Rogers Cable Communications Inc

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-661

Review of Community Television Policy Framework

Submission of Rogers Cable Communications Inc.

February 1, 2010

Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 3

II. COMMUNITY CHANNEL OBJECTIVES...... 6

III. THE CABLE COMMUNITY CHANNEL MODEL ...... 21 a) The Existing Model Works and Must be Maintained...... 21 b) Ownership of the Community Channel...... 23

IV. OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED TELEVISION UNDERTAKINGS...... 25

V. THE POLICY IS WORKING ...... 26 a) Funding for BDU-Operated Community Channels...... 26 b) Promotion of Access Opportunities...... 28

VI. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ...... 29

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE 2002 COMMUNITY TV FRAMEWORK...... 29 a. General Objectives...... 29 b. BDU-Operated Community Channels ...... 32 c. Independently-Operated Community-Based Television Services ...... 33 d. Direct-to-Home Satellite Services ...... 36

2. ACCESS PROGRAMMING...... 38

3. FUNDING OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING...... 40 a. Advertising...... 40 b. Local Programming Improvement Fund...... 43 c. BDU Contributions ...... 44

4. NEW TECHNOLOGIES...... 48 a. VOD ...... 48 b. New Media...... 49 c. Official-Language Minority Communities (OLMCs)...... 51 d. High-Definition Content ...... 52

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers) believes that a review of the Commission’s policy framework for community television is an important exercise and is pleased to provide comments in reference to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-661.1 As with other elements of the Canadian broadcasting system, community programming must evolve if it is to remain relevant to Canadians and continue to play an important part of the Canadian media landscape. While the existing policy has been a great success – due in large part to the CRTC’s policy changes of 2002 – this is an opportunity to assess the framework in the larger context of the entire broadcasting system.

2. The Broadcasting Act (the Act) makes two references to community broadcasting. Section 3(1)(b) states that: “the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty”. Section 3(1)(l)(iii) notes that “the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should…include educational and community programs.”

3. Forty-three years ago, the cable industry pioneered the concept of community access programming. We did not do this at the insistence of the government or the Commission. Rather, we recognized that a community channel plays an important role in providing our customers with an opportunity to express themselves and to connect with their neighbours. Since 1969, Rogers has shown unwavering commitment to community programming in the markets that we serve. Our 34 community channels, which are referred to as Rogers TV, serve as a vital outlet for truly local expression. Indeed, in many of the markets we serve in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, Rogers TV is the only television outlet for local expression. We fill a void in communities where conventional television has either never operated or has reduced or eliminated local programming in recent years.

4. In 2002, the Commission set out an integrated policy framework for community- based media2 (the Policy) with the following core objectives:

 to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally-produced, locally- reflective community programming; and

1 Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-661 – Review of Community Television Policy Framework, dated October 22, 2009 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-661.htm) (BNC 2009-661). 2 Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-61 – Policy framework for community-based media, dated October 10, 2002 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2002/pb2002-61.htm) (BPN 2002-61).

 to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating new entrants at the local level.

5. Further, the Commission reiterated specific roles and objectives for cable community channels. Since the Policy was established, Rogers’ community channels have met and often exceeded the Commission’s expectations. Since 2002, Rogers TV has produced 103,915 hours of original, local programming, and 135,387 community groups have accessed our channels to participate directly in the community programming process.

6. Rogers is very proud of these achievements. In meeting and, in many cases exceeding the objectives of the Act and the Commission’s Policy, Rogers TV has made immense contributions to the broadcasting system and, most importantly, to the communities we serve.

7. In the 2008 Diversity of Voices policy,3 the Commission stated its intention to review the Policy with the objective of ensuring that it continues to support the development of a healthy community broadcasting sector. The Commission also observed that stable funding was important in supporting the production of quality community programming.

8. In Section II of our submission, we outline how Rogers TV has embraced each of the Commission’s objectives under the Policy, establishing a local presence that is more relevant to members of the communities we serve than ever before. Some parties have recently called for an “open access” community television model that would exclude the participation of cable companies. In Section III we challenge that position and discuss how the coordinated access model, which has been the hallmark of successive Commission policies, strikes the right balance between maximizing direct community access to the television lineup and producing programming that is of high standard. Cable companies have long demonstrated their commitment to the production and presentation of quality community programming that complies with broadcasting industry codes, as well as the Commission’s policies on prohibited content. In Section IV, we discuss the policy for other community-based television undertakings.

9. Throughout this document, Rogers demonstrates that the Policy works. We also demonstrate that few changes are required to the Policy. In Section V, we propose a small modification in how cable companies are to promote the availability of access programming opportunities that enhances the intent of this objective. We also underline that in order to maintain the success that has been achieved to date, it is imperative that the Commission continue to provide cable community channels with an appropriate level of funding at 2% of broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) revenues. The Commission’s Policy, particularly the 2% funding mechanism, has been a success story and enables BDU-operated

3Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-4 – Diversity of Voices, dated January 15, 2008 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/pb2008-4.htm) (BPN 2008-4), paragraphs 169-173.

community channels to operate as effective providers of true local programming in hundreds of communities across Canada.

10. Finally, in Section VI, Rogers addresses the Commission’s specific questions. In the course of providing our answers, we set out our position on a number of key issues that can be summarized as follows:

 Rogers believes that provided that funding for community channels remains at the existing level of 2% of gross broadcasting revenues, the Commission should maintain its policy on advertising. The continued stable funding provided by the 2% BDU contribution, combined with the current use of credit, sponsorship or contra messages as promotional vehicles, is sufficient funding for community channels to carry out their roles and objectives. There is, therefore, no need to change the Policy with respect to advertising.

 Rogers does not support expanding Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF) eligibility to subsidize the production of community programming. The LPIF is a temporary measure to support the provision of local programming by conventional over-the-air (OTA) television stations in smaller markets. As long as the LPIF exists, the funding should be targeted to address this specific purpose. A broader distribution of the funding would only dilute its effectiveness. We are also strongly opposed to directing any portion of BDU contributions currently allocated to the production of community programming to the LPIF. We believe that the Commission’s policies should safeguard the success and contributions of community channels. Redirecting funding to LPIF would not guarantee more or better local programming and it would certainly weaken the community programming model.

 Rogers further rejects any proposal that a BDU should redirect any portion of its not-for-profit, 100% Canadian programming, community channel budget to support the operation of a commercial television undertaking (i.e. community based low-power television and digital services). The portion of a BDU’s revenues allocated to these community channels is used to fund the operation of what the Commission has recognized to be an important public service and source of Canadian programming. In our case, any proposal to divert all or part of this funding would directly impair Rogers’ ability to fulfill the objectives of the Act

11. Rogers believes that the review initiated by BNC 2009-661 is necessary, given the uncertainty in the industry as a whole, as highlighted during the Commission’s recent proceeding on group-based licensing.4 That said, we consider that the

4 Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-411 – Policy proceeding on a group-based approach to the licensing of television services and on certain issues relating to conventional television, dated July 6, 2009 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-411.htm) (BNC 2009-411).

existing Policy has been a tremendous success. It has resulted in a vibrant community programming sector within the Canadian broadcasting system. For the most part, we believe the Policy should be maintained subject to our comments and proposals noted below.

II. COMMUNITY CHANNEL OBJECTIVES

12. In its policy framework for BDU-operated community channels, the Commission set out the following objectives:

 engender a high level of citizen participation and community involvement in community programming;  actively promote citizen access to the community channel and provide and promote the availability of related training programs;  provide feedback mechanisms, such as advisory boards, to encourage viewer response to the range and types of programs aired;  seek out innovative ideas and alternative views;  provide a reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern;  reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the community;  provide coverage of local events; and  publicize the program schedule.

13. As part of the Commission’s oversight in this area, Rogers files detailed spending reports annually. However, this review provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate specifically how Rogers has met and often exceeded the Commission’s policy objectives for community channels within our funding limits.

OBJECTIVE 1: Engender a high level of citizen participation and community involvement in community programming

14. Citizen participation and community involvement are the touchstones of Rogers TV’s entire approach to community programming. Our local community channels can only exist with the constant and deep involvement of the communities we serve.

15. Our 34 stations actively solicit citizen participation through a variety of means, including on-air appeals, community outreach initiatives, an outstanding school liaison program and even annual talent searches and open calls for auditions, often held in local shopping malls.

16. As the following six sub-sections demonstrate, the results are clear.

a) Community Groups

17. Since 2003, Rogers TV has more than doubled the number of appearances on our channels by community groups, going from 12,040 community groups in 2003/04 when the new policy came into practice, to 29,121 community groups in 2008/09 – a 142% increase in community group appearances overall. The sustained growth in the 2003 to 2009 period clearly attests to the strong levels of citizen participation in Rogers’ community channel programming.

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total Community Groups 12,040 13,138 15,968 17,319 25,086 29,121 112,672 Year-over-Year % Change 9% 22% 8% 45% 16% % growth from 2003 to 2009: 142% b) Volunteers

18. In the 2008-09 broadcast year, our stations benefited from the active participation of 2,028 volunteers. In return, our volunteers received thorough training in television production and a great social experience. Since 2003, an average of 1,903 active volunteers contributed to our programming each year. That represents a 6:1 volunteer to employee ratio. Members of our volunteer corps vary greatly in age and they come to us from all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. Their skill sets differ widely as well. While many Rogers TV volunteers get involved in order to acquire television production skills, others already have experience in broadcasting and are looking for different opportunities on production crews. Still others simply want to give back to their local communities by volunteering their time and talents, and they have found an enriching way of doing just that at Rogers TV. c) Program Proposals

19. Individuals also participate at Rogers TV by submitting program proposals. During the 2008-09 broadcast year, Rogers TV received a total of 1,712 program proposals; 50% of these were accepted and resulted in exposure on the community channel. d) Access Programming

20. In many cases, multiple-episode series are pitched and eventually produced for airing on the community channel. Such was the case in 2005 when Acadian musician, cartoonist and Moncton resident Daniel "Dano" Leblanc approached his local Rogers TV station. Mr. Leblanc wanted to produce an animated series featuring a character he created called Acadieman, the first-ever Acadian super hero. The animated TV series quickly earned both a cult-like following and awards from the Yorkton Short Film and Video Festival and the “Festival de Film Francophone en Acadie”.

21. Rogers TV community channels also air series by independent producers. This season, Rogers TV Toronto is where viewers will find The Film Student, a 7-part, 30 minute series in partnership with George Brown College. Toronto students learn the art of short film making and their training, behind the scenes production and final results are showcased on each episode. The series is produced by Toronto’s Massey Bros. Films. In 2005, the Massey brothers - Hart and Yale – also produced Hart of the Annex, a serial comedy about the exploits of an unemployed actor working at a vintage clothing store. The series aired on Rogers TV and was labeled “The King of Kensington of the next generation” by The Toronto Star TV critic Rob Salem.

22. In London, Ontario, students from Western University and Fanshawe College have both found a home on Rogers TV’s programming schedule. TV Fanshawe on Campus and tvWestern.ca are both produced by students. They are delivered to Rogers TV and air on our local station every week. e) Public Service Announcements (PSAs)

23. In 2009, 540,505 thirty-second PSA messages were aired on Rogers TV’s community channels. If one assigns a modest value of just $25 per airing, this represents over $13.5 million in exposure for the featured charities, causes and not-for-profit organizations. f) Online Community Response

24. Many of our channels use an online community response tool feature on their respective websites to gauge interest in topics and solicit reaction to local or timely issues. The captured results are then included in local programming to set the stage for more in-depth reporting or discussions on the issue.

