CRTC Submissions

1. MEDIAC is a Canadian accessibility specialty firm providing research, analysis, standards development and marketing services in the communications, entertainment and cultural industries. Its Accessibility Lens products and services offer compliance reporting; inclusive public policy and regulatory analysis, development and reporting; and business strategy solutions.

MEDIAC's portfolio includes an international, national and regional expertise including accessible content multi-platform distribution, accessible media monitoring and accessible content creation as it relates to legislation, funding, engineering, research and development, project management and validation.

MEDIAC has offices in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal providing accessible solutions and services in both official languages.

2. OTA broadcasters are, for the most part, large corporations with diverse broadcasting interests. The CRTC's decisions to strengthen Canadian broadcasting companies will permit these companies' over-the-air components to recover and perform well, as the economy recovers.

3. But the rapidly changing shift from analog to digital, along with consideration around retooling Canada's broadcast infrastructure, presents a new opportunity for the CRTC to review the original intent behind its first cable policy in 1971 where it stated that companies that distribute content should pay for that content. In Policy Statement on Cable Television: Canadian Broadcasting, "A Single System", (Ottawa, 16 July 1971) the CRTC said that "broadcasting cannot survive by technology alone. The most perfect electromagnetic signal into every Canadian home is without value unless it bears a message." (p. 36). The CRTC therefore set the priority carriage requirements for cable systems' basic service, and said that cable systems should pay program suppliers: "one should pay for what he uses to operate his business", because "while cable television operators may argue they are really only selling an antenna service, sophisticated as it is, the subscribers are buying not antennas but programmes." (p. 20) It was the CRTC's view that "[s]trengthening of cable television, and its benefits to the public, is vital if this important element of broadcasting is to play its part in the 'single system'. The Commission will therefore encourage the development of cable television." (p. 31)

4. The CRTC did not enforce its view that cable should pay for content, because at the time TV stations earned more than three times as much as cable companies. To ensure cable's prosperity, the CRTC did not enforce its requirement that BDUs should pay local broadcasters anything.

5. The BDU industry is no longer in its infancy. It is a strong and prosperous industry that has cross-media ownership assets that include the great portion of the IP and Wireless industry. In fact, not including IP or Wireless services, in 2008 BDUs made $4.8 billion and TV stations made $2.1 billion.

6. BDUs now provide Canadians with access to the ebb and flow of virtually all content and accessible content. They are a strong and powerful force in the broadcasting system, and can bring substantial benefits to that system. The CRTC should serve Canadians' interests in ensuring that all broadcasters support a fairer more equitable compensation system which reflects the revenue and market share of today. But an important quid pro quo, is that ALL Canadians must be able to access the programming provided by our broadcasting system.

7. Therefore accessibility requirements should go hand-in-hand with the CRTC's review and decision.

RECOMMENDATIONS

8. In assessing and making changes to a compensation regime for the value of local television signals, the CRTC should consider how these changes could affect distribution of, the decrease or increase in, or the quality of accessible content. As such, an Accessibility Lens should be used to determine impact and opportunity. For example, in assessing and making changes to the current enforcement policy for the value of local television signals the, CRTC could:

remind and enforce 100% compliance to its accessibility policy including compliance with an industry best practices guide for closed captioning and descriptive video.
expand its accessibility policy toward a 100% described video broadcast day
require the BDUs or the broadcasters to establish a fund that would underwrite accessible content production, 3rd party monitoring and compliance, standards and best practices development, reporting and review, and experimental research and development to improve the speed and quality of accessible production.
create a policy to have its Social Policy division review its final decision, so that they may advise or seek advice on impact/opportunity for accessibility.

CONCLUSION

When reviewing and updating the Policy Statement on Cable Television: Canadian Broadcasting, "A Single System", to include the entire BDU and broadcaster compensation regime, the ultimate beneficiary should be the Canadian audience, including those requiring the additional accompaniment of accessible content. Therefore, while deliberating on compensation, the CRTC should ensure senior citizens, English- and French-as-a-second-language learners, illiterate, deaf, hard of hearing and vision impaired Canadian's get full access to Canadian broadcasting.

Thank you for allowing MEDIAC INC. to provide this written submission. MEDIAC Inc. would like to appear before the Commission at the December hearing to provide a more detailed plan for the provision of accessible content in Canadian broadcasting.

Sincerely yours,

Beverley Milligan
President and CEO
MEDIAC INC.

