I have been looking at the differences between the FCC and the CRTC or Canadian Radio and Television Commission. Canadian broadcasters have much more rigid requirements. This even applies to VLPFM (Very Low Power FMs) defined as 5 watt FMs.
Having been in radio and dealing with the FCC since the late 1970s, I see the difference in the rules as a good thing and a burden.
I approach my comments based on looking at how the low power FM movement in Canada is doing. I paid special attention to the more remote communities where a local station serves an important place in the community.
To cite a couple of examples: The CRTC classifies music types by type and by nationality. In a certain music classification 35% of the music must be by Canadian artists. It seems stations must supply proof and can be at least admonished for coming in under 35% in any given week. I would think this longstanding requirement would not be needed because the Canadian artist and their hits would already the the known, comfortable and popular artists listeners would prefer a part of a station playlist. If you start testing songs, wouldn’t 35% or more be by Canadian artists anyway? Perhaps for hit based formats such a requirement might be a good idea.
I note that stations from the VLPFM up has to maintain a log of all programming. This includes a recording of every broadcast day. Granted this is good for proving actual content when a complaint is filed. If broadcasters can be trusted, is this really needed? If they can’t be trusted, I have to ask why they have a license in the first place. It seems an unneeded expense for a small non-profit.
Like the USA before 1981, there was a requirement for a percentage of programming devoted to non-entertainment programming such as news, weather, sports and as the CRTC puts it, spoken word programming. Specifically thinking of the smallest radio markets, is quantity better than quality? If I was a 5 or 50 watt FM in Wells, BC or Port Menier, Quebec, where there might be up to 2 minutes of real local news on a good day, is it better to do 10 hours of local news a week or is it better to have perhaps 5 local news breaks daily no matter the length. Given CBC has one or two of their public radio services already available to listeners, why duplicate? My point: is it better to do a good job locally or is it better to run the correct number of minutes a week promised?
I get the best laid plans on programming are typically, even with the best educated guess, far removed from reality. If you make programming promises to the CRTC, you had better live up to it regardless, This seems especially burdensome. Given how small community needs change and local volunteers change, should there not be a provision to get a reprieve in the smallest stations/communities where population and/or budget limit the station’s abilities?
I noted one Quebec station in a tiny community asked for a change citing a lack of volunteers and the loss of a key management volunteer to create the promised hours. The CRTC accepted this request. I think they did the right thing. They opted for 2 hours a week of local responsive programming. The existing volunteers could handle that.
I do agree with the CRTC in protecting the viability of radio stations. The CRTC seems to have a good handle on how many stations can actually operate successfully in a market. In the USA there are spots with so many radio stations, most will always lose money (ie: 6 stations in a town of 8,000).
Changing format without getting permission to do so seems to be an issue for me. I understand the CRTC does not want to throw off the balance nor allow a broadcaster to state they’ll do a certain format in order to get the license but had every intent to rapidly change format to take on the #1 station in the market. As much as you might desire to serve a segment of a community, what appears from research to be an economically viable venture may not be. When that is the case, you might be stuck for a while.
Concerning CRTC programming requirements, I have to question if legit local research of the listening area would jive with the CRTC. If research proved otherwise, what would the CRTC say?
I notice small stations wind up running lots of non-local spoken word programming to reach their promised quantity. I see local programming based on local issues as more beneficial than a nationally distributed program in most instances. If that was one local program monthly versus 10 hours a week of virtually all national programs, I’d opt for local. The same applies to news. In the smallest communities, the number of issues is limited compared to a major city.
One of the things I really like that the CRTC allows is airing of commercials on community stations owned by non-profits. Essentially it is about like an LPFM in the USA being allowed to run commercials to generate funding. While I did not find the limit on commercial content today I recall, if I remember correctly, it is about 2 minutes an hour 6am to Midnight. It could be 4 commercials per hour regardless of length. I can’t say for sure. I’m not sure how many stations make full use of this but obviously some choose not to take this option at all. I like the idea because it tends to support local small businesses.
Finally, I just don’t get why the CRTC starts LPFMs at 5 watts. Since virtually all stations go for 50 watts when applying for a Class B license, it would seem an unnecessary expense to have to upgrade your transmission end for a renewal. Why not start at 50 watts. Granted, given the CRTC’s doling out of frequencies, I think it would be fair to say in many places 5 watts at even 10 meters might perform as well as a 100 watt at 10 meters on a crowded US FM dial.
