Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

CTV to CRTC: No Fix means no local stations

50K views 325 replies 76 participants last post by  Vegas01 
#1 ·
In hearings to discuss the financial future of conventional broadcasting in Canada, Ivan Fecan, President and CEO of CTVglobemedia and CEO of CTV Inc. told the CRTC this morning that it would shut down its Over-the-air television (OTA) stations if the feds did not provide a "structural fix for conventional television soon."

Very big face-off between BDU's and conventional broadcasters.

No one here signed up for this but this is where we find ourselves today. Please understand this is not a cash grab or greed from a private broadcaster. This is real. We are not bluffing.

From the attached text which contains Mr. Fecan's speech today before the commission.

The culture of our Company demands that if something is never going to work, we move on, with the knowledge that we did our best. We moved on with TQS. We are moving on with Brandon, Windsor and Wingham. And if there is no structural fix for conventional television soon, we will forced to move on again --- first with the A’s and then ultimately with the CTV conventional stations.
 

Attachments

#28 ·
Of course it's only the "dozen" or so people on this forum... I had to explain what the transition to digital was all about to another person and they were still not sure about everything after I told them what it was about. Sometimes I explain things to people that had no idea about certain technological things and they wonder how I knew so much about technology (even being a GIS Software Engineer which they already know of), and then I come on here and most of the time I'm amazed myself at what I learn from others on this forum, and I've always considered myself tech savvy (I guess you can't know about every technical field yourself either though), but some of the discussions become very, very technical and in-depth, which is great to learn from.

I guess people span the gamut of learning and understanding and you forget that if you spend too much time only contacting technical people all the time... as I have one buddy who had difficulty connecting component cables properly from his cable box to his TV and couldn't figure out the proper video input, but here you'll find people talking about the impedance characteristics of S-Video cable and the voltage offsets used for chroma correction.

But too bad more people didn't know what was going on... I guess they'll only find out when their bill goes up another 10 bucks / month if fee-for-carriage is implemented, or if one of their CTV / Global stations do shut down.
 
#29 ·
All of the recent threads about the present CRTC hearings and related topics have a very high number of "read" counts in a very short time, so I'm inclined to believe that it is a hot topic with many people who care. As you say, many people simply don't know about it, but the counts tell an interesting tale.

Anyway lets get back to the issues surrounding the CRTC hearings rather than the state of this site. :)
 
#30 ·
CTV is a spenaholic, agreed. They have made some foolish attempts at making money.

I wonder if they make money on their NHL deal for TSN. Their viewership is spotty from what I can see. Likely their most watched home grown programing.

Local TV news being lost would be a tragedy for some communities, but I think smaller stations without big overhead that might be required by CTV can do a good job too.
 
#31 ·
Well, I did put "dozen" in quotations, so even though there may be thousands on this site, it's still a very small, small percentage of Canadians.

It'll be interesting to see how the Olympics fare for CTV and if that has a very positive impact on their bottom line... they are only 10 months away now.
 
#32 ·
OMG! I say again... OMG! I'm reading some of these posts and I can't believe what I'm hearing.
You guys realize that CTV is in it to make money right? So if a station isn't making money, you might as well get rid of it. No one else is going to buy it. Why would they.
AND YOU WANT TO INCREASE CBC'S BUDGET!!! OMG! They get $2 BILLION dollars a year already! They spend money like it goes out of style, and then whine to parliament for more and more and more of my money. No thanks.
CTV and Global give there signal away right now for free. For free. Again for free. All they want is Rogers and Shaw (and others) to actually pay a nominal fee for it. I personally don't tell my employer I'm giving away a free hour each day, because he/she makes alot of money, and they should make just a little bit more of my work.
IF CTV and Global fold their conventional TV stations, they will die for ever. Maybe a community station picks it up, maybe not, but I guarantee you that they will run such a pathetic lean product, because they won't want to lose money either.
In the end, Canadians will have less choice, less quality, and more tax dollars spent on the CBC, and after a few years everyone will complain even louder than they are now.
 
