CRTC tax could mean $100 million hike in cable/sat tv rates

[Panache70]

I can confirm that the 20$ credits by BellTV to offset the LPIF are happening.

They cannot remove the LPIF charge (it is automated) but they are giving 20$ to anybody who asks.

Took 2 minutes, I quoted the CRTC official position that was posted on their site.

[Panache70]

After complaining to retentions about the LPIF not being mandated by the CRTC, I received a 20$ credit.

However, I also noticed on this month's invoice that I did not get charged any LPIF.

Is this due to my complaint or did everyone get waived the LPIF fee this month?

Curious to know if I have been granted a permanent exemption from this fee, or if it has been waived to everyone accross the board.

Appreciate your feedback.

[Jase88]

Who says conventional television is profitable...? Read below:

OTTAWA-GATINEAU, March 18, 2010 — The Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today released statistical and
financial summaries for Canada’s conventional television stations. The
report provides information on the sector’s profitability, revenues and
expenditures for the period of September 1, 2008, to August 31, 2009.

Profitability

Private broadcasters saw their total revenues shrink by 7.9%, going from
$2.14 billion in 2008 to $1.97 billion in 2009. Although operating
expenses were cut by 2.4%, these broadcasters lost $116.4 million before
interest and taxes over the 2009 broadcast year, which resulted in a
negative profit margin of 5.9%.

In 2008, private broadcasters reported profits before interest and taxes
(PBIT) of $8 million and a PBIT margin of 0.4%.

Revenues and expenses

Private conventional television stations experienced a decline of more
than $190 million in local and national advertising sales. From 2008 to
2009, local advertising revenues decreased by 10.1% from $387.2 million to
$348 million, and national advertising revenues by 10.3% from $1.47
billion to $1.32 billion.

The acquisition and production of programs represented 75.2% of all
expenses, which came down from $2.1 billion in 2008 to $2 billion in 2009.
Private broadcasters invested 3.3% less on Canadian programming last year,
or $599.4 million compared to $619 million. In 2009, broadcasters paid
$176.2 million to independent producers to acquire programming, which
amounted to an increase of $30.2 million in one year.

Meanwhile, spending on foreign programming reached its highest level yet
at 59% of all programming expenses, or $846.3 million. This total
represented a 9.2% increase over the $775.2 million that was spent in
2008.

Canadian programming

Spending on Canadian programming included $75.4 million for drama, $80.9
million for general interest programming, $312.1 million for news
programs, $65.9 million on other information programs, $38.3 million for
musical and variety shows, $3.8 million for sports programs, and $11.1
million for game shows.

Employment

In 2009, conventional television stations employed 6,747 people and paid a
total of $527.6 million in salaries, whereas the previous year this sector
employed 7,406 people and paid $576.9 million in salaries.

CRTC reports

Each year, the Commission compiles financial data on the broadcasting
industry to produce this report. For the first time, this year’s report
includes combined data for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s
English- and French-language television services, which is presented by
region.

The CRTC today also published a similar report on broadcasting
distribution companies. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2010/r100318-1.htm
Statistical and financial summaries for radio,
specialty, pay and pay-per-view television services, and video-on-demand
services will follow in the coming months. These annual reports allow
interested parties to stay informed about the state of the Canadian
broadcasting industry.

Conventional Television – Statistical and Financial Summaries 2005–2009
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...009/tv2009.htm

The CRTC
The CRTC is an independent public authority that regulates and supervises
broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada.



- 30 -

Media Relations: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/CRTCSubmis...ns.aspx?lang=e
MediaRelations, Tel: 819-997-9403, Fax: 819-997-4245

General Inquiries:
Tel: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: 819-994-0218
Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Ask a question or make a complaint http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E

[Michael DeAbreu]

spending on foreign programming reached its highest level yet
at 59% of all programming expenses, or $846.3 million.

I think we can reasonably expect that the cost of Canadian broadcast rights are going to keep increasing while advertisement revenues decline. Originally, simsub and must carry rules protected their investments. But to survive, they have to tap into the same revenue streams that cable channels have. Namely, the cable companies must pay the rights holder for the programming.

I suppose Shaw/Bell/Rogers could simply refuse to broadcast CTV, Global and CBC and therefore Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, CSI, Law and Order, ... But there is no way that the U.S. producers of those shows are going to allow then to freely broadcast these shows from US affiliates along the US/Canada border.

One way or another, we'll have to pay for what we watch.

[JamesK]

^^^^
So, what's your plan to get OTA viewers to pay up? Or is it only BDU subs that are expected to pay?

I'm on cable and very little of my viewing is avaialble OTA. Most of what I watch is on cable channels, which I already pay for, so why am I expected to pay for broadcasters when OTA viewers don't have to?

[pwh2112]

One way or another, we'll have to pay for what we watch.

That's OK but I am tired of paying for what I don't watch.

[Michael DeAbreu]

So, what's your plan to get OTA viewers to pay up?

