CRTC Hearings (Nov. 16, 2009) on Fee For Carriage

[peekaboo]

Originally Posted by JamesK

Were those Rogers ads actually carried by FOX29? Or were they simply inserted on the cable?

Since my provider was NOT Rogers I presume they, Rogers, sell their ads to FOX29 Buffalo directly just as presumably Leons, Meddix do as well. Most of these ads I saw on FOX29 via OTA as well!

[NotSoFast]

Originally Posted by stampeder

The meetings are scheduled for a two week period so let's not be expecting much at this point.That is untrue. Several of us at this site have made Interventions in CRTC proceedings over the years, and I had intended to do so in these proceedings but decided that I do not personally have a horse in this race so I didn't. The process for Intervening is published way ahead of the actual proceedings and all Canadians are allowed to Intervene. Further, the process guarantees that the parties to whom your Intervention is addressed must reply to you, although the reply may not be what you like.

Stampeder is right on that point. See the CARTT article below regarding the impression private citizens can make. One good thing I can say about the CRTC is that it really does listen to the views of private citizens. After a while, the industry player submissions do get a little repetitive.

There is a hearing on December 7 that is intended expressly for consumer views and I believe you can join in from CRTC regional offices. I really wish more folks like you would weigh in and tell the CRTC what you really think. Deadlines have passed but I bet the CRTC would be loath to deny participation to any private citizen who asked.

Here's the CARTT article:














Day two in Gatineau: Pam Astbury, citizen presenter
November 18, 2009
By Greg O’Brien

GATINEAU – We could have a story here about the CBC’s plea for a skinny basic.

We could have re-analyzed its re-demands for new revenue in the form of a wholesale fee and how forcefully its executives argued it needs one, despite how detractors point out it already gets a billion dollars from taxpayers and as a public broadcaster an increase from that stream seems more appropriate.

We could have expended more words on Bell’s SD Freesat proposal and how the company re-iterated it will resist new fees to local broadcasters no matter what right to negotiate might be enshrined in policy. When referring to local broadcasters, Bell’s SVP regulatory and government affairs, Mirko Bibic said: “We believe their value is zero.” That comment’s a little bit out of context of course, but it’s pretty inflammatory, noted some of the broadcasters in the room.

We could even dive deeper into the battle over vernacular. During a break yesterday, Commission chair Konrad von Finckenstein had a quick one-on-one with yours truly to drive home the point that this hearing is not about “fee for carriage” because the Commission has no intention of setting a fee.

It is about finding a framework for a negotiation for value, “which is much different,” the chair said (although to be fair, I didn’t know we were going to chat right then so my recorder wasn’t with me).

I could have spun a few hundred more words on each of all of those things but instead, I want to talk about Pam Astbury’s presentation. She is the head of the grassroots group Save Our CBC Kamloops and gave an eloquent, researched presentation yesterday on why local TV in her town is so important to the folks there and what can be done to help.

She took vacation time (she’s a civil engineer) and paid her own way to Ottawa because she and others like her in Kamloops are so passionate about their community and their TV (or lack thereof).
Let me go a little Lewis Black here when I holler: THIS IS WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT! Here is someone (at right) so community-minded and thoughtful about local television, someone who flew across the country on her own dime that she should have gotten to go first, received top billing from every news outlet covering this hearing and given a standing ovation at the end.

This is a young woman whom Ivan Fecan, Leonard Asper, Nadir Mohamed, Hubert Lacroix, Jim Shaw, et al should be seeking an audience with. Not the other way around.

Astbury’s intentions by her appearance at the hearing are, in her words, to “see the CBC restored as an over-the-air service to those communities that have already lost it; to communicate my concern of losing our local broadcaster following the digital transition in 2011...; and remind the CRTC that the nation’s public broadcaster is a critical public service which should not be left in the care of private sector distributors, regardless of market size.”

Since 2006, the CBC has not been available over-the-air to the 87,000 people of Kamloops, B.C. Back then, the local station, Pattison Broadcasting-owned CFJC-TV disaffiliated from the CBC and re-branded under the E! brand name – along side the then-Canwest-owned E! stations.