#33 ·
Actually, I WILL miss CTV Edmonton News. Their quality is better than Global Edmonton, and stuff...(off-topic for this thread) But, it looks like CTV is already making a LOT of money from simsubs! If you see the BBM weekly top 30, almost all program is broadcasted by CTV, and I'm assuming that it is because of simsubs, maybe not.
 
#34 ·
CTV and Global own stations already under fee for service. Why don't they move their News over to these stations and be done with it! Sure, OTA would disappear, but they couldn't whine about not being paid for their service by the cable/tel/sat-co's. Or would they?
 
#35 ·
toybox, CBC gets about $1.1billion in public funds, not $2billion. Second, CBC spends most of its money on producing Canadian programming covering a broad spectrum of formats and genres. While you might not like the CBC, there is a vast difference between the contribution CBC makes, and the complete lack of contribution made by CTV and Global.

CTV and Global spend $110 million combined on original Canadian programming outside of news and information. Of that, they spend most of that money to simply rebrand American reality TV (Project Runway Canada, So You Think You Can Dance Canada, Entertainment Tonight Canada, etc). That $110 million represents 8.9% of CTV's revenues and 6.4% of Global's. In other words, their commitment to Canadian programming is nothing more than lip service designed to meet the very minimum obligations of their license. They invest hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing American programming already available to us and use simulcast regulations to cream the advertising from this programming. For that, they do not deserve a dime of public funds and their fee-for-carriage argument is completely disingenuous.

They claim that the BDU's have built their empires by selling CTV/Global programming that they obtain for free. There is no such thing as substantial real CTV/Global programming that Canadians want to watch so how have the BDU's profited? I can find maybe an hour and a half of week of worthwhile original Canadian non-CBC entertainment programming that might be worth watching. That's not something to brag about.

The BDU's should not be asked to pay, and we should not be asked to pay, money to CTV/Global to support enterprises that exist solely to repackage American programming for the benefit of CTVgm and Canwest shareholders. End of story. If that means they close shop, then maybe someone will buy those licenses and do something productive with them. Until then, we need a uniquely Canadian voice and that is, for better or worse, the CBC. That's why many, me included, advocate more money for the CBC as being preferable to being hijacked for ransom by Ivan Fecan and Len Asper.
 
#36 ·
Johnny Canuck - What programming does CBC produce (outside of Hockey Night in Canada) that Canadians watch? I'm sorry, but 1.1 billion (and asking for more) seems absurdly high for a few niche programs watched by a small minority. Global and CTV are asking for a fraction of that in order to keep Local News Programming available to Canadians. Seems like a much better deal to me. If you want to watch CBC, set it up like PBS and have the elite few pay for it.
 
#37 ·
The Border, Little Mosque, Rick Mercer, The Hour. Very top of my head, but I'm sure if I think about it I can expand that list pretty significantly. Lots of Canadian concerts. Huge investment in Canadian movies and miniseries. The money includes Radio One, Two, and Radio-Canada. They spend a lot more on news and documentaries than Global or CTV. They also do local news. To suggest that $1.1 billion is CBC English TV is misleading ... CBC is a significantly broader enterprise.

I am actually in favour of fee-for-service ... if it comes with the elimination of simulcasts. If CTV and Global were left to fend for themselves in producing programming we care for, I wouldn't have an issue. That is the TSN model. I have no issue with TSN or MuchMusic and fee-for-carriage. However, I am strenuously opposed to the notion of paying additional cable fees to support networks who care nothing about Canadian programming and have treated us with contempt. How can you justify fee-for-carriage for So You Can Dance Canada?

As for local news ... where CTV or Global actually do it well, it is profitable (eg. Global's Vancouver newscasts). If they aren't making money ... it's because they aren't connecting with the viewers and that's on them, not on my cable bill. CTV loses money on its newscasts because Pamela Martin's awful, not because they couldn't make money with a quality newscast.
 
