CRTC Release on Fee For Carriage Issue (March 22, 2010)

[Michael DeAbreu]

This should then be similar to the simsib rules. The Canadian networks shouldn't be allowed to force my BDU to blackout any shows in area's where they can't broadcast these shows OTA.

I hope so, otherwise there would be no incentive for them to maintain their existing towers, further less to convert to digital. Imagine the arguments arund subscribers in "fringe" coverage areas.

On the other hand, I assume that exclusive broadcast rights mean exactly that. That they can prevent any unauthorized broadcast.

[Tridus]

Originally Posted by 99gecko

No I don't see that they are protected. If Rogers refuses to pay Global, Global can yank it's signal.

From Financial Post


i.e.
If Global opts for negotiations, that's it - they have to negotiate. If they can't come to a negotiated settlement how would they possibly force a BDU to pay for the signal?

They are protected though. Right here: i) they will negotiate with BDUs for the value of the distribution of their programming services, failing which they will be able to require deletion of the programming they own, or for which they have the exhibition rights, from all signals distributed in their market

The way that reads, if they simsub a show now, they could force it off the air entirely unless an agreement is reached. Which means a lot of American shows would get blacked out.

It's a total farce. We need a non-spineless politician in this country so someone can actually stand up against these insane regulators.

(On another note, how are you guys replying to two people at once? If I try to get the advanced reply window, any quoted text disappears.)

[99gecko]

Tridus,

You are correct in the literal sense in that, yes, these stations will be protected as far as programming content that they have paid the distribution right's for is concerned.

But I think you are missing my point. These stations actually want (really, really, really want) to be carried on the BDU's and the BDU's know it. That is where they are not protected. Reread my post again in that context please:

If Rogers refuses to pay Global, Global can yank it's signal.
...
If they can't come to a negotiated settlement how would they possibly force a BDU to pay for the signal?

I really think the BDU's will still be in the driver's seat for any negotiated signals. I'm not convinced that all stations will opt for negotiated value.

[tico]

*edit* Holy smokes, in the time it took me to write this post, there were about 5 more before me.. maybe my Q's have been substantially answered, but I'll leave my orig. post below ... *end edit*

So, just for my own clarity here. Lets say I want to watch 24, Fox and Global carry it. So, if my sat provider did not negotiate terms with Global, Global could force the blackout of Fox while they are broadcasting 24?

Another example, Fox and Global carry "House", I assume the answer to my question above would be the same, however what about Showcase who shows older episodes, other seasons, as well as new episodes of House? Global could force the blackout of that too?

When I first saw this on the news today, I was very upset because there was no mention of the "must carry" and its waiver. Then again why would that come up on a CTV news report - they wouldn't want the public to know that they have had a "must carry" and priority placement all this time.

How's this for an extra twist - who is going to pay for the blackouts of all these shows - that is going to be at least a job or two, maybe some new equipment - if Global is going to enter negotiations, fail in them, then ask for shows to be blacked out -- shouldn't they have to compensate the cable co for this extra work?

[Blackloz]

Originally Posted by thenewdc

These new regulations will likely lead to the end of carriage of distant local stations. Rogers has said publicly that they want to end this practice anyways.

Thats the way it should have been all along.

[PlayitSimple]

Looks like the CRTC found the 'out' they were looking for- the courts! They really didn't want to deal with this issue (they denied FFC twice before) so this time around they decided to throw the ball to the courts by saying they are not sure if they have the authority to go ahead with something (VFS) like this.

This appears to be the start of a long drawn out battle, if the courts rule that the CRTC does not have the authority then their plan outlined today becomes null and void and the broadcasters will probably start lobbying the government to change the regulations to implement VFS. On the other hand, if the courts rule that the CRTC does have the authority to do this then I can see the BDU's launching an appeal which would then drag this out even further and who knows what the end result will be there?!

Looks like some fun time ahead!

[Francois Caron]

Originally Posted by kcbrk32

Contact your MP and show your dissatisfaction with the CRTC and their latest decision, or lack thereof. I will not tolerate any blackouts. It is time for the politicians to change the Broadcast Act to abolish simsubs and blackouts.

