Did the CRTC try to telegraph a message to Bell regarding the Astral deal in its approval of the sale of the broadcasting assets of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment? That is a question that Greg O’Brien asked in Cartt.ca last week.
The Cartt.ca article cited two paragraphs from the decision:
54. As set out in Public Notice 1999-97 and Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-53, applicants are generally expected by the Commission to direct tangible benefits to the communities served and to the broadcasting system as a whole. Further, in order to be accepted as a benefit, the proposed expenditure must be incremental to expenditures that would generally be considered ongoing normal responsibilities of the existing licensee.
55. The Commission, in applying its benefits test, has been consistent and rigorous in requiring that (1) expenditures proposed as tangible benefits be truly incremental; (2) such expenditures be directed to projects and initiatives that would not be undertaken or realized in the absence of the transaction; and (3) applicants demonstrate that expenditures proposed as tangible benefits flow predominantly to third parties, such as independent producers.
In my post last month on tangible benefits, I suggested that there is an argument for Bell’s proposal for certain northern broadband upgrades to be considered incremental. And as any of us who watched the Olympics could attest, expenditures for broadband service expansion is indeed providing benefits to the broadcasting system as it evolves from linear over-the-air to the delivery of on-demand across multiple platforms.
So, with regard to items (1) and (2) from paragraph 55, I think that Bell could make an argument – in fact, a convincing argument. It is item (3) that becomes more difficult: that “applicants demonstrate that expenditures proposed as tangible benefits flow predominantly to third parties.”
I expressed concerns about the use of public benefit funds for broadband expansion: “in a multiple service-provider environment, how can the CRTC grant the benefits funding without distorting the competitive landscape?”
Perhaps the broadband expansion funds were placed in the hands of a competitively neutral third party administrator – a kind of broadband contribution fund administrator – for distribution to service providers based on their market share. Alternatively, the funds might be distributed directly to customers of broadband service providers in certain eligible geographic areas, perhaps based on financial need. But this is just tinkering with a program that will deliver benefits to an extremely limited number of Canadian households.
As I wrote last month, “I am still hoping that a major carrier will show the leadership to launch a program for low income households to acquire connected computers. Perhaps this can be a fallback tangible benefits program?”
More than 2 million Canadian households lack a computer, let alone broadband connectivity. These are households in our urban core, not in remote communities. If broadband is important for households in remote communities, why are we not concerned with the embarrassingly large number of households that can’t afford service in our urban centres?
I continue to believe that a Canadian equivalent of the Connect2Compete needs to be launched.
Across Canada, in the next two weeks another school year will get underway.
As parents head out to buy back-to-school supplies, think about the kids who won’t have access to a connected computer for doing homework.
A connected computer in every household with school aged children has to become a national objective.
Broadcasting is still very much separate from Telecom at he regulatory level.
Using broadcasting money to subsidize Northwestel telecom infrastructure deployment will not help develop canadian content. That warning has been sent to bell in multiple ways in recent weeks.
Bell Media’s core business is distributing USA content. It is one reason it complained about losing money during olympics sunce it could not do channel substitution. If channel substitution is a huge revenue for Bell, EVEN DURING RERUNS SEASON, it shows that it does not intend to develop a profitable canadian content business.
Sould money originally destined to help canadian producers be used to help Bell distribute USA conteht ?
This is why we have the CRTC and why it needs to ensure that Bell Media and Shaw continue to honour their obligation to provide a minium of canadian content on their media properties. And to this end, they need to fund canadian content producers instead of funding mobile antennas.