Top of page

CRTC SPEECH - 11 DEC 09

December 11 speech given at CRTC impact hearings by Beverley Milligan

An Impact and Opportunities Analysis using MEDIAC INC.'s ACCESSIBILITY LENS

11 December 2009

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and Commission staff, and as this is the last day of this hearing, allow me to wish all of you the best for the coming holidays
Thank you for inviting MEDIAC INC. to speak today on the impact and opportunities of CRTC recommendations for implementing a compensation regime for the value of local television signals
First, a bit about MEDIAC INC.
MEDIAC specializes in policy analysis, standards and best practices, marketing and research in the area of all broadband activities related to the creation and delivery of accessible content. By 'accessible' I am referring to broadcast content that can be understood by Canadian consumers with hearing or visual impairments, as well as by those learning English and French as a second language.
As the President and CEO of MEDIAC, I have 25 years of working first as an accessibility advocate, then as the head of an on-air captioning sales and brokerage firm, as the creator and owner of the existing captioning standard from which the cab currently works - and finally now as a business-to-business consulting firm with a broadcast expertise in accessibility which is needed by one fifth, or 20% of the North American population.
My main purpose in wanting to appear before you is to emphasize the importance of continuity of enforcement by the CRTC in its regulatory approach to broadcasting.
More than thirty years ago, in mid-July 1971, the Commission concluded that "broadcasting cannot survive by technology alone", and that "the most perfect electromagnetic signal into every Canadian home is without value unless it bears a message." And based on this conclusion you set the priority carriage requirements for cable systems 'basic service'.
In particular, you said that "while cable television operators may argue they are really only selling an antenna service, sophisticated as it is, the subscribers are buying not antennas but programs" and that cable systems should pay program suppliers because one should pay for what one uses in one's business.
But in the 1970s the CRTC did not enforce its user-pay policy, because TV stations earned more than three times as much as cable companies. But with the precedents of pass-through and non-pass-through fees in more recent years, and the financial strength of our BDU sector, you are well-placed to re-evaluate this decision.
To MEDIAC, the issue is not whether BDUs should pay TV broadcasters, but whether you should enforce your own previous decisions, while ensuring that the rates subscribers pay are fair and reasonable.
In the coming years our broadcasting systems needs regulation that is not just based in public policy serving the public interest, but that is also actually enforced. Regulation that is not enforced, or that is enforced to the benefit of one sector alone, will weaken our broadcasting system.
As matters now stand, in 2009, the tables have turned between BDUs and TV stations. BDU revenues are more than twice as large as the country's TV stations' revenues, and the stations' inability to access a revenue source you promised almost forty years ago is now affecting their very existence.
Imagine then, how this will affect the industries who feed into these larger TV companies, whose existence is threatened.
We begin our impact analysis with some facts about accessibility in the context of existing CRTC policy, and then move on to opportunities.
First, to state the obvious, you have recognized that without accessibility mandated through conditions of licence and decisions like 2009-430, Canada's broadcasting industries did not voluntarily provide accessible content to its consumers.
Without regulation we had negligible levels of descriptive video on SAP, poor quality of accessible content and just to drive home this point, currently, the lack of accessible content functionality on the web sites of broadcasters and BDUs for programs previously broadcast with accessible content.
The wonders of broadband and wireless technology have inevitably created disruptive innovation, where industries, associations and business models either collapse or change significantly to address the rapidly shifting economies.
We should also acknowledge that approximately 95% of all accountability for accessible content rests with the Canadian broadcaster directly or through the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
Unfortunately, consolidated media ownership is changing the priorities of industry associations like the CAB, the Canadian Satellite Users Association and others. As these organizations change, their ability and mandate to address accessibility will also change.
Similarly, your decision to deregulate advertising time has devalued commercial airtime, including the value of accessible content sponsorship airtime like "closed captioning brought to you by..." While allowing broadcasters to sell more advertising time probably seemed like a good way to grow their share of the advertising pie, the counterintuitive effect was to reduce the value placed on each advertising minute.
And while organizations such as the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association will pick up some of the work previously done by the CAB and others, these organizations have little experience in broadcasters' approach to accessibility issues.
Without thoughtful regulation founded on our past achievements, Canadian consumers risk losing many of the gains that took so much effort to achieve. We therefore ask that your recommendations to the government ensure that visually- or hearing-impaired consumers' access to their own broadcasting system is improved, rather than diminished.
Opportunities do exist for the CRTC to ensure accessible content continues to be solidly grounded in coming years.
The CRTC can invite the government to direct that if any sector of the broadcasting system obtains access to new revenues, whether through advertising or a compensation for value regime, a small percentage of these revenues be allocated to a trust or fund,
- which would create, monitor and report on the implementation of best practices standards for accessible content,
- which would act on complaints and work with consumer accessibility organizations; and
- which would support the growth of an accessible content production industry through certification, workshops dialogue and referrals.
By adopting this recommendation, the government could maintain and improve accessibility of content to the one in five Canadians with visual or auditory challengers. Times like these offer the best opportunities for change to benefit all Canadians, and all industry sectors.
MEDIAC therefore invites the CRTC to use this proceeding to report and recommend to the government the fundamental necessity of policies, standards, compliance methodologies, liaison and support that consumers and producers of accessible content require.
Supporting our no-cost proposal for funding an accessibility monitor will help the CRTC and the government ensure that all Canadians - not just those with excellent hearing and vision - can access our broadcasting system.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to respond to your questions.

