[Advisors] request to appear at CRTC hearing

[Marita Moll]

Hello all.  I have been asked (see e-mail at the end) if TC will 
participate in an upcoming CRTC hearing as a member of a panel 
supporting the submission of CACTUS asking that monies from privately 
owned cable operators designated for community channels be released to 
the control of a board which would funnel that money towards 
community-access media centers.  Most (90%) of this is about 
broadcasting (television, some radio) but CACTUS has tried to give it a 
modern spin by including, in the description of these centers, some of 
the things like digital/media literacy activities, maker spaces and 
local economic development.  So, they see these centers as training and 
production centers offering hybrids of old and new media.

It is a bit self-serving in places, but they have done an enormous 
amount of work on this. In the areas where I understand what is being 
proposed, most of it makes sense. But as we weren't part of the 
development of this document, I don't really see us reflected in it 
either.  That doesn't mean we should not support it. But some input 
beyond my own is required.

Also, I would have ask one of you to attend this hearing (Jan. 25). I 
can't do it.  I would assume that, if CACTUS wanted our participation 
badly enough, they would arrange a travel budget to cover costs (the 
CRTC does make provisions for this).

So, should we take on this role? Anybody willing to do it?

Excerpt: CACTUS Intervention, the complete version of which is attached 
to this message if you want to take a deeper plunge into it.

273. Our vision is that each community in Canada should be invited to 
take inventory of its

current media training and production resources (which might include 
film or video

production co-operatives, existing community-operated television or 
radio channels, high

school, college or university media training facilities, and former CAP 
facilities or maker

spaces in public libraries) and decide:


? In which areas of media production it is weakest and needs to expand 
services


? How best to distribute content from existing and new production 
facilities. This

might imply sharing or consolidating facilities in the college, 
university, library,

community centre, existing video co-operative or radio channel so that 
all can

access a broadcast tower, a high-speed Internet connection, and the 
local cable

head-end, or it could imply a distributed multi-hub structure, managed by a

single not-for-profit entity that co-ordinates access across the license 
area,

according to the neighbourhood public library model. We note that cable

community channel services were once offered according to this model in big

cities, where there were as many as 12 neighbourhood offices throughout 
Metro

Vancouver.


274. The particular solution should be proposed by the community.


275. The CRTC's commendable and innovative role in defending the place 
of "the community

element" in the broadcasting system (even before Parliament had legally 
established its

existence under section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1991) must be updated 
to emphasize

ownership and responsibility for the community channel by communities, 
not by forprofit entitles selling a single competitive service offering.


276. Communities can recruit the expertise they need on their own terms 
to devise the

appropriate technological solutions. The role of national co-ordinating 
associations such

as CACTUS would be to make sure effective dissemination of information 
about such

solutions is shared among communities.


277. We therefore recommend that all BDUs (licensed and exempt) be 
required to contribute

2% of their gross revenues to a new fund to support community-access 
media production

and distribution centres that hold a community-access television 
undertaking license. We

will refer to this fund henceforth as the Community-Access Media Fund or 
CAMF.


278. As discussed in more detail in Section VI (Distribution), all BDUs 
would also be required

to carry the televisual output of these centres, and would thereby have 
access to the

content generated. The new community-access media centres would be 
better resourced

and offer a greater range of programming than was formerly available in 
the territory on

separate competitive services.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Fw: Copy of CACTUS Supplemental Comments CRTC 2015-421
Date: 	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:24:46 -0500
From: 	Cathy Edwards <cathy at timescape.ca>
To: 	Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>



Hi Marita,
Here's CACTUS' submission.  It's a sizable document.
I would say that the important parts for you in terms of answering 
questions about the role former CAP sites could play ultimately in either:
- evolving into community media centres (with licenses to broadcast) 
themselves, or
- being on the board of such a centre
... can be found in the section of the document entitled "CACTUS 
Supplemental Submission" starting at "Section IV - Unleashing the 
Community Sector" at paragraph 245, or if you're really short of time, 
start at paragraph 362.  We describe partnering with other organizations 
already on the ground.   You'll see the strategy of mentioning other 
associations (radio, libraries, media coops) as partners.  We don't 
mention CAP sites explicitly in that section, but we do mention CAP 
sites in paragraph 7 in the Executive Summary, and in the complaints (a 
sample of which is attached) we've filed nationwide with the Commission 
this week (see A06 0 Grande Praire.pdf attached).
Thanks for your interest, Marita.  We are going to get something out of 
this hearing.  The fight is "how much?"
Cathy
(819) 456-2237


------------------------------------------------------------------------
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> protection is active.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20160108/25df94a4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CACTUS Supplemental Submission to CRTC 2015-421 Jan. 5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1006117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://victoria.tc.ca/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20160108/25df94a4/attachment-0001.pdf>