, in its entirety, to local
expression.
|
|
68. |
Rogers reiterated its proposal that the Commission amend the
definition of gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities to
exclude revenues from sponsorship and contra advertising.
|
|
69. |
Rogers also proposed that cable operators that provide a second
community channel in the other official language be permitted to
access an additional 2% from the 5% contribution to Canadian
programming.
|
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination |
|
70. |
With respect to the ICTV proposal, the Commission considers that
licensees should allocate funds available for local expression in a
way that will best fulfil the needs of their audience and conform to
its policies. The Commission notes that while access programs are a
central element of community programming, licensee-produced programs
may be equally valuable.
|
|
71. |
In the proposal set out in Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission
sought a balance between increased resources for the community
channel and the loss of revenues to the Canadian Television Fund. In
determining the size of Class 1 systems that could allocate the full
5% contribution to local expression, the Commission finds that there
are no compelling arguments to change its proposed approach. The
Commission will, therefore, permit Class 1 licensees with fewer than
20,000 subscribers to allocate the full 5% contribution to Canadian
programming to local expression. The Distribution Regulations will
be amended accordingly.
|
|
72. |
With respect to changing the definition of "gross
revenues" as proposed by Rogers, the Commission considers that
the amounts involved are insignificant compared to the
administrative burden involved in changing the accounting and
reporting systems. However, the Commission considers that Rogers’
proposal for recognition of increased contributions to local
expression where a licensee operates two community channels, one in
each official language, in a single market, has merit. It recognizes
that providing separate French- and English-language community
channels in a given market is clearly in the public interest.
|
|
73. |
Accordingly, licensees that elect to distribute two community
channels in a given market, one in each official language, may apply
under section 29 of the Distribution Regulations for a condition of
licence in order to allocate up to 2% of their required contribution
to Canadian programming to each of the community channels. Given the
limited number of markets where licensees are likely to elect to
distribute community channels in both official languages, the
Commission considers that the impact on the Canadian Television Fund
will not be significant.
|
|
Advertising and sponsorship
|
|
74. |
The proposed policy re-affirmed the existing limitations on
advertising revenues and proposed that these would continue to be
limited to sponsorship and contra advertising. However, the
Commission proposed to amend the Distribution Regulations to permit
sponsorship messages to include 15 seconds of moving pictures in
each message.
|
|
Position of the parties |
|
75. |
The CAB, Global Television Network (Global) and Thunder Bay
Electronics all argued against any relaxation of the sponsorship
rules. The CAB maintained that the Commission’s proposal would
blur the distinction between sponsorship and advertising and could
have an impact on local advertising revenues available to radio and
television undertakings. The CAB recommended that if the proposed
relaxation is accepted, there should be limitations such as a
maximum number of minutes per hour, more explicit guidelines, and a
more thorough monitoring plan.
|
|
76. |
Persona Communications proposed that the permitted amount of
moving pictures should be increased to 30 seconds.
|
|
77. |
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) suggested removing the
requirement that a sponsor of a particular program be mentioned in
connection with that program. PIAC was concerned that this could
lead to sponsors unduly influencing community programming.
|
|
78. |
The Fédération stated that it would not object if sponsorship
messages included moving video of more than 15 seconds in length.
|
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination |
|
79. |
As stated in the proposed policy, the Commission considers that
the public service orientation of the community channel can be best
achieved through stable funding provided by cable licensees, with
limited reliance on advertising revenues. Therefore, it will
continue to limit the advertising revenues of community channels to
sponsorship and contra advertising. The Commission considers that it
is not necessary to limit the amount of time for sponsorship
messages since these messages must be contained within individual
community programs and are thus self-limiting.
|
|
80. |
Further, the Commission has examined the concern raised by PIAC,
but finds no evidence that the sponsorship of community programs has
resulted in any undue influence on the content of those programs.
|
|
81. |
The Commission intends, however, as proposed, to amend the
Distribution Regulations to permit sponsorship messages contained in
community programs to include moving visual presentations and a
limited description of their products or services. Such messages,
contained in community programs, may consist of oral or written
acknowledgements, including a moving visual presentation of no more
than 15 seconds. Where a person provides direct financial assistance
for the community programming in which an acknowledgement is
contained, the acknowledgement shall mention no more than:
|
|
- the name of the person, their address and telephone number;
and
|
|
- a description of the goods, services or activities that are
being sold or promoted by the person.