Top of page

MEDIAC 2009-614 final reply

18 December 2009

Mr. Robert Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2

VIA E-mail Upload

Dear Secretary General

Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-614

Thank you for the opportunity for MEDIAC INC. to follow-up on questions asked during our appearance at the public hearings on 11 December 2009.

MEDIAC INC. is a Canadian accessibility specialty firm providing research, analysis, standards development and marketing services in the communications, entertainment and cultural industries. We made both written and verbal submissions in the December proceeding.
During our appearance before the Commission, Chairman von Finckenstein asked how much Canadians would or should be prepared to pay in order to retain their local television services.
In our view, neither consumers in general nor Canadians with accessibility issues should have to pay additional fees to retain their local television services. First, BDUs should absorb such fees as part of their costs of doing business. Second, Canadians already pay for their local television services directly through Parliamentary appropriations for the CBC, and indirectly through TV advertising (as the costs of TV advertising are passed through to those who buy the goods and services being advertised; and because TV advertising imposes non-financial costs on TV audiences who must accept the advertising so as to receive the 'free' TV content).
Nevertheless, the evidence on the record of this proceeding clearly establishes that our existing television system requires direct intervention from the CRTC in the shape of additional revenue streams.
The CRTC's licensing of hundreds of new television programming services since the late 1980s has fundamentally altered the over-the-air TV business model first introduced half a century ago. Canadians who rely on their local television services not just for daily news and entertainment, but also for emergency notifications, simply cannot risk the loss of yet more TV stations because of changes in the business model of TV which were brought about by the CRTC.
MEDIAC therefore recommends that the federal government direct the CRTC to resume more direct supervision and regulation of BDU rates, as it is clear from BDUs' significant rate increases in the last decade that competition in this sector has still not yet progressed to the point where marketplace competition between BDUs restrains price increases. Meanwhile, competition in the TV sector has progressed past the point where local TV stations have been shuttered. By regulating basic service rates the CRTC would ensure that BDUs do not merely pass through rates increases purely to generate additional profits, and that Canadians' ability to pay is respected.
MEDIAC also recommends that the federal government direct the CRTC to provide over-the-air TV broadcasters with access to a value for signal negotiation regime, and we support the Chairman's suggestion of a $0.25 per signal, per subscriber monthly fee as we assume that the Commission has evidence to justify this figure.
However, MEDIAC also recommends that the federal government ensure that $0.05 per signal, per subscriber, per month be allocated to an accessibility fund, to ensure that all Canadians - with or without accessibility issues - are able to access the over-the-air programming services for which they would now be paying. We note that the creation of this fund would ensure that Canadians receive more accessible for their monthly subscription fees, than they do now, and would also benefit TV broadcasters and BDUs by providing them with information and tools to improve the quality and quantity of the accessible content they must provide to Canadians.
MEDIAC therefore asks that the CRTC report to the federal government our recommendation that it should direct the Commission to establish a fund to
1. Establish and maintain open/non-proprietary best practices for the production of accessible content
2. Coordinate collaboration of industry stakeholders to increase levels accessible programming content
3. Create and implement marketing plan for an accessible Canada the puts Canada in the international arena
4. Participate in technical standards development, and work toward international and national harmonization of accessible production standards through engineering and standards development committees
5. Educate and support consumers with accessibility issues about the analog-to-digital transition, and convergence between broadcasting and telecommunications
6. Receive and respond to accessibility-related complaints
7. Audit the descriptive video and closed-captioning production industry, and certify accessible content production houses
8. Work with tools developers
9. Provide quantitative and qualitative reports on accessibility in Canadian programming
10. Broker, on behalf of the broadcasting industry, government and independent producers, large volume content buys through RFP's for volume discount.
11. Assist in identifying and supporting the creation of access content production tools for multi platform distribution
12. Work with academic institutions to develop curriculum for captioning and descriptive video writers and editors, and
13. Advise government, CRTC and others on key issues related to accessibility in broadband industry
Challenging times such as these offer the best opportunities for change that can benefit all Canadians, and all industry sectors.
MEDIAC therefore invites the CRTC to use this proceeding to report to the government about the fundamental necessity of policies, standards, compliance methodologies, liaison and support that consumers and producers require to ensure the availability of high-quality accessible content. Our no-cost proposal for funding an accessibility monitor will ensure that all Canadians - not just those with excellent hearing and vision - can access our broadcasting system.

