Although the Public Notice for a modification in the conditions for broadcast distributors to carry Al Jazeera was issued last Thursday, Financial Post’s story came out today.

Ten years ago, the CRTC set an unusual condition for any broadcast distributor that wanted to carry Al Jazeera:

1. to retain and provide a clear and intelligible audio-visual recording of each Al Jazeera Arabic program distributed on its undertaking for a period of
   1. four weeks after the date of distribution of the program; or
   2. eight weeks after the date of distribution of the program, if the Commission receives a complaint about abusive comment from a person regarding the program or for any other reason wishes to investigate abusive programming and so notifies the licensee before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (i); and
2. not to distribute, as part of the Al Jazeera Arabic programming service, any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability.

The CRTC observed at the time “No licensee of a BDU is actually required to alter or curtail the Al Jazeera signal as a result of this notice.” However, it was clear that the Commission would hold the distributor accountable for violations of the conditions.

In its application filed by the Washington office, Al Jazeera has asked the CRTC to delete these conditions, claiming that “The intervenors’ concerns outlined in BPN 2004-51 have not materialized.”

The Al Jazeera application does not address an actual finding of fact by the CRTC “that there is sufficient credible evidence to establish that future Al Jazeera programming, taken in context, could include abusive comment that could be contrary to Canadian law and be inconsistent with the section 15 Charter value of equality that underlies Canadian broadcasting policy.”

The Commission also notes the submissions of a number of supporting parties that it is important to distinguish between the statements of Al Jazeera hosts and statements made by guests or viewers. In the view of these parties, if there was hate in some of the statements, it was hate that Al Jazeera “reported on” rather than expressed, condoned or adopted, and this distinction is meaningful. The Commission notes that relatively few of the statements included in the opposing submissions appear to have been made by employees of Al Jazeera, and that most occurred when Al Jazeera reported the controversial views of others or broadcast views provided by viewers or guests. However, the Commission also notes that the policy that it employs with its licensees, a policy most frequently used in terms of open line programming, is based on the principle that the licensee chooses its guests and the viewers or listeners calling in that it puts on the air. The licensee is therefore responsible for the statements made by such guests, viewers or listeners. Supporting parties also submitted that the reporting of news is vitally important to a free and democratic society. However, the Commission considers that there is a line between reporting on hate as news in newscasts or news coverage, as opposed to facilitating its expression or directly expressing, condoning or adopting it. In this case, it does not appear that any of the statements in the appendix were news reports.

In its new application, Al Jazeera points to the fact that its service is available in Israel. The application claims that Al Jazeera’s Arabic language service “has continued to expand its global reach without encountering any credible complaints relating to its journalistic principles or its news and information programming in the countries where it has been readily available.”

Of course, Al Jazeera must have forgotten the incident in 2008 that led the network to apologize to Israel for its coverage celebrating the release of a convicted terrorist who had murdered Israeli children, acknowledging the coverage had violated its own code of ethics.

In a 2011 article in American Journalism Review, Erik Nisbet, an Ohio State University professor who studies Arab media and anti-Americanism, is cited saying “anti-Semitism is woven into the fabric of Al Jazeera’s Arabic reporting.”

We’ll see if Al Jazeera is able to successfully counter the CRTC’s earlier finding as a matter of fact.

Comments are due March 17.

Yesterday, Statistics Canada released data from the 2012 Survey of Household Spending providing a glimpse of what kind of equipment is in the homes of Canadians and how we spend our money each month.

It didn’t take long for some to misunderstand some of the data on communications services spending. “Cellphone costs hit historical high: Statistics Canada” read one of the headlines, leading Open Media to tweet out a call to action by its followers.

Monthly cellphone spending is different from costs.

Prices are lower, so more households have more phones, as the detailed Statistics Canada data shows:

• Households with at least one cellphone increased to 81.4% in 2012 (up from 79.4% in 2011);
• Households with exactly one cellphone declined to 35.5% from 36.5%;
• Households with exactly 2 cellphones increased to 29.2% from 28.0%; and,
• Households with 3 or more cellphones jumped to 16.7% from 14.9%.

The monthly bills went up because there are more devices in the average household.

There was other data that I found interesting in the release, despite the numbers being a year old.

• Households with a home computer declined year over year to 84.1% from 84.5%. While this is a statistic on person ownership of computers (as contrasted with a device provided by an employer), the number is headed in the wrong direction.
• Computer ownership is the denominator that should be used to measure penetration of internet access. Households with internet access increased to 81.5% in 2012 from 80.5% in 2011. That represents 96.9% of households with a computer, up from 95.3%. Only 3.7% of households used dial-up connections in 2012, down from 5.2%.
• Despite all of the talk of cord-cutting for TV services, Statistics Canada found 88.3% of us had a wired or satellite TV service in 2012, up from 87.4%.

We will be looking at all of these trends at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place June 16-18 in Toronto.

Here is a look at just one of the panels, that will discuss the continuing evolution of TV, from a wide variety of perspectives.

Have you registered yet^

Scotia Capital released a report earlier today called: “Embrace the Evolution: Analyzing the Financial Impact of Changes in Pay TV, Broadband, and Home Phone Services.”

Among its findings, Scotia says the business rationale for cable consolidation is increasing. “In Canada, we believe the combination of Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications makes more business sense than ever before.”