OBJECTIVE 2: Actively promote citizen access to the community channel and provide and promote the availability of related training programs a) Cable Bill Inserts/Bill Messages

25. Since 2003, Rogers TV has been promoting access to our community channels and our volunteer training programs directly to Rogers Cable customers. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, printed inserts were produced and distributed inside cable customers’ invoices. Then, from 2006 to 2009 inclusively, Rogers TV took a more environmentally-friendly, cost-effective approach, reaching this group via a message printed on the actual invoices instead of a separate paper insert.

26. Immediately below is the creative for the 2009 bill message promoting volunteer training opportunities and encouraging program proposals. It was included on the

December invoices for all Rogers Cable customers, both those receiving printed bills and those who now receive their invoices electronically.

b) Outreach to Schools and Participation in School Fairs

27. In 2009, Rogers TV’s community channels continued our wide array of volunteer recruitment activities, promoting the opportunities for free training seminars and hands-on experiences on our production crews. The outreach extended to presentations at schools and participation in career fairs, including:

 35 sessions at high schools;  9 sessions at colleges and universities; and  8 sessions at other venues (i.e. shopping malls).

28. The Rogers TV community channel in Barrie participates in the city’s Municipal Library program for teens. A Rogers TV producer provides free editing workshops and training is conducted on-location at the library.

c) Co-op Education Programs

29. Rogers TV’s community channels have embraced co-op education programs, accepting students who come to us in search of an enriched learning experience.

In the 2008-09 broadcast season, a total of 203 high school, college and university students completed co-op placements at our community channels. d) Volunteer Involvement

30. Since the current policy came into effect in 2003-04, there has been a 15% growth in the number of active volunteers at Rogers TV’s community channels.

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Average Active Volunteers 1,766 2,092 1,876 2,006 1,649 2,028 1,903 Year-over-Year % Change 18% -10% 7% -18% 23% % growth from 2003 to 2009: 15% NOTE: In 2008-09, in addition to Active Volunteers, the average number of interns and co-ops at Rogers TV was 203. If this is added to the average Active Volunteers, the new average would be 2,106.

OBJECTIVE 3: Provide feedback mechanisms, such as advisory boards, to encourage viewer response to the range and types of programs aired

31. At the end of every single Rogers TV program, a Viewer Response video message is included (sample freeze-frame below), encouraging feedback and providing different methods for doing so.

32. Dedicated phone lines with voicemail and dedicated email addresses exist at each individual Rogers TV station. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed accounting of viewer response received in 2009.

33. While these traditional methods generated well over 6,000 comments from viewers in 2009 alone, Rogers TV goes even further to ensure we capture our viewers’ feedback, an essential tool for providing relevant community programming. The coordinates for each community channel’s Station Manager are readily available on our website. Producers are also listed on our website, both in the staff directory and associated with each show they produce. Viewers can and do contact the Producers directly with their feedback and ideas for future episodes

OBJECTIVE 4: Seek out innovative ideas and alternative views a) User-Generated Content

34. In recent years, digital recording devices have become more accessible than ever before. In order to further encourage alternate views and involve even more people in the community television process, Rogers TV has made several attempts to solicit user-generated videos to air on the community channels.

35. In Waterloo Region in 2006, Reel Shorts was launched, a combination movie- review show and showcase for short film and video works of local producers. A weekly mini-film festival of sorts, each episode provided a new line up of short works, ranging from comedy, to sci-fi, animations, drama and much more. Despite extensive promotion on and off the channel, as well as via a Facebook profile, the series only generated about 27 videos which were not enough to sustain a regular series.

36. The experience of Toronto’s Real Wedding Videos was similar. The series was launched in September 2008 and promoted extensively in an effort to solicit videos from the public. The call for videos started in August with on-air promos airing on Rogers TV Toronto and messages posted on rogerstv.com’s Toronto homepage. The campaign included a print advertising buy in November 2008 and a booth on the floor of Canada’s Bridal Show, held January 9-11, 2009 in Toronto.

37. Despite these efforts, we did not receive enough videos to sustain a weekly or even a monthly episode and the series was discontinued.

38. Undeterred, Rogers TV’s community channels continue to seek new and innovative ways to involve more people and their points of view. The website is regularly used to poll viewers on topics to be featured in local public affairs programming, and a contest is now being used to help drive user-generated video submissions. b) Program Proposals

39. Rogers TV’s Program Proposal Form is now available online, in a convenient field- driven format that helps gather the key information our community channels need

to evaluate each idea. In the 2008-09 broadcast season, 1,712 proposals were received, including 831 submitted via the online tool.

c) Within Existing Programs

40. Beyond ensuring a balanced approach to our programming, Rogers TV strives to engage the local viewing audience as a means of exploring truly local issues. Many shows feature a call-in component which gives viewers the opportunity to weigh in and give their opinion on issues of importance to them.

41. On October 14, 2008, during Rogers TV’s federal election night coverage, the community channels went one step further. They provided a text-to-screen experience for viewers. They were invited to comment on their local election results by using their wireless phones to send a keyword and their comments to a short code in order to have their comments appear on television during the program.

OBJECTIVE 5: Provide a reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern

42. Rogers TV is proud of the efforts made by each of our community channels in providing balanced coverage of local public affairs. Our coverage is ongoing, fair and, particularly, thorough.

43. When Toronto municipal workers went on strike on June 22, 2009, Rogers TV Toronto provided complete coverage. The strike continued for a remarkable 37 hot and malodorous summer days. When other broadcasters limited coverage of the strike to a few short clips on their newscasts, Rogers TV stayed with the story, providing daily call-in shows to give frustrated Torontonians a voice. Both sides of the dispute made appearances during Rogers TV’s coverage, presenting their positions and taking calls from viewers. The marathon effort cemented Rogers TV Toronto’s reputation for complete coverage of key local public issues.

44. During election coverage, our stations go to great lengths and find innovative ways to ensure all candidates are fairly profiled during the campaign. In New Brunswick, during the 2008 federal campaign, the Rogers TV mobile production vehicle toured the province to tape all-candidate debates in several communities. Commenting on Rogers TV Ottawa’s coverage of the 2006 Ontario municipal election, Ottawa City Clerk and Chief Returning Officer, Pierre Pagé, had this to say:

45. Not only is Rogers TV’s public affairs programming thorough and balanced, it is also timely and effective. For example, in just the first 25 days of 2010, the Greater Toronto Area recorded 14 pedestrian deaths, a horrific statistic. On January 26, 2010, Rogers TV Toronto’s Goldhawk Live presented a full hour, open-line talk show about this disturbing figure, giving viewers an opportunity to weigh in on the issue and discuss “next step” options with local councillors, police and pedestrian advocacy representatives.

OBJECTIVE 6: Reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the community

46. Rogers TV’s community channels provide access programming in all markets and reflect the official languages, ethnic and Aboriginal composition of the communities we serve. For example, in keeping with Toronto and Ottawa’s rich cultural tapestries, our community channels there offer the widest selection of such access programming. Some of this programming is offered in native tongue, while other program producers choose to showcase their communities’ activities and issues in English in order to reach an even broader local audience.

Toronto

In Toronto, 25 groups produce programming that is seen in the “Mosaic” programming block as follows:

Show Name & Culture First Name Last Name of Producer “Serbian TV” Blagoja Ristic (Serbian) (Bob) “Voice of Lanka” Ranjit Wicks (Sri Lankan & Sinhalese) “Panorama Ten” Krzysztof Machulewski (Polish) “Deshi Television” Khan Monzoor-E-Khoda (Bengali) “Cultural Reflections” Kawall Bharrat (Guyanese / South Asian) “Lok Rang” Kirpal Singh Kanwal (Punjabi) “ASDA” Gaby Andraos (Lebanese) “Russian Proud Canadian” Vera Melekhova (Russian) “Mandarin Time” Joe Wang (Mandarin / Chinese) “Pro Ukraine” Victor Neskorozheny (Ukranian) “Macedonian Edition” Pobeda Piskaceva (Macedonian) “Bangla Television” M.D. Sazzad Ali (Bengali) “Angolanidade Neno Caidio (Angolan / Portuguese) “Persian Magazine” Fred Pourtaheri (Farsi) “Avramis Greek Show” Basil Avramis (Greek) “Canada Latino” Debora Guizar (Spanish) T.O. Latino” Shannon Rose (Italian) “AzCan TV” Akbar Majidov (Azerbijani) Mesopotamia TV Gurkan Ormangoren (Kurdish) Pinoy World Warren D'Aoust (Phillipino) Caribbean Show Paulton MacKenzie (Caribbean) Telugu Vijay Sastry Kotamarti (Telugu) South Asian Focus Diksha Pal Narayan (Punjabi, Urdu & Hindi)

Mississauga

In Mississauga, Rogers TV offers South Asian Focus TV on Tuesday evenings. We also offer Ontario Hockey League (OHL) coverage in Punjabi. In 2010, four OHL games between the Mississauga St. Michael’s Majors and the Brampton Battalion will be re-broadcast in Punjabi.

Ottawa

In Ottawa, 23 groups produce programs in 26 languages that are included in the “Ottawa’s Cultural Window” programming block, as follows:

Community Group Program Name Community Producer's Name Producer Represents

Armenian Culture Aram Adjemian Armenian Caribbean Calendar Ingrid John Baptiste various Caribbean Contact Japan Mariko Komae Japanese Desi Ottawa Jay Chadha & Deep Singh Shah South Asian Dhaquan Somali Ismail Hassan Somali Fontonfrom Sarah Onyango various African Hellenic Kaleidoscope Voula Buckthought Greek Hungarian Spectrum Magda Vass Hungarian Kaleidoscope Afghanistan Nafisa Zurmati Aghanistan Kaleidoscope Syria Nidal Elkadri Syrian Lebanese Variety Tony Yazbek Lebanese Polish Review Margaret Rachniowski Polish Projection Pakistan Qamar Masood Pakistan Reflections of China Mansu Ding Chinese - Madarin Revista Latinaamericana Gabriela Atkinson Lopez Latin American Russian Mosaic Yana Amis Russian Shalom Ottawa Benita Siemintycki Jewish Slovak Spectrum Jan George Frajkor Slovakian Sounds of India Madan Gopal Indian Tele-30 Giovanna Panico Italian Turkish Horizon Billur Khan Turkish Ukranian Profile Margaret Kopala Ukranian Voice of Egypt Hossam Abbass Egyptian

London

In London, Rogers TV offers a number of ethnocultural programs including: Al Magela Al Arabia on Saturdays at 1:30 pm; Espectacular on Sundays at 1 pm; and Magazine Latino on Saturdays at 1 pm.

York Region

In York Region, Rogers TV offers programming that serves the needs of the local Cantonese-speaking population. York Pulse, the first program offered by Rogers TV in Cantonese, offers news and event coverage, as well information about social services and tips from York Regional Police. York Pulse was developed as a resource that is relevant and reflective of the Chinese community in York Region.