“The reduction in programming quality has been horrific,” she said. “Instead of enjoying such programs as The National or The Nature of Things, Kamloops was left with various American entertainment magazines and renovation dramas such as Extreme Makeover.”

The group got local government behind it and went to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in 2007 when the CBC’s mandate was being reviewed. Nothing happened (CBC Vancouver is, of course, available on cable and DTH, as is CFJC, to Kamloops households).

“We lobbied both the CBC and CRTC to establish Kamloops as the Pilot City for demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of multiplexing for smaller market areas,” she added. “We believe that the future of television will be constructed upon a digital foundation and that digital technology is the answer to both large and small markets across Canada.”

Seriously, this is a regular Canadian who has educated herself about multiplexing, believes in TV, is convinced our future is in digital television and frets that her town is not one of the places broadcasters have to make the OTA transition to digital.

And of course the hearing room was nearly empty when she spoke yesterday.

As August 31, 2011 nears and analog transmitters are turned off, Astbury wondered not if CFJC would go digital, but if it would continue broadcasting at all, especially given the recent closures of CKX Brandon and CHCA Red Deer. “In addition to losing the CBC over-the-air, Kamloops may no longer have a local broadcaster, period,” she said.

“If this doesn’t seem like a big concern to the CRTC, let me illustrate the role of local programming in a city like ours. This summer was incredibly dry. The forest in our area was either on fire or at risk of being ignited... (C)oncern for lives and property was very real,” she added.

“Accurate information regarding evacuation orders, travel routes and area closures was best available via local radio and television. Without this level of coverage, we’d be without vital information as well as lose sight of the human picture... These are stories that can not be truly understood when covered from the big cities of Vancouver or Toronto.”

The Kamloops group undertook an engineering study (!) with the Canadian Media Guild that showed taking the current CFJC-owned TV transmitter there from analog to digital and multiplexing the signal into six channels would cost $90,000, or $15,000 per channel, “quite simply a highly cost-effective option for small markets,” Astbury explained.

In order for consumers to receive such a multiplexed signal, set tops are necessary, she believes. And they’re about $50 now. “Contrary, the free satellite model requires the purchase of a $500 set top box.

(But one wonders how CFJC could be forced to digitally multiplex its signal and give up a channel to the CBC.)

“My peer group is largely young professionals with decent disposable income,” she concluded. “Most of these people can afford, but are not interested in, large cable packages. As savvy consumers, they are seeking something proportional to the limited amount of time they have for viewing. This group is hugely supporting of a six-channel multiplexing.

“I think it’s imperative that we find a way forward that protects local channels and over-the-air broadcasting, even in smaller cities like mine,” she continued. “As a professional engineer, I am trained to resolve problems objectively and cost-effectively with input from stakeholders large and small.

“The most rewarding solutions are never easily obtained. This is why I am compelled to be here today as a citizen presenter.”

Now, I know we’ll be hearing from some less eloquent citizen presenters over the next month or so, but there will be others like Ms Astbury, I predict.

Canwest, CTV, Shaw, Bell, Rogers et al, you need more friends like her among the Canadian populace. She not only desperately wants her local TV, she actually has ideas on how to go about keeping it and moving it into the future.

Anyone this committed to lead her community and thoughtfully dig into the industry, its issues and technology, simply MUST be paid attention to.

[CrazyInSane]

Originally Posted by peekaboo

Really, even if my provider was NOT Rogers?? I know Rogers puts TONS of their on ads on CNN, Peachtree, BBCNews, Spike, A&E, commercials I NEVER saw with my provider. Also I see Canadian ads on FOX29 via OTA, NOT Rogers, such as Medix, Leons etc. So I guess Americans who get FOX29 OTA see the same CDN ads I do via OTA!

The ads that have nothing to do with your BDU provider (if you have a provider) are actually ads from the Fox affiliate. Yes, American affiliates do sometimes air Canadian-themed ads, be it because they know Canadians watch their feeds or because the Canadian business airing the ad also operates in the US (like Tim Hortons which is getting more and more US ad space). But if you saw a "Stop the TV Tax" commercial, it was definitely inserted by the Canadian BDU. You couldn't have seen this ad from an OTA signal of a US affiliate.

