Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just got this press release so I am not sure what is going on but here it is. I will fill in with details.

Here is the report.

It's 68 pages and I have not looked at it yet.

Although Rogers spins it that its a rejection of fee-for-carriage a CBC story says

After hosting a series of fiery hearings this spring, the House of Commons committee on Canadian Heritage released on Friday its report on the state of local television, but left out any recommendations on the contentious issue of fee for carriage.


so need to drill down a bit.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Rogers Applauds Canadian Heritage Standing Committee Report and its rejection of fee-for-carriage

TORONTO, June 19 /CNW/ - Rogers today applauded the efforts of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the release of its report on The
Evolution of the Canadian Television Industry.
On April 20th, a Rogers' panel led by Vice Chairman, Phil Lind, appeared
before the Committee to argue over-the-air broadcasters already receive many
regulatory advantages and that while all businesses across the country had
been impacted by the economic downturn, there was no convincing evidence to
prop up the financial results of the broadcasters with a government bail out.
Rogers cited the negative impact on consumers of the proposed fee which would
have resulted in increases of between $4 - $6.00 per month per subscriber.
After weeks of review and consultation with a broad range of interested
parties, the all-party committee made a number of recommendations to assist
the broadcasting sector but most importantly did not support the controversial
proposal of 'fee for carriage'.
"The number one issue from our perspective was the proposal to tax
consumers put forward by the broadcasters. Despite a non-stop lobby effort by
CTV to influence federal politicians, the report did not endorse the fee for
carriage concept," said Phil Lind, Vice Chairman, Rogers Communications Inc.
"We are encouraged as well by the rejection of fee for carriage and "value for
programming" by the Government Members of the Committee in their reasoned
Supplementary Report."
The Government MP report spoke to equity and stated that this "report
must now indicate our most fervent and rigorous opposition to any potential
fee for carriage system, either negotiated or imposed, that would have a
detrimental effect on the consumer. We believe it is fundamentally unfair to
expect Canadian consumers to pay new and substantial charges each month to
their cable or satellite distributor to reflect such a system." The report
further noted that "the 90% of Canadians who currently receive their
television signals from a cable or satellite BDU already pay 5% of their
monthly subscription fee to support the production of Canadian television
programming."
The Government Members rejected the proposal, the Heritage Committee did
not support the concept, and fee for carriage as proposed by the broadcasters
has already been twice rejected by the CRTC in recent years. "The Heritage
Committee Report should serve as an important reference point for the upcoming
CRTC review of broadcast renewal licences," added Phil Lind.
Source: Rogers Press Release June 19th
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
whew!!!

i guess the next press release will be from CTV listing all the potential local TV stations they want to...err i mean will be forced to close now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Hugh are you able to post a link of any sorts?
I tried but was unable to find the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee Report.
edit: you have now posted a link to the report - all 68 pages :eek:

I did however find CRTC Chairman von Finckenstein's speech to the 2009 Broadcasting Invitational Summit, delivered today in Cambridge, Ontario.

In it he makes reference to the possibility of the opposite of what of Roger's press release is indicating:
...
Issues for discussion
It is clear to us that both the Commission and the industry have a role to play in solving this problem, and a number of others.

I would now like to summarize the main issues that need to be addressed at our hearings in the fall. In each case we must address both the importance and the feasibility of finding a solution. Here they are:
<deletia>
4. Negotiation of fair market value compensation for distribution of distant signals and conventional local signals. If necessary, these negotiations could be backed up by CRTC arbitration.
5. Requirement of a prior agreement on that compensation as a precondition for a broadcasting distribution undertaking’s distribution of the U.S. 4+1 signals (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and the non-commercial PBS network).
Is there potential for a showdown between the CRTC and the (effectively the CRTC's boss) Canadian Heritage?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Bell Press Release

