Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CHCH and local broadcasters need your help!

9K views 33 replies 19 participants last post by  Blackloz 
#1 ·
Does CHCH's local programming matter to you?
http://www.chch.com/index.php/lpif
__________________________________________________

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Review of the Local Programming Improvement Fund
Deadline for submission of interventions/comments: 15 February 2012

The Commission will hold a public hearing to review its policies and regulations relating to the Local Programming Improvement Fund, commencing on 16 April 2012 at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec. The Commission invites written comments and proposals, along with supporting evidence, on the matters for consideration set out below. The deadline for the receipt of comments is 15 February 2012.
http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-788.htm
__________________________________________________

Please take a few minutes to visit the CHCH site and do the CHCH survey
 
See less See more
#5 ·
Last month, Metro 14 (also property of Channel Zero) had a similar survey about their Metro Debut show. Since CHCH is not carried on Vidéotron (except in Gatineau), the survey for me ain't going further than the 1st question.

Last time I checked, LPIF revenues help out producing newscast at local stations in small markets while fee-for-carriage (value for signal) creates an increase of 50 cents per local station per cable/satellite subscriber per month that goes directly into the vertically integrated company's bank account and have one single purpose: the shareholders.

IMHO, an english local station located in (or in the surroundings of) Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary or Winnipeg shouldn't receive a single penny of LPIF since they're located in strong markets with a lot of advertisement money.
 
#6 ·
All that LPIF does is allows those same big companies to not spend any money on the local stations, so they can throw it at simsubbing US shows instead. What you call it doesn't change anything, it's still money coming from subscribers and going to these big companies.

I'm sick of having fees and subsidies tacked on by the government to pay for things I don't watch. It's right up there in BS factor with all the channels I have to pay for that I don't want.
 
#9 ·
CHCH doesn't receive LPIF revenue. LPIF is only applicable to very small-market stations, and CHCH doesn't fit that criteria.
 
#10 ·
Jase88, did you click on OTA Canuck's CHCH link from post#1 ?
 
#11 ·
CHCH also does not produce any local content for the Alvinston/Sarnia/Chatham/London area that its repeater serves. They don't even provide weather forecasts for the area served by that repeater. If CHCH receives any LPIF funds, it's a scam.
 
#13 ·
Precisely my point. Now that the survey is over, when ya click the link this is what pops up at you..
Your support plays a vital part in ensuring CHCH remains a recipient of the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF),..
"remains", implies that they have and do receive LPIF.
 
#14 ·
MT, I did.

I realize that CHCH is lobbying for LPIF revenue. But just pointing out that they currently don't receive it AFAIK, as they don't meet the criteria.

*edit*: With regards to the "remains" comment: I wonder, as Scarybob mentions, if CHCH does receive LPIF for the smaller communities they serve with a transmitter? I'll have to do some digging...
 
#15 ·
LPIF=Laughing People Inciting Fraud

My favourite tv series on CHCH is Breakout Kings (it's an American show filmed mostly in Toronto with Canadian Brooke Nevin as part of the cast). It's also on A&E , which is why I had to add A&E to my cable bill (2nd tier) -- in order to see all the Season 1 episodes (A&E marathon also airs this Sunday) and the start of Season 2 (March 4 on A&E).

If it wasn't for CHCH, I wouldn't have found Breakout Kings.

The LPIF is a "lovely" fund that allows some companies to occasionally withdraw more money than they actually put in (hello, Bell). Ouch!

Local TV news doesn't matter that much to me, but if the LPIF smokescreen helps to keep more American programming on CHCH, so be it. Otherwise, dump the LPIF and start a better fraud.

http://www.thespec.com/print/article/670884
[CHCH viewers eager to add input over CRTC funding issue]

February 14, 2012


The federal regulator has not ruled out reducing or eliminating the fund, which was worth $106 million last year. It comes out of a 1.5 per cent charge to cable and satellite bills.

More than 15,000 people completed the questions, said Cal Millar, Channel Zero president.

