Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

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

35K views 235 replies 81 participants last post by  ScaryBob 
#1 · (Edited)
As has been speculated in the press and in other threads, the CRTC will be releasing a report on the state of the Canadian TV Broadcasting Industry today on what is being referred to as the "Regulatory Policy framework on group-based licencing of ownership groups".

From the CRTC web site:
Please be advised that Monday’s release (March 22nd) will be at 4 p.m. [Ottawa time]
Discuss the March 22, 2010 CRTC release here.
 
#162 ·
What's next, outlaw (legitimate) Free To Air systems? Get the USA to stop broadcasting? Even if they want to black out Shaw's, or Bell's, or what-have-you's Fox US feed during a showing of a program for which they have purchased distribution rights for - it is still available on various Fox Feeds from the US via free-to-air satellite signals, unencrypted, free, legal, etc.

If I want to pay Shaw Direct to provide a guide for me, and PVR functionality, how is that any of the CRTC's or Global's business?

It's all about "local TV", but they have to use the threat of blackout of US programming currently available from several other sources. Huh? It's about local TV, which no one will miss or care about unless you black out the latest episode of American Idol, or 24, or whatever. If they don't like it, can't make enough money through advertising, just go away. Period.

It'll end up a waiting game, if the BDUs and consumers can hold out long enough, how are the stations going to find the money to purchase distribution rights for US shows.

Or am I way off base here and someone out there actually cares about "Local TV"?
 
#166 ·
What's next, outlaw (legitimate) Free To Air systems? Get the USA to stop broadcasting?
No, no, no, no. You know what I think is next? Base on what's going on right now with FFC (or VFS), "local TVs" may as well go for the internet service providers. A recent study shows people are spending more time per week on Internet than TV. Since internet providers "dilute TV's ad market", don't produce or buy TV programs or web content yet they have a big revenue pie, and they compete with local TVs by capturing their audience's TV time, local TVs have more than enough "legitimate" reasons to apply VFS to the internet service providers to have a piece of their revenue pie.

Oh wait, while we are at it, may as well bill the wireless carriers, because nowadays we can theoretically watch TV shows on cellphones, and more importantly they have a big revenue pie so they should share.

Oh wait, may as well just bill any advertising channels, like the billboards, the magazines, the radio stations, etc. Any time these ads reach the audience, the audience is not watching TV ads. That means they are "diluting TV's ad market".

Oh but wait, let's bill the Antenna manufacturers as well. Since DTV technology evolves, decade-old fish-bone antenna market has revived. They are in business because of local TVs!

Oh wait, let's bill Radio Shack, Future Shop, Walmart, and anywhere that sells antennas. They get those sales because of local TVs! Oh, and don't forget to bill the couriers as they ship online orders for these antennas.

Let's forget about local programmings or buying programs altogether. Just focus on where to bill businesses with even the slightest remote relationship with local TVs, because that's where local TVs lost revenue!
 
#163 ·
Johnny, I disagree. I think one of the main factors that the Save Local TV crowd have pointed to is the fragmentation of the market, resulting in decreased viewership and less revenue for the OTA broadcasters. If we accept that as a valid reason, then we must include the profits of the specialty channels owned by the OTA broadcasters and we must also look at the massive amounts spent by those broadcasters to acquire said specialty channels.
 
#164 ·
I'm also of the view that a private OTA broadcaster's peripheral broadcasting interests must factor fully in solutions to these VFS deliberations. It is time for all the stakeholders to put all their cards on the table. No crying poor while eating caviar with their champagne.
 
#167 ·
Time to De regulate

The problem is the CRTC has got itself into a quagmire with protecting canadian content whatever that is?

The majority of the shows are American content and will continue to be that way because consumers want that.The TV industry is subsiding ACTRA and others.

One of the main problems is that the TV industry is controlled by three big companies so there is no real competition.
Shaw/Global, Rogers, CTV and control what is on the screen. I have not referenced the CBC which appears to be in a category by itself.
If they D regulated and let the free market take over it would be a different picture. The consumers will be the winners.

