Beverley Oda, who resigned her post as a full-time crtc commissioner this fall, is now chairperson of the Foundation to Underwrite New Drama for Pay TV.

* * *

In June of 1992, at the Canadian Cable Television Association annual convention, Keith Spicer, crtc chairman, announced a major policy hearing for March of 1993 on the structure of the broadcasting system, ‘a zero-based examination of the changing structure of the industry.’ A system-wide consensus needed to develop a common vision of the future following the December ’91 Television Industry Summit was not emerging and progress on that front had stalled.

The cable companies, through the ccta, developed a strategy entitled ‘Vision 2001’ and viewed the proposed hearing with enthusiasm. Broadcasters, through the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, experiencing profit declines in the late ’80s and early ’90s, searched for a strategy to achieve profit levels comparable to other sectors of the broadcasting system.

Others eagerly anticipated discussions on more fundamental questions such as broadcasting’s role in Canadian society, monopoly versus competitive distribution systems, and Canadian content. Many were ready to review broadcast regulation, the role of the crtc and debate regulation versus deregulation.

The cable sector presented its strategy, which included an outline of a plan, the time frame involved and the costs associated with each proposal. This plan not only responded to the threat of foreign satellite services, but provided the industry with the technology needed to pursue new interactive transactional services not directly related to broadcasting.

Private broadcasters came forward with an industrial strategy to provide ‘quality programming that Canadians want to watch’ and requested additional resources in the form of ‘fee for carriage,’ based on their role as foundation broadcasters who had historically produced and invested the greatest amount of money in Canadian programming.

In its public notice, commonly referred to as the ‘structural decision,’ issued after the hearing, the commission reaffirmed the role and priority position of private television broadcasters. It agreed that Canadian programming is key to the future of Canadian broadcasting, and recognized the need for more resources to support the production of quality Canadian programming. The impression, however, is that for the most part the commission endorsed the cable plan.

The ‘structural decision’ focused on the resources needed to advance cable’s strategic plan and the creation of a Canadian program production fund with amendments to cable rate regulations. What was to be a zero-based examination of the broadcasting system, some have described as primarily another review of cable rate regulations.

The digital infrastructure and addressable technology can provide viewers with the tools to choose only those program services they want to watch and pay for. This has been called ‘pick and pay,’ true consumer choice. As long as a major portion of cable revenues comes from the packaging and resale of programming services, specialty services will be offered in packages, not on a stand-alone basis. Packaging also benefits Canadian specialty services, as it provides a larger subscriber base and more stable source of revenue. Although technically possible, pick and pay may never be offered in Canada. Our population base is not large enough for a true pick and pay regime.

Although limited by linkage and tiering rules, cable operators essentially control the marketing, pricing and mix of services in every discretionary package. Packaging partners, marketing and retail price are all critical to the success of a service and the attractiveness of any package to the consumer. If the cable industry’s access policy as proposed and the scope of the crtc’s role as mediator is limited to carriage issues only, then cable remains the gatekeeper.

‘Real’ choice for the consumer means the widest possible range of programming services at affordable prices. The wholesale rates of Canadian specialty services, existing and newly-licensed, determine which services will be attractive to cable. And if foreign services are part of a package, the package price should not be increased disproportionately by the cost of the foreign services whose revenues flow to the u.s. with no contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system. Every effort of the commission to keep the rates of Canadian services reasonable and affordable is only half of the equation.

At the public hearing, some proposed ending the cable monopoly and introducing competitive distribution systems as the only way to provide real consumer choice. They believe competition is the best way to ensure affordable pricing, quality of service, and innovative packaging of services.

For the present, the crtc has decided to allow other technologies to only complement the cable infrastructure. It has, however, encouraged telephone carriers to work with cable to increase efficiency in the delivery of services. The door to competition and convergence has not been closed.

Other distribution systems will soon challenge the Canadian cable monopoly to provide video services. Developments in the u.s. have clearly demonstrated that the cable and telephone industries are rapidly integrating their networks and services. The crtc is faced with these issues in the current telecommunications regulatory review and in the acquisition of cable systems in the Northwest Territories by Northwest Tel.

Many key issues remain outstanding. And new issues will arise over the next seven years. It is a period of great flux, a time in which strategies and plans will be tested months, not years, later. The Canadian broadcasting system must remain alert, flexible and ready to adapt.

It must not, however, become any less Canadian. As the cab stated at the public hearing, ‘We challenge the view that there is a solely technological fix that will keep our system Canadian. The only thing that will keep the system Canadian is Canadian programming.’

The system and each of its players must be prepared to enter the next century and the new broadcasting environment with a net gain of Canadian viewers to Canadian programs. Without that achievement, we will have lost more than our broadcasting system. We will have lost what is a vital part of our citizenship.