47. Rogers TV’s community channels also ensure that the ethnic communities within the markets we serve are showcased on a regular basis through outstanding annual event coverage, including:

 Oktoberfest (Kitchener)  Christkindl Festival (Kitchener)  Caribram Festival (Brampton)  Festival Italiano (Guelph)  Greekfest Special (Ottawa)  Markham’s Annual Taste of Asia Street Festival (York Region)

48. In markets with active Aboriginal communities, Rogers TV ensures their voices are also heard.

49. In Ottawa, the TV Rogers series Pour tout l’amour du monde regularly provides episodes about issues of particular interest to the city’s Aboriginal communities and involves guests from those communities. Similarly, Rogers TV St. John’s flagship show, Out of the Fog, profiles Aboriginal people and issues. Please refer to Appendix B for details.

50. In Durham Region, Dufferin-Caledon and in Waterloo Region, Rogers TV’s community channels have produced coverage of Ontario Lacrosse Association (OLA) lacrosse matches involving teams from the 6 Nations. In 2007 and 2008, Rogers TV Ottawa provided coverage of the Aboriginal Hockey Championship.

51. In 2005-06 in Simcoe County and Grey County, a half-hour series titled Nish was produced in partnership with the people of the First Nations.

OBJECTIVE 7: Provide coverage of local events

52. Event television may be where Rogers TV’s community channels shine the brightest. Where local broadcasters rely on 30 second clips within short newscasts,

our long-form approach allows us the flexibility to provide full-length coverage of local events. We have made it part of our mission to ensure that our event coverage is the most comprehensive and timely available. We celebrate with our communities, mourn with them, and facilitate discussion with them when important local issues surface. a) Public Affairs

53. From March to October 2008, Rogers TV in St. John’s recorded daily proceedings of The Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing. From noon to 6 pm on every day of the Inquiry, the people of St. John’s could fully follow the proceedings. The station is now providing complete and ongoing coverage of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry.

54. As noted above, when Toronto municipal workers went on strike on June 22, 2009, Rogers TV Toronto provided complete coverage.

55. TV Rogers in Ottawa has taken a novel approach to event coverage, partnering with a downtown theatre to build a media space where community groups can come and instantly have their news conferences, event launches or panel discussions presented live-to-air. The events are then archived on the station’s website, as a permanent record and reference.

56. For municipal, provincial and federal elections, Rogers TV’s community channels focus their attention squarely on local ridings, local candidates and local results. While commercial broadcasters often provide a regional or even a national perspective, viewers rely on Rogers TV to deliver the most comprehensive local coverage.

57. In August 2007, York Regional Police lost Constable Robert Plunkett who was killed while making an arrest in York Region. A funeral to honour Rob was to be pulled together on the August long weekend and Rogers TV, on short notice, played a large role in providing support to organize a funeral that would be attended by over 7,000 officers from across Canada and the USA. York Regional Police commended Rogers TV for the manner in which this tragic event was covered, balancing the community’s need to know with respect for the family’s need for privacy.

58. More recently, the citizens of Ottawa mourned the loss of Ottawa Police Constable Eric Czapnik, killed while on duty in late December 2009. Rogers TV contributed production resources and talent to the pool feed for Constable Czapnik’s funeral and was the only television station to cover the ceremony live in its entirety, a fact that was not lost on viewers as demonstrated by the following unsolicited email we received:

-----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:44 PM Subject: THANK YOU: coverage of Czapnik Funeral

Message from: Cathy Worden

Comments or questions: Thank you for your local and COMPLETE coverage of timely local events such as the Czapnik funeral in Ottawa, today, January 7, 2010. I live in Toronto and so could not attend the ceremony in person. Rogers was the ONLY station that carried the proceedings in their entirety (parade march, ceremony, final parade & drive-by).

It was important for me to be able to watch the Czapnik ceremony. My brother, RCMP Cst Christopher Worden, was killed while on duty in Hay River, NWT in the Fall of 2007. /…/ I was grateful for the coverage of my brother's funeral and am grateful today for the coverage of a ceremony that meant so much to me and for which I was required to rely on TV technology in order to observe.

Thank you and please keep up this type of coverage. It is SO important for community engagement and involvement.

Cathy Worden Sister, RCMP Cst Christopher Worden

b) Sporting Events

59. Every August, only Rogers TV in St. John’s provides a full day of ongoing live coverage of the Royal St. John’s Regatta, North America’s longest running sporting event.

60. Since 2001, Rogers TV stations in Ontario have joined forces every holiday season to produce Hometown Hockey on Rogers TV, a week-long showcase for minor and junior hockey.

61. Rogers TV is the destination of choice for high school sports. In Ottawa and in Mississauga, students themselves are involved in all aspects of the production including hosting the weekly half-hour magazine series, High School Sportszone, a showcase for the city's high school athletes, the week's match-ups and standings. Similarly, in Toronto and in Simcoe County, the weekly series High School Rush provides a full update on high school athletics every week. A wide variety of high school sports - from basketball to rugby, volleyball and football - is also included in the Game of the Week showcase. That ongoing exposure is further enhanced by coverage of regional and provincial championships where local student athletes are involved. Every fall, for example, Rogers TV presents the OFSAA Football Bowls. Our community channel is on location with full mobile production teams to cover these championship games live for local viewers in the featured teams' communities.

62. Rogers TV community channels in Barrie and Ottawa have covered their respective local Sports Hall of Fame induction ceremonies and dinners for several years. In Toronto, Rogers TV covers the annual Conn Smythe Sports Celebrity Dinner, a fundraiser for Easter Seals.

c) Annual Events

63. Because of the deep roots we have within the local communities we serve, community groups and event organizers rely on Rogers TV to assist in promoting upcoming events and to be there to bring the festivities to the wider viewing audience. Our relationships with community groups have been nurtured over several years and, in some cases, over several decades, as demonstrated by these examples:

 Coverage of Santa Claus Parades in 31 communities in December 2009;

 Coverage of Rotary TV Auctions in York Region for the past 30 years; and

 Coverage of the annual Martin Luther King Tribute, honouring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King and offering music and inspiration for today’s black youth. The event has aired on Rogers TV Toronto every February since 2002.

64. These represent only a token sample of the types of local annual events seen on Rogers TV’s community channels. In 2009, our 14 mobile production vehicles were on location on 2007 separate occasions, providing coverage of big-ticket and smaller grassroots – but always truly local – events.

OBJECTIVE 8: Publicize the program schedule

65. Rogers TV employs every means at our disposal - and we are particularly creative within our limited budget - to ensure our local programming schedules are publicized and widely accessible.

66. Our robust website (www.rogerstv.com) provides detailed program schedules for each individual Rogers TV community channel. Online, our broadcast schedules are dynamically-driven so that whenever a change is made in the schedule, the website is instantly updated. Schedule pages are easy to find and easy to use. They generate the most traffic on our websites every month.

67. We capitalize on Rogers Cable’s interactive program guide (IPG) by submitting detailed, episode-specific descriptions. Tune-in promotions air on the TV Guide channel and on the U.S. local availabilities.

68. In 2008, Rogers TV started using space on our fleet of production vehicles to advertise airtimes for key local series. The decals are relatively inexpensive and yet provide a very public and highly targeted method of reaching potential viewers since these vehicles are often parked on location at local events as our crews are providing coverage.

69. On-air, we keep our viewers informed of our program schedule. At the end of every show, we let them know the next three shows to be presented, using a “Coming Up” message.

III. THE CABLE COMMUNITY CHANNEL MODEL

a) The Existing Model Works and Must be Maintained

70. As demonstrated above, the community channels operated by cable companies remain an extremely effective way to ensure that truly local programming has a prominent place in the Canadian broadcasting system. We do this within a limited budget and subject to certain requirements that ensure these channels complement rather than compete with commercial OTA TV stations.

71. On its website, in preliminary responses to the Commission’s questions in this proceeding, the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) advocates for an open-access model where members of the community would have non-discriminatory access to the channel.5 In supporting the CACTUS position, a group called Open Media Now further claims that Canadians do not have “a democratic platform to participate directly in their own broadcasting system”.6 With respect, we profoundly disagree. Rogers believes that a fully open-access model as described by these parties could be chaotic and even unmanageable.

72. In Rogers' submission, the coordinated-access model that has been the hallmark of the Commission's successive policies regarding the use and oversight of community channels strikes the right balance between access to the channel and reflection of local communities. We are unclear how the CACTUS proposal would improve on the model currently used by Rogers. First, CACTUS demonstrates no evidence of supply or demand. Would the expected program supply fill a full analog channel with high quality, balanced and attractive programming that people want to watch? If not, is this a productive, progressive use of spectrum? As mentioned above, one out of every two program proposals receives access at one of Rogers TV’s community channels. In and of itself, this is a remarkably high number. As well, the competitive energies unleashed by the desire to succeed guarantee higher program quality.

73. When one takes a “glass half full” rather than a “glass half empty” approach to this statistic, it quickly becomes apparent that accommodating one out of every two proposals suggests this is an enormous achievement. There are, after all, only so many hours in a day. Rogers TV coordinates, but does not control, the show’s editorial content, but we are sticklers for quality and balance. We have not received any complaints with respect to access in the last 24 months.

5 http://cactus.independentmedia.ca/node/386 (Question 4) 6 http://openmedia.ca/action

74. In our view, cable companies are in the best position to maximize access opportunities for members of the communities we serve. We have every incentive to develop good relations with community groups and to broadcast high quality programming of direct interest to the communities we serve. And we have the sort of hard-earned experience and connectedness that cannot be duplicated over night. During the 40 years we have operated community channels, Rogers has listened to and learned from the individuals and groups in our communities. We understand what makes Rogers TV of value to them.

75. The decades of experience Rogers TV has developed “on the ground” in hundreds of communities have allowed us to identify programming that is valued by individuals and organizations. These programs include talk shows with mayors and Members of Parliament, high school sports, call-in shows and Rotary Club auctions to name a few. Cable companies have determined how most effectively to produce these shows, making the most efficient use of the funding available to us, of community group participation and of volunteers in the process.

76. The Commission has endorsed standards and guidelines for community programming, along with requirements regarding balance and content.7 Rogers complies with these standards and guidelines. In an open-access model, it remains unclear how these requirements would be met and who would be responsible for meeting them. Under such a model, how could the Commission be certain there would be full compliance with all relevant broadcasting industry codes and policies concerning appropriate content and language? Will there be any assurance that there will be an understanding of Canada’s defamation and copyright laws, and a willingness to comply with them? Under the coordinated- access model, the cable company takes full responsibility for all of these issues. If we cease to play this coordinator role, the Commission can no longer hold us accountable for community programming under the law and the Regulations.

77. In addition, managing the operation of our community channels has enabled us to accommodate a wide range of program requests and to provide our volunteers with steady, predictable and fulfilling training.

78. Each Rogers TV community channel has its own Station Manager as well as local staff and volunteers. Fifty per cent (50%) of the program requests the stations receive are accommodated through either a dedicated show or through access to one of Rogers TV’s own shows.

79. As for training and volunteer programs, these are the building blocks of our operations. We are renowned for the training and development we provide to those who aspire to jobs in the television business and, in this regard, we have launched the careers of many well known television personalities, including: TSN’s James Cybulski and Jennifer Hedger, MTV Canada’s Daryn Jones, Sportsnet’s

7 Public Notice CRTC 1992-39, Cable Television Community Channel Standards – dated June 1, 1992 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1992/PB92-39.HTM) (the Community Channel Standards).

