[Advisors] CACTUS: New Study Calls for More Coherent Approach to Community Media in Digital Environment

Fri Oct 30 10:39:00 PDT 2015

I hadn’t thought of the possibility of the CRTC intervening in community media. And you are correct in that there is a potential for mischief.

The CRTC’s “mandate” appears to contain a few of contradictions. At the very least, the language the CRTC itself uses shows a clear and persistent bias towards broadcasting and telecommunications. The CRTC’s lack of awareness of the concept of the Internet as a community resource rather then yet another transport medium seems apparent in both the language they use and in their approach to Internet issues.

The CRTC still appears to view content as a controllable output from a small number of providers (the broadcast/telecommunications model). As long as they retain this antiquated perspective, their activities will be biased towards the big content providers.

My primary point is that the CRTC is not the entity to respond to this call for a "more coherent approach to community media in digital environment" (sic) with any effectiveness. Content on the Internet is largely an emergent phenomena of a occasionally self-organizing chaotic ecosystem. Government policies should reflect and nurture this ecosystem.

But, as you imply, we appear to be on the same page.

Gary

-----------------------------------------------
It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. 
 - Alexander Fraser Tytler 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 

> On 2015.10.29, at 11:50, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:
> 
> There’s no disconnect.  That’s a very cogent and useful analysis of the CRTC’s relationship to Internet regulation, and I agree with you completely.  I was merely looking what might be in it for TC in continuing an alliance with CACTUS, given they see themselves as constrained by the CRTC more than we do.  I think you are pointing out that suggesting community access sites be considered as community media has hidden dangers, such as taking the CTRC where we really don’t want it to go.
> 
> GG
> 
>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 7:35 AM, imaginit <imaginit at eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Garth:
>> 
>>   I agree with the spirit of your posting. 
>> 
>>   The disconnect I see in your thesis is whether the CRTC is to play more then a role in regulating Internet connectivity (which I would agree, they could be doing much more), or whether there is a broader role for them to play in influencing application services. They have done this in the past, for example with CanCon.
>> 
>>   In the past, however, service and connectivity were tightly coupled: telephony service was the sole purpose of the copper wire distribution network, broadcast radio and television the sole purpose of the (broadcast) wireless and cable infrastructure.
>> 
>>   The Internet is a different beast, as we all know. One of the principles of the Internet architecture is to ensure a clear independence between applications and the Internet transport service. This is one of the principle strengths of the Internet, which cannot be undermined even for the most noble of purposes. Regulating the Internet is a valid policy, as long as it stops with connectivity (including security and privacy of transport, net neutrality, etc.).
>> 
>>   The telecoms, cablecoms and cellcoms themselves have had great difficulty dealing with the separation of application services from transport. Their initial approach was to binding applications to transport was through explicit “garden walls”. This approach mostly failed (but hasn’t gone away), and the current emphasis is on market centric approaches, such as attempting to dominate content creation and distribution. The *coms pursue profit in businesses they understand. 
>> 
>>  Clearly, there may be justification for regulations aimed at mitigating monopolization of the Internet by content providers. It’s not clear how this would be accomplished, given the current existence of natural Internet monopolies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. 
>> 
>>  Providing community services is something the *coms might undertake as part of their public relations efforts. It is not something they will aggressively pursue as part of their business model, no matter how much regulation the CRTC attempts to impose.
>> 
>>  A better path, moving forward, would be to limit the mandate of the CRTC to regulation of distribution mediums (wireless and wired), with, i think we would all agree, an emphasis on providing fair access to everyone in Canada (with the caveat that “fair” is an open term and requires careful definition for each medium).
>> 
>> If there is a government role in promoting community services at the application level, including community web sites, information distribution, emergency services, etc., then I strongly suggest this should not be undertaken by the CRTC. It must not be presented as a regulation issue, either. 
>> 
>>  Perhaps there is a place for a new government entity aimed at promoting Internet communities at the local level. An entity that would (hopefully) be more independent of the antiquated relationships between the *coms and the CRTC.
>> 