That was the problem with the cell phone business and now there are new companies offering products.

CRTC will never keep the public happy,the broadcasters nor the BDU's. However the broadcasters are probably feeling a lot morre comfortable based on this recent decision which many of us do not like.

Deregulation of the TV indistry in Canada will never happen cause the political will is not there to make the hard decisions.

Shaw did not own Global at the time and Rogers was very quite as a broadcaster. Is this not a conflict where you have a broadcaster owning distribution systems.
 
#175 ·
...

Deregulation of the TV indistry in Canada will never happen cause the political will is not there to make the hard decisions.

...
What he said! The politicians benefit from protecting Can-con interest groups and especially from protecting and subsidizing certain large and well-connected corporations.

The cultural groups who benefit from the Can-con stuff become shrill advocates of any expansion of government programs. They know which side of the bread is buttered. You get Can-con protection, you pay the government back by banging the drum for day care, foreign interventions, more taxes, more regulation, more government. More government is what brings home the bacon for politicians. More government, more face time on TV, more patronage jobs to give out, more pork, more kickbacks, more everything.

The big corporations pay back the politicians more directly with extremely lucrative post-retirement gigs sitting on boards of directors, getting cushy lawyering jobs, etc. with plenty of remuneration in the form of per diems, consulting fees, travel junkets, and so on. You could say there is a revolving door between the big, protected and subsidized corporations and the halls of power. Lobbyists and politicians get corporate gigs, corporate bigwigs run for office (or place their children, sons-in-laws, nephews, etc. in parliament) and vice-versa.

As for serving the overall, broad interests of the public, what's in it for the politicians? Nothing really. It is a far more effective strategy to blow off the general public and then concentrate on buying votes in only a small number of critical ridings and regions where they can get a huge bang for the patronage buck. Even if they make the public so mad that their political party is wiped out from parliament, I think you will find that the top politicians, the ones who sold the public interest down the river, felt no pain at all but transitioned into the sweet, remunerative arms of the same special interests to which they gave away the farm.

There is no downside to politicians making bad decisions against the public interest and plenty of upside. That's why I wouldn't waste much time trying to appeal to politicians' common sense or decency w.r.t. regulatory decisions. You're caught in the perfect storm of media and culture-group complicity, massive corporate lobbying and kickbacks in the form of the revolving door, and the natural tendency of politics to attract (I'll try to put this as politely as possible) craven and morally stunted people. I'm not talking about SOME of the political parties, I'm talking about ALL of 'em. It is the very nature of government to make everything it touches into a monopoly, and it is the nature of monopolies to become corrupt and to invite more corruption.

To sum up, better to spend your time and money seeking freedom and choice from the internet, FTA and OTA TV (especially if you can get US signals), buying stuff from Amazon, etc. than waiting for the politicians to do the right thing. The right thing for you is the wrong thing for them.
 
#168 ·
there are posts that explicitly suggest that CTVgm should be obligated to absorb losses on CTV because they make money on TSN. That's a ludicrous notion.
Where did the money come from to start TSN? Also, what about their complaints of competition from cable channels, many of which they own? How do we know they haven't done a bit of creative book keeping to make CTV look bad and the cable channels look good?
 
#169 ·
CTV can afford to buy a very sucessful CFL take from the CBC over the air and put it on subscriber only TSN so how can you not include the cable channels they own in this? What is to stop them from taking widely loved shows and puting them on the Cable only channels, thereby making a lot more money.
 
#170 ·
You will see Canada's richest family - the Thomsons try to continue to fleece each Canadian cable/sat subs as long as they control CTVGlobemedia.

With this CRTC decision, Rogers and Shaw (assuming they get control of Global) are going to have to put into action what they said they would do - which is exactly nothing. Or else Bell will find themselves with a couple of million more subs overnight.
 