Sam Cosentino, Global Weather Anchor Bill Coulter, and The Weather Network’s Sheryl Plouffe. The impact of the training and opportunities provided by Rogers TV also manifests itself behind the scenes.

80. On its website, CACTUS takes the position that community channels today are producing programming that competes with local OTA broadcasters. Ironically, during the various proceedings before the Commission to examine the state of local television, the local OTA broadcasters variously claimed that cable community channels are unprofessional and can in no way compete with or replace OTA local stations. Of course, as the Commission is well aware, community channels are intended to be complementary to conventional broadcasters and Rogers TV takes that aspect of our regulated mandate very seriously.

81. The existing policy works and provides cable companies with the flexibility to develop community channels that best meet the needs of their communities by directly involving the people who live in those communities.

b) Ownership of the Community Channel

82. In a letter to the Commission dated January 25, 2010, CACTUS refers to advertisements that ran in 2009. It argues that cable companies attempted to use these ads to mislead Canadians into believing community channels no longer exist or that the Commission’s policy does not apply to these channels because they are owned by BDUs. CACTUS then argues in paragraphs 17 and 18 that cable companies do not “own” cable community TV channels. That is an odd statement. It overlooks the legal concept of ownership, the licensing realities and the regulatory treatment accorded to cable community channels since their inception.

83. There is no question that cable companies own the community channels they are authorized to provide. This has been confirmed in the regulatory treatment accorded to community channels by the Commission. Unlike other broadcasting services, cable community channels are not separately licensed undertakings. Rather, they are owned and operated as an integral part of each cable company’s licensed or exempt cable distribution undertaking.

84. The Commission has recognized this on numerous occasions. For example, in the original policy on the community channel that was issued by the Commission on December 16, 1975, the Commission emphasized that the community channel would be an integral part of the services provided by a cable television licensee:

The ideas embodied in the policy are designed to assure as far as possible the further development of the community channel as an integral part of the Canadian services offered by the cable television licensees. The intention is to serve communities with a new and important service,

one that does not exist in the areas for which cable television systems are licensed and which they alone have the means and the responsibility to provide.8

85. The Commission has made similar statements in other policy documents, including in the proposed policy framework for community-based media that was issued in 2001:

Community channels may be distributed by cable operators as part of a distribution undertaking licence. They are not licensed separately as programming undertakings, and there is no mechanism for someone other than the cable company to be licensed to operate a cable community channel.9

86. Significantly, in an appendix to Public Notice CRTC 2001-129, the Commission provided a comparison table of its proposed classes of community-based media. One of the criteria used to compare the four distinct types of community-based media was “Ownership”. The cable community channel is identified in that table as being owned by the licensed cable BDU. An excerpt from the table is set out below:

Appendix to Public Notice CRTC 2001-129

Comparison table of proposed classes of community-based media

Criteria Cable Community Community- Community- community programming based low-power based digital channel undertaking TV undertaking service

Ownership Licensed Not-for-profit; For profit and not- For profit and not- cable BDU membership, for-profit; for-profit; management and preference given to preference given to operation by members locally-based new locally-based new of the community entrants entrants

87. In view of the fact that cable companies satisfy the indicia of ownership with respect to their community channels and given that each cable community channel is operated as an integral part of a licensed or exempt cable distribution undertaking (rather than as a separately licensed undertaking), the suggestion by

8 Policies Respecting Broadcasting Receiving Undertakings (Cable Television), dated December 16, 1975. 9 Public Notice CRTC 2001-129 – Proposed policy framework for community-based media, dated December 21, 2001 (PN 2001-129).

CACTUS that cable companies do not own their community channels is simply wrong.

IV. OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED TELEVISION UNDERTAKINGS

88. We note that CACTUS has publicly advocated for changes to the community television sector in Canada. It has recommended transferring the money currently spent by the cable industry to operate community channels to a new “Community- Access Media Fund”, to which communities themselves could apply in order to operate the channels. They also believe this money should be used to establish multi-platform community access production and distribution centers, which would hold OTA television licences. These channels would be carried as part of the basic cable service and would be distributed live over the Internet. In addition, these channels would be guaranteed access to new media platforms as they become available.

89. We are puzzled by CACTUS’ call for such a proposal for two reasons. First, as we discuss above, the Commission's successive policies regarding the use and oversight of community channels has resulted in a vibrant community programming sector within the Canadian broadcasting system. The fact that there has not been a strong interest in creating new community-based programming undertakings reflects the fact that in most parts of the country, there are high quality cable community channels that satisfy the needs of the community in terms of local access programming.

90. Second, the Commission’s existing policies for community-based low-power television stations (LPTV) and community-based digital media services provides for funding and programming flexibility in order to allow these commercial ventures to be self-funded. LPTV and digital community-based services are currently authorized to sell up to 12 minutes/hour of local advertising. Both are also authorized to distribute up to 20% non-Canadian content. Combined, both these facts should allow these undertakings to generate sufficient advertising and sponsorship revenues to meet their budgetary needs.

91. To the extent that there have not been many applicants for LPTV and/or community-based digital media licences since these licence classes were introduced may well reflect the impact of the Internet over the past seven years. The explosive growth of Internet portals and social networking sites that provide users with the ability to create and access hyper-local video content provides many options for the distribution of user-generated video content. Broadband Internet connections provide consumers with enough bandwidth to access online video content and websites have become sources of almost unlimited video and audio content.

92. An increasing number of people are now participating as content contributors online and much of the content is comparable to bigger-budget, full-length programming on traditional media platforms. Individuals can create content and make it available to a vast online audience, or to a community of individuals with common interests, with great ease. This can all be done in a broadband environment at a fraction of the cost of establishing a traditional television service. With respect to community-based digital media services in particular, Rogers believes that the online environment is a far more appropriate distribution vehicle than cable distribution. This is because it is perfectly suited to services that provide niche audiences with hyper-focused content.

93. The Commission’s existing policies for LPTV and community-based digital media services, combined with the existing open-access of the online environment, are more than adequate to ensure there are options for the production of community programming. As a result, we do not consider that the proposal put forward by CACTUS is necessary. Overall, the Commission’s policies for community-based media have been very successful and have resulted in a model that ensures the creation of high-quality community programming.

V. THE POLICY IS WORKING

a) Funding for BDU-Operated Community Channels

94. In recent proceedings,10 the Commission explored whether a re-balancing of the regulated broadcasting system is required in order to maintain its viability. Rogers would object strongly to any rebalancing that would result in a reduction in the 2% allocation that funds the programming offered on cable community channels. The current funding levels are barely adequate to fund the operation of our community channels in the smaller markets we serve. Any reduction could well be fatal to some channels and/or services. For our own part, more and more, as local OTA television stations have reduced their amounts of local programming, Rogers TV has stepped in to fill the void in the markets we serve. In fact, in 18 of the 34 markets we serve, Rogers TV is the only local source of television.

95. In the Policy, the Commission made the following determination:

…the Commission considers that the public service orientation of the community channel can be best achieved through stable funding provided by cable licensees, with limited reliance on advertising revenues. Therefore, it will continue to limit the advertising revenues of community channels to sponsorship and contra advertising. The Commission

10 BNC 2009-411.

considers that it is not necessary to limit the amount of time for sponsorship messages since these messages must be contained within individual community programs and are thus self-limiting.11

[emphasis added]

96. In its Diversity of Voices Policy, the Commission stated:

The cost of television production equipment continues to decline, and new distribution technologies offer cost-effective means of delivering community programming to audiences. However, stable funding to allow for the production of quality community programming remains a significant issue.12

[emphasis added]

97. Access to reliable funding is especially important as BDU-operated community channels increasingly represent the only source of true local programming in many markets across Canada. Over the past decade, conventional television broadcasters have decided either to offer less local programming, sometimes focusing solely on local news, or to abandon markets entirely. As shown in Appendix C, Rogers TV is often the sole provider of truly local programming in many of the markets we serve. Eighteen out of 34 Rogers TV community channels are in markets where we are the only local television presence.

98. Rogers operates our community channels with a budget funded entirely through contributions from Rogers Cable (generally limited to 2% of gross annual broadcasting revenues) and program sponsorships. Since sponsorship messages cannot be used to directly promote goods, services or activities, they are of limited appeal to local advertisers. As a result, the vast majority of Rogers TV’s funding comes from BDU contributions.

99. With this limited budget, Rogers TV is currently able to produce a complete programming schedule on a not-for-profit basis. As noted above, over the past seven years following the release of the Policy, Rogers TV has dramatically increased the number of individuals and community groups who have been provided the opportunity to directly access the Canadian broadcasting system through our community channels, rising from 12,040 in the 2003/04 broadcast year to 29,121 in 2008/09. In 2008/09 alone, our 34 community channels produced over 14,300 original hours of local programming. These achievements demonstrate Rogers’ dedication to providing a relevant and truly responsive community television service.

11 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 79. 12 BPN 2008-4, paragraph 170.

b) Promotion of Access Opportunities

100. Rogers recommends revising the requirement that licensees distribute an annual billing insert describing the availability of access programming opportunities and methods by which proposals can be made.13 We agree with the intent of the requirement and wholeheartedly support it. However, we would suggest a slight modification to allow us to put the message directly on our customers’ bills rather than on a separate insert.

101. This would:

 reduce the direct costs of designing and printing the insert;  provide this information in a more forest-friendly manner by putting the information on paper that was already being printed and distributed; and  reach the entire customer base, including the approximately 8% of cable customers who do not receive their bills by regular mail. These customers receive their bills electronically by email. This number is likely to grow as Rogers has a variety of initiatives planned to migrate more cable customers to e-billing. Almost 20% of Rogers’ wireless customers receive their bills electronically.

102. We believe that community channel operators should focus their access promotion efforts by: directly engaging with their communities to build their volunteer bases; encouraging the participation of individuals and community groups in the development of story and program ideas; and providing on-air and online promotions.

13 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 64.

VI. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE 2002 COMMUNITY TV FRAMEWORK

a. General Objectives

Q.1 Are the objectives of the existing policy framework being met?

103. In the existing policy framework, the Commission set out the following core objectives for community-based media:

 to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally-produced, locally- reflective community programming; and  to foster a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating new entrants at the local level.

104. For over 40 years, Rogers TV’s community channels have fully complied with both of these objectives in providing the vibrant and dynamic service we offer our viewers. In the process, we have addressed the Commission’s desire to foster a greater diversity of voices having access to the community channel, particularly since the 2002 Policy came into effect. Our service has always been based on the direct participation of members of the communities we serve and, as noted in paragraph 17 above, since the Policy came into effect in 2003/04, we have increased participation by community groups on the community channel by 142%. Today, more than 30% of our programming is created by or with community participation and direction, and over 60% of our programming is local. In addition, 100% of Rogers TV’s programming is Canadian.

105. As a result, at Rogers, the answer to the Commission’s first question is a resounding yes. Since 2003:

 Rogers TV has produced 82,586 hours of original local programming on 34 community channels;  112,672 community groups have helped contribute to programming on Rogers TV; and  On average, approximately 1,900 volunteers per year participate in the community television process at Rogers TV.