[Krydor]

Peekaboo,

Thanks for clarifying that you saw them OTA, as you originally did not. Thanks for also explaining that Rogers isn't your provider. I've seen Access cut over Shaw Direct promos on CNN, so I made the assumption that was what Rogers was doing.

Hell, back in the day I saw ads for DASH tours (a Regina company) on my BUD for the US networks that included Chicago. Their market was rural SK, who had no access to cable TV at the time. I digress.

It's not surprising that Rogers buys commercial time. US network affilates like money. It seems to have worked, as you made note of it.

[billhome]

"One good thing I can say about the CRTC is that it really does listen to the views of private citizens. "

Even though the CRTC is there to further the interest of the industry, it has to give the impression that it cares somewhat about private citizens. They know from history that if we get mad enough, they and the industry will have to go to extraordinary lengths to get back their stranglehold on us (as with Canadians who went to DirectTV and Dish).

[Blackburst]

I was kinda glad today that the Corus group mentioned that their three OTA stations are doing well. Flew in the face of CTV, Global, CBC/SRC and others. Also they mentioned that they concentrated their OTA stations to local needs. Local Advertisers, local viewers. Nice.

[trask]

So you support your cable rates going up twice a year, eh? I can see why some people may not support FFC, or NVFC, but half of Local TV Matters is advocating for the reregulation of cable rates. I don't know why anybody besides somebody with connections to the BDUs wouldn't advocate for the reregulation of cable rates. I'm sure nobody wants to pay more of cable, and the broadcasters are trying to stop the unreasonable increases by the BDUs. Plus the broadcasters are advocating that YOU shouldn't pay twice, since you already pay for local TV. What the cable companies are trying to do is to force you to pay TWICE for local TV. Isn't it fair that local TV gets some fair of compensation, considering you already pay for it?

I clearly said I support the BDU's in this specific case. This is what the topic is about, not reregulation of Cable fees, which I would definitely be in favor of. CTV/Canwest knows full well that any extra compensation they get from BDU's will be passed onto the consumer, but proceed with their demands anyway.
They couldn't care less how much the consumer pays as long as they get their money.

Exactly, they own the exclusive Canadian rights to the American shows. Even the CRTC says so. When ABC, NBC, FOX, etc purchase the exclusive Canadian rights to American series, by all means, let them air those programs. But you can't ignore that they purchased the exclusive Canadian rights to the American shows. Local news is the most watched programs on many CTV or Global stations. Ratings prove that.

Why in the world would American Television purchase the Canadian rights to their own programs? They are the ones with the commodity not the Canadian broadcasters. If they were allowed to by our government, they could operate their stations in Canada and sell directly to Canadian companies. They don't need Canadian TV stations to buy their programming. The CRTC institued the law controlling American TV rights to protect Canadian Broadcasting from being completely irrelevant.

This is yet another example of how we abide by an outdated model. There was a time when Canada couldn't get access to a lot of American programming and the only way to see it, was if CBC, CTV or Global bought it and showed it. Those days are long gone. With Cable and Satellite distribution, anyone in the country has access to American programming without having to resort to watching it on Canadian television stations. This is why I am saying they are asking for more money to provide a service we don't need. As far as ratings go, look up the list of the most watched programs in Canada, and you see about 95% is American programming. Local news is a pimple on the rear end of overall ratings in this country.

No they don't. They want FFC for LOCAL PROGRAMMING. The CRTC may be out of touch, but they certainly aren't stupid. If CTV starts spending their FFC money on American programs, the CRTC can yank FFC from the CTV stations.

I don't know which is the bigger anomaly in this statement: That Canadian broadcasting wants more money to put into local programming or that the CRTC isn't stupid?