#39 ·
I am actually in favour of fee-for-service ... if it comes with the elimination of simulcasts. If CTV and Global were left to fend for themselves in producing programming we care for, I wouldn't have an issue. That is the TSN model. I have no issue with TSN or MuchMusic.
Sorry but that's not correct. TSN is making the BDUs black out the Formula-1 races carried on speed. Something to do with “Canadian rights for purchasing the program”.

Since CTV and Global own Canadian rights to International shows as well, then the only option is to make the BDUs black out ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX broadcasting the same shows, if you opt out of CTV, Global. The people that don't opt out will continue to receive the shows.

Fair is Fair, that’s what the TSN model you have no issue with does.

It's time for the BDUs to stop leaching off local signals and pay their share. The CRTC should make sure that the fees won't get passed to the consumers. Enough of the BDUs making billions in profits while everyone else is leached from.:mad::mad:
 
#38 ·
None of those shows crack the Top 20. I'm not arguing that CBC can produce shows, I'm arguing that for 1.1 billion, they should be producing shows that people want to watch.

Almost every station you watch on cable or satelite (with the exception of CBC, Global, CTV and other local stations) gets fee for carriage. The VAST majority of their prime programming is American. OTA's just want a fair piece of the pie.
 
#41 ·
If cable companies have to pay for fee for carriage, then local broadcasters should lose their must-carry status, simsub rights and cable companies should be able to sell advertising on the ad avails that are offered by many US specialty channels.

Let's not forget that the broadcasters have been given a lot of tools over the years to make money. Now they're trying to put the blame on BDUs for a failing business model that's failing not because they don't get money from BDUs but because the Internet and viewing patterns are fundamentally changing. 5 years ago, they were doing just fine, and weren't crying for more money from the BDUs. Now, Internet delivery of video is here in a big way and instead of doing things to survive, they're crying for a handout.

And let's make no mistake here - whatever the CRTC says, one way or another, the cable customer will pay for this charge.
 
#42 ·
Again, the BDU's aren't leeching because no one wants to watch CTV or Global except for news and American programming. A nightly newscast on some stations doesn't merit fee-for-carriage and simsubs. Who subscribes to a BDU for CTV and Global? I cannot reconcile the notion that BDU's are leeching with the fact that these "networks" offer virtually nothing original or Canadian outside of a newscast. I don't want to pay a dime for a CTV or a Global that is, in essence, subsidizing American programming.

Further, none of those CBC shows crack the Top 20? Find original Global and CTV content that does. Flashpoint is it. And, even with fee-for-carriage, I would have no issue with the simsub of Flashpoint because it originates with CTV. One show does not justify CTV's threats.

As for the value proposition of CBC, $1.1 billion includes Radio One, Radio Two, and Radio-Canada. Articulate a complaint in relative terms. Is your issue the CBC as an entity? Is your issue just CBC TV? Do you think there should be no public broadcaster? I think there should be and it should be adequately funded to deliver radio and TV services in both official languages. If you accept that ... I think $1.1 billion is a bargain. If you don't accept that proposition, that's completely fair; but I don't accept the argument that they get enough money for what they are asked to do.

Lastly, the TSN model is fine with me because TSN invests significantly in Canadian content and in original programming. Sure, they black out Speed and simsub the NFL on Sunday and Monday nights ... but their investment in Canadian programming (in HD to boot) is massive. That gives them certain credibility that CTV and Global don't have. When CTV and Global match that investment ... I'm all for fee-for-carriage and simsubs. However, neither network has proven remotely interested in that investment and I'd be completely fine with seeing all those stations go black and someone else pick up the licenses. Certainly moreso than I would seeing a dime of my cable fees go to them ... let alone any direct subsidy. Prove that you care about developing Canadian content before you take money from me.
 
