Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC's Conversation on "Television"

123K views 593 replies 109 participants last post by  Dan_Lee 
#1 ·
Peter Menzies, Vice-chairman of Telecommunications at the CRTC, had, what I thought were some interesting comments in his speech yesterday to the CCSA.

Could it be that the CRTC is realizing that resistance is futile?

One of the old assumptions was that the CRTC could act effectively as a gatekeeper. Those who wanted to broadcast to Canadians had to do so under our rules, and Canadians — Martha and Henry — had little access to broadcasting that hadn't been channelled through those rules.

But now the Internet and all the devices that can reach it directly have created a borderless world. We can no longer define ourselves as gatekeepers in a world in which there may be no gates. We can't tell Canadians what to watch, nor should we. They are free to enjoy a much wider range of information and entertainment than ever before. And they are.

How can we act as an enabler of Canadian expression, rather than as a protector?
 
#60 ·
Well, I just answered the latest survey.

I made sure to communicate my view that:

- Content rebroadcasters add no value. Screw 'em. Let me get my content directly from NBC, or whoever made it.
- The CMPA are a bunch of leeches. I don't owe them anything if I'm watching content produced in the US or the UK. The problem isn't that Netflix doesn't pay them money, the problem is that other people do pay them money.
- In the future, content viewers will be able to "go direct" to the content creators. Don't get in the way of this happening. Death to middlemen.
 
#61 ·
It's really heartbreaking, sad, and frustruating for me and other Canadian fans of American cable networks that's unavailable here, to see a lot of some of the popular cable shows not being carried here, and to add insult to injury, it was also broadcasted internationally in such countries as Europe, Australia, India, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries, and to have the absolute thought of Canada being excluded from a certain American cable show absolutely makes me cringe! I think the CRTC needs to have the right to bring those American cable networks, including TNT, Oxygen, Esquire Network, Fuse, FearNet, Hallmark, TVOne, and others to here!

This is why it really sucks being a Canadian, that's why in the future, i'm leaving this overregulated country for the United States!
 
#63 · (Edited)
CRTC announces public hearing on the future of the Canadian television system

The Full Press Release follows:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today launched the third phase of Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians. This phase will feature a public hearing on the future of the television system starting on September 8, 2014, in the National Capital Region.

The CRTC intends to explore a number of changes to the television system to meet the current and future needs of Canadians as citizens, creators and consumers. In establishing a new approach for the television system, the CRTC will seek to ensure that the television system:
  • fosters choice and flexibility in selecting programs
  • encourages the creation of compelling and diverse content made by Canadians, and
  • empowers Canadians to make informed choices.
Fostering choice and flexibility
To ensure the television system fosters choice and flexibility, the CRTC is proposing that the basic television package that all subscribers receive be slimmed down and get back to basic. The new, slimmed-down package would consist of Canadian local television stations, channels of public interest that must currently be distributed to all subscribers (such as the Cable Public Affairs Channel and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network), provincial educational channels, community channels and the services operated by provincial legislatures.

For all other services, Canadians would have three options: (1) they could choose channels on an individual basis (also known as pick-and-pay); (2) build their own packages of pay and specialty channels (also known as build-your-own-package); or (3) choose from packages that are pre-determined by cable and satellite companies.

This proposed approach to foster more choice and flexibility is at the centre of the CRTC's report to the Government of Canada, which was also released today. In November 2013, knowing that the CRTC was reviewing its framework for television, the Government asked for a report on the steps the CRTC intends to take to maximize the ability to subscribe on a service-by-service basis, and on the impact this could potentially have on the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act.

Promoting Canadian-made content
To ensure the television system encourages the creation of compelling and diverse Canadian programs, the CRTC will explore new ways to ensure local television stations remain sustainable. The CRTC will also study various measures to support programs made by Canadians.

The CRTC will examine whether it should eliminate simultaneous substitution, which is the practice of replacing the signal of an American channel with that of a Canadian channel that is broadcasting the same program at the same time. In recent years, the CRTC has received numerous complaints from Canadians due to substitution errors, particularly during live sports events such as the Super Bowl.

If simultaneous substitution were no longer permitted, Canadian broadcasters may have more flexibility to schedule and promote Canadian shows, especially in prime time, rather than having their schedules tied to those of the American broadcasters.

Furthermore, the CRTC will explore whether an audience-measurement system that would draw information from cable set-top boxes should be created. Such a system could assist the Canadian television industry in responding more effectively to the changing needs and interests of viewers, while protecting their privacy.