Here's a newsflash for you: they already receive funding from BDU's for local programming which they don't spend on local programming, and the CRTC needs to climb up to reach stupid.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, this is nothing but a cash grab attempt by Canadian broadcasters to cover the fact they have been running their operations foolishly and are facing huge losses due to declines in advertising revenue. They don't care about local programming and never have. There is no money in local programming. That is why they spend millions on American programming. It's all about achieving higher ratings to acquire more advertising dollars, and now that that well is running dry, they are looking for a handout to offset it.

Yeah, if Canadian programs made money. American programs make money for CTV or Global, without them, Global and CTV would already be dead years ago.

Let them die then. Local programming is cheap to produce. For every CTV/Global outlet that closed, a community channel could be implemented and run for a fraction of the cost. There's your local programming minus the greed of the giant broadcasters.

Most American stations don't own Canadian rights to American programming. I believe KVOS owns some Canadian rights to shows like King of Queens, Seinfeld, Family Feud, etc. but that's about it.

See above where I talked about American television rights.

That's what people thought television would to radio and radio would do to newspapers. Television would be around for a long time.

Newspapers are not completely dead, but they're on life support with someone ready to pull the plug at any time. Radio is still alive because it's cheap. It doesn't cost much money, but doesn't make much either.

Television falls into a different category altogether. It's expensive and faces increasing competition from new media sources. Television has changed drastically and will continue to do so because it can't survive otherwise. PVR's have given the viewer an option to watch programming when they want without sitting through commercials. That is a Genie that is not going back in the bottle. The Internet has allowed people to watch any program they want at anytime, again with no commercial interruption. Television as is, cannot survive, and they know it. That is why you are seeing more and more "On Demand" features. The viewer has changed how they watch programming. Television either changes with them or they get left behind.

[JamesK]

they already receive funding from BDU's for local programming

Correction: They receive money from the taxpayer for the Canadian Television Fund, again for the CTF from BDUs and just recently LPIF from BDUs. This makes a 3rd time at the trough for CTV & Global and a 4th for the CBC which also gets about $1B/year from taxpayers. And lets not forget all of the above receive ad revenue.

Also, I don't see much of a difference in purpose between the CTF and LPIF. Why have two programs for the same thing?

[trask]

Originally Posted by JamesK

Correction: They receive money from the taxpayer for the Canadian Television Fund, again for the CTF from BDUs and just recently LPIF from BDUs. This makes a 3rd time at the trough for CTV & Global and a 4th for the CBC which also gets about $1B/year from taxpayers. And lets not forget all of the above receive ad revenue.

Also, I don't see much of a difference in purpose between the CTF and LPIF. Why have two programs for the same thing?

Good point James. I was referring to the LPIF, but you're right in that they receive a heck of a lot more from taxes and fees. Yet we still don't see much spent on CanCon or local programming. I guess they just need more right? What a joke.

[Emarsee]

I clearly said I support the BDU's in this specific case. This is what the topic is about, not reregulation of Cable fees, which I would definitely be in favor of. CTV/Canwest knows full well that any extra compensation they get from BDU's will be passed onto the consumer, but proceed with their demands anyway.
They couldn't care less how much the consumer pays as long as they get their money.

They know that if they can get their way, local TV would still be alive, and cable rates wouldn't be increased at unreasonable rates. CTV and Global may not have the best reputation, but they certainly don't want the consumer to pay twice for their products.

Why in the world would American Television purchase the Canadian rights to their own programs? They are the ones with the commodity not the Canadian broadcasters.

Like I said, I only know that KVOS purchases Canadian rights to some programs. No Canadian station simsubs over KVOS. No networks purchase the Canadian rights, the production company sells the rights to individual networks (ie ABC used to sell Scrubs to NBC and ABC sells Scrubs to Citytv).

This is yet another example of how we abide by an outdated model. There was a time when Canada couldn't get access to a lot of American programming and the only way to see it, was if CBC, CTV or Global bought it and showed it.Those days are long gone. With Cable and Satellite distribution, anyone in the country has access to American programming without having to resort to watching it on Canadian television stations.

