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.
 
#94 ·
So I have read through this thread and for the most part people seem to be unhappy about this ruling and what it will mean.

I too am very unhappy with it.

But what I don't see, is people that are unhappy with the the cable/satellite companies position that they are just going to pass the increases (whatever they are) along to their customers.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT!

Yes it makes business sense to do that, but all along during this public fight their position has been, it's bad for consumers. The only reason it is bad for consumers is because they are passing the potential increases along!

I am extremely unhappy with both sides as well as the CRTC. I can see little to nothing good coming out of this.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I can see both sides using this to their advantage in some way and we'll all get screwed.

It would be nice to actually see it backfire and have it hurt both sides so they have to actually run their respective businesses properly without gouging and being propped up by rediculous rulings.
 
#98 ·
But what I don't see, is people that are unhappy with the the cable/satellite companies position that they are just going to pass the increases (whatever they are) along to their customers.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT!

Yes it makes business sense to do that, but all along during this public fight their position has been, it's bad for consumers. The only reason it is bad for consumers is because they are passing the potential increases along!
All throughout the hearings nearly every BDU said that any fee would be passed on to the consumer. They were very clear on this. The CRTC has made these recommendations knowing full well this is the very likely outcome.
 
#95 ·
clarification

Let's say I live in Kelowna. There is no CTV OTA transmitter in Kelowna. Does Shaw cable have to pay CTV a VFS in Kelowna? Say Shaw Cable and CTV get in a big dispute, and CTV blacks out everything they are allowed to. What happens to Shaw Cable customers in Kelowna? Do they keep getting the CTV Vancouver feed? Or does CTV withhold this, but Shaw is free to show all US programs on the US networks (HD and standard def)?

Does this ruling give the networks incentive to keep broadcasting OTA?

If this is the case... looking out a bit further... what is to stop the US networks for asking Canadian BDU's for VFS, in parts of Canada where CTV/Global/City/OMNI/Sun don't reach?
 
#96 ·
La la land

Anyone who thinks that the cable and satellite company’s should not pass any proposed 'fee for carriage' increase onto consumers because these company’s can afford it, is living in la la land. These company’s exist to make a profit, and no matter who how high their profit margins are they will not sacrifice those margins for the benefit of TV networks. More than likely the amount anyone will have to pay will show up on your bill as a TV fee for carriage 'tax', which will no doubt make the government of the day very nervous.
 
#106 ·
Anyone who thinks that the cable and satellite company’s should not pass any proposed 'fee for carriage' increase onto consumers because these company’s can afford it, is living in la la land.
So you are happy enough to just accept it and not even be p*ssed off about it? Point is, they have a choice and they take the low road every time.

No wonder these companies constantly steam roll over their customers!

Do you also enjoy seeing banks make huge profits from you?
 
#97 ·
In my opinion the most important part of today's release is the minority report from one commissioner. It certainly addresses what is missing in the main report.......the number one stakeholder in the decision.....the consumer. This is the part of the report that will catch the eye of the politicians. Thankfully one person on the commission has some common sense and not afraid of the interested parties or the autocratic head of the CRTC.
 
#99 ·
Bear with me, I'm having a moment of sheer insanity here.

Coming soon! The Blackout Channel! Featuring "filler" shows suitable for whenever your cable or satellite company is required by law to preempt the broadcast of a television show due to rights issues! But instead of airing a black screen, air The Blackout Channel!

We now resume our regularly scheduled sanity. :p
 
#145 ·
How will that happen? At least under the current regulatory regime, even with VFS, you won't be able to choose just those, let alone opt out of private networks, unless they fail to negotate VFS rates/terms with your provider.

PBS at least, will be tied to the other US network stations.

Your only hope is a skinny basic (if your provider will/does offer it) and the one or two packages with the channels you want, and getting PBS from antenna or FTA satellite, if you can.
 
#103 ·
I know I will be in a very small minority, but I might cancel my cable subscription to cable.

I just had enough.

No Hulu in Canada because of broadcasters. An anemic TV program section on the itunes stores because of broadcasters. BDUs fees that grow faster then inflation, without any benefit.

I'm tired of sim subbing. I'm tired of feeding broadcasters money so they can just spend more then they shoul on american programming. I'm tired of the CBC and Radio-Canada not respecting their licenses and going away with it. I'm tired of a bunch of idiots deciding for me what I should and should not watch.

Damn, we aren't in soviet russia!

What depress me is that they are right: BDUs will not loose consummer because of this. Like always most will pay up and shut up.

Time to negociate with my landlord for a space on the roof for an /A\ antenna.
 
#105 ·
I think one of the most popular things that the Conservative government can do is open up a review board on what is to be done with the CRTC. It's clear that the CRTC is really not looking out for the needs and the concerns of the consumer. They are allowing special interests groups, stations owners, media owners, to basically fleece the Canadian consumer.

Sorry but, that just isn't right. There needs to be a change.
 
#108 ·
Relying on add revenue. Hmm. I'll say, you seem to notice it more with a PVR than without, but I can watch a 60 minute show in less than 40 minutes.

I hope the following link to a website I stumbled across is OK to post here:

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/commerciallength.htm

It's US, but he did some independent research on the subject of commercial time from the debut of television to now.... Interesting.
 
#109 ·
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but this CRTC decision comes at a bad time. According to an article on Cartt.ca, the FCC is currently investigating their VFS regime as they say it doesn't work and harms the consumer, yet the CRTC says lets do it the American way, morons!
 
#110 ·
I don't like how the same Canadian networks who got and received VFS also own the newspapers who get to spin the results of the ruling (just as they during the campaign).