|
|
Promotional messages |
|
82. |
In the proposed policy, the Commission expressed its concern that
excessive amounts of corporate promotion for the cable licensee on
the community channel could lead to the perception that the
community channel is more a promotional vehicle for the cable
company than a public service. The Commission sought comment on two
options to deal with this problem:
|
|
a) Restrict the nature of the
self-promotional messages to an oral or written message, including a
moving visual presentation of no more than 15 seconds, that mentions
no more than the name, address, telephone number and description of
the service being promoted. |
|
b) Restrict the number of minutes per
hour that may be used for self-promotional purposes. |
|
Position of the parties |
|
83. |
The CCTA and most cable companies argued against any restriction
on self-promotion, pointing out that such promotion is beneficial to
both analog and digital programming services. In addition, they
argued that such promotion provides necessary customer information
regarding packages, options and ordering.
|
|
84. |
The CAB noted that the promotion of cable packages on the
community channel could be beneficial to Canadian programming
services. However, it proposed that cable licensees only promote
individual services in a manner consistent with the use of local
commercial availabilities on U.S. satellite services. The CAB
proposed the establishment of joint guidelines by the CAB and the
cable industry, on the use of self-promotion on the community
channel. If no such agreement could be reached, the Commission would
establish the rules.
|
|
85. |
Persona Communications and Vidéotron proposed that
self-promotion should be limited to two minutes per hour as long as
there is no content restriction. The Fédération also considered
that two minutes per hour was appropriate for the distributor to
brand itself in a positive manner.
|
|
86. |
Câblevision du Nord de Québec Inc. (CNQ) and Electro Vision (La
Tuque) inc. (now operating under the name CNQ) both considered that
three minutes per hour was reasonable. |
|
87. |
ICTV proposed that promotional messages be subject to the content
restrictions suggested by the Commission, but that a maximum of
eight minutes per hour be imposed. PIAC also favoured content
restrictions plus a time limit of two minutes per hour. |
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
|
88. |
The Commission recognizes the importance for cable companies of
having reasonable opportunities to brand and promote their services
on the community channel, given that effective promotion of cable
packages and Canadian programming services helps to attract
audiences to these services, thus serving the objectives of the Act.
However, the Commission is concerned that excessive promotional
material on the community channel will detract from its public
service objectives. It considers that a limit on promotional
material is appropriate. Based upon the comments received, the
Commission will limit promotional material on the community channel
to a maximum of two minutes per hour.
|
|
89. |
In addition, the Commission considers that the existing policy
regarding the use of the commercial availabilities in foreign
satellite services provides a useful model for promotional messages
on the community channel. According to that policy, at least 75% of
the time on a weekly basis must be made available for the promotion
of licensed Canadian programming services while a maximum of 25% may
be made available for the promotion of the cable company’s
programming, packaging and customer services.
|
|
90. |
However, the Commission notes that, since the policy relating to
foreign commercial availabilities was issued, cable licensees have
been permitted to control a wide variety of programming
undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate
to restrict the promotion of related programming undertakings to the
25% portion of promotional time. The definition of the term
"related programming undertaking" is set out, for other
purposes, in section 18(12) of the Distribution Regulations as one
in which the BDU licensee or an affiliate, or both, controls more
than 10% of the total shares issued and outstanding.
|
|
91. |
In light of the above, the Commission intends to amend section
27(1) of the Distribution Regulations respecting Class 1 and Class 2
licensees to limit to two minutes per hour the time that may be used
for self-promotional messages on the community channel. Further, the
Distribution Regulations will be amended to require that the time
allocated for promotional messages be divided as follows:
|
|
- At least 75% of promotional time during each broadcast week
must be made available for use by non-related Canadian
programming undertakings for the promotion of their respective
services, for the promotion of the community channel and for
unpaid Canadian public service announcements.
|
|
- A maximum of 25% of promotional time during each broadcast
week may be made available for the promotion of related
programming undertakings, discretionary programming services and
programming packages, customer service information, channel
realignments, cable FM service and additional cable outlets.
|
|
- For the purpose of this policy, a related programming
undertaking is defined as one in which a BDU licensee or an
affiliate, or both, controls more than 10% of the total shares
issued and outstanding.
|
|
A new class of community programming service |
|
92. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to retain the
current approach of permitting cable operators to distribute a
community channel as part of their distribution licences and to
establish a new class of broadcasting licence for the provision of
community programming. This class will be referred to as a
community programming service. Licences under this new class
will be available to non-profit community groups in situations where
the cable company does not provide a community channel, or does not
operate a community channel in accordance with the provisions of the
revised policy.