Most people who lived near the border used to receive the American stations before the Canadians even came on the air. I don't care who owns the rights to whatever show, as long as I get to watch them. But you can't simply ignore the exclusive rights that CTV, Global, or Citytv own and purchased from the American studios. If ABC or NBC purchased the Canadian rights, fine, let them in, but American networks serve Americans, not Canadians.

This is why I am saying they are asking for more money to provide a service we don't need. As far as ratings go, look up the list of the most watched programs in Canada, and you see about 95% is American programming. Local news is a pimple on the rear end of overall ratings in this country.

I disagree. Ratings prove this. In Vancouver, CHAN's News Hour is somes the number one show and almost always in the top ten.

Here's the ratings from Vancouver from October 26 to November 1st.

VANCOUVER'S TOP 30 SHOWS FOR OCT 26th-NOV 1st

1. Survivor (Global)
2. Hockey:Canucks (Sportsnet Pac+)
3. News Hour (Global)
4. The Amazing Race (CTV)
5. Global News (Global)
6. Grey's Anatomy (CTV)
7. The Mentalist (CTV)
8. Global National (Global)
9. Lie to Me (Global)
10. Criminal Minds (CTV)
11. CSI (CTV)
12. Dancing with the Stars (CTV)
13. House (Global)
14. Dancing with the Stars (CTV)
15. Global News (Global)
16. CSI New York (CTV)
17. Desperate Housewives (CTV)
18. Dragon's Den (CBC)
19. NCIS (Global)
20. CSI Miami (CTV)
21. Entertainment Tonight (Global)
22. Bones (Global)
23. America's Next Top Model (CTV)
24. The Office (Global)
25. Flashpoint (CTV)
26. Numb3rs (Global)
27. Law and Order SVU (CTV)
28. Hockey Night in Canada Game 1 (CBC)
29. Sunday Morning News (Global)
30. Global News (Global)

As you can see here, only hockey and Survivor beats the News Hour.

Here's a newsflash for you: they already receive funding from BDU's for local programming which they don't spend on local programming, and the CRTC needs to climb up to reach stupid.

LPIF is only for markets under a million people. Stations in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal don't receive LPIF funding. Plus Global is only expected to get about $8 million from LPIF. Is that enough to cover the costs of local programming? No. Local programming is expensive.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, this is nothing but a cash grab attempt by Canadian broadcasters to cover the fact they have been running their operations foolishly and are facing huge losses due to declines in advertising revenue.

Advertising revenue is not the problem here. Local news is losing money like crazy on most stations. Even stations that are number one don't make money in some markets. The only stations that I know of that make money off local news is CHAN and CFTO. All other stations are in danger of shutting down.

They don't care about local programming and never have. There is no money in local programming.

Global has a great change to cut local news at CICT and CITV down to 14 hours a week. They're required to air only 14 hours. If they don't care, they would've cut it down a long time ago and shut down tons of local stations years ago.

That is why they spend millions on American programming. It's all about achieving higher ratings to acquire more advertising dollars, and now that that well is running dry, they are looking for a handout to offset it.

The money made from American programming goes towards the production of local programming, and even that isn't enough.

Let them die then. Local programming is cheap to produce. For every CTV/Global outlet that closed, a community channel could be implemented and run for a fraction of the cost. There's your local programming minus the greed of the giant broadcasters.

Nobody wants to watch community channels if they don't provide news. Local programming isn't cheap to produce, it costs a lot. Think about all of the anchors, reporters, cameramen, researchers, forecasters, sports anchors, etc. that they have to pay plus the costs of running the studios. Trust me, it costs a lot.

[peekaboo]

Originally Posted by CrazyInSane

The ads that have nothing to do with your BDU provider (if you have a provider) are actually ads from the Fox affiliate. Yes, American affiliates do sometimes air Canadian-themed ads, be it because they know Canadians watch their feeds or because the Canadian business airing the ad also operates in the US (like Tim Hortons which is getting more and more US ad space). But if you saw a "Stop the TV Tax" commercial, it was definitely inserted by the Canadian BDU. You couldn't have seen this ad from an OTA signal of a US affiliate.