Lots of points here for consideration both pro and con. Your thoughts?
Having been in radio and dealing with the FCC since the late 1970s, I see the difference in the rules as a good thing and a burden.
I approach my comments based on looking at how the low power FM movement in Canada is doing. I paid special attention to the more remote communities where a local station serves an important place in the community.
To cite a couple of examples: The CRTC classifies music types by type and by nationality. In a certain music classification 35% of the music must be by Canadian artists. It seems stations must supply proof and can be at least admonished for coming in under 35% in any given week. I would think this longstanding requirement would not be needed because the Canadian artist and their hits would already the the known, comfortable and popular artists listeners would prefer a part of a station playlist. If you start testing songs, wouldn’t 35% or more be by Canadian artists anyway? Perhaps for hit based formats such a requirement might be a good idea.
I note that stations from the VLPFM up has to maintain a log of all programming. This includes a recording of every broadcast day. Granted this is good for proving actual content when a complaint is filed. If broadcasters can be trusted, is this really needed? If they can’t be trusted, I have to ask why they have a license in the first place. It seems an unneeded expense for a small non-profit.
Like the USA before 1981, there was a requirement for a percentage of programming devoted to non-entertainment programming such as news, weather, sports and as the CRTC puts it, spoken word programming. Specifically thinking of the smallest radio markets, is quantity better than quality? If I was a 5 or 50 watt FM in Wells, BC or Port Menier, Quebec, where there might be up to 2 minutes of real local news on a good day, is it better to do 10 hours of local news a week or is it better to have perhaps 5 local news breaks daily no matter the length. Given CBC has one or two of their public radio services already available to listeners, why duplicate? My point: is it better to do a good job locally or is it better to run the correct number of minutes a week promised?
I get the best laid plans on programming are typically, even with the best educated guess, far removed from reality. If you make programming promises to the CRTC, you had better live up to it regardless, This seems especially burdensome. Given how small community needs change and local volunteers change, should there not be a provision to get a reprieve in the smallest stations/communities where population and/or budget limit the station’s abilities?
I noted one Quebec station in a tiny community asked for a change citing a lack of volunteers and the loss of a key management volunteer to create the promised hours. The CRTC accepted this request. I think they did the right thing. They opted for 2 hours a week of local responsive programming. The existing volunteers could handle that.
I do agree with the CRTC in protecting the viability of radio stations. The CRTC seems to have a good handle on how many stations can actually operate successfully in a market. In the USA there are spots with so many radio stations, most will always lose money (ie: 6 stations in a town of 8,000).
Changing format without getting permission to do so seems to be an issue for me. I understand the CRTC does not want to throw off the balance nor allow a broadcaster to state they’ll do a certain format in order to get the license but had every intent to rapidly change format to take on the #1 station in the market. As much as you might desire to serve a segment of a community, what appears from research to be an economically viable venture may not be. When that is the case, you might be stuck for a while.
Concerning CRTC programming requirements, I have to question if legit local research of the listening area would jive with the CRTC. If research proved otherwise, what would the CRTC say?
I notice small stations wind up running lots of non-local spoken word programming to reach their promised quantity. I see local programming based on local issues as more beneficial than a nationally distributed program in most instances. If that was one local program monthly versus 10 hours a week of virtually all national programs, I’d opt for local. The same applies to news. In the smallest communities, the number of issues is limited compared to a major city.
One of the things I really like that the CRTC allows is airing of commercials on community stations owned by non-profits. Essentially it is about like an LPFM in the USA being allowed to run commercials to generate funding. While I did not find the limit on commercial content today I recall, if I remember correctly, it is about 2 minutes an hour 6am to Midnight. It could be 4 commercials per hour regardless of length. I can’t say for sure. I’m not sure how many stations make full use of this but obviously some choose not to take this option at all. I like the idea because it tends to support local small businesses.
Finally, I just don’t get why the CRTC starts LPFMs at 5 watts. Since virtually all stations go for 50 watts when applying for a Class B license, it would seem an unnecessary expense to have to upgrade your transmission end for a renewal. Why not start at 50 watts. Granted, given the CRTC’s doling out of frequencies, I think it would be fair to say in many places 5 watts at even 10 meters might perform as well as a 100 watt at 10 meters on a crowded US FM dial.
Lots of points here for consideration both pro and con. Your thoughts?