{"id":4926,"date":"2011-07-04T08:01:25","date_gmt":"2011-07-04T12:01:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=4926"},"modified":"2011-07-03T15:33:55","modified_gmt":"2011-07-03T19:33:55","slug":"funding-public-participation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=4926","title":{"rendered":"Funding public participation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, an article in the Toronto Star<\/a> suggested that the CRTC was biased in discouraging the participation of public interest groups in its over-the-top fact-finding exercise (B&TNC 2011-344<\/a>).\u00a0The author based this charge on the CRTC’s refusal to consider this consultation to be a proceeding for the purposes of applications for reimbursement of costs.<\/p>\n

Konrad von Finckenstein, the chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, was asked at an industry conference about the role of consumer groups in telecom regulation. He responded that consumer groups generally do not have a problem ensuring their views are heard, but that their effectiveness depended upon getting organized and developing the necessary knowledge and expertise to fully participate in regulatory proceedings.<\/p>\n

Yet just as von Finckenstein was providing assurances to the consumer community, the CRTC was erecting barriers to their participation in a consultation on online video services such as Netflix and AppleTV. In fact, the consultation (labeled a \u201cfact-finding exercise\u201d) has been marred by charges of CRTC bias that has led at least one consumer group to pull out altogether.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, the author should have recalled that there was a $3M fund established in March for precisely this kind of purpose, when the CRTC approved the CTV change in control (Decision 2011-163<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Canadian Broadcasting Participation Fund ($3 million)<\/em><\/p>\n