From CTVglobemedia-owned The Globe & Mail:

Why the CBC should stop the hissy fit

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...cbc-should-stop-the-hissy-fit/article1509634/

The CBC response was the spoilt-brat reaction epitomized.
Ah, such class and taking of the high road from the Globe/mail. Just imagine the response from the Canadian private networks and their print sources if it was them who didn't get VFS and it was Rogers putting out a press release telling CTV and Global to "stop taking a hissy fit".

I think this comment from a Globe/Mail reader says it best:

Metasphere 3/23/2010 6:53:36 PM
It's appalling and disgraceful that CTV sics this dolt on their competitor in the guise of a Globe reviewer. I am reporting this disgraceful practice to the Ontario Press Council.
 
#111 ·
So you are happy enough to just accept it and not even be p*ssed off about it? Point is, they have a choice and they take the low road every time.
I'm not really pissed off. I am a realist. Well maybe a little ticked at the TV networks for floating the idea to the CRTC in the first place.

The cableco's and satellite providers will fight this tooth and nail. And if they loose, if it gets that far, they will pass along the increase to their customers.

Scenario 1: The fee is passed on to consumers and the cost is plain to see, made to look like a tax increase. I suspect the Harper government would intervene before this scenario would even sees the light of day. If you have been watching the rhetoric of the cableco's and satellite providers, they have been sending the message not just to you, but the government as well.

Scenario 2: The cableco's and satellite providers absorb the fee. Then over time pass the increased fee onto consumers.

Scenario 3: The cableco's and satellite providers just absorb the fee. Shareholders will love that!

In the meantime don't get out you wallets yet! This little fight will last a long time, we'll be discussing this for a few years.
 
#112 ·
Well the only real threat right for VFS is CTV, especially if Shaw buys Global. I'm pretty sure none of the smaller networks or any independents would dare fight for anything from Rogers or Shaw. Citytv and TVA won't be looking for any VFS and CBC can't get any VFS. CTV is pretty much alone in that hole by themselves. I'm also pretty certain the heritage committee and the government don't want the consumers being taxed and I hope the court tells the CRTC to go shove it! Heck, if the CRTC has no power to fine anyone and force their policies on them, how can the CRTC have the power to allow them to ask for money. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
#113 ·
Typical political move.Dont make a choice,let the networks and BDU decide.Whats the point of even having a CRTC.CRTC just trying to deflect any backlash away from themselves.BDU will simply pass it along to your bill and blame CTV,Global etc.Expect a small charge at first with an increase every 3 years.
 
#114 ·
But without VFS, what will CTVglobemedia do? Shut down smaller market stations, which means all /A\ stations (Barrie, London, Ottawa, Windsor and Victoria) lose their local TV news outlet and local businesses have no place to advertise. CTV has been clear about doing that w/out VFS.

So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 
#115 ·
Maybe CTV and Global could stop competing so hard for US rights for programs, not pay more, like they did in 2009 during a recession. Who else is competing to buy the Canadian rights for these shows? The US producers will settle for less, because less is more than zero.

CTV will continue to gut their locals and centralize news gathering and production. Why? Because it's more profitable and nobody is stopping them.

This is a bailout, pure and simple, and just subsidizes a failing business model on the backs of consumers who don't want to pay for it.
 
#117 ·
Call me stupid, but I just don't understand this whole thing.

TV service providers (cable/sat companies) don't steal local TV stations' revenue by stealing OTA users who pay nothing to local TV stations, or those who don't have OTA coverage. On the other hand, TV service providers raise local TV stations' publicity which means raising the value of their ad space. If anything, local TV stations should raise ad fees and TV service providers should get a portion of that revenue increase.

What am I missing?
 
#120 ·
You're missing the fact that with only a handful of OTA options, an OTA TV viewer is much more likely to watch one of the local stations than a BDU TV Viewer, who has hundreds of channels to watch. This leads to a massive dilution of the advertising market. While the TV station gets access to more viewers, it has to compete with many more cable stations.
 
#118 ·
^^^^
My point exactly. What other business expects to be subsidized by another business that's actually doing them a favour.

In someways it's like buying something from a store. You can pick up an item at the store or have it shipped by courier. The store then says the courier is making money from it's business and now wants a piece of that money. Same thing.

The BDUs are paid for transport, not content that is otherwise avaialble for no charge.
 
#119 ·
I think the recently released report that shows Canadians now spend more time on the internet than they do watching TV is a very important point that all parties need to take into account.

Since anyone in Windsor, for example, can put up a $60 antenna and pick up the US networks, in uncompressed HD, for free, I see no issue with downloading these shows online. My geographic location precludes me from using the OTA option, however, I should not be precluded from the same ability to watch a program. That is what the internet has allowed me to do. And that is what the providers need to realize.

People are more tech savvy than ever and when push comes to shove, as it will in this case, people will start investigating other methods to receive their content. Even TV manufacturers, like Samsung, are created TV's with a built in DLNA server for streaming content from a PC. I have all my TV's networked to my server with either a PS3, BD player, or my WDTV Live. While I currently pay about $80 per month for satellite, my determination to keep this service weakens every day.

I won't even go into the fact that DirectTV and Dish Network should be allowed to broadcast, without content restrictions, in this post. That is another topic altogether.:confused:
 
#121 ·
^^^^
Much of that competition is the cable channels, many of which are owned by the broadcasters. Some of that competition is the same broadcaster in a different city. So, a lot of that dilution is caused by the broadcasters.
 
#122 ·
The biggest part of this I see and you "may" see a BACK LASH" is if the fee does eventuaally come peiople will crumbale, but will pay it. What I see is if the fee comes and the networks want the providers to "black out" the US signal even when there not simo-cast, so in other words you can only see it on a Canadian Network not what you have presently, thats where I see a big 'Back Lash" from the public.
 
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