[Advisors] request to appear at CRTC hearing

[Darlene Thompson]

Hi Marita,

I think that it would be incredibly important for someone from TC to attend
this hearing.  It will provide an excellent forum for us to support
community projects in this area.  I do not believe that I have been active
enough in this area to do so but I would fully support that someone from
our group should most certainly go.

Darlene

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

>
> 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> <cathy at timescape.ca> To: Marita Moll
> <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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160109/2f7f2bc7/attachment.html>