|
|
Position of the parties
|
| 93. |
No comment on this proposal was received from either cable
licensees or broadcasters.
|
| 94. |
Community groups were strongly in favour of the proposal. PIAC
proposed that community groups be allowed to apply for community
programming service licences even if the cable company provides a
community channel in accordance with the policy. |
|
The Commission’s determination |
|
95. |
In light of the comments received and considering the
opportunities provided by the new community-based low-power
television programming undertaking class of licence, as announced in
the next section the Commission adopts the licensing policy proposed
in Public Notice 2001-129 and intends to amend the Distribution
Regulations accordingly.
|
|
Implementation
|
|
96. |
This policy replaces Community channel policy, Public
Notice 1991-59, 5 June 1991. The Commission expects those licensees
that elect to distribute a community channel to operate fully in
accordance with this policy, effective 6 January 2003. The
performance of licensees in this regard will be examined at the time
of licence renewal.
|
|
97. |
With respect to Vidéotron, the Commission notes that in Transfer
of effective control of Vidéotron ltée to Quebecor Média Inc., Decision
CRTC 2001-283, 23 May 2001, Quebecor Média Inc. and Vidéotron
agreed to the Commission’s request for a moratorium on the status
of the current relationship between the licensee and the independent
community television groups now operating in the territories served
by Vidéotron, pending completion of the community channel policy
review and release of the Commission’s policy. This moratorium
remains in effect until the Distribution Regulations have been
amended in order to implement this policy. |
|
Licensing framework for community-based television programming
undertakings
|
|
98. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed to create a
new class of licence for a community-based television programming
undertaking and to establish a regulatory framework for the
licensing of these services. Two sub-categories of this class were
proposed:
|
|
- Community-based low-power television undertakings; and
|
|
- Community-based digital services.
|
|
These two sub-categories share all major licensing criteria with
respect to ownership, programming, financing and licensing. They
differ only in the method of distribution. |
| 99. |
Since there were no concerns raised with regard to this proposal,
the Commission intends to create the new class of licence as
proposed.
|
|
Objectives
|
| 100. |
In Public Notice 2001-129 the Commission noted that
community-based television services will provide a high level of
locally-produced, locally-reflective programming that complements
the programming provided by conventional television and the cable
community channel. Such services should enrich the variety of local
and community-based television programming available to the public,
as well as provide opportunities for new voices to participate in
the Canadian broadcasting system.
|
| 101. |
The Commission proposed that its assessment of applications for
such services would take into consideration the number of
community-based services already licensed in the proposed service
area, the availability of over-the-air channels and/or the available
capacity of the affected cable distribution undertakings. |
| 102. |
Community-based television programming undertakings should not
replicate the programming offered by existing television services.
|
|
Position of the parties |
| 103. |
Shaw proposed that the Commission assess and take into account
the impact of licensing community television on the distribution of
existing and future programming services, particularly Category 2
specialty services. |
| 104. |
Thunder Bay Electronics and CJCD-TV in Dawson Creek, B.C. both
raised the potential negative impact of community-based television
on small market local broadcasters. Thunder Bay Electronics argued
that new community-based television services should either not be
licensed in small markets, or the incumbent local broadcaster should
be given priority for a community-based television licence.
Télé-Mag inc. stated that cable companies can give all kinds of
reasons why the CRTC should exempt them from distributing this type
of service.
|
|
The Commission’s determination |
| 105. |
The proposed policy states that the Commission will consider
available cable capacity when assessing applications for
community-based television programming undertakings. The Commission
considers that, inherent in a review of capacity is the assessment
of the
impact on existing and future Canadian specialty services. The
Commission notes, however, that the objective of this new policy is
to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by
facilitating the entrance of new participants at the local level. |
| 106. |
With respect to small markets, the Commission recognizes the
potential impact of community-based television programming
undertakings on existing local, over-the-air licensees. Accordingly,
when assessing applications for community-based television
programming undertakings in small markets, the Commission will take
into consideration any impact that licensing such an undertaking may
have on local radio and television licensees.
|
|
Ownership
|
| 107. |
The proposed policy stated that the Commission would consider
applications by both for-profit and not-for-profit applicants. It
also indicated that it did not intend for this new class to provide
opportunities for established broadcasters to extend their reach
and, therefore, would give preference to locally-based new entrants. |
|
Position of the parties
|
| 108. |
PIAC proposed that licences for community-based television
undertakings be restricted to not-for-profit groups. They argued
that it would be counterproductive to replicate the over-abundance
of commercially-owned media in the community sector. IFVA also
stated that preference should be given to applications from
non-profit groups.
