ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Procedural Letter Addressed to Monica L. Auer (Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC))

Ottawa, 19 January 2016

VIA E-MAIL

Monica L. Auer
Executive Director
Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC)
execdir@frpc.net

Re: Procedural request regarding “Local Programming Data” posted on the CRTC’s website in relation to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-421

The Commission is in receipt of a letter from the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) dated 11 January 2016 seeking clarification from the Commission about information it has published with respect to its review of Local and Community Programming, outlined in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-421.

In its request, FRPC refers to six tables published by the Commission on its website. The first four tables referenced by FRPC can be found on the page titled Community Programming Data – Public Hearing of 25 January 2016^{Footnote 1}:

2012-2013 Aggregate data

• Table 1: Average programming hours produced per reporting unit
• Table 2: Average access programming exhibition hours per reporting unit

2013-2014 Aggregate data

• Table 3: Average programming hours produced per reporting unit
• Table 4: Average access programming exhibition hours per reporting unit

The remaining two tables referenced by FRPC can be found on the page titled Additional Community Programming Data – Public Hearing of 25 January 2016^{Footnote 2}:

2012-2013, 2013-2014 and September 2014 to February 2015 Aggregate Data

• Table 5: Use of facilities by access producers
• Table 6: News on the community channel

Regarding the data published by the Commission in the six tables, FRPC requests the following clarifications and additional publication:

1. publish a complete copy of the letter or letters from the CRTC asking for the information in Tables 5 and 6, including any and all appendices or attachments;
2. provide a complete list of the broadcasters (conventional television broadcasters as well as broadcast distribution undertakings) to whom the CRTC’s 9 April and 18 [September] 2015 letters were sent, and of the broadcasters from whom the CRTC received the information requested;
3. clarify whether the programming hour data set out in Tables 1 through 6 describe original programming hours, repeat programming hours, or both;
4. clarify how the data in Tables 1 through 4 have been “adjusted”;
5. provide, if the programming data in Tables 1 through 6 describe all programming, the data for hours of original programming per broadcast week;
6. publish copies of the individual responses on which the CRTC relied to create Tables 5 and 6 (excluding any financial data for which respondents sought confidentiality at the time of filing);
7. clarify whether the 24% figure set out in Table 6 applies to each of the 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-Feb 2015 periods;
8. provide the names of the BDUs represented by the 24% figure in Table 6, for each of the 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-Feb 2015 periods; and
9. provide the locations to which the 24% figure in Table 6 applies for each of the 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-Feb 2015 periods, including whether the location is considered by the CRTC to be a small, medium or large market.

Requests a) and b)

The Commission publishes today the letter sent to broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) on 9 April 2015 as well as the list of its recipients and respondents. The letter can now be found on the Commission’s website^{Footnote 3}.

The 9 April 2015 letter^{Footnote 4} and 18 September 2015 letter^{Footnote 5} sent to conventional television broadcasters are already available on the Commission’s website. The list of broadcasters who received and responded to the 9 April 2015 and 18 September 2015 letters are found at the bottom of the page titled Local Programming Data – Public Hearing of January 25th 2016^{Footnote 6} . All broadcasters included in the list received and responded to the 9 April 2015 letter. Licensees identified with an ‘'*'' also received and responded to the 18 September 2015 letter.

Requests c) and e)

The programming hour data in Tables 1 through 4 are calculated from annual returns submitted by BDUs to the Commission, which requests that the BDU specify the “number of hours of access programming broadcast” without specifying if the programming broadcast is original or repeats. Therefore, the programming hour data published in Tables 1 through 4 may include both “original programming hours” and “repeat hours”. The Commission does not collect “original programming hours” separately for these data points.

The programming hour data in Table 5 is calculated from BDUs’ responses to question 3 of the 9 April 2015 letter to BDUs, which refers to “hours of programming broadcast”. As such, the data may include both “original programming hours” and “repeat hours”. The letter did not ask for separate data on “original programming hours” for this data point.

The programming hour data in Table 6 is calculated from BDUs’ responses to Question 6a) of the 9 April 2015 letter to BDUs, which refers to “hours per broadcast week [...] broadcast”. As such, the data may include both “original programming hours” and “repeat hours”. The letter did not ask for separate data on “original programming hours” for this data point.

Request d)

The data in Tables 1 through 4 have been adjusted to ensure consistency across datasets. In addition, a number of outlier responses for which the validity of the response could not be firmly established were removed.

Request g)

The 24% figure set out in Table 6 is calculated from BDUs’ responses to Question 5 of the 9 April 2015 letter to BDUs, which reads :

“ 5. Do you broadcast newscasts, newsbreaks or headline news on your community channel?”

As such, the data published may only include data for the current broadcast year.

Requests f), h) and i)

The data in Tables 5 and 6 (including the 24% figure in Table 6) are calculated from BDUs’ responses to the 9 April 2015 letter to BDUs.  The information contained in those responses was requested and submitted outside the course of any proceeding before the Commission with the intention that the aggregate information could be used in a future proceeding.  Parties were advised in the 9 April 2015 letter that in providing their responses “aggregate data may be placed on the public record of a future proceeding.” 

The Commission is, therefore, of the view that parties responding to the 9 April 2015 letter had a legitimate expectation that any information extracted from their response would be published in aggregate only, and that their individual responses and data would not be placed on the public record even in the absence of a specific request for confidentiality. As such, the Commission is of the view that it would not be in the public interest to grant Requests f), h) and i), as it would be unfair to respondents who had been assured that the data would be published in aggregate only. For the reason outlined above, the Commission denies Request f), Request h) and Request i).

Sincerely,

Original signed by
Danielle May-Cuconato
Secretary General

Date modified:

2016-01-19