#43 ·
I currently get over 150 channels on my cable package. I don't want all of them, but to get the ones I want, I need to subscribe to that many. Of those channels, over 130 get fee for carriage. I could care less about most of them, but they're all getting my money.
If I had a choice, I would probably pick up 20 to 30 channels, and that may or may not include CTV, Global or CBC. I think that's true for most people. If that were possible, millions of dollars in advertising would be redistributed to broadcasters that people want to watch and this wouldn't be an issue.
What we're talking about here is creating a level playing field for ALL broadcasters. Why are the Golf Channel, MuchMusic, APTN, HGTV, Family, Toon, Slice, W and several others getting my money AND having access to advertising dollars. OTA's produce more local programming and provide more local jobs than any of them, even TSN. In Edmonton, the 4 OTA's produce over 100 hours of local programming a week and employ hundreds - TSN produces 3 or 4 hours if there's a hockey game and employs about a dozen. The numbers across the entire country are even more lopsided - how many TSN employees are there in Red Deer, Victoria, Brandon, Saskatoon, Windsor, Prince George, Medicine Hat, Kingston, Barrie etc. What does HGTV, W, or Slice produce in terms of Canadian programming? A few dozen shows that have very few viewers. If someone deserves my money, it's local broadcasters.
Who's the big winner in all of this? The cable companies. They've helped create this cash cow and don't want to see it changed. Then they have the nerve to tell me that if fee for carriage is passed, they'll pass along the entire cost to me. They are the one's in need of regulation.
 
#49 ·
Canada AM's Jeff Hutcheson Live From Australia May 4-6

Will Canadian Erik Rolfsen Win “Best Job in the World”? Find Out When CANADA AM Broadcasts Live From Australia, May 4 to 6 on CTV

– Follow Jeff Hutcheson’s adventure on Twitter and read his CANADA AM blog –

Find out who will land “the best job in the world” when CANADA AM’s Jeff Hutcheson broadcasts live from Queensland, Australia from Monday, May 4 to Wednesday, May 6, beginning at 6 a.m. on CTV (visit CTV.ca to confirm local broadcast times). The Queensland Tourism contest has narrowed its pool of applicants from around the world down to 16 finalists – including 39 year-old Vancouver native Erik Rolfsen – who will compete for the opportunity to work for six months as the caretaker of Hamilton Island, in the heart of the Great Barrier Reef.

CANADA AM has been following Queensland Tourism’s unique job contest since they announced their 50 finalists, which included seven Canadians, on March 2, 2009. Only 16 finalists remain in this extreme job interview to be the keeper of Hamilton Island, charged with educating potential visitors about this unique part of the Great Barrier Reef by exploring and reporting back about their adventures by keeping a blog.

Starting Monday, May 4, Hutcheson follows the progress of the finalists who will face grueling tests of their physical strength, mental acuity and superior knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef and all things Australian.
The new Island Caretaker will be announced on Wednesday, May 6 and Hutcheson will be there to introduce the successful candidate to Canadians.

>> I thought CTV had no money. They've been cutting down local news left and right, and letting go of employees, but I guess they still have money to send down a national weatherman with a full production staff to do a remote from Australia!!!
 
#50 ·
NONE of the content that TSN produces would qualify as prime time Canadian content on OTA's. They are required to produce much more expensive Canadian drama, all without TSN's benefit of fee for carriage.
And to discount news is ridiculous. The Canadian networks spend more money, employ more people and receive better ratings on local and national news than TSN could ever hope for. Last year TSN's national NHL coverage (69 games) averaged less than 500,000 viewers per game. Each game is produced using fewer than 20 employees. Contrast that with the 3 national newscasts, each averaging about a million viewers PER DAY and employing hundreds of people. Add to that all the local newscast across the country providing local news coverage to dozens of communities and employing thousands of people.
Your argument that "if they aren't making money on news, it's quality related" goes to the heart of this discussion. If we were to let broadcast networks survive based on viewership alone, OTA's would not only survive, but based on the ratings they receive, would thrive. It's low quality, unwatched shows on specialty networks (Canadian Sportfishing?) that get money from cable companies in the form of fee for carriage that has created this uneven playing field. How can small local TV stations compete with specialty networks that get paid to air a show even if it doesn't get one single viewer?
A simple answer is to regulate the cable companies forcing them to allow "ala carte" selection of which stations we want to watch. A small percentage of cable fees are paid to each station carried. Those that don't get watched will die. In the end we'll have far fewer stations to choose from, but it will at least be the stations we want to watch and the marketplace will decide.
 