Empowering Canadians
Canada's television system should empower Canadians to make informed choices and provide recourse in the case of disputes with their service providers. To this end, the CRTC will consider whether guidelines to promote greater clarity in contracts, as well as the terms regarding the cancellation of a subscription, are needed.

The CRTC will also discuss whether it should introduce a code of conduct for cable and satellite companies and whether an ombudsman should be made available to Canadians to help resolve disputes.

How to participate
Canadians are invited to share their views on these topics, as well as the others set out in the notice of consultation, by June 25, 2014. Canadians are also encouraged to indicate whether they wish to appear at the public hearing. They may do so by:
  • filling out the online form
  • writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, or
  • sending a fax at 819-994-0218.
The CRTC will also host an online discussion forum for Canadians during the public hearing in September 2014.

Reports
The CRTC is making public a report describing the results of a telephone survey on television services that was conducted in December 2013. In the coming days, the CRTC will also release the results of the Let's Talk TV: Choicebook.

About Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians
In October 2013, the CRTC launched Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians, which was to be held in three phases.

During the initial phase, Canadians were invited to share their personal views on their television system by submitting their comments or joining an online discussion forum. In addition, Canadians were encouraged to organize volunteer-hosted events, called "Flash!" conferences, to discuss the Conversation's themes.

The second phase was launched in February 2014, with the Let's Talk TV: Choicebook. This interactive questionnaire presented different scenarios that reflected common experiences with the television system. Canadians were asked to weigh the different outcomes that certain changes could bring about and to reflect on how the needs and interests of others relate to their own.

To date, more than 10,000 people have participated in Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians.

More information is available at www.crtc.gc.ca/talktv.

Quick Facts
  • The CRTC has launched the third phase of Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians, and will hold a public hearing in September 2014 on the future of the television system.
  • Canadians helped identify and prioritize the issues that will be explored in this phase through their participation in the Conversation.
  • The CRTC will seek to ensure that the television system fosters choice and flexibility in selecting programs.
  • The CRTC will seek to ensure that the television system encourages the creation of compelling and diverse programs.
  • The CRTC will seek to empower Canadians to make informed choices and provides recourse in the case of disputes with their television service providers.
  • The CRTC has submitted a report to the Government describing its proposed approach to maximize choice and flexibility within the television system.
Related links
Let's Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians
Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-190
Report on maximizing the ability of Canadian consumers to subscribe to discretionary services on a service-by-service basis
Public opinion research report
Let's Talk TV: A report on the comments received during Phase I
 
#64 ·
My personal favourite is this bit:

If simultaneous substitution were no longer permitted, Canadian broadcasters may have more flexibility to schedule and promote Canadian shows, especially in prime time, rather than having their schedules tied to those of the American broadcasters.
I'm sure the Canadian broadcasters, with all of their cancon, will have no problem with this. The CBC airs Canadian shows during prime time, some of which are pretty good.
 
#65 ·
Except that the simsub "conversation" focused (yes, I prefer the US spelling) on blackouts as the alternative, rather than the way things are now, simply without the simsubs.

The blackout threat is the way to keep consumers "thankful" that they have simsubs. Oh my, I guess the simsubs are better than the blackout alternative.

What if both choices are counterproductive to our enjoyment of the silly thing they call television? It's just too bad that there's so much money to be made by restricting content, otherwise, the rules and regulations might become more user-friendly.

Hey, but the Americans have blackouts too! Sure, but that's because they also don't like trying to fix things that are obviously broken. Better to simply count whatever money is rolling in, than try to change a system that separates each country and keeps us more isolated from each other.

The Internet is apparently evil because it promotes piracy ... as if that's a bad thing. :eek:
 
#66 ·
The new, slimmed-down package would consist of Canadian local television stations, channels of public interest that must currently be distributed to all subscribers (such as the Cable Public Affairs Channel and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network), provincial educational channels, community channels and the services operated by provincial legislatures.
This tells me they still don't get it. They are going to give Canadians choice...after they force channels on them that they don't watch.

The Sim sub section is laughable because as was already pointed out, all they will do is black out the American broadcast network when it airs the show. This is just more nonsense wrapped up in the idea that things will change.

The CRTC is a protectionist for Canadian TV. They are not about competition and will simply continue to find ways to fund Canadian programming and channels nobody will watch.

This is a complete waste of time. If you want choice then subscribe to non Canadian sources or stream on the Net. That's the only way you will get choice in Canada.
 
