[Advisors] request to appear at CRTC hearing

Sat Jan 9 09:59:29 PST 2016

Thanks for sharing this request Marita . I want to support this effort by
CACTUS for obvious reasons but I am unable to participate in the
intervention / presentation. I also want to share a somewhat related story
with the team so everyone knows what we are doing and maybe some of you
might have some suggestions/recommendations for our efforts.

The First Mile Connectivity Consortium (FMCC - http://firstmile.ca) took on
a "surprise" contract with Industry Canada just before the xmas break. IC
emailed a RFP to four of the FMCC members (Susan O'Donnell, Rob McMahon,
Heather Hudson and Denise Williams) in November with a deadline of early
December for proposals. So together (Tim Whiteduck and I joined this
application) we decided to put in a response believing that IC must have had
someone in mind and just needed some additional proposals to make the
process legit. We wanted to make sure IC understood the First Mile position
when it comes to serving remote and rural Indigenous communities across
Canada. Obviously we were surprised to get the contract and now we are
trying to meet very tight timelines (the first deliverable is due on Monday,
Jan 11) with the final report due at the end March [smiles] . the report
about "IT ADOPTION in Indigenous communities in Canada's Far North",
includes a literature review, identifying primary and secondary datasets,
recommending appropriate research methodologies and questions, testing the
methods and questions, and producing findings and recommendations . and all
of this in 3 months.

So you can imagine what our "holiday" season looked like . BUT the great
news (I believe) is we are coming up with some GREAT resources that are
pointing to the importance of community organizations and services in the
development, operation, support, and sustainable aspects of IT Adoption in
Indigenous communities. Obviously, this type of work requires sustained
funding in remote and rural communities. Therefore IMHO the CACTUS position
to the CRTC is once again another way to "level the playing field" between
urban and near urban centres and the remote and rural communities struggling
to access and sustain appropriate connections, technologies and support
services. In particular, I would like to see TC endorse their positions on
community effort:

. In [identifying] 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, [often non-existing in small
remote and rural communities] 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 [if it exists]. 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 for-profit 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 [LOVE THIS ONE]. 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 [YES!!].

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.

I would like to circulate this information to members of our FMCC team who
are working on the CRTC BSO interventions and our proposal for an
infrastructure fund that would access resources from the present "DEFERRAL
FUND" controlled and accessible only to the telcos (resulting in refunds and
such to telephone customers even though there are still so many unserved and
underserved communities across Canada) . our BSO interventions are available
online at the First Mile web site (http://firstmile.ca) under the FMCC tab.

Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated .

Woliwon

Brian Beaton

Researcher, First Nations Innovation Project

Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Education, Critical Studies, University of
New Brunswick

Research Associate, Keewaytinook Okimakanak Research Institute

Settler ally of Indigenous peoples and future generations

Contact Details:

Snail Mail: Box 104, Station A, Unceded Wolastoqey Traditional Lands,
Fredericton, NB, E3B 4Y2

T: 506-261-1344

E:  <mailto:brian.beaton at unb.ca> brian.beaton at unb.ca  

 <http://firstmile.ca/> http://firstmile.ca 

From: advisors-bounces at tc.ca [mailto:advisors-bounces at tc.ca] On Behalf Of
Marita Moll
Sent: January-08-16 10:04 PM
To: TC Advisors
Subject: [Advisors] request to appear at CRTC hearing

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  <mailto:cathy at timescape.ca> <cathy at timescape.ca>

To: 

Marita Moll  <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net> <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/20160109/4d8c71e1/attachment-0001.html>