Millar doesn’t think the CRTC will eliminate the fund but he’s concerned the agency has opened the door to that possibility at all. The station will make its case directly to the commission at a hearing beginning April 16.

Millar says Channel Zero will argue that LPIF money received has gone directly into improving the quality and quantity of local news coverage.

“The LPIF has been very good for Hamilton and area … I think we have improved local programming and some of that is because of money received from the fund.”

He says the station sends out 32 news teams in two shifts each day and begins its local programming at 4 a.m. The station broadcasts 80 hours of in-house content a week, more than 11 times what it is required to produce.

Losing any of the LPIF could lead to reduced staff and programming hours or higher advertising rates, says Millar.

But he stresses that getting less money or no money at all from the fund won’t put CHCH in jeopardy.

“We would soldier on and continue our commitment to the community but it is an important part of our overall funding mix … A reduction would have an effect, but we’re not going to fall apart.”

Millar won’t reveal how much the station gets out of the fund, saying CHCH is privately owned and the dollars don’t come out of taxes. The CRTC also doesn’t disclose amounts paid to individual stations, but 26 stations across the country, including 20 owned by the CBC, have agreed to disclose their LPIF payments, which total $48.2 million.

They range from $4.5 million to the CBC’s affiliate in Quebec City down to $801,236 paid to CHEM in Trois-Rivieres.

The fund is paid based on a complex formula dividing Canada’s English and French markets that takes into account average spending on local programming for each station.

“CHCH is kind of like the poster child for the whole LPIF program in Canada,” said Ian Morrison, spokesperson with Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, an independent watchdog.

“I believe CHCH is just a remarkable new model in our broadcasting system.”

He estimates CHCH is getting somewhere between $1 million and $2 million from the LPIF.

Morrison thinks the CRTC will keep the fund in place but tighten its requirements.

There are 78 LPIF recipients, including some big players such as Bell and Rogers which both pay into the fund as a distributor and withdraw from the fund as the owners of small market stations. For instance, Bell (which owns CTV), paid $22.5 million into the LPIF but was paid $23.6 million out of it.

In upcoming hearings, LPIF recipients will be expected to demonstrate to the commission how the funding was used to improve viewer satisfaction and audience size, increase ad revenue, increase local news stories and grow local programming.

The fund was established in 2008, when a number of major broadcasters, including Canwest and CTV, were warning they could no longer afford to produce local content, and were cutting staff and letting broadcast licences expire. The CRTC said it would review the fund after three years.

Millar says there is no compelling reason to significantly alter the LPIF since the profitability of cable and satellite providers continues to rise and consumers have not protested paying the extra charge.

The CRTC initially demanded the cable and satellite providers pay the LPIF charge directly out of their own revenues but hasn’t enforced that.

“Now they’re just passing it on to their customers,” said Morrison. “They are not paying a penny … They love to raise fees when they get to keep the money.”
 
#18 ·
When I see broadcasters going after BDUs for money, I have to wonder who they'd go after if there were no BDUs. Also, BDUs bring them a bigger audience, so perhaps they should be charging the broadcasters for that.
 
#19 ·
I do like to see new broadcast services that provide local programming benefit from this fund. I just wish CHCH would use it to provide more coverage in other communities, rather than just repeating the Hamilton signal in outside markets. As far as the big players go, they should have known better than to gobble up smaller broadcasters they couldn't afford to run. They should have been told to suck it up and find the funds internally.
 