#67 ·
Mandatory channels are not going away unless the government changes the law. The list of actual mandatory offers (what would be in skinny basic) isn't that large, and it'd be a lot smaller than a standard package now.

If they are serious about what they're saying with the a-la-carte and build your own bundle options, I'll consider it a major step forward.
 
#68 · (Edited by Moderator)
CRTC Broadcasting Overhaul?

Article in the Star this afternoon


What would you do if you could hit the reset button on TV regulation?
Share on Facebook

Reddit this!

CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais is taking a consumer focus.
ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS

CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais is taking a consumer focus.

By: Michael Geist Technology, Published on Fri Apr 25 2014
The Broadcasting Act is a complex statute that lists more than twenty broadcasting policy goals. Yet for decades, Canadian policy has largely boiled down to a single objective: Maximizing the benefits from the broadcasting system for creators, broadcasters, and broadcast distributors such as cable and satellite companies.
Consumers were nowhere to be found in that objective and it showed. Creators benefited from Canadian content requirements and financial contributions that guaranteed the creation of Canadian broadcast content. Broadcasters flourished in a market that permitted simultaneous substitution (thereby enabling big profits from licensing U.S. content) and that kept U.S. giants such as HBO, ESPN, and MTV out of the market for years in favour of Canadian alternatives. Cable and satellite companies became dominant media companies by requiring consumers to purchase large packages filled with channels they did not want in order to access the few they did.
Canadians may have been frustrated with the broadcast system, but there were no obvious alternatives and their views hardly mattered in a regulatory system dominated by the established players. This week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission sent an unmistakable signal that these longstanding rules are about to change.
 
#69 · (Edited)
Since the majority of North Americans still subscribe to Cable/Satellite TV, all the people in power have to do is simply make it look like they are trying to please their customers, and if that fails, they can always raise the price of the Internet service.

It's only a matter of time before Internet prices rise to a level that I am no longer willing to pay. I'll have the desire to cut the Internet cord and then eventually be inundated with calls to rejoin at a much lower price, only to have to cancel yet again, once the mid-special price increase(s) occurs. It's a tireless cycle of aggravation that makes it much more likely that I'll one day end up with nothing but a cell phone for emergency use.

Without the revenue-sharing plans that the major sports leagues have, the various countries of the world are on their own (except of course when they partner up to produce/finance content).

The UK and Canada (and of course other major/minor countries) often load their broadcast schedules with popular US content instead of allowing us to legally subscribe to American Satellite services. It's one thing to have the Americans block us from subscribing, but to actually make it a criminal offence for Canadians to pay for US Satellite service, is outrageous!

So, how do you fix this problem?

You can't fix it because each country works independently to restrict and control what we watch and when and how we watch it.

But, if the world could unite, and become one super sports league that used revenue sharing to keep the weaker countries (teams) alive and still profitable, that's when we could finally have a system that focused solely on programming from each specific country or region.

But how do you price something like this? Do you charge $40/month for each individual country's various channels, regardless of how popular those channels might be? I don't think so. You'd probably have to put the various countries in divisions and charge more for the content from the better (most popular) divisions.

You might be allowed to buy the content from two countries in Division 1, and content from one country in three other divisions for only $40/month, but if you wanted more content, you'd have to pay more.

The content from the smaller countries in the weaker (less popular) divisions would cost much less, but might then be viewed by more people by the end of a viewing season, thus eventually moving those countries up to more popular/expensive divisions.

The USA has very popular/desirable content, so it would start off in Division 1.

The world's governments would have to agree to the terms of a so-called United TV Federation and properly use the Internet and Satellite services to better unite the world, instead of dividing it up into small regions with major limitations and restrictions.

It's a dumb idea that will NEVER work (stronger countries like being stronger), but it's probably the only thing that has a chance to keep the USA content solely on US television channels.

So, the Canadian channels would then only be allowed to air Canadian content, and the UK channels would only be allowed to air UK content (etc.). What actually constitutes Canadian content would have to be redefined, but I assume that every passing year would bring about new alterations to keep the flow of content coming from the weaker countries.

If a Division 1 country partners with another Division 1 country to create content, the overall league revenue shared between them would be less than a partnership between let's say a Division 1 country with a weaker Division 3 country. And if a project is successful enough, a weaker Division 3 country might get elevated to a more-popular division for the rest of the next calendar year, while also relegating a more-popular-division country into a less-popular division. This will hopefully encourage some of the stronger and weaker countries to work together, for a chance at a bigger payday, or division upgrade. However, it might also encourage Division 1 countries to only partner with other division 1 countries to make sure that the weaker countries stay in the weaker divisions. Thus, there have to be partnership rules that limit the number of same-division deals, and also rules that force countries from one division to make a certain number of partnership deals with other divisions.