Some of the highlights include:

• Cable and telco wireline revenue growth will remain positive, at approximately 1.0%-1.5% over the next 10 years, as the industry’s focus shifts from traditional pay TV and home phone to broadband Internet;
• Over the next 10 years, cable and telco wireline EBITDA growth will be approximately 2.5%-3.0%;
• Cable and telco wireline cash flow (cash EBIT) growth will be in the range of 4.5%-5.0% over the next 10 years, primarily driven by EBITDA growth;
• Cablecos will show higher growth than telco wireline segments over the next 10 years;
• Although the long term view is growth over a 10 year period, there remain challenges over the next few years;
• Canadian pay TV segment is about to experience more revenue and margin pressure than ever before;
• To protect the TV business and to enhance the user interface and experience, pay TV operators will shift capex toward cloud architecture and IP video delivery;

Scotia Capital observed that telephone companies have been experiencing residential phone decline (driven by wireless substitution) for many years and cable companies are now seeing it, too. “We estimate that, in 2013, over 500K lines were cut because of wireless substitution – the highest annual figure ever for this metric in Canada.”

It is worth the time to read the analysis, led by Jeff Fan.

Jeff will be moderating a session at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit called “The Continuing Evolution of TV.”

Have you registered yet?

On Friday, CRTC chair JP Blais wrote to Rogers, because he was “dismayed” following the NFL playoff game between the San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks.

It wasn’t that the 49ers lost.

He didn’t like the exchange he read on Twitter:

There was a point in the game where the main broadcaster (Fox) thought that the clock went down to the 2-minute warning, a point in the game where broadcasters can usually pack a few commercials back-to-back. So CTV went ahead and inserted its commercials into the CTV version of the game. But the referee put a second back onto the clock allowing one more play. Fox broke away from their commercial quicker than CTV.

I was upset at that point as well:

In his letter, the CRTC wrote:

As you are aware, there are a number of misconceptions and a certain frustration among Canadian television viewers regarding simultaneous substitution. These are often expressed at this time of year—specifically, during the NFL playoffs and following the broadcast of the Super Bowl game.

In fact, the CRTC has a special website just because of regular complaints about Canadians not being able to access Super Bowl commercials.

The CRTC sent a reply tweet a day later, on Monday, to the annoyed user, copying Rogers and CTV:

The customer replied, “Thank you, I’m informed & appreciate the responses.” Twitter worked!

But apparently, the Chairman didn’t think that the Commission should be taking the heat for its regulations. In his letter to Rogers, the chairman’s letter goes on to state:

Broadcasters have indicated that they benefit tremendously from simultaneous substitution. They have earned many millions of dollars in ad revenues since 1972, when the CRTC first allowed broadcasters to replace American signals with their own. In addition, many television distributors in Canada are now part of the same corporate family as those very broadcasters. As such, members of the broadcasting industry—both broadcasters and distributors—must share in the duty of ensuring that simultaneous substitution is done correctly. They must also share in the responsibility of explaining to Canadians the policy’s benefits and in correcting misinformation in the public sphere.

He goes on to admonish the response from the Rogers social media team:

it would be appreciated if you could remind your customer service representatives that broadcasters choose whether to substitute signals and that both the broadcaster and the distributor are responsible for the quality of the substitution.

Here is the rub. While CTV is part of the corporate family of a TV distributor (Bell), it is not related in any way to Rogers. Rogers involvement in the interaction with the frustrated customer was as a broadcast distributor, obligated by CRTC regulations to insert the CTV feed on top of the Fox channels.

As the first tweet from Rogers said, it wasn’t up to Rogers to make that choice. The customer wanted clarification and the Rogers person correctly stated that it was due to CRTC rules. This had nothing to do with vertical integration and the fact that Rogers also owns broadcast assets. All BDUs in Canada are subject to the same CRTC rules. If the game broadcaster asks for substitution, the BDU has to ignore the fact that its customers may want to see the US feed; as a condition of license, the CRTC requires that the BDU swaps the feed.

Back in 2008, before Bell owned CTV, Bell TV didn’t substitute the CTV feed on the US High Definition broadcast of the 2008 Super Bowl. The CRTC responded harshly:

The Commission expects Bell TV to perform simultaneous substitution of future Super Bowl and similar broadcasts in compliance with the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, and in the same manner that it regularly performs such substitutions. The Commission also directs Bell TV to confirm in writing, with both the Commission and CTV, within two weeks of the present decision, that it will perform such substitution.

Why did the CRTC target Rogers, the distributor, but not CTV, the broadcaster? Why did the CRTC chair ask Rogers for a “report outlining the training your customer service representatives receive on this issue, as well as copies of fact sheets or other materials at their disposal.”

The tweets from the Rogers social media team appear to be accurate and responsive, considering the 140 character limitations of the medium.

At the end of the day, the CRTC is responsible for its own regulations.

The schedule is starting to get in shape and the first major email blast is going out today for The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, which will take place June 16-18 at the Toronto Congress Centre.

For three full days, The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit will again deliver thought-provoking insights from the prime movers of the industry. The Canadian Telecom Summit gives you the chance to hear from and talk with them in both a structured atmosphere of frank discussion and high-octane idea exchange and schmooze in a more relaxed social setting of genial conversation over espresso or cocktails.

Join your colleagues in listening to and participating in executive presentations from those who have the greatest influence on the direction of Canadian telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology. Hear from global leaders and local trend-setters. Meet with your suppliers, customers and partners. Challenge your competition.

Attracting the senior-most professionals from around the globe, The Canadian Telecom Summit is the forum for the broad cross-section of stakeholders to meet, exchange views, share ideas, challenge assumptions and plan for the future.

If you haven’t received our email blast, check your spam folders and be sure to include “gstconferences.com” on your email white list. Sign up for our conference mailing list here.

Early bird rates are in effect until the end of February. Register now for the best savings. You can view (or download) the brochure at Scribd.