CHCH and local broadcasters need your help!

[ota_canuck]

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

[Tridus]

I really hope the CRTC cans the LPIF. It's ridiculous to force TV subscribers to pay yet another subsidy to support unviable channels.

[Roadmagnet]

To be honest, I rarely look at the locals on the Bell TV guide. As far as I am concerned, I am paying twice for channels I don't want. If I wanted local programming I would get them OTA.

[jaxon9032]

I agree with Tridus. CHCH is a private business. If it can't make it on its own without a subsidy it needs to come up with a new business plan or shut down.

[cm3020prob]

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.

[Tridus]

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.

[JamesK]

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.

[ScaryBob]

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.

[Tridus]

Why do that, when they can wage a phony campaign to get the CRTC to set up a fund that lets them pass a fee on to customers blamelessly?

It's the perfect scam.

[johnnysmoke]

>>>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....:-)

[ScaryBob]

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.

[JamesK]

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?

[Blackloz]

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.