I did not see the TVTax ad on Fox OTA but saw other Rogers ads on FOX OTA.

[foxfan]

It is safe to assume Rogers bought airtime on WUTV, as they are not allowed inserting ads on OTA channels like they do on U.S. cable channels. The rules state that BDUs may not alter an OTA signal, with blackouts or simsubs being the only exception.

[Emarsee]

The only way we would know for sure is if someone with OTA can confirm the US stations are airing the Stop The TV Tax ads.

[SAS007]

I apoligize if my initial posting contained erroneous comments about viewers not being heard at these meetings. I do realize that these meeting have several more days to go but I was basing my comments on what I have seen over those 3 days.
I certainly applaud Pam Astburys presentation but sad to see the hearing room was nearly empty as reported. So it appears that since 2006 CBC has not been available over the air and begs the question “Why?” Im assuming that CBC is being carried by a BDU available to the Kamloops area but at a cost.
With so many players involved and dollars at stake is it no wonder that we become confused as to what is actually happening in TV land.
I have no particular horse in this race either though I do enjoy watching TV and programmes that I find stimulating for various reasons.
As Ive said Im willing to PAY for channels or programmes that I have interest in and would like to be able to choose more if they were available.

[mjjl]

Originally Posted by Emarsee

They know that if they can get their way, local TV would still be alive, and cable rates wouldn't be increased at unreasonable rates. CTV and Global may not have the best reputation, but they certainly don't want the consumer to pay twice for their products.

Like I said, I only know that KVOS purchases Canadian rights to some programs. No Canadian station simsubs over KVOS. No networks purchase the Canadian rights, the production company sells the rights to individual networks (ie ABC used to sell Scrubs to NBC and ABC sells Scrubs to Citytv).

Most people who lived near the border used to receive the American stations before the Canadians even came on the air. I don't care who owns the rights to whatever show, as long as I get to watch them. But you can't simply ignore the exclusive rights that CTV, Global, or Citytv own and purchased from the American studios. If ABC or NBC purchased the Canadian rights, fine, let them in, but American networks serve Americans, not Canadians.


I disagree. Ratings prove this. In Vancouver, CHAN's News Hour is somes the number one show and almost always in the top ten.

Here's the ratings from Vancouver from October 26 to November 1st.


As you can see here, only hockey and Survivor beats the News Hour.


LPIF is only for markets under a million people. Stations in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal don't receive LPIF funding. Plus Global is only expected to get about $8 million from LPIF. Is that enough to cover the costs of local programming? No. Local programming is expensive.

Advertising revenue is not the problem here. Local news is losing money like crazy on most stations. Even stations that are number one don't make money in some markets. The only stations that I know of that make money off local news is CHAN and CFTO. All other stations are in danger of shutting down.

Global has a great change to cut local news at CICT and CITV down to 14 hours a week. They're required to air only 14 hours. If they don't care, they would've cut it down a long time ago and shut down tons of local stations years ago.

The money made from American programming goes towards the production of local programming, and even that isn't enough.

Nobody wants to watch community channels if they don't provide news. Local programming isn't cheap to produce, it costs a lot. Think about all of the anchors, reporters, cameramen, researchers, forecasters, sports anchors, etc. that they have to pay plus the costs of running the studios. Trust me, it costs a lot.

I disagree. Ratings prove this. In Vancouver, CHAN's News Hour is somes the number one show and almost always in the top ten.

Here's the ratings from Vancouver from October 26 to November 1st.

Not even just Vancouver. BBM used to post these numbers market-by-market a few years ago, and in a good chunk of markets, local news programs often showed up in the top 10, sometimes even at the #1 spot. In London, CFPL's weeknight news was #1. In the Maritime provinces, Live at 5 was near the top. CTV's own website claims MCTV's weeknight news has the highest ratings of any program in Northern Ontario. Local news get much higher ratings than some people think.

There were exceptions though. The newscasts on both stations that recently shut down, CHCA and CKX, were way down the list in their markets. In Red Deer, it was behind both CFRN and ITV. In Brandon, it was behind CKY.