Thank you for allowing MEDIAC INC. and other parties to provide their final recommendations in this proceeding. Should the CRTC require additional information about the accessibility fund proposed by MEDIAC, for the purposes of its report to the Governor in Council, MEDIAC INC. would be happy to provide this information.

Sincerely yours,

[original signed by]

Beverley Milligan
President and CEO
MEDIAC INC.
110 Pricefield Road
Toronto, ON
M4W 1Z9
416-488-9521 [tel]

Top of page

MEDIAC submission on BNOC 2009-602 Phase 2 (final) 22 Jan.

22 January 2010

Mr. Robert Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2

VIA FAX

Dear Secretary General

Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-602 - Phase 2

MEDIAC INC. is pleased to provide its comments on the second phase of CRTC's proposed rules of procedure for broadcasting and telecommunications.

As noted in our phase 1 comments, MEDIAC is a Canadian accessibility specialty firm providing research, analysis, standards development and marketing services in the communications, entertainment and cultural industries. Its Accessibility Lens products and services offer compliance reporting; inclusive public policy and regulatory analysis, development and reporting; and business strategy solutions.
Like others, MEDIAC welcomes the CRTC's decision to modernize its procedural rules. We suggest that because of the complexity of the rules - particularly the merging of the telecommunications with the broadcasting rules - the CRTC should add one more phase to this process, so as to provide interested parties to take one final look at the Commission's final proposal.
The first of our three specific concerns in relation to other parties' comments involves accessibility. The Bragg cable company has asked the Commission to clarify the wording of subsection 21(2)(h) concerning "any reasonable accommodation" that interveners require to participate at public hearings. Bragg says that it
- ... anticipates that the Commission's intention in formulating subsection 21(2)(h) was to provide for reasonable accommodation of those who have disabilities that might affect their ability to fully participate in Commission proceedings, who may require an interpreter or who would not be able to attend a hearing other than by way of teleconference. However, the current wording of subsection 21(2)(h) is not limited to those situations. As a result, Bragg is concerned about potential misuse or confusion regarding that provision and submits that it may be helpful to provide clarification to the wording of subsection 21(2)(h) by listing examples of the type of accommodation that would be required.
We agree that the Commission should provide some clarification in the notice introducing its final Rules of Procedure, but point to the fact that the Commission specifically included the word "reasonable" in this section. We do not believe the section as phrased will result in abuse of the CRTC's hearing process by the disabled, and we are somewhat concerned that a more extensive list of the examples of the type of accommodation required may lead people to consider the list of examples to be exhaustive. As a result, we do not support Bragg's suggestion.

We have also noted the comments by Astral and Corus, regarding the cost of ensuring accessibility:
- 53. In short, based on paragraph 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act, we submit that a "reasonableness" test that takes into consideration resources available for the purpose should be applied to any request for the production of a document in alternative format. This means that the Commission should determine the reasonableness of the request taking into account the associated cost and the ability of the party to fulfill the request, based on the resources that are currently available in the market. It also means that the party should, where appropriate, be able to propose the production of the document in a different manner than that requested, provided that it is comparable in terms of access.
- 54. Accordingly, Astral and Corus recommend that, before issuing an order to a party to produce a document in alternative format, the Commission should provide that party with an opportunity to address the reasonableness of providing the document as requested. In those cases where the production of a document in alternative format is either unfeasible or cost-prohibitive, the party will be able to file the particulars with the Commission and to offer a reasonable alternative. The Commission will make a final decision on the basis of the information filed.
We are concerned that the Commission may lack the expertise required to assess properly arguments about the costs of generating alternative formats. We are also concerned that the disabled party who actually needs the alternative format, would under the recommendation above, actually be excluded from the debate over costs and reasonableness.