#51 ·
Class,

I think you've misunderstood CTV. What they mean to say when they say "we have no money", is "we want asimultaneous substitution and blackouts". Check out Fecan in the CRTC hearings video... it doesn't take him long to mention that he wants asimultaneous subs to fix the financial hole he and crew have dug themselves into.
 
#52 ·
Speider, I am not discounting news. I am saying that news is not the issue because it is, in fact, profitable. If CTV complains (and they do) that their Vancouver newscasts are not profitable it’s only because they are have their backsides handed to them by Global. That is a quality proposition, but not an excuse for fee-for-carriage.

Your argument that the OTA’s would survive based on ratings doesn’t make sense. They survive based on ratings generated by American shows they purchase that I can watch on the source network. That cannot be an argument for fee-for-carriage. Why should I pay a fee to CTV for airing programming they don’t produce and they already simsub? No one in this thread has given any reason why we should be paying through our BDU’s for programming from CBS, NBC, abc, Fox, and CW. Give one valid reason why that should happen.

I’ve said it all along ... give up simsubs and I am all for fee-for-carriage. Agree to spend 30%, not 8.9% or 6.4% (CTV and Global respectively) on original Canadian drama, music, and comedy ... and I’m all for simsubs. I am strenuously against CTV and Global receiving fee-for-carriage because of how they behave and the contempt they treat the Canadian viewing public with. They haven’t earned it and there is zero prospect that they ever will unless forced to.
 
#54 ·
On one hand you're saying that because they get an audience and are profitable, they don't need fee for carriage, on the other if they don't get an audience and aren't profitable, they don't deserve fee for carriage.

OTA's make money on simsubs because they spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars on them for the Canadian rights - the same way TSN spends money on F1 and has the Speed TV feed BLACKED OUT. The BDU's spend virtually nothing on the CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX feeds and compete unfairly with the OTA's.

NONE of the networks currently receiving fee for carriage have anywhere near the restrictions placed on them that you are proposing for OTA's, why would CTV, Global, City and CBC agree to them?

Once again - ALL they are asking for is a level playing field. What's good for one network should be good for ALL networks. And if they can't get that, force the BDU's to allow ala carte selection of channels for consumers - a small fee goes to each network, and those that are watched will survive. Slice, W, HGTV, APTN, MTV and the rest of them with virtually zero viewership can die a natural death.
 
#53 ·
The CRTC needs to level the playing field for the locals. American channels in America have basic rights and its time to give the Canadian locals compensation for the theft that the BDUs are committing. I already pay the BDUs, don’t raise my rates – take the fees from the THIEVES, the CDN BDUs STEALING local signals all while charging the subscribers for something they steal… If the multi-billion dollar profitable BDUs can’t take it then invite the Americans to try, invite DIRECT TV into Canada and see if they are willing to pay for local signals as they do in the US.

Just checked out the TSN schedule.

1) Countless hours of tennis coverage with an “ESPN” logo plastered on the screen which has very little if anything to do with Canada.

2) Poker info commercials.

3) Countless hours of NASCAR, with American broadcaster logos plastered on the screen..

Sportsdesk for most of the remaining time slots.
A couple of guys sitting at a desk re-running American sports highlights over and over and over again.

Next week TSN picks up the British commentators doing the F1. TSN butchers the coverage, cutting off the ceremonies etc. I pay for this as a basic must-carry channel without a chance to opt out - all while I pay for a cable tier carrying the Speed coverage, doing 100 times better job covering the F1 but even though I pay for the tier with speed - TSN (rightfully by law) requests and gets a black out for something THEY pay for.