This silly system would allow Canadians to completely ignore Canadian content (not counting partnership content that would also air on other channels) and finally allow us the legal right to watch the content we want to watch. Sure, there would still be individual packages available and if we bought less-popular Division 5 content, we might get stuck with African content we never watched (but the Division 5 bundle package would cost less than separately buying three countries from that division -- so it still might be worthwhile to bundle). And that's how some of the weaker African countries can remain part of The United TV Federation.

However, any country that fails to produce enough content (determined by the board) within two calendar years, gets dumped into the Penalty Box division, loses all revenue-sharing privileges and must negotiate with each individual country for content rights (until they start producing enough content on their own, and/or partner with other countries to do so). Note: North Korea and other war-loving countries would remain in the Penalty Box division until further notice.

The United TV Federation ... Make content, NOT war!

Hmm, what a stupid idea ... almost as stupid as our current simsub system.
 
#70 ·
All Canadian Viewer! Please Read.

don't get your hope up on getting the CRTC to putting a end to sim-subs over OTA U.S. Networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, CW & FOX. Next guess i know is the CRTC winning a court ordered injunction against Canadian TV viewers from access OTA U.S. Networks of any kind, Making Canaidan Version of US Cable Networks and making sure that cable TV bills will always cost too much just to protect Canadian Ads. Next thing i know that i would not relay on Cable TV and Canadian Satellite Providers anymore. I just use Satellite FTA Signals, IPTV Channels like filmon.com, using Youtube & Netflix. Including Hulu using a special program and Playing games on my PC and Xbox 360. As long as we live in Canada, Everything on Television and Screen Time must be %100 Canadian at all times.
 
#71 ·
I don't know why so many of you complain so much since it's fairly obvious you watch little or no Canadian TV, go watch your Netflix and quit whining. Just like with elections, if you don't vote you don't get to complain, well if you don't pay or want to pay for cable tv then you've got no reason to complain. But the rest of us can and will complain all we want!
 
#72 ·
In the past year I've watched one Canadian series on TV. The rest are all of US or British origin. I rarely listen to Canadian radio. I would rather watch US TV stations because they have fewer on screen interruptions and don't cut off portions of shows. Local programming has turned into a joke due to budget cuts by distant corporate owners. It's fairly obvious that Canadian broadcast policies have failed the Canadian public. All they do is pad the pockets of artists and broadcasters that have failed in the Canadian marketplace.
 
#73 · (Edited)
I still watch Canadian TV content, and although I enjoy a lot of what the CBC offers, I generally detest all of its scripted shows (except for Being Erica and several others). If I had to pick one CBC show to keep alive, it would be Marketplace (consumer affairs series).

As bad as some of the Canadian TV content is, it still manages to provide opportunities for some very talented Canadians (which often allows me to overlook the poorer overall quality of a specific show and thus still enjoy the viewing experience).

I only listen to AM radio on my boombox (or sports talk radio and music on the Internet), so once the CBC moved to FM, that was it for me (the few bedroom radios I've had, all lost FM reception due to faulty switches). My other working radios are a little bigger and work perfectly, but since I can live without FM radio and prefer AM radio, I still stick with my No-FM, Sony boombox in the bedroom.

Onscreen TV clutter (bugs, snipes, etc.) is on virtually every channel. The CW (hello, America) is one of the worst examples of onscreen clutter. For Canadian TV, CTV is one of the worst thanks to those huge waving pieces of fabric covering up content (thankfully, the CTV online content is clutter free and the commercials can be skipped during its Canadian content - with adblock extensions).

Australia's TV content has improved over the years, so watch your back Canada, the Aussies are coming.

Now that I have access to the world's fresh content through the Internet, I enjoy sampling some of the poorer attempts at entertaining an audience, just so that it's easier to recognize greatness, or gradual improvement.

My favourite TV content from around the world, in order of greatness:

1. USA (has some of the best AND worst content in the world)

2. UK (still suffers from some repetitive and dull scripted-comedy content, but PhoneShop is one of the black-comedy or farcical gems that has quickly improved).

3. Canada (still room for improvement, but due to its foreign-partnership-scripted content deals, things are looking up ... Canada also still manages to often outshine Australia in the infotainment or group/individual comedy series/specials genres).