Won't work. You'd end up with massive broadcast rights violations that could result in Canada being cut off from the broadcast of nearly ALL foreign productions. Canadian laws would no longer honor and protect legal business agreements, and the entire nation would be branded as a piracy haven fully backed by the federal government.

As unpleasant as sim-subs and blackouts may be, they serve their intended purpose, which is to protect the rights holders.

On another note, I still have to read through the decision to extract all of its details. But from what I understood by the numerous posts here, we're in for a very messy year, and an even messier new fall season. How many popular shows will be blacked out? How much will cable bills increase? How many subscribers will cancel their services and use alternate means to get their TV fix? And how many local channels will have the rug pulled from under their feet?

That last one is especially important for me. If cable companies start pulling the plug on local channels, does that mean there will be room for my free cable television channel? But even if my channel does get carriage, will there be anyone left out there to watch it?

I'm starting to wonder if my CRTC license still has any value.

[gretzky]

This should then be similar to the simsib rules. The Canadian networks shouldn't be allowed to force my BDU to blackout any shows in area's where they can't broadcast these shows OTA.

i'm in an area where we don't have OTA broadcast no regional CTV here no GLOBAL (and i like it that way) but if my provider blackout american channels because of the CTV or GLOBAL request because they own the canadian rights
i'll write to my MP

[timlocke]

Again... don't permit Cdn broadcasters to buy rights to current US shows or only permit rights that still allow the American networks to broadcast to Canada. Some would say that this should have all been in NAFTA but I guess the Cdn Nationalist brigade stopped that.

[thenewdc]

In the U.S. a negotiated fee for carriage has been a total nightmare in many markets especially in the case of Fox and ABC stations.

[Vegas01]

I'm surprised some do not like time shifting. I sure like the fact i get distant signals. Or lese I would be only watching one show between 9pm-11pm. I'd miss CSI:Miami seen as it is on at 10pm. I watch WWE Raw at 9pm-11pm.

[nordberg]

Originally Posted by 99gecko

Tridus,

You are correct in the literal sense in that, yes, these stations will be protected as far as programming content that they have paid the distribution right's for is concerned.

But I think you are missing my point. These stations actually want (really, really, really want) to be carried on the BDU's and the BDU's know it. That is where they are not protected. Reread my post again in that context please:



I really think the BDU's will still be in the driver's seat for any negotiated signals. I'm not convinced that all stations will opt for negotiated value.

Really, CTV admits that they get 80% of their audience from BDUs, so they are hardly in the driver's seat in this. You can't really threaten the other guy when he knows you are dead without him.

The other side of this, if the BDU has to PAY for the signal, is it too much of a stretch that they should be allowed to insert their OWN commercials. The broadcaster is being paid for the programming, it could be argued it is no longer their bandwidth to sell to advertisers. Maybe this is the next step in this ridiculous fight.

[travisc]

The CRTC already ruled that there will be no change on using the local ad avails on the US channels, so they won't move at all on the selling of commercial time.

As an employee of a very small BDU, this ruling is terrible. We had hoped there would be an exemption for small systems like there was with the LPIF, but I couldn't see any language that suggested so. A company like CTV will steamroll right over us, using blackouts as the anvil and their specialty services as the hammer. I have no idea how we'll afford to hire someone to black out programming if it comes to that.

[Blackloz]

Originally Posted by Vegas01

I'm surprised some do not like time shifting. I sure like the fact i get distant signals. Or lese I would be only watching one show between 9pm-11pm. I'd miss CSI:Miami seen as it is on at 10pm. I watch WWE Raw at 9pm-11pm.

Its not that I don't like time shifting. In the age of duel tunner HD-PVR's and US Network & Sports time shifting which is a given with most providers now I don't see the need for canadian time shifting at all unless people like to watch news from other cities.

[Doppelganger399]

If this gets passed on to the cable customer I will drop 10 bucks worth of channels to keep my cable bill where it is I don`t believe I will be the only one so what effect is this going to have on cable tv channels like TMN, court, ect?