Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC Release on Fee For Carriage Issue (March 22, 2010)

35K views 235 replies 81 participants last post by  ScaryBob 
#1 · (Edited)
As has been speculated in the press and in other threads, the CRTC will be releasing a report on the state of the Canadian TV Broadcasting Industry today on what is being referred to as the "Regulatory Policy framework on group-based licencing of ownership groups".

From the CRTC web site:
Please be advised that Monday’s release (March 22nd) will be at 4 p.m. [Ottawa time]
Discuss the March 22, 2010 CRTC release here.
 
#64 ·
SensualPoet, I don't agree with your characterization of "reference" as it applies to the Federal Court. The ability of the CRTC to refer this is statutory. From the Federal Courts Act:
Reference by federal tribunal

18.3 (1) A federal board, commission or other tribunal may at any stage of its proceedings refer any question or issue of law, of jurisdiction or of practice and procedure to the Federal Court for hearing and determination.
From the Federal Courts Rules definitions (Section 2):
“party” means

(i) where a tribunal brings a reference under section 18.3 of the Act, a person who becomes a party in accordance with rule 323,
And, Section 323 of the Rules:
Notice of intention to become party

323. Any of the following persons may become a party to a reference by serving and filing a notice of intention to participate in Form 323:

(c) a person who participated in the proceeding before the tribunal in respect of which the reference is made.
In other words, any individual or corporate entity that appeared before the CRTC in its hearings on this can also appear before the Court. In other words, CTVgm, Canwest Global, CBC, Rogers, Shaw, etc are all entitled to make their own argument before the Federal Court. The reference serves the same purpose as an after-the-fact hearing and any Order of the Court arising from the reference is equally binding (in fact "order" is defined to include a ruling made on a reference in the Rules).
 
#65 ·
IMO if a broadcaster chooses option 1, then it should become exactly like a subscription service such as Superchannel. Among other things already mentioned, it should lose its spectrum and all rights to broadcast OTA. If it wants to continue OTA, it should pay for that right by competing for the spectrum, and paying for its use to the Canadian public.

[Edit] Does choosing option 1 also mean losing the LPIF?
 
#66 ·
"As far as whether the BDU's have all the leverage ... I don't think so."

Assuming that CTV opts for option 1, and all the BDUs decide not to carry it, then CTV is finished - they cannot survive on 20% of their current revenue (just OTA viewers). The BDUs on the other hand will continue operating, but of course with a lot of unhappy customers. But the BDUs have been operating with a lot of unhappy customers for a long time, and they seem to do OK.

What percentage of Canadian households can pick up the U.S. networks via an antenna? For them, they can just select the specialty channels they want, and dump the broadcast stations that selection option 1.
 
#67 ·
CTVgm's got deeper pockets than you imagine plus plenty of cash flow from specialty channels (eg. TSN) and other properties (eg. The Globe and Mail). Plus, you're imagining a scenario where all the BDU's band together and refuse to pay the asking price. Won't happen that way. Telus desperately needs TV market share ,,, they'll pay. Bell's best selling point has always been more channels. They've paid a premium in the past to get them (most recently TSN2) and will do so again. If there's a fight, the fight will be with Rogers and Shaw, not everyone and CTVgm has more than enough resources to wage that fight.

The more interesting scenario is Global. With the parent company's bankruptcy and carve-up ... they don't have the same level of resources and I can see Jim Shaw playing very real hardball with them.
 
#69 ·
But unless a judge issues an order that neither party can do anything until the case has been heard and a verdict reached, the cable companies will be pretty much free to dump the broadcasters if they wish. Imagine Rogers, Shaw, Bell or Vidéotron immediately cutting off select broadcasters. The ad rates (and ad revenue) will drop like a stone in water.

More likely, an injunction will be issued imposing the status quo.
 
#70 ·
It should take less than six months for the Federal Court to issue its reference decision. Should they rule that the CRTC has the jurisdiction, the Commission would then issue its Order and the broadcasting regime is changed.

There are only two levels of appeal from the Federal Court. The Federal Court of Appeal would hear any appeal of the reference first. A decision of the Federal Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the Supreme Court is not obligated to grant leave. I can't imagine they would see a reason to do so in this case. There's no issue of liberty. There's no divergence of legal application or practice across the province to reconcile. There's no Charter issue. There's no outdated Supreme Court precedent that needs updating. There's really no reason to expect them to grant leave. This will be settled with no more than one level of appeal.

Realistically speaking, we're talking about a year to sixteen months as the outside window for settling the legal question about the CRTC's authority. We're not talking years here.
 
#78 ·
the Supreme Court is not obligated to grant leave. I can't imagine they would see a reason to do so in this case. There's no issue of liberty. There's no divergence of legal application or practice across the province to reconcile. There's no Charter issue. There's no outdated Supreme Court precedent that needs updating. There's really no reason to expect them to grant leave.
That's the thing about the SCC: sometimes they don't need a "real" reason other than the matter is of national importance. Anything involving a fundamental shift in the workings/delivery of media in Canada I think could be construed as being of national importance and leave might be granted.

This won't happen for quite a while, though. The parties still have to deal with the FC then the FCA.

In my personal situation I'm fortunate to be able to watch American channels OTA. Any blackout of American shows by a Canadian broadcaster will have no effect on me. However, while a good chunk of Canada's population lives within 100 km of the US border I suspect good chunk of them are unable to receive OTA for whatever reason.
 