Why is it OK to have fee for carriage for this and not the locals?
Why can’t I opt out?
Why is this on basic cable in Vancouver?


How can you justify this but deny CTV and Global their legitimate right of “fee for carriage” that stations in the rest of the world automatically get by law. Only in Canada the BDUs STEAL signals.
 
#55 ·
Simple EFP. TSN offers programming, and lots of it, not available elsewhere on the dial. Start with close to 100 CFL games and go from there. CTV and Global offer precious little content that is not available elsewhere. I object to paying fee-for-carriage for content that is duplicated. TSN has relatively little of that.

Why is it so hard to understand that I object to CTVgm and Canwest reaching into my pocket to charge me for content that is already available to me? It is offensive. It is ridiculous. It is wrong.

No simulcasting. No mandatory carriage. Then I am fine with it. No one can give a plausible reason why they should be allowed to force their channel down my cable system, force me to watch their advertising on programming that I am watching on a different channel, and then have the audacity to tell me that my cable company was built on their offerings. Not a chance. I certainly do not subscribe to Shaw for CTV or Global. I do not know a single person who does. That is a reflection of their dismal Canadian programming and we should not be forced to insulate them from the consequences of a complete failure to connect with the Canadian public.
 
#57 ·
The reason the content is available elsewhere is because the cable companies make it available to MAKE MONEY. The cable companies produce NOTHING but are in competition with the OTA's.

Every other "specialty network" gets fee for carriage. Do you watch programming on all of them. They are taking money out of your pocket too. When's the last time you watched APTN, StarTV, Talentvision, The Accessibility Channel, Gol TV, Raptors TV, World Fishing Network, The Fight Network, DejaVu, Scream, Showcase Action, Showcase Diva, Animal Planet, BBC Kids, Book Television, Court TV, Discovery Health, Discovery Kids, MenTV, Salt and Light etc etc etc.

You claim specialty TV deserves fee for carriage because they show content that isn't available elsewhere. That's because it's NOT ALLOWED to be shown elsewhere. Comedy Network Canada is not forced to compete with Comedy Central, Discovery Canada is not forced to compete with Discovery in the US, Food Network Canada does not have to compete with the US version of Food Network. They are all protected from US competition. The OTA's are forced to compete, not with the US networks, but with the Canadian Cable companies who PRODUCE NOTHING and yet get BILLIONS of dollars to carry the US feeds. They are the ones who this system has become a cash cow for and that's why they are the ones fighting it so hard.
 
#56 ·
Why is it so hard to understand that the majority of folks don't watch CFL, why am I paying fee for carriage for CFL on TSN? The only program I watch on TSN is F1 (which I could get on speed if TSN didn’t exist)

Isn’t the mandatory fee for carriage that TSN negotiated with Shaw one of the highest on basic cable in Vancouver? You didn’t answer my question. Why am I forced to pay this fee when I don’t watch the channel?

On the other hand I watch local news each and every day and lots of it. I watch CBC hockey coverage on the weekends, that’s enough sports for me, other then the odd race on speed.

Also,
The CRTC denied ESPN carriage in Canada. That’s one reason you get some American programming only on TSN in Canada. On the other hand CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX are all granted to be on Canadian BDUs. Another unfair advantage against the locals.

Why is it so hard to understand that the locals deserve some of the same rights that specialty channels already have?

Say no to the theft of local signals committed by the CDN BDUs and allow the locals the same simsub / blackout rights that TSN and others have and I’m fine with it. If you keep TSN on basic must carry with fee for carriage than apply the same rights to the locals. If the BDUs cry over this and insist on stealing signals then invite the American BDUs such as direct-TV to try.
 
#58 · (Edited)
I think that it makes more sense for the nets to pay the BDU's to carry their signals. They are already paying to broadcast them OTA from expensive transmitters. Having them on cable/satellite ensures that everybody can get their local nets easily. This ensures simsub rights and better advertising rates. (Of course this will never happen, I just bring it up to point out the logical insanity of fee for carriage for the nets).