|
| 109. |
MCCQ and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du
Québec (ARCQ) stated that the Commission should not grant community
licences to for-profit corporations. For ARCQ, there is a clear
distinction in the Act between private and community elements and,
if private corporations are granted community television licences,
it could have a significant impact on their capacity to raise local
radio advertising revenues and thereby on their ongoing viability.
|
| 110. |
Télé-Mag inc. supports the proposed approach: [TRANSLATION]
"The CRTC should therefore consider the possibility of
for-profit community television. We are proposing regional
television stations as a way of distinguishing among them more
effectively. Regional TV should be for-profit and promote community
development."
|
|
The Commission’s determination
|
| 111. |
The Commission confirms that, in granting licences for
community-based television programming undertakings, it will give
preference to locally-based new entrants. |
| 112. |
With respect to ownership, the Commission maintains its view that
there may be opportunities for local entrepreneurs to develop
applications that will meet the Commission’s objectives for
community-based media. The Commission will, therefore, consider
proposals from both for-profit and not-for-profit applicants.
|
|
Local programming
|
| 113. |
The proposed policy for community-based television programming
undertakings required that licensees devote not less than 60% of
their programming to local programming, defined in Public Notice 2001-129
as programming that is reflective of, and produced in, the
area that the community-based television programming undertaking is
licensed to serve. |
|
Position of the parties
|
| 114. |
The CCTA expressed concern that community-based television
services could cover a broad region, ethnic group or other community
of interest and thus be equivalent to Category 2 specialty
television undertakings. It proposed that all community-based
television undertakings be "based on local expression unique to
a geographic community." |
|
The Commission’s determination
|
| 115. |
In New television station for Toronto/Hamilton, Decision
CRTC 2002-81, 8 April 2002, the Commission used a definition of
local programming that has the same intent as the definition
proposed in Public Notice 2001-129, but in more precise language.
Accordingly, in order to avoid any confusion, the Commission will
define local programming, for the purpose of community-based
television programming undertakings, as follows:
|
|
Local programming means station productions or programming
produced by community-based independent producers that reflects
the particular needs and interests of residents of the area that
the community-based television programming undertaking is licensed
to serve.
|
| 116. |
In the case of a community-based low-power television programming
undertaking, this area will be defined by the grade B contour of the
antenna. In the case of a community-based digital service, the
Commission will require a detailed description of the geographic
area to be served, which will form part of a condition of licence on
the nature of service. |
|
Advertising and financing
|
| 117. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that
community-based television programming undertakings be permitted to
broadcast up to 12 minutes per hour of advertising. Such
undertakings would not have access to any funding that cable
licensees allocate for local reflection. |
|
Position of the parties |
| 118. |
Global opposed any access to advertising by community-based
television licensees on the grounds that it could threaten the
viability of conventional local broadcasters. However, if
advertising were permitted, Global proposed that it be limited to
local advertising. |
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
| 119. |
The Commission remains convinced that for-profit, as well as
not-for-profit, undertakings will be in a position to provide
popular and useful community programming. In order to be consistent
with this approach, it believes that community-based television
programming undertakings must have access to advertising revenues.
In the Commission’s view, such advertising on community-based
television programming undertakings, while providing an affordable
venue for small, community advertisers, will have minimal impact on
the revenues or profitability of conventional local radio or
television licensees. |
| 120. |
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with Global that advertising
on community-based television programming undertakings should be
limited to local advertising. Since the Commission's policy requires
that the signals of these undertakings be available only in the
specific area they serve and since their programming must be 60%
local, the Commission considers that virtually all advertising will
be sold to local businesses. A requirement restricting licensees to
local advertising will not, therefore, unduly constrain the new
community-based television programming undertakings. Accordingly,
the Commission will permit licensees to broadcast 12 minutes of
local advertising per hour.
|
|
Carriage by broadcasting distribution undertakings
|
| 121. |
The Commission proposed that community-based television
programming undertakings be granted mandatory carriage by BDUs, on
the digital band, throughout the area reached by the over-the-air
signals or the service area authorized by the Commission.
|
|
Position of the parties
|
| 122. |
The CCTA, Rogers and Shaw all argued that such mandatory carriage
was unnecessary and would be harmful to cable BDUs. They pointed out
that there is limited capacity on the digital band, that the design
of cable networks made it inefficient to deliver channels to a
specific geographic area, and that forced carriage of community
services could prevent the carriage of licensed Category 2 specialty
services. |
| 123. |
Shaw noted that if community-based television offered a valuable
service, it would be in the interest of cable BDUs to carry it.