106. As set out in Section II, we have provided a complete report on how Rogers TV meets the policy objectives and the specific roles and objectives for community channels. The Commission’s 2002 Policy with respect to community channels, together with our implementation of it, has ensured that these objectives are being

met. The existing policy framework has enabled the creation and exhibition of increasing amounts of locally-produced, locally-reflective programming created by an abundance of voices within the community.

107. Since 2003, the number of hours of local programming on Rogers TV has increased from 12,699 hours per year (in the 2003/2004 broadcast year) to 14,364 hours per year (in 2008/2009), and, as noted, the number of community groups who access Rogers TV to participate in community television programming has increased by 142%, from 12,040 groups in 2003/2004 to 29,121 groups in 2008/2009. This enormous increase is due to the manner in which Rogers has been able to manage access to the channels so as to ensure a maximum amount of participation. This achievement has increased the diversity of voices found within the broadcasting system.

Q.2 If the objectives are not being met, what needs to be changed to help meet them?

108. Rogers considers that the objectives of the existing policy framework within our control are being met, at least in so far as our community channels are concerned. As described above and in Section II, Rogers TV delivers exceptional local original and access programming to our subscribers, meeting and often exceeding all of the Commission’s requirements under the Policy.

Q.3 Given significant changes to the media environment over the last seven years, are there reasons to revise the objectives?

109. Given the pace of change in technology in the media environment, there are certainly reasons to review the Commission’s Policy objectives and determine whether they remain relevant. It is undeniable that the media environment has changed significantly over the last seven years. On the television side, since 2002, the number and diversity of programming choices available to Canadians has grown significantly. On television, Canadians have access to hundreds of programming services to meet every interest and need in almost every language. In the online world, social media has exploded and streaming and downloading content from the Internet have gained enormous popularity.

110. The Internet has also significantly impacted programming choice. When the policy framework was last reviewed, we only had a hint of what the Internet represented in terms of programming choices. Then, the expectation was that the Internet would enable users to focus on a level of “local” that is otherwise incompatible with the commercial focus of the mass communications medium that is television broadcasting. The Internet’s potential, we anticipated, lay in its infinite number of “channels,” in its capacity to address the needs of very small niches or segments of local, regional, national and international communities. It has more than lived up to this potential. This has become an immensely powerful way for people to participate in a borderless and unregulated medium and has given rise to a huge

diversity of voices and alternative choices for content, including community content. As such, the Commission’s policy objective to regulate so as to facilitate new entrants at the local level on the television platform may no longer be the best way to provide alternative choices.

111. Despite these rapid changes, the Commission should require the community arm of the Canadian broadcasting system to continue “to ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally-produced, locally-reflective community programming.” Although Rogers’ community channels have developed and matured, they have not outgrown their community focus, nor should they. And while programming choice on both television and the Internet is abundant, access to locally-produced and locally-reflective programming in the television broadcasting system has significantly decreased as many conventional, non-community, OTA broadcasters have reduced their emphasis on local programming. In 2009, the CRTC, perhaps unintentionally, hastened the roll-out of this trend when it effectively reduced the minimum local programming requirements for most OTA broadcasters by harmonizing the levels across multi-station ownership groups.14

112. The fact that there is less local programming than ever on OTA television makes the core programming objective under the existing community framework even more relevant than ever. Any change that the Commission contemplates with respect to the policy framework for community television should consider the decreased availability of locally reflective programming on OTA television and the way in which community channels are able to fill this void. Today, more than ever, cable community channels are perceived as the local pulse of the communities they serve. This trend can only accelerate. Community channels are responsive at a grassroots level, covering political events, current affairs and issues, and they are doing so at a level of detail that is simply not matched by any alternative form of mass media. Rogers has the expertise, the infrastructure and the will to step into the local programming vacuum as conventional television broadcasters either reduce their production of local programming or exit certain markets altogether.

Q.4 Is it necessary to make a clearer distinction between community programming and the local programming provided by conventional television broadcasters? What are the principal distinctions?

113. At Rogers we see no need to attempt to clarify further the difference between community and conventional OTA local programming. No one-size-fits-all definition seems possible and, in our opinion, to attempt to create one might do more harm than good. The distinctions between community programming and local programming provided by conventional broadcasters tend to be different in each market. In most small and medium-sized markets (for example, Brampton, Ontario or Bathurst, New Brunswick), there simply is no local conventional

14 Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-406 - Policy determinations resulting from the 27 April 2009 public hearing, dated July 6, 2009 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-406.htm) (BRP 2009-406), paragraph 51.

broadcaster. Community television steps in and fills the void. Programming of interest to each community is developed and produced by volunteers, community producers and staff.

114. In larger markets such as Toronto and Ottawa, Rogers has honoured the role of creating programming that is complementary to what local broadcasters offer. Rather than focus energy on local news, we focus on longer-form programming of interest to a wide range of citizens. Local sports such as minor league hockey and high school sports, event coverage, gavel-to-gavel coverage of council meetings, call-in programs on public affairs, local health and policing issues dominate the schedule. Programs featuring local attractions, theatre, dining, history and architecture are also very popular with our viewers and volunteers.

115. In Toronto and Ottawa, multicultural groups enjoy unprecedented and unmatched access and air time with Rogers TV. Some of these ethnic community producers have been producing programs with Rogers TV since we first went on the air in October 1969.

116. In all markets, large and small groups looking for ways to promote their views, issues and charities access the community channel to conduct vital fundraising and promotional work. In the 2008-09 broadcast year, 33 telethons and TV auctions were broadcast on Rogers TV’s community channels. These community- building special events raised $1.16 million for local charities. Fundraising is ongoing at our community stations that partner with local groups to present weekly TV Bingos.

b. BDU-Operated Community Channels

Q.5 Are these roles and objectives still appropriate? Why or why not?

117. Cable-run community channels remain an extremely effective way to ensure that community broadcasting has a prominent role in the Canadian broadcasting system. The roles and objectives remain appropriate and are being met to great effect. Section II above presents a complete report on how Rogers meets the roles and objectives the Commission has established for community channels.

Q.6 Are there reasons to revise the roles and objectives? If so, how?

118. Rogers thinks the roles and objectives for community channels remain appropriate and achievable under the current policy framework and funding model, and should not be revised. Unnecessary change too often results in unproductive disruption. Although community channels have developed and matured in some cases, they have not outgrown their community focus and they still serve vital roles. As we demonstrated in Section II concerning Rogers TV’s fulfillment of the objectives under the Policy, members of the communities that Rogers serves benefit greatly

from their community channels whether they are viewers or active participants in the production of programming.

c. Independently-Operated Community-Based Television Services

Q. 7 What are the reasons for this relatively modest take-up? Have conditions changed since 2002 so that the need for local expression is being met through other means?

119. When the Commission first proposed the licensing of new independently-operated community-based television services in 2001, it considered that such services would provide a high level of locally-produced, locally-reflective programming to complement the programming provided by conventional television and cable community channels. A key objective was also “to provide a greater diversity of voices at the local level”.15 The Commission’s Policy requires mandatory carriage and, in the case of not-for-profit community programming undertakings, potential funding of these services.

120. Despite broad policy support and mandatory carriage obligations for these services, the Commission’s Policy has not resulted in any substantial change to the Canadian community television landscape. As Dunbar and Leblanc point out, “there seems to be little interest on the part of entrepreneurs in establishing community based television undertakings.”16 Indeed, in relation to Rogers’ serving areas, the Commission has only received one application for a new community- based digital undertaking since it introduced its policy in 2002. This application, which was for a community-based digital television service in Toronto, was denied in 2007.17 Similarly, the Commission has received very few applications for community-based LPTV stations, and BDUs have typically been granted relief from the obligation to carry these services on analog.18

121. Rogers considers that the lack of any strong interest in creating new community- based programming undertakings reflects two important facts. The first is the existence of high quality cable community channels in most parts of the country, and their ability to satisfy the needs of the community in terms of local access programming. Rogers TV has a well-established track record in meeting and exceeding the Commission’s objectives under the Policy for community channels. Rogers believes that the quality and diversity of the community programming we

15 PN 2001-129, para. 44. 16 Review of the regulatory framework for broadcasting services in Canada, dated August 31, 2007, by Laurence J.E. Dunbar and Christian Leblanc (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/dunbarleblanc.htm) (Dunbar and Leblanc Report), p. 102. 17 Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2007-219 – Community-based digital television service in Toronto, dated July 6, 2007 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/db2007-219.htm) (Decision 2007-219). 18 Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2007-240 – Application for relief from section 17 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, dated July 20, 2007 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/db2007-240.htm).

offer makes our community channels relevant to our customers and reduces the demand for alternative sources of community-based video content on the traditional television platform.

122. The second fact underlying the lack of demand for new community-based television undertakings is the explosive growth of Internet portals and social networking sites that provide users with the ability to create and access hyper-local video content. Contrary to what David Keeble indicated in his two-year old report on new technology,19 many options now exist for the distribution of user-generated video content. Two years is a lifetime in the world of technological advances. Broadband Internet connections provide consumers with enough bandwidth to access online video content and websites have become sources of almost unlimited video and audio content. An increasing number of people are now participating as content contributors online and much of the content is comparable to bigger-budget, full-length programming on traditional media platforms. Individuals can create content and make it available to a vast online audience, or to a community of individuals with common interests, with great ease. This can all be done in a broadband environment at a fraction of the cost of establishing a traditional television service.

123. With respect to community-based digital media services in particular, the online environment is a far more appropriate distribution vehicle than cable distribution. This is because it is perfectly suited to services that provide niche audiences with hyper-focused content. In addition, there are now more broadband Internet customers in Canada than digital cable subscribers. As a result, distribution via the Internet is at least as effective if not more so than cable in terms of these services connecting with their target audiences. As of September 2008, digital television penetration in Canada was 61.6%, with 51% of cable households subscribing to digital TV. At the same time, the total number of households with access to high-speed Internet service increased to 94%, with 69% of households subscribing to this service.20

Q. 8 Are changes to the policy necessary? If so, what changes? If not, why?

124. Yes, changes to the Policy are necessary in order to ensure that the licensing process reflects the rights and privileges being granted to successful applicants.

125. By their very nature, community-based programming services use spectrum extremely inefficiently. This is because most multiple system operators have rationalized the distribution of digital signals. All of our Class 1 and 2 cable systems in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are interconnected and, therefore, they all receive the same digital signals via fibre. As a result, a

19 The Impact of New Technology on Community Television, by David Keeble, dated March 31, 2008 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/keeble08.htm) (the Technology Report). 20 Communications Monitoring Report 2009 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2009/cmr.htm), Table 4.4.3 and Section 5.3.

community-based programming service, if licensed, will use up a digital channel across our entire cable network, even though it will only actually be received in the smaller geographic area it is licensed to serve (which, itself, may only be a portion of an existing serving area).

126. As noted above in our response to Question 7, we believe a much more suitable option for new community-based programming services is delivery over the Internet. Since the online environment is so effective at reaching niche audiences, this resolves signal transmission issues, provides a more streamlined cost structure and better connects these service providers to their target audience.

