From msurman@web.apc.org Sun Jan 29 03:26:30 1995 From: Mark Surman Subject: Policy for an Electronic Commons -- Support Requested ***************************************** The Electronic Commons: Community Television and Canada's Information Highway Written comments submitted in accordance with CRTC Public Notice 1994-130. Submitted by: Mark Surman submission #43 Executive Summary As we move into the age of the information highway, there is a need to set out principles and ground rules upon which telecommunications competition in Canada will be based. In particular, it is essential that Canada's information highway include a public lane or electronic commons that will allow for free and open public self-expression by all Canadians. Under the current Broadcasting Act, community television is intended to provide just such a public lane. Unfortunately, the current model community television outlined in the Broadcasting Act has not lived up to its role as a forum for public self-expression, nor is it suitable for the competitive and interactive environment of the information highway. As the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act are modified and possibly merged to accommodate the coming of the information highway, the Commission has the opportunity to transform the Canadian community channel into to an effective electronic commons or public lane for the information highway. This submission recommends that the Commission develop regulations that support the creation of a public lane: * provide a forum for public self-expression, cultural diversity, cross-community and inter-regional communication, and the development of Canadian content; * provide the resources to aid Canadians in the production of all manner of media transmittable on Canada's information highway; * be interoperable and available across and between all networks; * be accessible to all Canadians on a first-come, first-served basis; * be funded by network operators or, as they are described in the current Broadcasting Act, the operators of distribution undertakings. This service would replace the current obligation of cable licensees to fund and operate community channels; * be operated by independent organizations with experience in the operation of non-profit network services. If Canada is to maintain a well rounded communications system, enhance its global competitiveness and promote the opportunities for public-self expression which are essential to the health of a democracy, the Commission must include provisions for a public lane as it writes the regulation that will define Canada's information highway. Terms in this submission: Network: the term "network" is used to describe the physical, organizational and economic system by which Canadians will access information highway services. Although it encompasses some additional services and functions, this use of the word "network" is roughly analogous to the term "distribution undertaking" in the current Broadcasting Act. Network Operator: the term "network operator" refers to a business or other organization that operates and sells access to such a network. In is assumed that network operators will include large cable companies, telephone companies, cellular and wireless companies, and possibly electrical utilities. Service Operator: the term "service operator" refers to any business or other organization which operates a programming or content service -- whether it be for-profit or not-for-profit -- on the information highway. A "service operator" would be roughly analogous to the operator of a "programming undertaking" in the under the current Broadcasting Act. Electronic Commons: the term "electronic commons" refers to a public lane on the information highway which exists to facilitate free and open public self-expression by all Canadians. It is analogous to, and intended to replace, the current concept of community television. About the author: Mark Surman has written widely on community television, telecommunications, the Internet and the information highway for a variety of publications. In addition he spent the past four and a half years working as community channel staff for a large Canadian cable company. Mr. Surman is currently working on training and network literacy projects for a major Canadian computer network and Internet provider. The opinions expressed in this submission are wholly those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any organizations or individuals with which the author may be affiliated. Copyright 1994 Mark Surman. 1.0 INTRODUCTION As Canada moves into an era of telecommunications competition, it is essential that we as a nation thoroughly explore the ground rules and principles upon which our information highway will be built. It should be recognized that competition and principle are not mutually exclusive, and that the social obligations and universal access requirements described in the current Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act have a place in the competitive environment of the information highway. 1.1 Principles and Canada's Information Highway As we consider the revision or merging of The Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act that are suggested by Order in Council P.C. 1994-1689, we must develop regulations that, while allowing for competition, are principled and enforceable. Such regulations must include provisions for: * affordable, equal, flat-rate network access for all Canadians, including those in rural and remote locations; * access to interpersonal communications, community information services and other essential services as a part of the basic, flat-rate network charge; * equal network access for small-scale content providers based on principles of common carriage; * an open, interoperable network which embraces the gatekeeper-free model of the Internet as opposed to the gatekeeper-oriented model of broadcasting and cable television; * common carriage of all manner of interpersonal communications including voice, electronic mail and fax, both within and between networks; * a universally accessible public lane or electronic commons which -- based on the Broadcasting Act's vision of community television -- promotes democratic debate and public self-expression. It is this last point -- the development of a public lane or electronic commons on Canada's information highway -- to which this submission is primarily addressed. 