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.
 
#196 ·
I'm not an expert on this but isn't this a classic example of what my grandma used to say "robbing Peter to pay Paul?"

Aren't the broadcasters the same as the cable/satellite providers these days? So in a nutshell, for instance, CTV is telling Bell, "pay us money if you want to carry us."

Bell, owns CTV, right? So Bell, pays CTV (itself) $2 and then charges us that $2.:eek:
 
#197 ·
Bell, owns CTV, right? So Bell, pays CTV (itself) $2 and then charges us that $2.:eek:
Yes, within the corporation is just accounting, but I think it's going to get ugly when CTV asks Shaw for $2, and then Shaw turns around and asks Bell for $3 to carry Global.

We might see what was happening in the US recently with some FFC type disputes. I'm not sure of the exact details, but for a while there were adds on Fox warning viewers that if they are watching on Time/Warner carrier, they will be loosing their signal as of a certain date. Not sure how it all played out in the end.
 
#201 ·
Already cut the cord years ago. Now I can only watch my own channel on the Internet! :p

In a way, this might be a good thing. The channels and corporations will be fighting it out so much and alienate their own customers to the point that they'll start losing business. Only then will they start to rethink their business strategies and hopefully give their customers what they really wanted from the beginning: only pay for the channels they want without being forced to pay for channels they never wanted.

The À-la-carte Universe may finally be on its way to becoming a national reality.
 
#204 ·
Somebody said that if VFS comes, they should be able opt out of locals. While I belive one ought to opt out of, or should be able opt in to pay for channels, I do not believe it will happen, at least for your locals.

I am for VFS, if it can be assured that the money will go to support the local station directly, not the network, and not go to purchase US programming.

As for cross ownership of providers and stations, what might happen is a net zero trade; Bell and Shaw will agree to carry each other's stations essentially free, and of course each will carry their own stations for free.
 
#205 ·
I have said this before, but rather than paying for local stations, I would rather see customers pay for distant stations (if they choose to receive them) but have the money split between the local stations as compensation for lost advertising revenue due to people watching the same program on a non-local station.
 
#206 ·
isn't this a classic example of what my grandma used to say "robbing Peter to pay Paul?"
It's an example of using vertical integration and market control to inflate prices. It's also an example of how Canadian consumers are getting ripped off. Vertical integration was originally used as a way to cut costs. As ownership becomes more concentrated, it becomes a way to eliminate competition and fix prices.
 
#207 ·
But how can you charge BDU subscribers but not charge OTA viewers? That is not fair, especially since OTA viewers will watch these channels more since they get far fewer channels and if they aren't close to the border then 100% of their viewing will be of local Canadian OTA channels. The only fair way to do things is a TV license as in the UK or else a tax put on TVs or a tax to everyone charged annually and I definitely am not in favor of that!
 
#208 ·
I am not in favor of FFC, but I will play devils advocate for a moment.

Broadcasters get their revenue from advertising. The fact that OTA viewers (if they aren't close to the boarder) are watching their channel more, increases the station's advertising revenue. OTOH, BDU customers may watch the same program on another channel (time shifting for example) when the local station has paid for the local rights to that program, so having those customers pay extra in compensation isn't as unfair as it seems.

Given this argument, a better solution is to charge for out of market stations and give the money to the local stations, or do as they do in the US and block programs for up to a week after the original airing date on out of market channels when a local station is showing the same program.
 
#209 ·
^^^^
Much of the advertising is already national in nature. You don't see a lot of local ads on the major TV stations. So, either way, the ads get watched, either on the local or time shift channels.
 
#213 ·
Much of the advertising is already national in nature. You don't see a lot of local ads on the major TV stations. So, either way, the ads get watched, either on the local or time shift channels.
From what I have heard, advertising rates are based on ratings, and they only look at the local audience. Viewers in distant markets are not counted. Even if they were, that would only help the large market stations that get carried in multiple markets and the small market stations would lose out.
 
#212 ·
The CRTC already has a means of determining whether stations cover a market, the Grade B contour. As to what is "fair", that depends on your point of view. Broadcasters say one thing, BDUs another and consumers yet another. In the long run, market forces win out and government intervention causes temporary aberrations that are bad for everyone involved.
 
#223 ·
DOH!!! Also Knowledge in BC. Access is owned by CTVgm (which is/will be owned by Bell) though I heard an unsubstantiated rumor that it is being sold.

Oh and there are also the CTS and JoyTV stations.

I also didn't look at the French stations.
 
#228 ·
Bell is about the only BDU that simsubs TSN over an American OTA signal. Not sure if it is even allowed or addressed by simsub regulations.
Interesting. They aren't required to do this, but I am not sure if there is any regulation preventing them from doing it either. Most BDU's hate simsub as it is a source of customer complaints, especially when errors occur (often due to last minute schedule changes).
 
#230 ·
Wayne said:

But the broadcasters are getting something today - mandatory carriage and placement in the "prime" spots is certainly of value to these broadcasters. For example, everyone that subscribes to cable gets their local stations and they get them in the analog band that is viewable on all TVs without external equipment.

The "quid pro quo" here is that BDUs get the channels for free and that makes their service more attractive and the broadcasters get the premium placement that increases their ratings since their channels are available to 100% of BDU subscribers.


EXACTLY. The BDUs should just tell the broadcasters..."Bugger off, find your own means of distributing your content without us and see how you fair. It it wasn't for us, your ad revenue would plummet even more."

But then, of course, we forget the broadcasters and BDUs are one-and-the-same.
 
#231 ·
Bell is allowed to simsub for any cable station, however they are not supposed to give preferential treatment (to TSN)

ie. substituting the TSN feed over FOX for a NASCAR race but not substituting the sportsnet feed over FOX for say a World Series game

resulting in increased audiences for TSN but not Sportsnet
 
#233 ·
Buy more shares in Bell and Shaw.
Maybe buy some stock in a Canadian tower manufacturer?
I read on a WIKI entry 4/5 th's of the Canadian Population lives within 93 Miles of the US Border. There's probably a significant portion of that just out of reach of US OTA stations' coverage. A small tower in every yard, would increase the coverage of both US and Canadian stations significantly:)
 
#234 ·
4/5 th's of the Canadian Population lives within 93 Miles of the US Borde
A significant portion of that population is likely geographically challenged for OTA. While some cities, such as Toronto are on the lake, many further inland are built in valleys that pose significant challenges due to intervening high ground. While London is within 93 miles of the US, there are no stations in that direction or they are very weak. Many more stations are over 100 miles. All are are 2 edge or worse.
 
#236 ·
So should the LPIF but it's not. Shaw Direct just added it to their BDU service. Is it a coincidence that Shaw acquired Global and added LPIF at about the same time? Will FFC be far behind? I think not. BDUs are the cash cows that feed the acquisition of broadcast services and rollout of internet infrastructures. Meanwhile, broadcasters, BDUs and ISPs appear to be treated as individual entities by regulators instead of the vertically integrated oligopolies that they have become.
 
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