#21 ·
>>>When I see broadcasters going after BDUs for money, I have to wonder who they'd go after if there were no BDUs. Also, BDUs bring them a bigger audience, so perhaps they should be charging the broadcasters for that. >>>>

Now that you're wondering, here's the answer:
With no BDUs, CHCH would no longer be sharing the market with 150 other channels. The competition would be ~5 or 6 channels and they would be competing for 20% of the advertising pie, not .4%. The advertisers would be racing to their doorstep to give them money. CHCH wouldn't have to maintain repeaters in far off cities in order to pretend they are a regional broadcaster. They could focus on Hamilton, Halton, Niagara and the GTA. CH wouldn't have to compete with 150 channels to offer compelling programming. If you're still wondering, you'll need to hop into a time machine and skip back to 1972....:)
 
#22 ·
With no BDUs, stations like CHCH would also have much better programming since they would not be competing with subscriber subsidized specialty stations for popular series and movies. With better programming and fewer competitors, OTA stations get much more advertiser revenue which allows them to produce better local programming.

The "600 channel universe" is essentially a lose-lose situation for Canadians. We end up paying for ever increasing infrastructure costs while content suffers and local OTA stations or smaller broadcasters go bankrupt. We essentially still only have four or five broadcasters in Canada, just like in the 1970s, but the content is spread over a hundred channels with 90% repeats. In addition, the amount and quality of new Canadian programming, especially local programming, is steadily decreasing.

In the 1970s, CHCH was a very popular station due to it's access to Hollywood movies. (CITY and CHCH both benefited from airing popular Hollywood movies.) Advertising during those movies was it's main source of revenue which allowed it to compete successfully in the GTA market. Those are no longer available due to subscriber subsidized specialty and premium movie channels on BDUs. CHCH actually had an advantage over Canadian and US networks since they often aired movies uncut and with fewer commercial breaks. Viewing a movie on CHCH was preferable over US networks, unlike other networks that competed directly with identical network shows. Specialty channels on BDUs basically killed off stations like CHCH by taking away their viewers, popular programming and revenue sources.
 
#23 ·
With no BDUs, CHCH would no longer be sharing the market with 150 other channels.
On the other hand, they have a much larger audience available too. IIRC, they were at one time a "superstation" that benefitted from being carried by cable in areas far beyond where they'd otherwise reach. I stopped watching CHCH years ago, as they no longer carried stuff that interested me. There are unfortunately too many stations providing mediocre or even lousy content. Why should they be subsidized? Also, the current owners knew the situation when they bought in a couple of years ago. If they can't make it, why should BDU customers be forced to bail them out? Shouldn't OTA viewers also be required to chip in?
 
#24 ·
So called "superstations" can sell national advertising. That's where the big money is. Local OTA stations, like CHCH, typically only sell local advertising and are restricted, by the CRTC, from selling local advertising in other markets. If they are lucky enough to find national sponsors, it will be during expensive prime time programming.
 
#25 ·
With no BDUs, CHCH would no longer be sharing the market with 150 other channels. The competition would be ~5 or 6 channels and they would be competing for 20% of the advertising pie, not .4%.
Too achive this rather then have no BDU's what the CRTC should do is ban all coast to coast locals. I should only be allowed to see the Canadian locals in my area, this would keep the local ad $ in what ever market they are in as intended. Now if my provider doesn't carry my locals then I could apply for a waiver and be granted access to the next closest market that is carried. As it is now why would ppl in say B.C. want to wait to watch their show's on the B.C. locals(all the while local advertisers are losing money on ads they pay for as many locals will not see them anyway) when they can see them on CTV,CBC or GLobal Toronto? Also as a side note the ppl that really want time shifting would still have the East/West US Nets.
 
#26 ·
What you are describing is very close to the US system. I'm afraid we are past the point of no return with that idea. The US system allows out of market stations in areas where locals do not exist. Since many areas in Canada are already without local, independently owned stations, there would be little or difference. If this had been done 20 years ago and restrictions placed on network ownership of local stations (as in the US) it would have made a difference.

For example, markets the size of London and Kitchener would have several independent network stations in the US. In Canada, all but one station in each market is a repeater of a GTA station. The single stations that do exist in each market are owned and operated out of Toronto and merely have skeleton crews to gather and produce the minimum required amount of local news. Compare that to Erie, PA which has about 1/2 the population of either Canadian city but has 4 network stations that produce local programming and its own public television station.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top