2.0 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY TELEVISION IN CANADA Public debate and self-expression are essential to the development of social consensus and cross-community understanding in a democracy. Unfortunately, the mass media which have dominated most public communication throughout the 20th century have not lent themselves to such debate and expression on a broad scale. 2.1 Canada's Community Television Regulations In 1975, the Commission addressed this problem by requiring all cable operators to provide a universally accessible community channel to be programmed by average Canadians rather than professional broadcasters. The Commission's vision of community television reflects the deep importance of such a service in maintaining the health of a democratic society. In particular, it stresses the need for individual and community self expression as a means to promote diversity, the exploration of new ideas and Canadian content. In describing Canada's current community channel regulations, CRTC - Public Notice 1991-59 states that the community channel and the cable licensees which operate such channels shall: * ...facilitate(e) self-expression through free and open access to members of the community (page 3); * ...engender a high level of citizen participation and community involvement in community programming (page 3); * ...seek out innovative ideas and alternative views (page 4). In sum, the Commission's definition of the community channel is that of an "electronic commons" where Canadians can freely express their opinions to their neighbours, no matter if those opinions are unconventional, unpopular or antithetical to the opinions of the cable licensee. Such a service is of incalculable value to the enhancement of democracy in Canada. 3.0 COMMUNITY TELEVISION IN PRACTICE Unfortunately, the Commission's vision of a forum for democratic self expression has not emerged at most Canadian community channels. Despite the efforts of many community channel staff and some cable licensees, most community channels are neither accessible nor open to the expression of controversial ideas by members of their communities. This is especially the case at community channels run by the large Multi-System Operators (MSO's) who propose to build Canada's information highway. The incongruence between the Commission's vision of the community channel and the reality of access has been confirmed by the majority of studies on community television which have been conducted within the past 15 years (for example, see Goldberg, New Star Books, 1989 and Spiller, Rogers Cablesystems, 1982). 3.1 The Problems of Canadian Community Television In general, Canadian community channels face the following problems: * Many individuals and groups who would like to produce programming, or who would like to air already produced programming of relevance to the community, are not given access to the community channel by cable licensees. While cable licensees do air a large quantity of original programming, this represents only a small portion of requests received, especially in large urban centres. * There is no consistent, democratic system through which requests for access are assessed at Canadian community channels. Decisions about which programming requests will be accepted are made in an arbitrary manner based on the perspectives of community channel staff or the cable licensee. * The majority of community channel programs in Canada are produced by the employees of cable licensees and not by average Canadians. Even where programs are logged as community produced for statistical purposes they are often produced with only token involvement from members of the community. * Certain licensees will refuse access to program requests, or remove programs from a community channel schedule, based on their own moral or political convictions, or based on the complaints of a small number of community residents. These are not programs which are slanderous, libelous, or in breech of the licensee's obligations under the Broadcasting Act. Such behaviour is not acceptable in relation to a service intended to "...facilitate self-expression through free and open access." * Certain licensees are well known to refuse program proposals that do not have sponsorship attached to them. This practice takes place despite its prohibition in the cable industry's own Community Channel Standards. * Most cable licensees use airtime on the community channel to promote company goods and services. In many cases, the same cable licensees will turn down access requests based on "lack of airtime". * Cable licensees will often use the community channel as a direct means of achieving their own political goals. Recently, a cable licensee in the Maritimes withdrew coverage of town council in protest of a municipal tax increase. Although this is an extreme example, it is common practice for licensees to use council coverage and elected representative programming as leverage in tax and municipal right-of-way negotiations. * Some licensees, including one of Canada's largest MSO's, uses "freelancers" instead of community volunteers for programming which is considered too important for the hands of average Canadians. Such a practice would be more than acceptable in the context of a commercial local programming channel, but it is wholly unacceptable at community channels which have been given a mandate to "...engender a high level of citizen participation..." and "...provide and promote the availability of training programs..." by the Commission (CRTC - Public Notice 1991-59, page 3). 