|
INTERVENTION 9575 Mr. Walters. 9576 MR. WALTERS: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. 9577 I am first and foremost a resident of downtown Toronto. I am actually a civil engineer, but my line of work is in the municipal and land development consulting business. I have no affiliation or business interests in either electronics or the media. 9578 I would also like the CRTC to know that I took my valuable vacation time to come up here to Ottawa-Hull to address this issue because I think it's an important one. 9579 Like Mr. Loucks, I discovered Mr. Pachul's test transmissions a year ago, flipping through the TV dial looking for new U.S. presumably stations. No, I do not subscribe to cable TV and probably never will. I grew to intensely dislike the expense of a monopoly and the inherent censorship cable TV embodies. 9580 I have encountered an outstanding number of like-minded people who similarly do not subscribe to cable TV for usually the same reasons. 9581 I understand that within Toronto cable penetration is close to 80 per cent. In spite of this high penetration, this means that in a city of two and a quarter million people, about 425,000 people are not reached by cable and probably only a small percentage of these subscribe to either satellite or LOOK. 9582 My antenna brings me 17 English speaking channels, nine from the U.S. and eight from Canada. Under good reception conditions, I can receive up to 24 U.S. channels but only 12 Canadian. The U.S. choices are also increasing while the Canadian choices are stagnant. 9583 I was almost ecstatic to discover the emergence of a new Canadian, especially local alternative, so I feel compelled now to speak out to try to preserve it. 9584 I read the objections presented by CHUM and Rogers. There are few significant differences between them. I cannot comment on the objections based on CRTC's policy as I am not familiar with it, but can only suggest that if some of these are legitimate, then perhaps changes to policy may be warranted. 9585 However, many of the other objections that I read are either false, overstated or simply delusional. They certainly strike me as arrogant and protectionist. Much of their objections focus on the alleged current availability of ample local news coverage. I'm sorry, but real local news coverage is non-existent in the Toronto TV broadcasting. 9586 Only so much program time is allocated to local news and being a very big city, only big headline news items are covered and all stations cover essentially the same items. A possible rare exception, CHUM refers to its City Pulse program at 4 p.m., but realistically, what percentage of the population can watch TV at that time of day? I certainly can't. 9587 Rogers extols the virtues of its cable 10 community channel. However, a friend of mine and a retired cable television community channel executive, advises me that this is a farce. The local access community channel is virtually extinct in Toronto. 9588 Whereas 20 years ago eight to ten cable companies within recognizable communities and offered local access, today due to cable company amalgamation and facility consolidation, no more than two or three community access studios exist. That's one outlet per million persons. Rogers in particular simply shut them all down. 9589 Similar objections have focused on the alleged availability of similar programming offerings on cable only services or broadcast channels. They allege that, for example, older sci-fis are not needed because ample sci-fi programming is already in existence. 9590 Aside from the cable subscriber only issue, older sci-fi movies are simply not carried on over the air stations, at least not at normal viewing times when I am watching. Programs like "Star Trek II" are not sci-fi. 9591 CHUM and Rogers beef about the station's 15 kilometre range requiring cable carriage in Etobicoke, Mississauga and Richmond Hill. However, their own map shows that the 15 kilometre circle falls short of Etobicoke and, therefore, Mississauga and the mere 900 metre penetration into Richmond Hill may be grounds enough for them to apply for an exemption to preclude carriage on that system. Mr. Pachul might even agree. 9592 They state that broadcast frequencies are a scarce commodity. They are limited, to be sure, but in Canada they are not being utilized. Unlike most of the U.S., the UHF band remains largely unused here, even in this, Toronto being the country's most populous region. 9593 I watched U.S. signals extending beyond their normal range to fill in the Canadian vacuum. 9594 They object that basic band coverage would be obligatory, but Mr. Pachul is likely to accept, as we heard today, a channel above this band. Essentially they seem to be complaining about having to carry a signal at all, but is this a legitimate objection? Is this not their supposed business to carry as many channel options as they can, particularly Canadian ones, to their customers? 9595 You would think they would be pleased to offer their customers such a service if they really cared about customer satisfaction. And I suggest too that customer dissatisfaction is not caused by channel realignments. It is merely a lightening rod for it. 9596 Cable's technical problems, real or otherwise, should not be considered in the licensing of any on-air broadcast services. They'll solve the problem if they really want to. 9597 CHUM whines that Mr. Pachul's station will gain coverage via cable. Coverage does not guarantee viewers. If there are no viewers, Mr. Pachul's station will fail and leave the cable dial. Besides, Mr. Pachul will not actually gain coverage by cable. If there had been no cable TV, or there was no cable TV, the population would be able to watch Mr. Pachul's station via their antennas which they would all surely have. 9598 I have to think sour grapes too when I see an objection based on Mr. Pachul's expenditure allegedly being less than presumably Citytv's was in its infancy. 9599 Finally, an objection is based upon a precedent, that of encouraging others to apply for similar licences. Ignoring the cost issue, which will always continue to deter applicants, anything that encourages applications should be supported. The current monopolistic climate surely discourages legitimate applications. Regardless of the number of applications, it would remain as always for the CRTC to evaluate each such application on its own merits. 9600 Thankfully, Rogers and friends have now reinforced my conviction to remain cable-free and, hopefully, the CRTC will allow Mr. Pachul to increase the TV viewing options available to all of us. 9601 And I would like to just address one item regarding the Channel 15 that came up via the Commission. I had raised the issue about Channel 15 being occupied by a Buffalo station. It is actually a very weak Buffalo station and this Commission has probably never had the misfortune of actually viewing it. It is the most obnoxious, non-stop, hard-hitting, bible thumping, send your money now or hell, fire and damnation, evangelism you can possibly imagine. If Mr. Pachul can actually succeed in pushing that station out of the country, it would be to all of our benefit. 9602 Thank you very much. --- Laughter 9603 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Walters. |