- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Big Cable Owes Us $100 Million
And maybe eight times that, after misspending community media funds to further their own aims.
Broadcast levy was a public trust. Take it back. Image by Nora Kelly.
Prior to the deregulation of community TV in 1997, all Canadian communities with 2,000 cable subscribers or more enjoyed access to a cable-operated community TV channel. Some communities even had a vibrant network of volunteer media makers, such as the roughly 1,200 volunteers across 12 regional offices in Vancouver's lower mainland. The resources for community TV came from a broadcast levy collected by cable companies; considered a public trust.
However, in the last 13 years, cable companies have altered community channels and the levy that supports them: they are now a competitive advantage rather than a community resource. Big cable companies have also centralized community TV production so that fewer than ten per cent of Canadians can access a "community channel" to express themselves or create programming. This represents a serious misuse by cable companies of the roughly $100 million public trust funds ($116 million in 2008).
In 2008, cable monopolies earned a profit of 25 per cent, before interest and taxes. Irrespective of these earnings, they are using public trust money, partially earmarked for the most marginalized in our society, for their own commercial interests. This community money should be used to create an innovative independent media sector in Canada and provide much-needed resources for underserved communities and at-risk youth.
That some of the most profitable companies in Canada are taking public resources from those most in need is outrageous and must be challenged.
The missing report
The CRTC is currently reviewing community media in Canada, and taking back this public money could pave the way for an historic opportunity to create a rejuvenated, fresh and innovative independent media system. A proposal by CACTUS (Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations) is calling for the millions of dollars already being collected by cable companies for community TV to be liberated to independent media centres. These media centres would serve to empower citizens and facilitate media innovation, and the CRTC can make this a reality.
Recently, it was brought to my attention that a report detailing community channel policy from around the world ("Community TV Policies and Practices Worldwide") has been removed from the CRTC website. This report formed part of the public record when the community TV hearing was called but has since been removed. The study's author, Catherine Edwards, is an international community TV expert and her report provides essential information for public participation. It is striking, to say the least, that the CRTC would remove a study it had itself commissioned.
According to the CRTC website, they removed the report because of "concerns" by licensees of broadcasting distribution undertakings (a.k.a. Big Cable). This decision appears to be in response to a Dec. 10, 2009 letter sent by Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications, Cogeco Cable, EastLink, and Quebecor Media, asking for the report to be removed.
The letter comes from companies that clearly have a financial incentive to limit public understanding and therefore participation concerning this hearing. The CRTC's apparent willingness to bend to the concerns of a few clearly biased companies draws into question the CRTC's independence from the cable industry.
OpenMedia.ca has posted the report online, but it should also be part of the public proceeding.
Watchdog for Who?
The CRTC's website indicates that there are 139 cable-operated community channels in Canada, but gives no further information. We don't know who owns them, where they are located, and what their programming is made up of.
As far as I can tell, the problem is that despite complaints from community TV organizations, the CRTC is not actually monitoring or supervising community TV activities. The CRTC doesn't even appear to be collecting programming logs, so how can they possibly review them? Clearly, the funds collected from the community TV levy are largely unaccounted for.
Big Cable has been given unfettered access to over $100 million of our money and the CRTC has seemly provided little oversight. But this situation isn't new: over the past ten years, an estimated $800 million has flowed through this fund.
The best way to get out of this mess is to liberate the community media funds straight to community media organizations. Cable companies have shown themselves unfit to be middlemen any longer and the CRTC has shown itself incapable of ensuring funds are directed towards their intended purpose.
Canadians can ask for the funds to be given back to communities by sending a comment to the CRTC here. ![]()




10
Login or register to post comments
leftofcentre
2 years ago
Get real....
This sounds like just another cry for a handout. I've seen some of the "community" tv produced in Vancouver and it has little to do with the community at all. It's usually just a show on angry marching or speeches from anti-Israeli conferences.
seth
2 years ago
cable profits
It may be a 25% return on cable Tv - lots of campaign donations for corrupt politicians there but when you add broadband on top.....
According to Time Warner their profit on broadband is over 3000% with their ancient antiquated cable equipment. They could cut their fees to 3% of current level and still make money - lots of room for a nonprofit to provide a service at for a few bucks a month.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/time-warner-cab/
deanowen
2 years ago
It's a racket
Community programming on our local Shaw channel in Red Deer Alberta consists of two hours of news from a professional crew. Some of that two hours is cleverly disguised as news, but it's really an infomercial. Then it loops over and over. Giving Shaw any kind of money for this BS is criminal. The studio where real community TV was created is long gone. Even our broadcast TV shut down last August - this in a city of 89,000 people in a region serving 250,000 people. Alternatives are needed - give the money to the community and let them make their own TV!
OilbertaRedTory
2 years ago
Public Ownership
... of the means of distribution will break the market-distorting plutonomy of communications corporations.
Then the consumers will gain the choice of content producers. Just like a free market should.
" It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations,
Book I, Chapter XI
make_up_another...
2 years ago
Time To Let The Dinosaurs Die
If we had HULU, and had the ability to watch what we want when we want it, one question reamins:
What use are cable companies? All they seem to be doing now is trying to place hurdles in front of customers in order to preserve their profits and maintian control to justify their own existence.
If television shows could be placed with a net based distributor, maintaining the embedded commercials, with perhaps a 'premium option' for removing commercials, doesn't the network and the cable provider become a middleman?
Perhaps in the future the networks and the cable companies will go the way of the video store. See ya pahtna, we had a good run.
Perhaps then the public airwaves could be returned to the public and companies like Rogers would just be sellers of bandwidth.
Steppeup
2 years ago
Little Choice
There is little choice in Cable TV. Our channel choices are mostly bundled. Out of each bundle option we maybe watch one or two stations, but pay for them all. It wouldn't be so bad if you could only choose the ones you "want". But no, we are stuck paying for many channels to watch a few. Thats what happens with no compitition..... I want my money back....
Frank
2 years ago
Steppeup
With all due respect we could have had that competition. Allowing cable companies to buy the satellite companies was ridiculous. But the cable companies tell us that this will lead to "efficiencies" and lower prices for consumers and you guys on the Right fall for that every time.
If you believe in competition then tell your party to stop allowing corporations to buy competitors.
come again
2 years ago
get real?
leftofcentre,
The handout is already going out. It might be better in my pocket than in local tv programming, but I certainly don't want it in a corporation's pocket.
And yes, I'm not so into watching anti-Israeli marches on TV, but people that are won't get them on mainstream TV, which is the point of community TV. The concept is to support our minority communities, which in addition to anti-Israelis, are people that like to watch high school basketball, etc. etc.
leftofcentre
2 years ago
High School Basketball?
But you and the five other people interested can watch High School Basketball on YouTube for free. Why do you need $100 million to put high school basketball on tv?
The internet has made DIY TV easy. That's volunteer TV. I'd rather have the TV I'm paying for be produced by professionals.
zalm
2 years ago
Bah
If the cable dudes were serious about making good local TV, they could have, any day, every day. How many hundreds of millions of dollars was spent by professionals to make Blair Witch Project? And I, for one, still think there are a few interviewers of Beeb quality who could do an interesting story on the politics of reform in Brazil or the evasion of nationalist internet firewalling in China? Again, for cheap.
Big cable's had ownership of the slush fund for too long. There are a few who, apparently, don't think so.