We therefore urge the Commission that if it wishes to initiate a debate about the costs of providing alternative formats to the disabled in the context of a specific proceeding, it must obtain and access the relevant expertise in this area. We recommend that the CRTC ensure that the disabled party is also permitted to comment, and that the Commission also contact a third party with expertise in this area so as to elicit their views. Simply accepting one side's argument that providing alternative formats for the disabled is prohibited by cost, does not permit verification of the true costs involved or the final benefits.
Our second specific concern relates to policy hearings. MEDIAC's first submission asked the Commission to clarify the proceedings it holds to consider policies and regulatory frameworks. We were pleased to see that several other parties, including Telus and Rogers, also made this recommendation. Clear procedural guidelines and rules will greatly assist parties who are less familiar with the CRTC's practices than broadcasters of longstanding, and MEDIAC therefore strongly supports the introduction of specific sections in the CRTC's Rules of Procedure for policy hearings.
Our third and last point involves the CRTC's reliance on outside bodies for the implementation of some of its policies. With the disappearance almost ten years ago of the Canadian Cable Television Association, Canadians and the CRTC lost access to a valuable non-governmental body able to provide the Commission with research and information about the broadcasting industry. It is now rumoured that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, having lost half of its staff in the last year, may also be radically restructured.
If the CRTC decides to explain (in an associated Regulatory Policy) its new Rules of Procedure, MEDIAC suggests that the Commission consider a brief clarification of the CRTC's intentions concerning the development of the many codes and standards it has delegated to the CAB. The CRTC first addressed the issue of industry codes in Public Notice CRTC 1988-13 ("Guidelines for Developing Industry-Administered Standards"):
- ... industry and related groups are now encouraged to assume greater responsibility in such areas as subliminal advertising, advertising in newscasts, promotions, quizzes and lotteries. In addition, the Commission expects the parties concerned to assume greater responsibility for improvements in the broadcasting system, particularly with respect to social issues of public concern...
The CRTC concluded that "industry groups" and 'broadcasting sectors' would respond to its requests to develop and report on the implementation of various industry standards:
- Having considered the comments received in response to Public Notices CRTC 1987-9 and CRTC 1987-205, and following its own deliberations on the matter, the Commission has established a revised set of guidelines to assist in the development of industry standards which would apply only in the following circumstances, namely where:
1. the Commission requests a particular broadcasting sector to develop an industry standard and indicates that Commission acceptance should be received; or
2. a licensee or related industry group submits a standard and requests the Commission's acceptance.
  
  Accordingly, having concluded its process of consultation with respect to the Guidelines for Developing Industry Standards, the Commission hereby issues the following revised guidelines:
  1. in developing the proposed standard, the industry should address the concerns which the Commission would indicate had led it to request that a standard be developed, and state the purpose or purposes of the standard. Such purpose might be to sensitize or educate members of the industry and the public, to serve as a guide in any pre-clearance process, to improve programming content, to deal with social issues or respond to complaints;
  2. the industry should define the type of standard to be developed, specify to whom the standard will apply, and establish the means and criteria for achieving the standard;
  3. the industry should describe in some detail the extent of the public participation in establishing the standard and making significant amendments, how the standard will be administered, what sanctions will apply and what corrective action will be taken in the event of non-compliance, and any appeal process associated with it;
  4. the Commission will wish to be satisfied that the industry standard and any amendments to it have been developed pursuant to a fair consultative process. Moreover, where the Commission has so indicated, it will wish to be satisfied that members of the public are involved in deciding whether the standard has been met;
  5. the industry standard and any subsequent amendments to it should be submitted to the Commission for acceptance;
  6. a report dealing with the progress of the licensees in applying the industry standard, including the disposition of any complaints, should be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis.
Given the changes in our broadcasting industry over the past decade, marked by fewer but much larger broadcasting groups, as well as and the loss of major broadcasting industry associations, MEDIAC recommends that the Commission revisit this policy within its Rules of Procedure to explain the process it will use to solicit, establish measure and enforce broadcasting standards.

Thank you for allowing MEDIAC INC. to provide this written reply to other parties' comments. We look forward to your determinations in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

[original signed by]

Beverley Milligan
President and CEO
MEDIAC INC.
110 Pricefield Road
Toronto, ON
M4W 1Z9
416-488-9521 [tel]

Top of page

CRTC Submissions

On this page:

Submission CRTC 2009-614 Order in Council

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

CRTC SPEECH - 11 DEC 09

December 11 speech given at CRTC impact hearings by Beverley Milligan

An Impact and Opportunities Analysis using MEDIAC INC.'s ACCESSIBILITY LENS

MEDIAC 2009-614 final reply

MEDIAC submission on BNOC 2009-602 Phase 2 (final) 22 Jan.

Learn More