|
| 124. |
Vidéotron suggested that, considering the limits on their system
capacity and the potential demand for community-based television in
Quebec, the Commission should adopt a flexible regulatory position
using a case-by-case approach rather than a generally applicable
policy.
|
| 125. |
The Fédération suggested that, in view of the low penetration
rate of digital services in Canada, the Commission should grant a
transition period requiring carriage of community-based television
undertakings, on both analog and digital, until at least two-thirds
of Canadian households have subscribed to digital services.
|
| 126. |
PIAC argued that community-based television should be granted
required carriage on the basic service of the analog band.
|
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
| 127. |
In the Commission’s view, the proposed digital carriage
requirements proposed in Public Notice 2001-129
provide an
appropriate balance between capacity and cost considerations and the
value to the public of a licensed community-based television
programming undertaking. According to Commission data, almost 80% of
cable subscribers in Canada now have access to digital services
offered by cable companies. The Commission recognizes that, at this
time, a minority of cable customers actually subscribe to these
digital services. It also acknowledges that attractive, new
community-based television services could help drive an increase in
the rate of subscription. |
| 128. |
Accordingly, the Commission will require BDUs to carry licensed
community-based television programming undertakings on the digital
band, throughout the area reached by the over-the-air signals or the
service area to be authorized by the Commission, and intends to
amend the Distribution Regulations accordingly.
|
|
Policies specific to community-based low-power television
undertakings
|
|
Definition of low-power television
|
| 129. |
No comments were received with respect to the definition of
community-based low-power television undertakings. The Commission
will adopt the definition proposed in Public Notice 2001-129, as set
out in the appendix to this notice.
|
|
Calls for competing applications
|
| 130. |
The Commission proposed to issue calls for competing
community-based low-power television undertaking applications in
certain circumstances. In making its decision whether to issue a
call, the Commission will take into consideration the availability
of low-power channels in the market to be served. |
|
Position of the parties
|
| 131. |
The CAB sought further guidance on the circumstances under which
calls would be issued. For instance, the CAB asked whether the
existence of television services in the market would be a
consideration. |
|
The Commission’s determination
|
| 132. |
The Commission considers that the primary reason for issuing a
call for competing applications should be that a limited number of
low-power frequencies is available in the market to be served.
During the licensing process it will consider the impact of
community-based low-power television undertakings on existing
services. |
| 133. |
In this regard, the Commission notes that on 10 July 2002, the
Department of Industry informed the Commission that it would not
issue broadcasting certificates for new analog broadcasting
facilities above channel 59. The Department also advised the
Commission that it would not issue broadcasting certificates for
channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, pending the conclusion of studies on the
use of these channels for public safety purposes. |
|
Developmental community-based television
|
| 134. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission sought comment as to
whether there would be a benefit to adopting a streamlined licensing
framework for developmental community-based television stations, as
is the case for developmental community radio. |
|
Position of the parties
|
| 135. |
Conestoga College and ICTV each supported a streamlined framework
for developmental stations. Conestoga College also submitted that
such a process would enable the College to begin operating quickly
and thus meet the needs of the community. |
|
The Commission’s analysis and determination
|
| 136. |
The Commission considers that any applicant for a community-based
television programming licence should demonstrate that it has the
organization and expertise required to adhere to the licensing
framework set out in this public notice. Further, the Commission has
no evidence at this time that community groups interested in
applying for a community-based television programming undertaking
licence will find the process onerous.
|
| 137. |
In light of this and the limited support for a developmental
licence, the Commission will not adopt a streamlined licensing
framework for developmental community-based television stations at
this time.
|
|
Replacement of existing policy for remote stations
|
| 138. |
In Public Notice 2001-129, the Commission proposed that the new
policy would apply in both urban and remote areas and thus replace
the existing policy for remote stations set out in Public
Notice CRTC 1987-8, 9 January 1987. |
| 139. |
The Commission noted, however, that it would be prepared to offer
relief from the logging requirements in the Television
Broadcasting Regulations, 1987 (the Television Regulations) for
those community-based television programming undertakings operating
in remote areas. |
|
Position of the parties
|
| 140. |
In its submission, Isle Madame Community Television Association (Telisle)
fully supported the proposed framework, which, in its view, reflects
its own experience and objectives. Telisle proposed, however, that
community television licensees in remote areas should be able to
apply for exceptions to the policy, or the Television Regulations,
in the following ar |
