|
From: "David Bachner" db@trickmedia.com To: "Jan Pachul, Star Ray TV Subject: Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2001-8 Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:56 PM Ms. Ursula Menke Secretary General Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 Re: Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2001-8 Dear Ms. Menke, I am writing regarding the "Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2001-8". I feel that the commission should NOT issue Jan Pachul of Star Ray TV a "manditory order" to "cease and desist operating a broadcasting undertaking at Toronto" for the following reasons: 1. Star Ray TV provides engaging, locally relevant programming that is otherwise unavailable on the UHF band or on cable in Toronto. Star Ray TV provides easier access to the local airwaves than Rogers Cable 10, City TV, CFMT, Global, and CFTO combined. The programming I watch on UHF channel 15 better reflects the face of ordinary Torontonians than does Rogers Cable 10. In recent years, programming on Rogers Cable 10 seems to be moving away from grass roots productions in favor of professionally produced programs like "The Erin Davis Show". Erin Davis is a professional broadcaster who also hosts a successful and profitable commercial morning radio show on Roger's owned CHFI 98.1 FM. This is hardly what any reasonable person would define as "community television". Many amateur and low budget TV producers have been either turned away or given the run-around by Rogers Cable 10 when seeking access to the community airwaves. I was neither turned away, nor given the run-around when I approached Jan Pachul for access to Star Ray TV's airwaves. Without Star Ray TV, there would be no television station fully dedicated to providing ordinary Torontonians access to OUR airwaves. 2. Star Ray TV provides more Canadian programming than any TV station on the dial - on cable or off cable. It broadcasts an even higher percentage of Canadian programming than the CBC! Star Ray TV's Canadian content far exceeds the commision's requirements for television broadcast undertakings. 3. Star Ray TV's transmiter and technical setup have already been inspected, approved and certified by Industry Canada. Star Ray TV's signal does not interfere with any existing broadcast undertaking. 4. The commission's decision to deny Jan Pachul's application for "a new low-power English-language television programming undertaking in Toronto" (Decision CRTC 2000-340) was a mistake. Despite the fact that the commission had received MORE THAN 8 TIMES the amount of supporting interventions over opposing interventions, the commission's decision seemed to spend far more time on the issues raised by those 5 opposing ones. Each one of those 5 interventions were submitted by heavy weights in the commercial broadcast industry. Every one of these lawyer crafted letters raised issues that can be best described as extremely self serving, with the clear intention of blocking any new competition. In its decision, there were inconsistancies in the commission's concerns over Pachul's application, in comparison with previous decisions it has made with regards to at least 2 of the incumbant broadcasters who intervened. For example, the commission expressed concern that even non priority cable carriage (ch. 14 +) would provide Star Ray TV with city wide coverage, beyond the neighborhood Pachul was applying to serve, while City TV and CFMT have been granted licences to rebroadcast their signals in Ottawa and London. They are both allowed to broadcast several hundred kilometers beyond the Greater Toronto Area, even though their focus seems to be targeted exclusively within the GTA both in advertising and programming. One wonders why city wide cable coverage was such an issue in Pachul's case. When Pachul stated that he would accept a licence without cable coverage, the commission was then concerned that Pachul would not be able to meet his business plan targets which were based on cable coverage. It was a "catch 22" situation. The commission gave far too much weight to the opposing intervener's bogus cable issue, and paid no more a paragraph of lip service to the supporting interventions. Considering that there were 43 supporting interventions and only 5 opposing ones, it is very difficult to imagine how the public interest was served by Decision CRTC 2000-340. 5. Toronto's communities are becoming increasingly impatient with our increasingly monopolistic and largely culturally irrelevant broadcast system, and are prepared to support broadcast undertakings that offer an unfettered means of local self-expression - whether or not these undertakings are granted a licence from the CRTC. LPTV has been in existance in several countries for over 2 decades now. The commission has had more than ample time to formulate an urban LPTV policy. The fact that the commission has waited until 2001 to start developing this policy is quite simply unacceptable in modern democatic country like Canada. Torontonians are hungry for this kind of television. Despite the commision's refusal to issue a licence to Star Ray TV, it has continued to broadcast. Television broadcast undertakings (even the small scale ones) are quite costly to operate. It should be noted that Star Ray TV's broadcasting activities could not have been sustained AFTER the commission's refusal of licence if it did not have significant community support. If the commission decides to issue Jan Pachul a "manditory order" to "cease and desist operating a broadcasting undertaking at Toronto", it will do so in opposition to the public interest it is mandated to serve. It should be noted that the commission requires all comments regarding "Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2001-8" to be received by August 20, 2001 - allowing only 21 days for the public to submit comments from the date of the notice which is July 30, 2001. The commission also states all comment "submissions must be received by the CRTC and by the operator at 204 Main Street, Toronto, Ontario", when in fact the correct operator's address is 186 Main Street, not 204 Main Street. In order for ordinary Torontonians to enjoy continued access to OUR public airwaves, I strongly urge the commission to NOT issue Jan Pachul a "manditory order" to "cease and desist operating the broadcasting undertaking known locally as "Star Ray TV". Furthermore, I urge the commission to consider options that would result in making Star Ray TV's harmless broadcasts legal. Yours Truly, David Bachner Media Services Manager Trick Media ***end of document*** |