#172 ·
What's next, outlaw (legitimate) Free To Air systems? Get the USA to stop broadcasting?
what is so funny is that Bell already tried to outlaw legitimate FTA systems
so they could confiscate every systems to try to get rid of their piracy probelm
(and try to ) have more sub
i'm on a C BAND system free to air and if this kind of things would happen
(or like forcing USA to encrypt everything...which is not so far in my opinion)
i'll be the first to be in their way
 
#173 ·
CHrisCHu wrote:
"A recent study shows people are spending more time per week on Internet than TV. Since internet providers "dilute TV's ad market", ..."

Mrvanwinkles writes:
"A recent study shows people are spending more time per week on The Digital Home Forum discussing TV issues than actually watching TV. ... and since The Digital Home Internet Forum provider "dilutes TV's ad market . . . it follows then that the CRTC will be charging members of the Digital Home Forum ... LPIF and FFC fees, through their ISP's ...

( hopefully some comic relief on these issues...)

FFC / LPIF / Simsubs ... Canadian / Local / U.S. / Distant / Specialty ... Sattelite / FTA Sattelite / Cable / OTA / Internet.... Networks / Independents / Public Broadcasting / Provincial Channels (TVO)... DVD / Bluray / NetFlix ... Analog / ASTC digital / QAM / Encrypted .. etc

All these regulatory and delivery and billing and viewing option issues are just serving to overcomplicate and frustrate the viewer.

It's been twisted so bad ... and all out of shape ... that pretty soon viewers are really gonna just start simplifying things ... by cancelling all that crap and just picking up whatever is available to them via antenna, or FTA Sattelite... if at all ... or just go to the movie theater once in a while and forget all that stuff ...

What was the saying? Who was it that said ...

"Turn on, Tune in, Drop out"

Wikepedia:
"to embrace cultural changes through the use of psychedelics and by detaching themselves from the existing conventions and hierarchies in society."

Cause we're all gonna need some good STUFF to figure all this TV stuff out ...
 
#174 ·
JohnnyCanuck wrote:

"... If CTVgm lost money on the CTV network in the past year, it did so because it overspent for content. It bid outrageous amounts for the Olympics based on no business criteria other than making sure the CBC didn't get Vancouver ... "

... and the irony of this ... is that even though CTV spent all that money for the rights to be the Canadian exclusive for the Vancouver Olympics ... I was so un-impressed with the quality, and nature of the CTV coverage ... that most of the time ... I was watching the NBC, American Network coverage of the Olympics ... even if (naturally) NBC was highlighting the American Athletes.

The NBC coverage - was - in my opinion - much more professionally done - better events coverage and professional commentary - and focused on the Olympic sports events themselves - rather than the "Party People" or "Fans" and Events and merchandise surrounding the Olympics.

Many times I found myself saying to the Canadian CTV Olympic hosts and commentators ... "Oh be quiet and go have another BEER would ya !"
-or- "Sh Up and Go buy yourself another set of Red Olympic Mittens... O.K.?"

And then I'd switch immediately over to the NBC coverage ... and watch the actual Olympic events themselves with professional broadcasting commentary.

And the Canadian industry and regulatory folks are asking the viewers to pay more money for this ????

I think CTV better stick to the News ... not sports ... because they tend to do News a little better.

They don't deserve FFC or LPIF. It should just be left like it is.

Perform or die.
 
#178 ·
Well ClassicSat, I'm sorry to say that I agree with you and I know that it is the reality from a real business perspective - but doesn't that suck? My sarcasm was meant to highlight the absurdity of the situation:

1) so called "broadcasters" have gotten "must carry" status, and priority placement status through the protection of "Canadian Content"

2) Broadcasters are able to dictate (under #1) exactly how and of what quality the BDU's must provide the signal to end users. Example, a BDU that would like to charge a fee to provide some sort of breakthrough, phenomenal sports coverage for one event per week and then shut down - would be unable to exist, because the "broadcaster's" signal must be provided 24/7 with a given level of reliability.

3) Broadcaster's have used #1 and #2 above to secure ad revenue while showing US programming.