4. Australia (its independent-scripted TV content is now often better than Canada's, but some of the scripted content is still below average and worse than some of the sub-par CBC original content)

5. Ireland (very intense crime dramas)

6. New Zealand (still very weak overall, but the scripted, new series Step Dave is even good enough to be compared with some of the high-quality Australian content).

As for the Made-for-TV movies, the order of greatness is the same, except I'd probably move Australia ahead of Canada, even though both countries rarely produce any TV movies worthy of being called great.

For most of my life as a Rogers cable tv subscriber, I have felt like a prisoner in a third-world country (but with better plumbing), but now that I've stumbled across the wonderful world of Internet piracy, the world's content is at my fingertips.

It's a shame that those in power can't work together more efficiently to let the sun shine more often than it already does, instead of punishing our curiosity for fresh content by imposing so many rules and regulations on us, that many of us just eventually give up and turn to the clever Internet pirates to help rescue us from our forced isolation.

The word Internet should always be capitalized because it's the capital city of the world ... even though every individual country tries to limit the Internet's reach and claim ownership of everything on it.

Chances are, if you use the Internet long enough, you will eventually be guilty of some copyright violation. Whether it's intentional or accidental, you are still guilty in the eyes of the world. However, since we live in Canada, it's the Canadian eyes that we have to pay most attention to, and that's why we are all curious about what the CRTC and our government, plan to do about competing with the vast reach of the Internet.

To make things better than they are now, they would either have to embrace piracy, or work together with other countries to provide us with the FRESH content (not just the channels) that we deserve.

Content drives curiosity ... Curiosity drives piracy ... Piracy drives the Internet ... The Internet is the child that the world's governments want to raise by fighting for sole custody, rather than accepting the fact that shared custody tends to be better for the child (unless one of the parents is North Korea).

Unfortunately for us, since Money makes the world go round, and common sense is more often based on common Cents, it appears that money drives everything ... even the Pirates.

The Internet is a terrible thing to waste. Netflix knows that, but the world doesn't. The world is the disgruntled parent in this battle for sole custody of the Internet.

Bottom line: The game is over before it has even begun. Netflix was a valiant attempt at saving the Internet from itself. Netflix vs the World; my money is unfortunately on the World.

Sincerely,

Broken Record Drama Queen :eek:
 
#75 ·
I enjoyed the interview.

Hindsight is 20-20, but if all the content indeed moves to the Internet within about 5 years or so, I assume that my Unlimited Internet will cost much more than $40/month, and so by the year 2020, I'll probably be ready to truly cut the cord and use the money for other things.
 
#76 ·
The CRTC releases the results of the Let's Talk TV: Choicebook

In total, more than 6,300 people filled out the questionnaire. Moreover, a select panel of over 1,200 people representative of the Canadian population also filled out the Choicebook. The CRTC is issuing four reports that set out the results:

Full News Release.
 
#77 ·
Thanks for the links. Interesting read. I have some issues with the wording of the survey but find the results a fairly good indicator on some important issues. I also found some of the differences by age the most revealing. It indicates that BDUs need to change their practices to attract a younger demographic and offer more choices to appeal to all Canadians. For example, we need pick'n'pay, small packages and large package options. The current trend is to limit choice in programming by only offering large, tiered packages is the wrong approach to attracting younger Canadians.
 
#78 ·
I'm not surprised by most of the findings. Younger people are not tied to the old way of doing things and are not in a protectionist mindset for Canadian programming. and that's reflected in the percentages.

There is also know way to have one system for all of Canada. Quebec differs from the rest of Canada in their preferences which is understandable, and should have their own set of rules.

It's pretty obvious that the new generation just wants access to what they want to watch (what a concept huh?) and don't care about the asinine red tape the CRTC has put in place for years to protect Canadian interests. I'm encouraged by the responses in this regard and hopefully over time the restrictions will be lifted and this country can finally access and watch what they want instead of being told what they can or can't by the CRTC.
 
#83 ·
I provided a letter that was 5 pages long with comments to the CRTC.
I mostly complained about the lack of pick and pay, the ownership of service providers and networks being the same, and the lack of foreign English TV services from outside of North America.

The CRTC continually is adding foreign language channels from around the world, but I would like to have English language networks such as BBC (UK), RTE (Ireland), SBC (Australia), and other local networks that don't rely on foreign programming (not a repeater for U.S. programming) available. Most of these networks are available online, but I would prefer to have access to them through my TV service provider.
 