127. However, under the Policy, community-based programming undertakings may apply to the Commission for a licence and if they are successful will enjoy a distribution right that is equivalent to what is enjoyed by the operators of Category 1 digital specialty services. With respect, Rogers does not believe that in granting such a right to these services, the Commission has also demonstrated that it will subject applicants to the same level of scrutiny as it would for a Category 1 digital specialty service application. Rogers filed a written intervention and appeared at the oral hearing of Lee Weston (see Decision 2007-219). In our view, his application as gazetted was incomplete and lacked a viable business plan. Despite this, we spent time and money to participate in this public process. His application was ultimately denied for the very reasons we argued before the Commission.

128. In this context, Rogers submits that the Commission should make one of two possible changes.

129. The first possible change, and the one which we prefer, would be to eliminate the mandatory carriage requirements regarding community-based media undertakings set out in subsections 18(11.01) and 33.3(1.1) of the Regulations and license these services on the same basis as Category 2 digital specialty services. The onus would then be on the community-based service to present a compelling business plan to BDUs. If a BDU considered that such a service would enable it to develop a more distinct service offering, we believe that a BDU would be inclined to launch the service.

130. Alternatively, if the Commission decides to maintain the existing carriage requirements, then Rogers believes the Policy must be revisited in terms of how applications for licences to operate community-based television programming undertakings are assessed internally at the Commission. The Commission should apply the same rigour in assessing applications for these types of services as it applies to any other application for a mandatory digital service. If the service is deficient, it must not be gazetted. Rogers has set out criteria that we believe any service seeking mandatory digital carriage must meet before it is gazetted. Our recommended approach is set out in Appendix D.

d. Direct-to-Home Satellite Services

Q. 9 Have circumstances or other factors arisen that would warrant a change in the Commission’s existing position?

131. In the Policy, the Commission “[did] not consider the concept of DTH community channels to be in keeping with its proposed objectives to ensure more locally- produced and locally-reflective community programming.”21

132. The Commission should not change its existing position. Absent the ability to distribute truly local community channels into local markets (see our response to Question 10), the nation-wide service mandate of DTH distributors should preclude them from operating community channels. Any proposal to provide “local expression” based solely on serving broad regional “communities of interest” should be rejected since this would be at odds with the Act’s and the Commission’s main objectives for community-based media: the creation and exhibition of locally- produced, locally-reflective community programming; and the fostering of a greater diversity of voices and choices.

133. In ensuring that local and access programming requirements are met by terrestrial community channels, the Commission focuses on the individual communities served by these BDUs. Where the operator of multiple cable BDUs applies for a regional licence, the Commission determined in the Policy that the original licensed areas will be retained for assessing compliance. It considered that “linking the definition of local community television programming to the original licensed area as a subset of the regional licence will ensure that the smaller localities served under the current licence will continue to be served with distinct community channels, even if the cable company obtains approval for a regional licence.”22

134. Since the Commission’s definitions for local and access programming are in relation to the original “licensed areas” for terrestrial BDUs, it would be contrary to the Policy’s focus on local to permit DTH providers to substitute for this long-held Commission approach a broader regional, or even national, footprint. This would invite DTH BDUs to centralize their operations (e.g. facilities, station management, volunteer/training programs) at only one national or a few regional locations. It is difficult to imagine how this could possibly foster a community-specific mindset. When one contrasts this with what Rogers is required to do, in relation to each of the 34 individual community channels we operate, it quickly becomes apparent that a DTH community channel(s) would be extremely hard-pressed to capture the spirit of truly local, community-reflective programming. Inevitably, all but a very few members of the communities receiving such channels would be denied the opportunity to access this/these channel(s) and fully participate in the program production process.

21 BPN 2002-61, appendix. 22 Ibid, paragraph 27.

Q. 10 If the Commission were to authorize DTH undertakings to operate community channels, what provisions would ensure that the objectives of the community programming policy are being achieved?

135. If the Commission were to authorize DTH companies to operate community channels, we believe these BDUs should be required to offer dedicated channels on a localized basis subject to the same requirements as are imposed on terrestrial BDUs under the Policy, including the provision of minimum levels of local and access programming. This is consistent with the objective of regulating similar undertakings in a technologically neutral manner.23 As a precondition to offering community channels, satellite BDUs should first be required to implement “local- into-local” signal delivery solutions and demonstrate they distribute all local television stations.

136. Terrestrial BDUs have always been subject to the requirement to distribute, as part of their basic service, all local OTA television stations. This requirement applies to television stations operating in either of Canada’s official languages, as well as ethnic television stations serving multilingual and multicultural audiences. To ensure that all local television stations remain viable and can effectively contribute to the realization of various policy objectives under the Act, we believe that all BDUs must be subject to the same distribution rules. As a result, before considering whether DTH service providers can also offer community channels, they must first be required to distribute all local television stations that are not currently distributed, including ethnic television stations. To not enforce such a requirement would be for the Commission to invite DTH service providers to grant preferential carriage treatment to their own community stations over existing OTA local stations owned by arms-length broadcasting interests.

137. During the Commission’s proceeding on group-based licensing, several parties discussed technological solutions, such as the use of “spot-beams”, to enable satellite providers to distribute local television signals into local markets. Once this happens, and should the Commission decide to authorize DTH undertakings to operate community channels, Rogers submits that the same regulatory requirements must apply to these channels as apply to cable community channels.

Q. 11 Keeping in mind DTH capacity issues, are there alternative models to delivering community programming (i.e., an omnibus or "community of communities" channel) that the Commission should consider?

138. DTH distributors have long argued that the regulatory asymmetries are necessary to reflect the fact that they have limited capacity and a national footprint. Capacity issues cannot be used to support asymmetrical regulation. DTH is no more

23 For example, in Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2006-490 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2006/db2006- 490.htm), the Commission authorized Saskatchewan Telecommunications to use its VOD platform as an outlet for local expression, subject to conditions of licence that mirrored the requirements under the Policy.

capacity constrained than many cable BDUs. DTH service providers should be required to provide both local television stations and local community channels with access to local markets. A “pick one” regulatory approach would not be fair to local stations nor to local viewers.

139. Also see answers to Questions 9 and 10.

2. ACCESS PROGRAMMING

Q. 12 Are these requirements and obligations being met?

140. Rogers has been meeting and, in many cases, exceeding the access requirements since the implementation of the Policy. In each individual community channel in Ontario, at least 30% of the overall programming on the channel is access programming. Similarly, in New Brunswick and Newfoundland, where Rogers TV channels operate under a zone-based approach, at least 30% of the overall programming is access.

141. The Policy states that licensees are expected to:

…give the community the widest opportunity for self-expression by actively encouraging groups and individuals to present program ideas, produce their own programs with or without the help of the licensee’s staff, and submit videotapes and films produced by them for broadcast by the licensee….For the purpose of this policy, access programs are produced by members of the community served by the undertaking, either assisted or unassisted by the licensee.24

[Emphasis added]

142. As noted above in paragraph 17, in the 2008/09 broadcasting year, Rogers TV provided access to more than 29,000 community groups. The level of participation from these groups can range from a feature or segment on a program to the production of a series or a community event. Using the magazine program format, Rogers TV is able to provide more opportunities for access than would be possible simply by broadcasting only longer format programs. While Rogers TV – through staff and volunteers – coordinates access requests, it does not control editorial content. In an average month, a program like Daytime, which is produced for several Rogers TV community channels, will include approximately 860 features, interviews and stories from community groups. Through annual bill messages, on- air promotions and the Rogers TV website, Rogers actively encourages groups and individuals to submit program ideas.

24 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 52-54.

143. Separately, as part of this proceeding, the Commission placed a study on the record called The Community Access Programming Sector: A Quantitative Analysis25 prepared by David Keeble (the Keeble Study). In it, Mr. Keeble admits that the Study’s dataset is too small to draw conclusions about community access programming. Despite this finding, he then proceeds to make some general observations about the sector. Attached as Appendix E is an analysis of the Keeble Study prepared by The Strategic Counsel (the Analysis). In the Analysis, The Strategic Counsel notes that “[q]uantitative research studies are only accurate if they follow the rules of statistical rigour. The Keeble Study fails to meet a standard of rigour for a variety of reasons, including, substantial challenges in each of the phases or components of the research study.” The Analysis concludes that the Keeble Study should be interpreted with extreme care given a variety of factors related to sampling, questionnaire distribution, sample size and sample distribution. Given the significant problems with the Keeble Study that are outlined in this analysis, Rogers cautions the Commission against drawing any definitive conclusions from it.

Q. 13 Are they still appropriate? Why or why not?

144. Rogers believes strongly that the access programming requirements remain appropriate. A coordinated management of operations has enabled Rogers TV to accommodate a greater range of access requests. The Commission made the right decision in the Policy when it made the minimum requirement for access 30% of programming. Where the demand for access exceeds the minimum requirement, requests for access that meet the terms and conditions as set out in the Community Channel Standards must not be denied at least until 50% of the channel’s programming has been filled with access programming.26

145. As we describe in Section III above, Rogers considers that BDUs are in the best position to provide a coordinated-access model that ensures that a maximum number of individuals and groups have access to the community channel. We have decades of experience in hundreds of communities across the country. We are able to accommodate a wide variety of access requests that make the most efficient use of available resources, community groups and volunteers, while also satisfying our viewers by presenting community programming that is balanced and of direct interest to them.

146. BDUs have an incentive to develop good relationships with members of the community and to broadcast programming that is of direct interest to the community since this enhances customer satisfaction with the cable service. We are understandably interested in presenting a quality channel that attracts viewers with its relevant content and production values that are of high standard. We

25 The Community Access Programming Sector: A Quantitative Analysis, David Keeble, September 22, 2009. 26 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 55.

believe the Commission should value community channels that are able to attract viewers and participants. Similarly, BDUs are in a position to ensure that community programming complies with Commission-approved industry programming codes and the Community Channel Standards. In doing so, Rogers TV guarantees a minimum level of quality and further guarantees that community programming does not contain prohibited content such as abusive comment or stereotyping.

Q. 14 Are there reasons to revise the existing requirements and obligations? If so, how?

147. Rogers believes that the existing requirements, for the most part, remain appropriate. Under the existing framework, our community channels have been extremely effective in providing access to the broadcasting system to members of the community and valuable training to thousands of volunteers. We have been able to adapt and evolve our programming focus, while continuing to fulfill viewers’ expectations and the Policy’s requirements.

148. As described in Section V, we do believe that a minor change to the requirement that licensees distribute an annual billing insert describing the availability of access programming and methods by which proposals can be made would be appropriate.27 This change would allow us to ensure that the promotion of access opportunities continues to reach all subscribers, regardless of how they receive their bills.

3. FUNDING OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING

a. Advertising

Q. 15 Have circumstances or other factors arisen that would warrant a change in the Commission’s existing policy?

149. In the Policy, the Commission decided to maintain its then existing policy with respect to advertising on community channels:

27 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 64.

considers that it is not necessary to limit the amount of time for sponsorship messages since these messages must be contained within individual community programs and are thus self-limiting.28

150. Rogers believes that, provided that it does not cut into our existing sources of funding, the Commission should again maintain its policy on advertising. Rogers is dedicated to community programming. Reflective of the non-commercial orientation of this programming, the Policy permits the use of credit, sponsorship or contra messages as promotional vehicles for our community channels. We believe that sponsorship and contra revenues, combined with the stable funding provided through BDU contribution payments of no less than 2% of gross revenues, provide sufficient funding for community channels to carry out their public service role. On the premise that the current contribution payment formula is maintained, there is no need to change the Policy with respect to advertising.