OK, so to re-cap, the CRTC, in the interest of protecting and promoting "Canadian Content" have granted certain rights to the Broadcasters, who have used this position to increase their revenues by providing (on a "must carry" basis) US programming that otherwise would only be available by paying a BDU to provide specialty or foreign channels such as Fox; thereby gaining a wider audience and making advertising more attractive to their clients.

Now, as long as this is essentially free to the consumer, the only potential loser is the BDU, who has perhaps lost some revenue because not as many people want to pay for Fox when CTV carries the same programming.

Now, they (the "Broadcasters") want to use this position they have maneuvered themselves into to charge for their programming and must use the threat of a blackout of US programming to enforce their position. The CRTC did not envision this outcome in the granting of the rights that led to this outcome, and the spirit of those agreements is clearly being violated here.
 
#179 ·
I want to reiterate my original comment, now that the specialty channels are reporting record profits.

"the broadcasters are looking for money from BDUs (FFC), from consumers (LPIF), but there is one place they haven't looked, themselves. If a corporations owns both a broadcast network and specialty channels, then the profitable specialty channels should subsidize the money losing network. After all, they are just artifical barriers, in the end it is one company."

All options should be on the table.
 
#186 ·
From CTV website, today:

More than 130,000 Canadians told the CRTC that they support local TV in their communities.

In response to this outpouring of support, the CRTC ruled on March 22, 2010 that TV distributors, including cable and satellite companies, should negotiate with private television stations for the retransmission of local TV signals and programming.

Although there are several critical hurdles still to be cleared, this decision is an important step towards a renewed framework and a sustainable future for local TV in Canada.

CTV's "Local TV Matters" ads made the connection abundantly clear:

1) cable and satellite charge their customers for our signals;
2) cable and satellite do not pay us any fees for using the signals;
3) we should have the right to receive fees for use of our signals; so
4) tell the CRTC what you think about this; and
5) help us "Save Local TV".

Creation of the LPIF did not stop or even slow that campaign.
 
#187 ·
Creation of the LPIF did not stop or even slow that campaign.
Off course, LPIF was created to finance local production in SMALL MARKETS. To qualify, the station must be located in a market with less than 1 million residents. The exception being french stations in an english market, and english stations in a french market.

In other words, stations located in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal cannot receive money from LPIF. CTV Montreal and Global Montreal are eligible for LPIF, but TVA Montreal and 'V' Montreal aren't.

From a business point of view, CTVgm and CanWest headquarters will just cash in the check for their qualified LPIF stations and continue to complain their small market stations are losing money and will be closed if they don't get Value-For-Signal.

They want Fee-For-Carriage so they can obtain additional revenues for their flagship stations, which are located in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
 
#189 ·
Didn't know where to post but Bell Expressvu has an * on their ppv which says "(LPIF Extra*)" What has a PPV to do with local programming. Not a big deal (5.99 x 1.5% max = 0.09) BUT x how many PPV sold. Looks very much like a golden egg opportunity for Bell...

Oh well iTunes has a better selection anyway. I finally watched a few PPV and I have been a subscriber for many years but this latest has me rethinking my choices.

Oh well back to the Ryder Cup after my rant :)

Bob
 
#190 ·
Bell probably looks at it this way: LPIF -> Bell -> CTV.
Since Bell is acquiring CTV, that's a positive cash flow for them. Bell has always acted in favour of CTV's interests due to their part ownership. It can only get worse once they get a majority stake. IMHO, yet another reason to break up the BDU/broadcaster/ISP oligopoly that exists in Canada, rather than allowing it to continuously get worse.
 
#191 ·
#192 ·
#195 ·
just to force the wheels of bureaucracy to spin at an even slower pace... Given that since this decision was released ShawMedia now owns Canwest and Bell will soon own the CTVglobemedia properties. Maybe the CRTC should reserve this decision until they complete their hearings on vertical integration which they announced today... what better way to make them self-serving that to wait for their own hearings!!
 
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