#82 · (Edited by Moderator)
I did as well. Much like you I focused on the availability of programming from other countries and the need to stop forcing channels on Canadians simply because they are Canadian stations. We know most of these channels aren't being watched, and forced on subscribers who want a channel that they can only get in a huge package of garbage.

There is a need for more competition in the TV markets of this country and less protectionist BS simply to appease the Friends of Canadian Television.
 
#85 ·
The existence of so many non-English overseas channels is because they are quite profitable for BDUs and there is little domestic competition.

The lack of comparable English language channels is a sore point but explained by the number of Canadian broadcasters who want to occupy the same niche. BBC Canada, for example, pretty much precludes the British BBC due to both CRTC regulations and copyright conflicts. In addition, the BBC stands to make more profit by selling programming rights. The fact the BBC Canada is a pitifully poor shadow of the British or US counterparts is of little relevance to the CRTC or the broadcaster. As long as CRTC regulations are met and the station is profitable, they don't care about the consumer. In the hierarchy of importance, the consumer is at the back of the line, behind the CRTC, the broadcaster, advertisers and political interests. Until Canadian consumers decided to stage a TV strike by refusing to pay their BDU bills for a month or cancelling their BDU service en masse, nothing is going to change.
 
#86 · (Edited)
Bell proposes to convert local conventional TV stations into specialty services

I've posted the entire press release. See the second-last paragraph for the most contentious proposal.

Bell wants Canadians to choose the TV channels they want to watch

• Bell supports greater TV packaging flexibility to respond to consumer demand
• Proposes new model for local TV to ensure long-term sustainability of local programming

MONTREAL, June 27, 2014 /CNW Telbec/ - To ensure Canadians get the TV channels they want to watch, Bell today announced its support for both "pick and pay" options for all television channels not included in basic packages, and a new model to ensure the long-term sustainability of local programming.

These proposals support the modernization of Canada's successful broadcasting system in an era of rapid change, balancing flexibility and choice in TV programming with consumer demand for content of quality, variety and value, alongside the cultural imperative of a unique and relevant Canadian voice in broadcasting.

Focused on empowering consumers and supporting great local and Canadian content, these proposals are key elements in Bell's submission filed today as part of the CRTC's consultation on the future of Canadian TV.

Pick and pay flexibility
Broadcast distributors should have continued flexibility to include discretionary Canadian services in basic packages and offer a range of TV packaging options, while also having the ability to make all Canadian discretionary services not in basic available to consumers on a pick and pay basis.

Bell supports greater competition among programming services and increased flexibility for all channels to ensure Canadians continue to have access to the highest-quality viewing options. The proposal would depend on a commercial marketplace that enables negotiations between broadcasters and distributors for any channel without carriage rights.

"Bell agrees with Canadian consumers that they shouldn't have to pay for channels they don't want just to get the channels they do. In addition to the extensive range of TV packaging options we make available, we seek to offer pick and pay as an option to consumers," said Wade Oosterman, President of Bell Residential Services. "Free-market negotiations are essential if pick and pay is to deliver on the promise of consumer choice, giving broadcasters and distributors the ability to develop the innovative and competitive business models required to make it work."

Ensuring the future of local TV
Canada's broadcasting system is built on a foundation of local television programming. However, the sector is no longer financially sustainable and to date none of the regulatory measures implemented to address the issue have managed to address the structural deficiency of an advertising-only funding model.

Canadians benefit from a wealth of programming options, competitive TV distribution choices and technological innovations like Fibe TV. While Canadians have traditionally enjoyed more content choice and lower TV pricing than consumers in the United States, the US experience has shown that new models and revenue sources are necessary in order to sustain local programming going forward.

"Canadians everywhere value local TV because it connects and informs them about their communities. We need to act now to ensure local TV can continue to fulfill this mandate," said Kevin Crull, President of Bell Media. "The CRTC's consultation offers the opportunity to consider an innovative and up-to-date model that aligns with what consumers want from their broadcasting system."

Bell proposes to convert local conventional TV stations into local specialty services, which would continue to be subject to local programming requirements and be carried as part of basic packages. Like other specialty services, local channels would be able to charge wholesale rates to broadcast distributors, subject to existing CRTC must-carry regulations applicable to local broadcasting. The combined revenue from advertising and wholesale fees supports a stable and sustainable future for local programming for all Canadians.

Together, Bell's two proposals will work to ensure Canadians continue to receive the local programming and other channels they want while enabling them to manage their overall spending on TV services.
 
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