#71 ·
Court Reference = Constitutional Safety Valve

A government, or in this case a body charged by government with specific regulatory responsibilities, has a couple of constitutional safety valves to help it decide on appropriate measures or directions to take on vexing problems.

One is the establishment by cabinet of a Royal Commission, which can work at arms length to sound out appropriate policy towards a decision. Sadly it has been abused to the point where many Royal Commission Reports simply gather dust, although others have been extremely significant and effective. Implementation of Royal Commission findings and recommendations is purely at the leisure of cabinet.

Court references are a second safety valve. If a sitting government is aware that a decision facing them could result in "new law" or be constitutionally unsurvivable, references are a constitutional safety valve allowing an ultimate legal decision to be made on the validity of the proposed measure prior to its enactment. A reference to the Federal or Supreme Court of Canada is an extremely serious and rare matter that neither court gives leave to argue lightly or casually. References are not fishing expeditions; they are critical examinations of great legal and constitutional import. They are thus a cherished, powerful element of our democracy.

It is clear that leave to ask for the reference was already granted the CRTC prior to today's release.
 
#72 ·
JohnnyCanuck said:
Realistically speaking, we're talking about a year to sixteen months as the outside window for settling the legal question about the CRTC's authority. We're not talking years here.
I would add one other possible outcome: cabinet directs the CRTC to decide or behave in a certain direction while dropping the Federal Court reference. I don't see this as likely since no sitting government likes to be so heavy handed where a reference to the Federal or Supreme Court is concerned, but it is nevertheless within the realm of possibility.
 
#73 ·
Francois Caron said:
But unless a judge issues an order that neither party can do anything until the case has been heard and a verdict reached, the cable companies will be pretty much free to dump the broadcasters if they wish.
I would highly doubt that any major moves will happen given this giant policy vacuum. It would be hard to imagine a large Canadian corporation pushing its luck by acting in a fashion that is the subject of a Federal Court reference in progress. We're not talking about Spanish fishermen hauling turbot while Canadian courts decide whether authority exists to police them. :) Instead of industry actions we'll be seeing a huge amount of public posturing, and thankfully a breadth of new OTA DTV stations across the country regardless.
 
#75 ·
Except windows7, you won't be able to watch any ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox programing for which CTV owns the Canadian rights. CTV will be allowed to require the BDU's to delete that programming unless the BDU and CTV reach a specific agreement on that program.
Well, I don't watch anything that's on Global. I watch very little on CTV that's not available from elsewhere (including DVD/BR). I watch the news and occasional documentary on CBC. The one broadcaster that gets most of my non news viewing is PBS, which had shows that Canadian broadcasters don't carry. So my message to the broadcasters is: "Good bye. I don't need you and I don't want to pay for you."

BTW, I can receive the Toronto stations & Hamilton with a set top antenna, so no problem for me if they're completely removed from cable.
 
#76 ·
I'm surprised some do not like time shifting.
I have nothing against it. I just don't use it much. However, it is nice to be able to catch a show that I found out about a bit to late to record on a local channel. However, at the moment, that's just on American channels, as all the left coast Canadian channels are still SD on cable.
 
#77 ·
In the age of duel tunner HD-PVR's and US Network & Sports time shifting which is a given with most providers now I don't see the need for canadian time shifting at all unless people like to watch news from other cities.
There have been times I wanted to record 3 shows at a time. Time shift channels allow the 3rd channel to be recorded. Also, many cable channels repeat later in the day or week, so it's possible to get a show later. I've used that many times.
 
#80 ·
So yesterday I saw on the news Paul Sparkes from CTV say that the potential value for signal fee will help CTV create more Canadian content! Canadian content and CTV... isn't that like an oxymoron? Paul Sparkes must have been sparking something green himself before he made those laughable comments on the airwaves yesterday.
 
#81 ·
Well, I don't watch anything that's on Global. I watch very little on CTV that's not available from elsewhere (including DVD/BR). I watch the news and occasional documentary on CBC. The one broadcaster that gets most of my non news viewing is PBS, which had shows that Canadian broadcasters don't carry. So my message to the broadcasters is: "Good bye. I don't need you and I don't want to pay for you."
Agreed. There is nothing on CTV, Global or A that I watch that I can't get elsewhere. I watch CBC for local news and get national news online.

The CRTC completely dropped the ball by not permitting a la carte.
 
#82 ·
I've called Bell Aliant to tell them that I will not stand for a rate increase that is passed onto consumers by this ruling. I told them if I get a notice or see a fee increase, that I'll be cancelling and returning to OTA service[not since the late 80's].
Enough of this crap.
 
#86 ·
No, LPIF (which I think doesn't go away or change, even if a station opts for VFS) is only to support local programming in smaller markets, not national or major market programming. VFS revenue can be used national and major market local/regional programming. The other programming funds do not change.
 
#87 ·
Personally, I don't see this VFS being implemented any time soon, if ever. The simple reason being that the CRTC is a toothless entity, they don't even have the authority to levy fines (FFC on the the hand does) on broadcasters or BDU's who violate the terms of their license so I doubt highly that they have the authority to implement something as dramatic and significant as Value for signal which will change the entire TV landscape.

I say sit back and relax and enjoy CTV and their lineup of great Canadian...er... American programming ;)
 
#88 ·
#89 ·
My only real comment is get ready to pay an extra $3 to $5 a month tax for cable and satellite service.
 
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