>> With a new government, elected on a platform of “change”, there may be a window of opportunity for new approaches to the governments role in new media.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Gary
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. 
>> - Alexander Fraser Tytler 
>> 
>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. 
>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. 
>> 
>>> On 2015.10.29, at 00:03, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>>> I think public access internet sites are (should be considered as) part of community media.  Not sure if this is addressed in this report.  If anybody has time to look at it and suggest a way for us to comment, please do.  I have considered attending this conference which will be held in Ottawa in late Nov.
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject:	CACTUS: New Study Calls for More Coherent Approach to Community Media in Digital Environment
>>>> Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:48:54 -0400
>>>> From:	Cathy Edwards <cathy at timescape.ca>
>>>> To:	Cathy Edwards <cathy at timescape.ca>
>>>> 
>>>> ….The report is posted on the web site of the conference at www.ComMediaConverge.ca/survey.  The site also hosts a forum where the public can offer comments and feedback.  
>>> 
>>> There may be some way of finding common ground with TC inherent in their identification of the benefits of community media:
>>> 
>>> ·      Provide a platform for local artistic and cultural expression,
>>> ·      advertise local events and provide visibility to community groups,
>>> ·      provide alternative points of view,
>>> ·      provide communication services that strengthen the community and have significant impact on their community’s awareness of local issues and events.
>>> ·      profile local jobs, economic opportunities and businesses
>>> ·      provide local weather and emergency warning services
>>> ·      access to local information
>>> ·      celebration of local culture and preservation of heritage
>>> ·      positive impacts in terms of bringing the community together, increasing levels of civic engagement, coverage of local government proceedings, expanding political involvement, and media skills training and capacity building.
>>> 
>>> But it’s difficult to see where the agencies we represent, tech centers, telecenters, maker spaces, digital inclusion services, and community networks, fit into the universe of broadcast media they imagine.  The survey defines community media as:
>>> “Community media make up one of three elements in the Canadian Broadcasting Act that contribute to one integrated system.  Regulated community media comprise campus and community radio stations, BDU [cable]-administered community channels, and community- owned independent community television broadcasters. Community media are also increasingly distributed via unregulated online platforms, including audio podcasts, streamed video, and interactive games.”
>>> 
>>> Obviously, all that is in a one-to-many broadcast mode.  Even as they intend, “multiplatform opportunities for production, circulation and consumption of community-generated content,” they are still focused on reaching the citizen as member of an audience.  For example, they place the idea of “convergence” through digital media in the context of, “the need for established community media organizations to leverage the Internet as an auxiliary platform for distribution.”
>>> 
>>> They view the Internet as one more means of mass communication using digital technologies.  They are ignoring the interactive, participatory dimensions of the parallel development of “new media,” and the implications that has for defining “convergence” differently than they are doing.  They do not define themselves in terms of community development in the context of a digital economy.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps it’s their focus on the CRTC’s review of community TV regulations that’s circumscribing their approach to being digital.  They say:
>>> “…[the]rise of a recognizable 'community media sector' within new media appears to trail the development of commercial media on new platforms. Part of the reason for this may be that the CRTC does not regulate the Internet and does not recognize community media on new media platforms per se nor provide for its support. The federal regulator's relationship with community media is mediated by the licencing process, which applies only to the 'traditional' community media: radio and TV, even though the latter may be available on the Internet in addition to their licenced distribution method (over-the-air, digital cable and so on). “
>>> 
>>> I know that, in the past, we’ve endorsed their “need to generate new proposals for a refocusing of policy attention and support for community media in the digital environment.”  As we embark, once again, on doing the same thing for community networking, it may be interesting to see if they are willing to reciprocate.
>>> 
>>> GG
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advisors mailing list
>>> Advisors at tc.ca
>>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advisors mailing list
> Advisors at tc.ca
> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20151030/b3eef038/attachment-0001.html>