3.2 The Structural Flaws in Canada's Community Television System The central problem pointed to by the above examples is best illustrated by a comparison between the town commons of the previous centuries and the community channels of today. The town commons and the community channel are both intended to promote democratic public self-expression. But, where the town commons was maintained by a municipality which would not dare to remove speakers of which it did not approve from the commons, community channels are run by private companies who feel obliged to remove potentially offensive voices from their community channels. The state of community television in Canada is not the fault of individual licensees or even of large MSO's. Rather, it is a structural flaw of a system that puts responsibility for public self- expression into the hands of companies whose primary business is the re-selling of television signals. The rewriting or merging of the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act which are suggested by Order in Council P.C. 1994-1689, and the development of Canada's information highway infrastructure in general, will no doubt require a reevaluation of Canada's community channel regulations. As telephone companies begin to compete with cable companies, the Commission will have to reconsider how Canada's community television system is organized and regulated. Such reconsideration presents the perfect opportunity to remedy the structural flaws within the current system, and to create a information highway which is not only conducive to commerce, but also to democracy and public self- expression. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS -- CREATING A NEW ELECTRONIC COMMONS The technology that will make up Canada's information highway lends itself far more to the unfettered, open public self-expression of the town commons than it does to the gatekeeper-oriented community channel. Given this, and given the problems with community television in Canada today, the Commission should take the spirit of its current community channel regulations and apply this spirit to the construction of a new electronic commons -- or public lane -- for the information highway. 4.1 Canada's Information Highway and the Electronic Commons An electronic commons should consist of a free, accessible electronic space that allows Canadians to publicly communicate by means of any and all media transmittable on the information highway. Such a service would: * promote democratic self-expression, cultural and political diversity, inter-regional and cross-community understanding, and Canadian cultural content; * serve as a public spawning ground for young Canadian artists and other creators of Canadian cultural content; * enhance the media literacy of Canadians, thus increasing our competitiveness in the global media and telecommunications labour market; * operate on a first-come, first-served basis, with expanded bandwidth and storage space where necessary, to ensure that all Canadians have the ability to create and broadly distribute non-commercial media products; * not be open to commercial use or sponsorship, regardless of the scale of that commercial use; * be accessible free of charge as a part of basic network subscriptions (the equivalent of basic cable or phone service today); * be funded, but not operated, by all network operators or, as defined by the current Broadcasting Act, all operators of distribution undertakings. It should be noted that placing the financial burden of such a system on network operators represents no additional or unusual obligation for such operators. For the past 20 years, cable licensees have been required to fund community channels. In addition, other private companies subject to the Broadcasting Act, such as private programming undertakings, have been required to fulfill some sort of social obligation, such as the production of Canadian programming. It is reasonable to expect that, in the spirit of the Broadcasting Act, the network operators who will both build and profit from Canada's information highway be required to fulfill a similar obligation in the form of funding for an electronic commons or public lane on the information highway. 4.2 The Components of Canada's Electronic Commons Order in Council P.C. 1994-1689 states that there are three main areas of concern related to the development of Canada's information highway -- competition, facilities and content. Within the context of these three categories, it is recommended that the Commission should mandate an electronic commons or public lane on Canada's information highway. 