If Global thought that the BDU's were stealing their signal, why did they provide and HD signal to the BDU's long before they put up and HD transmitter?

All this talk of stealing signals is just ridiculous and is starting to smell like an astroturf campaign.

NOBODY subscribes to a BDU to get what is already available OTA. Most subscribe to get other channels (American nets, Canadian specialty channels) A few subscribe to get better picture quality because the net's can't afford to put up enough high power transmitters to serve everybody in the country.

The nets are being well served by having their signals available on BDUs. Its basically free transmission.

Mark
 
#59 ·
I think that it makes more sense for the nets to pay the BDU's to carry their signals.
If that’s what the local stations prefer to do than fine, let them put it into a legal binding contract. On the other hand if the local stations want payment from a BDU who is re-distributing the local TV signal for profit - than anything short of payment amounts to theft by the BDU. At least that’s what other civilized countries call it.

Also, in other civilized countries if the BDU and local station can’t come to an agreement, than the BDU can not carry ANY foreign SIGNAL which contains programming that the local station obtained rights to. Thus if the BDU refuses to black out those foreign signals than that too would be considered THEFT by the BDU in other civilized countries.

All this talk of stealing signals is starting to smell like an astroturf campaign.
That's fine but one could say all this talk about BDUs deserving the signals for free is starting to smell like a campaign driven by BDU shareholders and investors.;)

I say if the CRTC can’t resolve this fight than its time for the courts to step in and decide if our laws should resemble other civilized laws protecting local signals around the world…
 
#60 ·
If CTV just shows a little patience, soon Global will go bankrupt and then they won't have to get into bidding wars and overpay for US programming.

Add that to all the money the BDUs make for themselves and the networks by bundling up useless specialty channels that the networks own that nobody wants into theme packs forcing us to get 1-2 channels we want and 5 that we don't and soon they will be swimming in cash.
 
#62 ·
We need to get rid of the dumb (IMO) argument, that the CBC produces canadian content while the networks "buy" their programming and that's why they should be the only game in town. The plain truth is the majority of canadians watch american (and international) programming. It's not forced down anyones throat. Canadians want to watch it. CBC bids on american shows as well, but they would have to reach even farther down the taxpayers wallet to get it. They want to, but the government thankfully doesn't let them. In a sense the CBC is getting "fee for carriage" only the fee comes from government grants. Can you imagine if they were on the same playing field as the networks?? They would sink like the titanic. I gurantee you that if producing Canadian content was profitable and people actually cared about it, everyone would be doing it. And don't say, well if the CRTC doesn't mandate to produce it we will all be "americanized..." that's crap. If the people want it, they'll watch it and pay for it.
If we want to watch American Programming, and the networks are forced to pay dearly for them, then it seems their right to recoup those costs. CBC can afford to lose money year after year after year, the others can't.
I work in a local news station, and I can tell Vancouver Global was one of a handful of local news stations to make money in North America. That is a fact. It is a loss leader, and the only reason they make money here, is that there market share is so far above the rest. In other markets 3-4 news stations compete for market share relatively closer to one another.
 
#72 ·
We need to get rid of the dumb (IMO) argument, that the CBC produces canadian content while the networks "buy" their programming and that's why they should be the only game in town. The plain truth is the majority of canadians watch american (and international) programming. It's not forced down anyones throat.
That's simply because there is hardly anything worth watching produced by those English-speaking networks... On a good rating week, in the top-10 there might be one or 2 Canadian news show. Compare that to the French-speaking side, where with 25% of the market size, the top-10 will have been produced in Canada and you might find the translation of Lost in 12th position or such... It's all about being lazy and just importing American shows instead of trying to make the effort to produce quality Canadian content that people might actually want to watch... So why should we have to pay extra to the middleman (CTV/Global) when we already have access to that American programming in the first place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top