151. In the Policy, the Commission adopted the proposal to allow for enhanced sponsorship messages that can include moving visual presentations (limited to no more than 15 seconds) and a description of the goods, services or activities that are being sold or promoted by the sponsor. To distinguish them from commercial advertising, these messages can only mention the name of the person or business providing direct financial assistance to the community channel, their address and telephone number, and a description of the goods, services or activities.

152. This proposal was, at the time, based on a model used by some educational broadcasters. They saw enhanced sponsorship as a revenue-generating opportunity that fit within their non-commercial operating principles and that had little to no effect on the advertising revenues of over-the-air TV broadcasters.

153. Like those educational broadcasters, Rogers views enhanced sponsorship as an additional source of much-needed funding to assist in the continued growth and development of community programming. In fact, over the past seven years, the additional revenues generated from enhanced sponsorship have contributed to restoring the community channel’s funding to pre-1998 levels. This has been especially helpful in areas such as New Brunswick and Newfoundland where community television suffered a severe funding crisis after the Regulations were first implemented in 1998. As a result, we believe this funding stream should be maintained for BDU-operated community channels.

Q. 16 Should the Commission adopt the above recommendations? If so, by what means or with what safeguards? If not, why not?

154. As noted at paragraph 30 of BNC 2009-661, Dunbar and Leblanc made the following recommendations in their report:

28 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 79.

 that the Commission remove the advertising restrictions and limits on community broadcasting on television; and  that the Commission monitor the development of cable community channels and third party community-based television services to determine how its new rules are working and whether removal of restrictions on regional and national advertising for independent stations stimulates more applications for community-based services.

155. Rogers TV’s format has been a tremendous success with local community groups and viewers. Under the funding model established in the Regulations, Rogers has been able to meet and exceed the requirements for providing locally-produced and locally-reflective programming in a manner that maximizes the opportunities for members of the communities we serve to directly participate in the program production process. As a result, Rogers believes the principal role and objectives of the community channel have been preserved. The community channel has not only maintained but, indeed, has enhanced its public service nature, providing access and training to members of the local community through an effective means of self-expression.

156. Rogers believes that other aspects of the Commission’s Policy, which maintain the non-commercial orientation of the community channel, should remain unchanged:

 conventional spot advertising on BDU-operated community channels should continue to be prohibited; and  access to these community channels should not be dictated, restricted or denied on the basis of unsecured sponsorship revenue.

157. LPTV and digital community-based services are currently authorized to sell up to 12 minutes/hour of local advertising. The Commission concluded in the Policy that if these undertakings are to provide popular and useful community programming, they must have access to advertising revenues. It decided that they should be restricted to selling local advertising to minimize the impact on the revenues or profitability of local radio and television stations. This decision also reflected the fact that since the programming offered by these undertakings would be predominantly local (at least 60%) and only available to the specific area they are licensed to serve, almost all advertising inventory would be sold to local businesses. Given this rationale, Rogers does not believe that the restriction on the sale of regional and national advertising by community-based television services should be removed.

Q. 17 If the Commission were to allow BDU-operated community channels to air commercial advertising, should all or a portion of the revenues be directed to the provision of community programming or towards other initiatives such as the Canada Media Fund?

158. As noted in our response to Question 16, Rogers is not advocating that the existing restrictions on advertising on cable-operated community channels be lifted. If the Commission were to maintain the current funding model and add to it the ability to air commercial advertising, Rogers would not take advantage of this opportunity.

b. Local Programming Improvement Fund

Q. 18 Should the LPIF also be used to fund the production of community programming on the independently-operated community-based television services? Why or why not?

159. Rogers does not support expanding LPIF eligibility to subsidize the production of community programming on independently-operated community-based television services. It is a temporary measure designed solely to support the provision of local programming by conventional OTA television stations in smaller markets. As long as the LPIF does exist, funding should be targeted at addressing this specific purpose. If LPIF funding was allocated more broadly, its original purpose would be watered down along with its effectiveness.

160. In BPN 2008-100, the stated purpose of the LPIF was to fund improvements in the quality and diversity of local programming, particularly local news,29 broadcast by both private and public OTA television stations in smaller Canadian markets. To achieve this objective, the use of LPIF funding was to be incremental to a station’s current expenditures on local programming.30 In BRP 2009-406, the Commission decided to abandon the concept of incrementality for the 2009-2010 broadcast year as part of a relief package and as a temporary measure. It also increased the BDUs’ contribution to the LPIF to 1.5% of gross revenues, effective September 1, 2009. In BNC 2009-411, the Commission clarified that these new terms and conditions were only intended to be in effect for the current broadcast year.

161. In increasing BDUs’ contribution to the LPIF to 1.5%, the Commission restated its expectation that this funding stream “will provide an appropriately sound financial footing for the production of local programming and news programming in markets where evidence suggests ongoing station operations are threatened.”31 As Rogers has stated in other proceedings,32 the OTA broadcasting industry remains viable and is regaining greater financial strength as the economy improves. Rogers considers that once the economy has recovered, the Commission should eliminate the LPIF.

29 Paragraph 359. 30 Paragraph 365. 31 BRP 2009-406, paragraph 25. 32 Broadcasting Notices of Consultation CRTC 2009-113 and 2009-113-1.

c. BDU Contributions

Q. 19 Do BDU contribution levels remain appropriate for the operation of a community channel? Why or why not?

162. Rogers believes very strongly that BDU contribution levels remain appropriate (though very close to inadequate in smaller markets) for the operation of a community channel. As noted earlier in this submission, the Commission identified in the Policy and in its Diversity of Voices Policy that access to stable funding was essential for BDU-operated community channels to produce programming that is of high standard and fulfills their public service mandate. Through the efforts of 351 staff members, 2,028 active volunteers and 203 co-op students, Rogers TV produced 14,364 hours of local original programming in 2008/09. Any reduction in BDU contribution payments, which represent the vast majority of Rogers TV’s funding, would jeopardize this valuable component of the broadcasting system.

163. In 1997, the Commission issued the Regulations.33 It decided to leave it to terrestrial BDUs to decide whether to provide opportunities for local expression, such as a community channel. Today, cable BDUs serving over 20,000 customers can allocate up to 2% of their gross revenues to the community channel, with the remaining 3% of these revenues being directed to independent productions (at least 80% of which must go to the CMF). In PN 1997-150, the Commission determined that this formula established a reasonable division of financial contributions between production funds and local expression. It also concluded that this funding would assist in maintaining the quality and vitality of the outlets for local expression provided by terrestrial BDUs in smaller communities. We agree.

164. Separately, the Commission should maintain the policy to allocate 2% of BDU revenues to each official language channel in recognition that, with two stand- alone channels, there are few opportunities to develop extensive synergies because of linguistic differences. Under the Regulations, the Commission allows for special circumstances warranting exceptions to the funding formula on a case- by-case basis. In the Policy, the Commission recognized the need to provide greater funding allocations for the operation, in a given market, of a second community channel in the minority official language. As we discuss in our response to Questions 29 and 30, the delivery of community television through separate English- and French-language community channels is an important contribution to the unique linguistic composition of those communities that have a significant portion of the population that speak the minority official language.

165. Finally, the Commission should maintain its policy that terrestrial BDUs serving fewer than 20,000 subscribers may allocate the full 5% contribution to community programming. Given the smaller customer base served by these undertakings,

33 Public Notice CRTC 1997-150 – Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, dated December 22, 1997 (PN 1997- 150) (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1997/PB97-150.HTM).

many of which serve more rural or remote markets, a 2% BDU contribution generates insufficient funding to effectively meet the objectives under the Policy. The 5% level is barely adequate in some areas. Sponsorship revenues are also lower in these markets as there are fewer advertisers willing to participate. The Policy has been successful and Rogers believes the full 5% contribution remains appropriate.

Q. 20 Should a proportion of the BDU contributions be directed to:

(a) the production of access programming? If so, what would be the most effective means of doing this? If not, are there other funding means that may be more appropriate? and/or

(b) the production of local programming through the LPIF? Why or why not?

(a) Production of Access Programming

166. Rogers does not consider it necessary for the Commission to require that a specific portion of BDU contributions be directed to the production of access programming, given that 30-50% of the program schedule is already defacto funded access programming. BDU licensees are in the best position to determine the appropriate levels of access and training, depending on the specific circumstances of the community in question. By extension, these licensees require flexibility to subsidize access programming as circumstances dictate.

167. The Commission recognized this in 2002 when it stated that:

[it] considers that licensees should allocate funds available for local expression in a way that will best fulfil the needs of their audience and conform to its policies. The Commission notes that while access programs are a central element of community programming, licensee-produced programs may be equally valuable.34

[emphasis added]

168. When the Commission first established a regulatory framework for cable licensees to operate community channels in 1975, the principles of access, balance and opportunity for alternative programming were cornerstones of the programming philosophy. As stated by the Commission in its 1975 policy:

Perhaps the most significant factor which sets the content of community programming apart is its ability to turn the passive viewer of television into an active participant. . . . Although citizen participation in community

34 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 70.

programming is difficult to achieve, it is nevertheless the most important element in distinguishing community programming from traditional broadcast programming.35

169. Rogers has always taken a leadership role in providing access and alternative points of view in our community channel programming. Community programming is in large part unique because it is television programming produced in partnership by, for and with members of the community. Over the past seven years, there has been dramatic growth (over 140%) in the number of individuals and community groups who have been directly involved with Rogers TV. This is evidence that, without additional guidelines, our community channels are providing more access than ever before and ensuring that more groups can get their messages out to the local community. We must do this in order to differentiate ourselves and remain relevant to viewers who have hundreds of programming options.

170. The Commission’s Policy should remain flexible, taking into account that the needs, resources and production requirements vary depending on the community and the community channel in question.

(b) Production of Local Programming through the LPIF

171. Rogers is strongly opposed to directing any portion of the BDU contribution currently allocated to the production of community programming to the LPIF. We believe the Commission’s policies should safeguard the success and contributions of the community channel. Consistent with existing LPIF requirements, redirecting a portion of BDUs’ contribution to the LPIF would not guarantee more or better local programming. All it would do is weaken the community programming model and threaten the relevance of local expression within the regulated broadcasting system.

172. With the LPIF contribution requirement at 1.5% of all Class 1 BDU gross broadcasting revenues, approximately $102 million of new money now flows to commercial small market television broadcasters. In addition, effective September 1, 2009, all limits on the amount of commercial advertising broadcast by for OTA television stations have been lifted. Taken together, these regulatory supports are more than sufficient for conventional broadcasters to produce local programming. There is simply no regulatory rationale to rob not-for-profit community channels of any of their funding for truly local programming in order to further bolster the for- profit, commercial, OTA broadcasting sector which too often airs programming that, while locally-produced, contains little by way of true local reflection.

35 CRTC Policies Respecting Broadcasting Receiving Undertakings (Cable Television), dated December 16, 1975, page 17.

Q. 21 Should the community-based television programming undertakings have access to BDU contributions for local expression, as is currently the case for community channels and community programming undertakings?