4.2.1 Competition In an era of telecommunications competition, it is important that no uneven regulatory burden be placed on a single network operator. Nonetheless, it is essential that Canada's information highway include an electronic commons or public lane. Given this, it is recommended that the Commission: * require all network operators to contribute an equal percentage of basic service revenue to the funding of an electronic commons or public lane on the information highway; * apply the current 5% of revenue benchmark used for community channel funding to the above mentioned contribution; * require that the above mentioned contributions go into a central account to be distributed to national, regional or local organizations charged with the operation and maintenance of the electronic commons. Such organizations should have experience with the operation of non-profit network services and must be financially, organizationally and politically independent from the network operators; * require that a single electronic or public lane system be available equally and interoperablly on and between all networks, thus eliminating duplication of service and enhancing the ability of Canadians to communicate broadly; * not include commercially viable services such as local television news, which are currently the responsibility of the community channel, within the mandate of the electronic commons. Given the plummeting production costs for such services, they will be no doubt offered on a competitive basis by commercial content providers. An electronic commons based on these principles of equal contribution and hands-off operation is both fair and efficient in the context of a competitive information highway system. In addition, such principles leave competition between commercial services open while ensuring the continued existence of a non-commercial public space on the information highway. 4.2.2 Facilities As mentioned above, the facilities and services which make up Canada's electronic commons should be funded by network operators and operated by independent organizations with experience in the field of non-profit network services. Canada's electronic commons should be a single, interoperable system available to all Canadians, no matter who they purchase their network connection from. Such an electronic commons or public lane should include: * the ability to distribute and retrieve content on a national, regional and local basis. The current catch areas of many community channels -- based on the arbitrary boundaries of cable license areas -- sometimes limit the ability of citizen producers to reach their intended audiences; * access to technology -- including two-way, interactive and information-on-demand capabilities -- equal to that of commercial services on the highway; * the ability to carry all media transmittable on the information highway, including voice, music, video, film, print, still photography, animation and multi-media; * local production, training, media literacy and terminal access centres. Such centres should include staff and equipment that can provide Canadians with the resources they will need to participate in the electronic commons. Such centres could also serve as uploading points for Canadians who have produced their own content with home video cameras, home computers and other similar equipment' * non-proprietary protocols and technical standards; * bandwidth that is sufficient to accommodate all requests for access. Where such bandwidth has been filled, network operators should be required to provide additional channels, storage space or other items required to expand the bandwidth. 4.2.3 Content The content of an electronic commons or public lane on the information highway will be created by average Canadians, in the same way that the majority of content on the Internet is produced by average citizens. Such content will, by strictly enforced regulation, be of a non-commercial and not-for-profit nature. By its very definition, the content of such a service would be Canadian. The content of Canada's electronic commons or public information highway lane should be: * accepted on a first-come, first-served basis; * accessible to all Canadians; * free of commercial purpose or function, and free of sponsorship messages; * the legal responsibility of the content creator and not of the network operator or the service operator. This includes responsibility for libel, obscenity and the obligations of the Broadcasting Act or any other legislation which follows in the place of the Broadcasting Act. 4.3 A Note on Test Networks Although the Commission has exempted "true" Video-on-Demand (VOD) trials from the licensing requirements of the Broadcasting Act (Public Notice CRTC 1994-118), it is essential that networks operating such trials include an electronic commons or public lane component. Without such a component, it will be impossible for Canadian organizations to gain necessary experience in the operation of interactive, broadband public networks. It is recommended that the Commission immediately require all VOD trials to include an electronic commons component. 5.0 Summary In its philosophical and regulatory conception, community television is intended to enhance Canadian democracy by providing Canadians with free and open access to the means of public self- expression. It is essential that Canada's information highway include adequate space for such self-expression. Unfortunately, the model of community television with which is currently outlined in the Broadcasting Act has neither served such expression well nor will it do so in the new technological environment of the information highway. With this in mind, the Commission must mandate the creation of an electronic commons or public lane for Canada's information highway which embraces community television's spirit of access and which, at the same time, is: * accessible to all Canadians; * a single, interoperable system which is accessible between and within all networks; * funded by all network operators; * operated by organizations that are independent of the above mentioned network operators. A system of this nature will undoubtedly enhance education, media literacy, global competitiveness, cultural diversity, Canadian content production and democracy within Canada. Given this, the Commission must develop provisions for the creation of such a system on Canada's information highway. Submission by Mark Surman in response to CRTC Public Notice 1994-130. 1 ******************************* Mark Surman Web Training Materials Developer msurman@web.apc.org *******************************