CRTC website invites feedback on the TV Tax

[hugh]

The CRTC today announced a new website where Canadians can comment on how the agency regulates the Canadian broadcasting system.
The federal regulator says it is seeking the views of consumers on whether it should impose additional taxes in order to subsidize the cost of local television stations.

[scrooloose]

I added my two cents, for all the good it will do.

-Mike

[Danster]

I'm trying too as well but it seems to be slooooooooow...

[hugh]

I didn't see this previously but Have you seen the privacy policy for askingquestions.com?

AskingCanadiansTM is the trademarked name for an online research panel operated by Delvinia Data Collection Inc. ("Delvinia"). Delvinia conducts online surveys with members of the research panel to provide its clients with anonymous customer feedback in order to help its clients develop better products and services. Survey responses will also be used to populate Delvinia's Insight Engine, which is a proprietary analytical database used by Delvinia for the purpose of analysing and understanding the digital behaviours and attitudes of Canadians. Information in the Insight Engine may be used in the aggregate for marketing initiatives such as enhancing Delvinia Interactive's digital marketing solutions, creating data marketing products, and/or publishing industry reports. As an incentive for providing customer feedback, AskingCanadiansTM members can choose to earn either Hbc Rewards bonus points or Aeroplan Miles. Or they can choose to be rewarded in other ways, such as entries into contests and draws.

The site appears to be an extension of the CRTC site but I wondered what askingquestions.com was and was shocked to learn that its Delvinia. My recommendation is that you don't input any personal information on this site.

[cdn_tbird]

Thanks for the warning Hugh. I provided my 2 cents and used my "alter ego" e-mail address. It'll be interesting to see what if anything starts showing up in that mailbox.

[gretzky]

I have dealt with this company and my recommendation is that you don't input any personal information on this site.

you mean that the CRTC deal with them ?!

[hugh]

now try to goto television.askingcanadians.ca and you get nothing so goto askingcanadians.ca and you get



So CRTC has outsourced this project to a firm that will collect your data and could use it for marketing purposes.

[gretzky]

So CRTC has outsourced this project to a firm that will collect your data and could use it for marketing purposes.

outch!!! sounds bad for a governement run organisation who try to regulate the internet!!!!

[oldyellr]

This thread appears to have a poorly chosen title, something about a TV Tax. "TV Tax" is a specific term coined by the cable and satellite giants to describe the increase they will be passing directly on to customers if the CRTC makes them start paying for the OTA signals they have been pirating from local TV stations and selling to their customers at an infinite rate of profit. Just think about it; radio stations have to pay royalties for airplay, why not cable and satellite companies?

Currently more than 130,000 Canadians from across the country have submitted comments confirming "local television matters" as part of the CRTC public consultation process. That's a bunch. I know it matters to me because a good chunk of what I watch is from three local TV stations, which I could get with rabbit ears if it wasn't on cable. You aren't going to get any local coverage on the big US and Canadian networks.

[hugh]

This thread appears to have a poorly chosen title, something about a TV Tax. "TV Tax" is a specific term coined by the cable and satellite giants to describe the increase they will be passing directly on to customers

Sorry but you are wrong. The term Tax was one used by me prior to the cable and satellite companies describing it as such.

In fact, the first time I used the term, I was contacted by CTV to ask why I was calling it a tax. I told them at the time, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. I actually spent a considerable amount of time referring to the Economics textbooks before I chose to use the term in my articles.

To my knowledge, describing the LIPF and FFC as taxes was first raised on this site. In the past I have also described the Blank CD Levy as a tax with surprisingly zero people disagreeing with me!

If you think about the Blank CD levy and the LIPF and FFC, you will see they are all essentially the same thing.

FWIW, if the CRTC mandates a BDU to carry the channel AND the consumer is forced to buy the channel AND the money is then used capriciously by government to support some type of broadcasting agenda then it's a TAX. It is a tax because, it's a required payment by the government that consumers cannot avoid and failure to pay would result in the government sanctioning the company

If the BDU is NOT required to carry the local channel and the consumer is NOT required to subscribe to the channel then it's a FEE. In this case, it's simply a transaction between a vendor (the network) and the wholesaler (the BDU).

[LONSat]

Oldyellr 'pirating' is a term that seems to be right out of the broadcasters propaganda campaign. That the broadcasters (CTV especially) blanketed their airwaves with their local TV matters half truths, distortions and threats of closing down stations of course people wrote in to 'support' them. I not only wrote the CRTC in opposition to FFC I also wrote a letter to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters about the news coverage on CFPL that I felt was blatantly abusive of the stations license. Funny but I haven't heard from them but neither have they the CAB weighed in on the FFC matter in general. All I can say about the broadcasters campaign if you repeat something enough times you can convince people of anything. I think the broadcasters especially CTV have shown a great abuse of their broadcast license and I have lost any respect that I had for them for as a trusted news source.

[Lindsay649]

Once you go on the internet everybody knows who you are.....so much for privacy if that is a concern. Regardless the response in one day has been quite overwhelming with the majority opposed to any increase in provider bills. Not sure what the reaction of the networks will be since they have stated most emphatically that consumers really agreed with their save local tv campaign.
After watching the hearings I am sure that the responses to date will have an impact on the commissions decision once again throwing out values and fees. Pleased that the consumer has at least a small voice in the proceedings with some rather articulate comments. Worth reading.

[vjose78]

old yellr - 130,000 people is a lot, but is only a fraction of the tv viewing population in Canada and more importantly, all those people who support local tv, most of them don't have a clue and actually think that money is going to local programming when all it will really do is subsidize more American programming. The whole "save local tv" campaign is misleading because there is no local tv for the most part and CTV/Global are not about to go out of business, we all know that. And btw, the cable companies are not pirating those tv signals, they are doing CTV and Global a favor by broadcasting those stations to everyone and giving them more advertising revenue! And just out of curiousity, who are the radio stations paying royalties to? Never heard of that before and it doesn't make sense. Either way, that's totally different than tv because nobody is subscribing to them.

[oldyellr]

vjose78, yes, 130,000 people is just a tiny fraction of the TV audience who may have an opinion on the matter, but it's quite a large number as far as petitions go.

And as for the local TV stations that need saving, I don't necessarily mean the the ones affiliated with the big networks, but the independents and smaller networks. Cable and Satellite have to pay to get the big network feeds and specialty channel feeds, but pick up local TV stations for free. Why should they not pay something for the local stations they carry? That would be fair. And they shouldn't just pass the costs on to the consumer because their profits are huge. It's all about the money. Just think how much Rogers just saved by laying off those 900 people.

[trask]

If you go to the website Hugh provided and read the comments, it's at least 90% against FFC. I'm not sure where there is 130,000 in favor of paying FFC for local programming, but it's not on the CRTC site asking for thoughts on that subject among others. This whole thing is a desperate attempt by Canadian broadcasters to cover losses due to a decline in advertising revenue and the cost of American programming. The so called "pirating" of their stations was never an issue before, and you can't pirate something you are forced to carry.