OTA viewers don't need to pay up. Broadcasters don't sell programs to viewers, they sell viewers to advertisers. Although that is not going so well for them nowadays.

Or is it only BDU subs that are expected to pay?

I only expect them to pay for what they receive. Why should I lose my local TV station because BDU subscribers think they are entitled to those channels for free?

OTA is not the issue. I'm pretty sure that some of our cable fees go back to the US networks and their OTA affiliates. So, I think it is safe to say, BDUs
have no problem paying for programming that is available OTA. Apparently, just not Canadian programming. The issue is that they are distributing programming that they did not pay for.

[JamesK]

^^^^
So, you expect us to pay for what you receive? Why should we pay to support those stations if you think you don't have to pay? Why am I expected to pay for your TV while you don't have to contribute??? If you're watching those stations, why shouldn't you have to pay too???

Further, I live in an area where Toronto stations are available OTA. However, in that area there are many who live in condos and apartments who do not have any choice in the matter. If they want to watch TV, they have to go through a BDU. Now their neighbour, in a detatched house, has the option of OTA or BDU. If they go with OTA, they now expect their neighbour, who doesn't have a choice, to pay for the OTA viewers too??? How can that possibly be fair??? Please explain why an OTA viewer, who is watching those broadcast channels shouldn't have to pay. Please explain why you expect someone else, on BDU, to pay for them.

Please bear in mind that this BDU viewer does not watch much on broadcast channels but mostly cable channels that I'm already paying for. Tell me again why I'm supposed to pay for your free ride.

Bottom line, if one person in a broadcast area gets the local stations for free then everyone must.

[bev fan]

Bottom line is , if provider wants to carry those channels they should pay for them like they are paying everybodyelse . Why should they get a free ride.

[s40]

They pay for signals from out of area, but don't for locals. Locals need help for many people to receive their signals, so the BDU's helped them get the signal increasing the number of people which increases their revenue. If their station is interesting enough they could be picked up out of area, and I think they have to pay to carry out of area stations.

[JamesK]

Why should they get a free ride.

Every Canadian already pays for a programming fund through taxes. On top of that, BDU customers pay again to this through their bills. Then we have the LPIF fee, which is paid only by BDU subs. In addition, I also pay GST & PST (soon HST) on my bill. The current amount I pay each month that is itemized on my bill (LPIF & taxes) is $8.27. How much do you pay? Now you want me to pay more, but feel that you shouldn't have to pay anything. How much will this be? As I mentioned, there are many people who don't have any choice but to subscribe to a BDU. Why are they supposed to pay, when a neighbour with an antenna doesn't have to? Why do you feel you are entitled to be subsidized by BDU customers and not have to pay a nickel yourself???

As for the basic channels, I am paying a BDU to bring me local signals that I might not otherwise be able to receive. I am also paying for several cable channels, many of which are owned by the very same broadcasters who are crying poor. As I understand it, they are making money there. Also, any charges forced on the BDUs will eventually be paid by the customers, whether it appears as a line item or not.

Once again, if anyone has to pay the broadcasters, then everyone, OTA included, must pay. Otherwise, you simply have your hand in my pocket, to pay for your viewing.

[bev fan]

Obviously broadcasters have different opinion , and they have the right to get paid for their servicees.Providers are making money on broadcasters services so they should share their profit , and not ask costumers to pay for it.

[classicsat]

Actually no. Currently over-the-air broadcasters have no actual right to get paid for carriage, and nor do BDUs have to absorb added costs to their bottom line.

The current debate (or should I say, the debate of a few months ago) is whether OTA broadcasters should get paid, and whether or not BDUs can increase their rates because of it. IMHO, the CRTC should just allow it, and allow stations and BDUs to negotiate carriage terms on their own, yes with the possibility that carriage may be dropped if negotiation fails, and that any added fees go directly to customer's bills.

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by bev fan

Bottom line is , if provider wants to carry those channels they should pay for them

But one of the issues is that they are forced by the CTRC to carry them, it's not because they want too... Make CTV/Global a la carte and see how many people would actually subscribe to them...

[JamesK]

Obviously broadcasters have different opinion

Let's set up a hypothetical situation. Customer A, for whatever reason, is unable to set up an antenna for OTA. He is forced to use a BDU, but gets only the basic service, consisting of little more than local channels. Customer B has installed an antenna for OTA, although he still has the option of using a BDU, should he choose. The two viewers can watch pretty much the same stuff. Now, A has to pay to have signals delivered to his home, the same signals as B gets for free. In addtion there are taxes and LPIF on top of the basic charges. Now the broadcasters demand the BDUs pay them, which means A gets to pay even more. However, B is still riding free. Is that fair? Is it fair for B to expect A to subsidize him? Also, what is A paying the BDU for? Are they paying for content? Or transport of the content? There's a big difference. If the BDUs are considered common carriers, then the charges are for transport of content, which means they are making money from providing a transport service and not selling content.

Also, given that BDUs bring more customers to the broadcaster, perhaps the broadcaster should be paying them instead.