173. When the Commission first proposed the licensing of community-based television services, it distinguished them from community channels by providing greater operational flexibility:

…other community-based television services, with fewer regulatory requirements relating to ownership, advertising and access, may facilitate the entry of new players - either commercial or not-for-profit - into the broadcasting system to provide a greater diversity of voices at the local level.36

174. Rogers rejects any suggestion that a BDU should redirect a portion of its not-for- profit, 100% Canadian programming, community channel budget to support the operation of a commercial, community-based television undertaking. Under the Policy, instead of receiving funding from a BDU, these services were given the flexibility to create a viable service that is self-funded through the sale of 12 minutes/hour of local advertising. Since they are able to offer non-Canadian content on up to 20% of their schedule, these undertakings should be able to generate sufficient advertising and sponsorship revenues to meet their budgetary needs.

175. Together, the Commission and cable BDUs have created a model for community channels that ensures they contribute to the presentation of high levels of local and access programming, and provide multiple opportunities for citizen access and training. The portion of a BDU’s revenues allocated to these channels is used to fund the operation of what the Commission has recognized to be an important public service and source of Canadian programming. Any proposal to divert a part of this funding would directly impair Rogers’ ability to fulfill the objectives of the Act.

36 Public Notice CRTC 2001-129 – Proposed policy framework for community-based media, dated December 21, 2001 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2001/pb2001-129.htm), paragraph 44.

4. NEW TECHNOLOGIES

a. VOD

Q. 22 Is there an increasing role or a special role in the future for community programming available on demand? Is there a role for VOD-only community programming?

176. Rogers believes that there may be a role for community programming available on- demand and we continue to explore ways to reach viewers through our VOD platform. We believe VOD could help to increase viewing to community programming by letting people catch up with programs they missed on the linear channel and by extending the reach of programs.

177. Rogers began experimenting with community programming on VOD in early 2006, when we added election content during the January 2006 federal election. The Rogers TV-produced content included information on local candidates, local riding profiles and local all-candidates debates. This was the first time the VOD platform was used in a Canadian election. We believe it was a public service that directly benefited our customers who demonstrated a strong interest in receiving this content. With limited promotion (and a much lower digital television penetration rate), there were approximately 45,000 views for the election programming. Subsequently, we have offered election programming on VOD for both municipal and provincial elections. Viewers have been able to learn the issues, get to know their candidates and make more informed choices when they go to the polls.

178. We have no plans to move towards a VOD-only community programming model. While we are interested in experimenting in making community programming available on VOD, we consider the linear channel itself to be the primary destination point for our communities and the aggregator of community programming.

Q. 23 Are there benefits to a VOD presence for community television? Are there consequences to having or not having such a presence? What are the challenges to establishing a community programming presence on this distribution platform?

179. There may be benefits and opportunities to a VOD presence for the community channel, as we describe in our response to Question 22. The consequence of not establishing a presence for community programming on VOD may be the risk that, over time, it will lose relevance to audiences who prefer to watch television at a time of their choosing. On the other hand, community programming, unlike five- star movies or major primetime sitcoms, is rarely top-of-mind in terms of “must see”

entertainment or information shows. VOD for Rogers TV is a platform we will have to explore very carefully before we commit scarce resources to expanding into it. The linear channel remains the ‘store-front’, acting as the aggregator of content and reminding viewers that there is a space on the dial that is completely devoted to community programming.

b. New Media

Q. 24 What challenges do community television broadcasters face with respect to their participation in new media broadcasting?

180. From Rogers’ perspective, community television broadcasters should view the advent of new media broadcasting and their participation in it as an easier, more cost-effective way to reach their target audiences rather than through the regulated system. With the explosive growth of Internet portals and social networking sites that provide users with the ability to create and access hyper-local video content, there are a broad array of options now available for the distribution of user- generated video content. Broadband Internet connections provide consumers with enough bandwidth to access online video content and websites have become sources of almost unlimited video and audio content.

181. An increasing number of people now participate as content contributors online and much of the content is comparable to bigger-budget, full-length programming on traditional media platforms. This improved quality can be attributed to the availability of “prosumer” equipment (i.e. higher-end consumer cameras, editing software). As noted in David Keeble’s Technology Report, this availability puts production power in the hands of more people and carries with it the potential to increase voices and alternative choices. Individuals can create content and make it available to a vast online audience with great ease. This can all be done in a broadband environment at a fraction of the cost of establishing a traditional television media undertaking.

182. In the case of community-based digital media undertakings, particularly, the online environment is a more appropriate distribution vehicle than cable distribution. The online environment is perfectly suited to services that provide niche audiences with hyper-local content. It also connects these services better with their target audiences, given that there are now more broadband Internet customers in Canada than digital cable subscribers.

183. In the Technology Report, David Keeble concludes that community access groups may use the Internet as a text-based medium, but are not inclined to use it to distribute community-based video programming. Given the fast and fluid pace of change in the online environment, we do not consider that this conclusion, reached two years ago, can be relied on.

Q. 25 Are there benefits to a new media presence for community television? Are there consequences to having or not having such a presence?

184. We believe there are benefits to having a new media presence for our Rogers TV community channels. Rogers TV’s websites are promotional and informational in nature, serving to promote what is presented on the linear channel. Each Rogers TV channel has a dedicated website that provides information about the channel, including local broadcast schedules and online versions of the Volunteer Application and Program Proposal forms. In 2004, we added new software to link our logs with the published schedules on our websites, ensuring real-time updates and delivering detailed, episode-specific information. This presence helps us attract and retain audiences to the linear channel by replaying content and promoting content for upcoming shows. It also allows us to promote volunteer opportunities and seek out programming ideas from the community, thus enhancing access. Finally, the website is an easy tool for soliciting viewer feedback on Rogers TV.

185. In today’s media environment, providing a companion website to one’s linear channel is par for the course. Most undertakings today integrate their linear offerings with a new media presence. The Internet encourages broadcasters – including community broadcasters - to find new ways to connect with viewers and create a community of interest that will draw audiences back to the programming that is offered on the linear channel. The consequence of not having such a presence would simply be one less way to reach out to our viewers.

Q. 26 If community channels do not have a new media presence, can Internet users obtain the same content from other sources on the web? Does the existence of the Internet as an avenue for community expression affect the need for community access to traditional television production?

Q. 27 Is there a special role for community broadcasting in the new media environment? Is there a role for Internet-only community broadcasting?

186. Rogers considers that linear community channels remain the ‘store-front’, acting as the aggregator of content and reminding viewers that there is a channel available that is completely devoted to community programming. The existence of the Internet as an avenue for community expression does not negate the value of maintaining long-operating cable channels, which have developed established brands and audience loyalty. As with providing content on the VOD platform, the existing infrastructure of the linear community channel is essential to providing effective community access. While some of the content available on community channels may be available on the Internet (for example, people can pay to watch OHL hockey games streamed online), we see the linear channel as a more effective way for us to make our programming available to a wider audience. The existing infrastructure of the channels, as refined and improved upon for over 40

years, is essential in order to fulfill the objectives for community programming in the Broadcasting Act and under the Policy.

187. The new media environment provides lots of opportunities to connect community program producers with their target audiences. Given the low costs of entry, there appears to be tremendous potential for community groups to participate, bringing a greater diversity of voices. With the high penetration of broadband services available in Canada and healthy subscription rates (over 94% of Canadians have access to high-speed Internet access and 69% actually subscribe to it),37 most Canadians who wish to access community programming content online can do so from the comfort of their home. Rogers believes the online environment is well- suited to services that provide niche audiences with hyper-local content and, given the high penetration rates of high speed Internet in Canada, provides an effective way for these services to connect with their target audiences.

c. Official-Language Minority Communities (OLMCs)

Q. 28 What are the reasons for the lack of openness (e.g., demographic, generational, economic) regarding opportunities for community broadcasting in new media?

Q. 29 What is the role of community television in the OLMCs and what should that role be?

Q. 30 What role can community programming play in reflecting the realities, needs and concerns of OLMCs?

Q. 31 How can the Commission encourage and ensure the availability of community programming to and by OLMCs?

188. While Rogers cannot speak for other community broadcasters in OLMCs, we operate minority language community channels in Ottawa and Moncton. Both of these channels have companion websites that feature selections of content from the linear channels.

189. Rogers believes that community television should provide programming that reflects each market served. Where there is a sizable OLMC in a market, it is appropriate for community channels to ensure that there is programming available to cater to that market. To that end, we have been active in providing community television in both English and French.

37 Communications Monitoring Report 2009 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2009/2009MonitoringReportFinalEn.pdf ), Section 5.3.

190. In 1999, Rogers first applied to raise our contribution allocation in Ottawa from 2% to 4% in order to fund the operation of both our English- and French-language community channels. The application was denied, but we continued to advocate that in communities where licensees offered community channels in both official languages, these BDUs should be able to access additional funding to pay for the operation of two distinct channels. In the Policy, the Commission finally agreed and determined that licensees electing to distribute two community channels in a market could apply to allocate up to 2% of their required contributions to Canadian programming to each of the channels.38 In 2004, the Commission approved Rogers’ application to allocate an additional 2% (for a total 4%) of our gross broadcast revenues to fund the operation of English and French channels in Ottawa and Moncton.39 This had an immediate and positive impact on the channels and the communities served, particularly the OLMCs in each market.

191. In addition to separate English and French channels in these markets, Rogers makes every effort to ensure that the needs of the Francophone community are well-served by, and represented in, our community programming. We offer four separate French community channels in New Brunswick, in addition to our five English community channels. The programming on the French channels is tailored to meet the needs of the specific French-language communities in each region of the province. In Edmundston, for example, programming is primarily in Quebecois French, given its proximity to Quebec. In Moncton, Bathurst and the Acadian Peninsula, the community channels are designed to meet the needs and culture of the Acadian communities.

d. High-Definition Content

Q. 32 What steps have BDUs taken to date to produce high definition community programming? Are these steps sufficient? If not, what measures can be taken to further encourage the production of high definition community programming?

192. Rogers TV has taken appropriate steps to keep pace with the rest of the Canadian broadcasting system as it migrates to digital and HD, moving towards providing community programming in HD. In 2003, Rogers TV began a modernization initiative with the long-term goal of converting all of our facilities to digital. More recently, that objective was focused on a more targeted conversion to HD. This adjustment in strategy is being largely driven by external factors, the most important of which is extending the useful life of equipment. A decreased availability of standard definition equipment is beginning to emerge and this trend will only accelerate in future years. Rogers TV spends approximately $7 million in

38 BPN 2002-61, paragraph 73. 39 Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-170 – Contributions to French and English-language community channels, dated May 10, 2004.

capital per fiscal year which translates into equipment being replaced on a 10-12 year cycle. Accordingly, equipment purchased in 2010 is expected to be retired from service around 2022. Because of this fiscal reality and a shifting of the television landscape towards universal HD, Rogers TV has deemed it imprudent to purchase anything but HD equipment going forward. At current capital spending levels, Rogers TV expects that we will complete our conversion to HD in 2019.

193. Rogers recommends that the Commission encourage community channel operators to make capital investments by maintaining the existing 2% contribution mechanism and continuing to permit cable operators to reinvest any additional revenues from sponsorships into their community channels.

*** End of Document ***