The Editor Speaks: All TV providers should provide more than just the government channel
Bob Taylor, WestStar TV’s Chief Operations Officer, said on CITN/Cayman27’s News on Wednesday (18) the local content requirement of all licensees should be more than just carrying the government channel.
Taylor said everyone should follow set standards for free, over the air TV and wants the Information and Communications Technology Authority (ICTA) to make it a reality.
“And we view that as our corporate responsibility to the country, but at the same time we spend millions of dollars doing it. We think there should be rules as to how public broadcasting should be delivered. It needs to be updated daily. There has to be news. There has to be variety there has to be sports and entertainment and we think that’s an important cultural aspect,” he said.
Randy Merren, of C3 Infinity Broadband, not unsurprisingly disagrees.
He said the definition of local content in the ICTA law is broad and the government channel falls within that category.
“I don’t think the ICTA can push the envelope much further than that,” he said. “The Cayman Islands advertising revenue will not support the cost of producing all this content that is being proposed under the 20% local content rule for what will now be 4 free over the air channels. Particularly if all are required to produce local news on a daily basis.”
If he is correct then WestStar should immediately cease their updated local news, sports and entertainment.
LIME Cayman Islands CEO Bill McCabe was more amenable and said this in a statement:
“All providers of TV services in Cayman should not only be required to have a licence, but that the conditions contained in those licences should be comparable to each other and clearly defined. Clear definitions of what constitutes legal and legitimate local and international programming will ensure that licencees have appropriate guidelines to work to and competition can be given a level platform from which to thrive.”
When I was Managing Director of CITN/Cayman27 at its start it was a government requirement in the licence as to what constituted local content. They even produced weekly %’s of what that content should be that included not only news, sports and entertainment but religious programming and arts and culture.
When the ICTA came into being and I noticed these specific requirements had been omitted I raised the question what now constituted local content.
I was told the ICTA wording had been made ‘broad’ because they were leaving it to the government to actually stipulate what was required. Government would therefore make the final decision and could attach any conditions they wanted. CITN could not therefore suddenly stop their local content broadcasting and could make a very strong case to government if another TV provider was allowed to operate without the same conditions.
I sincerely hope that is still the case otherwise the level playing field has been tilted a long way down and away from TV’s oldest cable provider.
In my early days there were only 30 channels available on the MMDS (Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service) wireless cable network. Digital has now changed that with compression and more compression giving more and more programming on just one channel instead of the analog single programme per channel.
If WestStar was able to make it work as a profit making company then, with all these additional channels available it makes Mr. Merren’s argument of not being able to support local content from advertising questionable. However, he is one of the owners of two of the many radio stations that rely also on advertising revenue. Perhaps he should give up at least one of them to make the advertising actually work if he is made to provide local content on his TV network.
His Rooster101 call in programme is always talking of keeping things local and his in-house radio stroking advert talks how Rooster doesn’t just read the news it makes the news.
So do it on your local TV station. I shall enjoy watching it.
It interesting that when it suits Weststar to have what they consider to be a level playing field that they ignore the fact that they are less than conscientious about creating a level playing field when it comes to procuring goods and services.
If they would not load the front end of the books of Cayman 27 with a disproportionate amount of the management expenses of the group they would find it easier to at least break even.
When you compress all the local programming into one sentence it looks impressive but what does it amount to in terms of programming hours. Imagine what the newspapers would be like if they were required to carry a percentage of local news in the same ratio. We would be back to the days when Miss Francis would be at the airport gathering news of who was coming and going on each flight. Now those were the days when news was interesting and truly about community affairs!
It is apparent that their own internal surveying must indicate that most of their existing customers are ambivalent about Cayman 27 so instead of using it as a commercial advantage they choose to take the whining route and be antagonistic. What about the duty concessions that Weststar enjoyed while building its business?
The next thing we will hear from the group is that LIME should be restricted from replacing its copper lines with fiber as that makes them more competitive.
Let the market find its own level and leave each TV station to providing the content which it believes will gain it a competitive advantage.
Colin I appreciate that Cayman 27 is near and dear to you and the thought that it may cease to exist is a difficult one to face but it may have outlived its usefulness.It should not require a Government directive to keep it alive as that would set the wrong precedent.
I guess that hoteliers think that the concessions given to Dart for its new hotels are unfair too.
Businesses make commercial adjustments to their business plans each day and either survive or go out of business.
The sun rises and the sun sets and life goes on without the need for Government interference,