Bell welcomes Heritage Committee rejection of Fee-for-carriage

OTTAWA, June 19 /CNW Telbec/ - Bell today welcomed the decision by the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage not to recommend the
imposition of fee-for-carriage on satellite and cable services, and their
customers.
"We're pleased that the Committee saw through the smokescreen of
broadcaster hype to see fee-for-carriage for what it is, a tax on consumers,"
said Mirko Bibic, Bell's Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Government
Affairs. "BDU customers should not have to pay for something that is available
for free over the air."
Bell hopes the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) takes notice of the Committee's decision, and in particular
the categorical rejection of fee-for-carriage from the Committee's government
members, during the CRTC's continued review of local TV issues. During that
process, Bell looks forward to renewing its proposal for a "freesat" solution
that would significantly reduce the broadcasters' costs to convert their
signals to digital.
If conventional broadcasters do not replace all their analog towers with
digital towers, many Canadians are at risk of losing access to over-the-air
television channels. Bell's proposal would guarantee access to these TV
channels to consumers, helping avoid any new tax on consumers or government
bail out for Canadian broadcasters. The only requirement for consumers would
be the purchase and installation of a compatible satellite dish and digital
receiver.
"If Bell's recommendations are accepted by the CRTC, then consumers would
be able to receive a package of at least five digital TV channels without
having to subscribe to Bell TV," added Mr. Bibic. "For many consumers, that's
more channels than they can access today over-the-air and at no charge."
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Hugh are able to post a link of any sorts?
Link to the report now available in post #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
It appears the Report made no recommendations regarding FFC at all!!

Bell and Rogers are spinning the Dissenting Opinion of Conservative Party Members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is on pages 51 - 54.
Despite that responsibility, the majority report neglected to offer any guidance, leadership or advice to the CRTC, BDU’s or broadcasters on this vitally important issue of public policy.

As such, this dissenting report must now indicate our most fervent and rigorous opposition to any potential fee for carriage system, either negotiated or imposed, that would have a detrimental effect on the consumer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
OK so after reading thru it you are right gecko99 there is no recommendation on FFC and just has the dissenting opinion noting its glaring ommission from the recommendations with their view being very against implementing FFC.

Now parliament punted the issue back to the CRTC, the commission failed to mention it at all and the CRTC in the past has denied FFC twice but of recent times has suggested that the 2 sides of the industry negotiate a fair price.

How is a fair price supposed to be negoitated when the distributors don't really have any bargaining chips unless something is changed. The broadcaster's networks are must-carry, with premium placement on the dial and the distributors have to do signal substitution if requested by a broadcaster. Add to this that the distributors likely believe the fair price is $0 since it is an OTA signal that anyone could pick up. I don't see how this would ever be resolved without the CRTC having to step in and do arbitration on the issue. Unfortunately I don't believe this is far from over and when it is, is likely going to cost us the subscribers more money.

A couple of other interesting things to me from this document:

RECOMMENDATION 14
The Committee recommends that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission enforce the carriage by satellite
carriers of local signals that are carried on cable systems.​
For me this is interesting since the local Medicine Hat channel is not carried on Shaw Direct, so I would gain a local channel(and then likely have to pay FFC on it whether i watch it or not).

RECOMMENDATION 17
To protect the integrity of local markets, the Committee recommends
that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission either stop the distribution of distant signals by
broadcasting distribution undertakings or restrict them such that a
prime-time show may not be viewed in any region before the local
affiliate has had the opportunity to broadcast it as per their local
schedule.​
Now one could only hope they are talking about Canadian distant signals only as out west many of us enjoy having the US eastern feeds to not only watch shows earlier but it also avoids some of the nasty signal substitution world. This seems like a partially thought out recommendation though as people in the east would see little to no change and could watch a show when it comes on in the east or later when it comes on in the west but the people in the west, would have lmited choice with BC being the worst and would be restricted to the choice of only when it comes on locally or not at all.....which would likely drive even more viewership to the internet or to those US dishes no one is suppose to have. That being said, they know people like their time-shifting and this would be a very unpopular move so we likely won't see it being implemented in the form it is recommended.

And last but not least from the supplementary opinions of the Bloc Quebecois..."There are two countries in this country: Canada and Quebec.".
And here I was under the belief that Quebec was a province, but thats a whole other debate for another forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
According to the media, FFC was shot down.

Tories snub fee-for-carriage system
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/06/19/9866971-sun.html

"CTV got a slap in the face yesterday when Conservative MPs rejected a proposed fee-for-carriage system.

Fee-for-carriage bid by broadcasters dead on Parliament Hill
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ihcfjAzmzblZKIaeMSXZcf2ZsbXA

The big broadcasters pulled out all the stops to convince the government it should allow them to charge cable and satellite companies for the right to carry their signals.

But two reports by the House of Commons heritage committee have closed the big wooden doors of Parliament to them - suggesting alternate avenues for getting the broadcasters more cash.

The majority report avoided fee-for-carriage altogether, leaving it to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to decide.

The CRTC is what the broadcasters were trying to get around in the first place: the regulator had twice rejected the fee-for-carriage notion.
---

So they asked the CRTC twice before and we're told no, so they TRIED to get around them. But they were told no, it's a CRTC issue. If they've asked (CRTC) very recently during this economic difficulties stage and were told no, they should stop beating a dead horse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
931 Posts
The CBC Radio report I heard yesterday said that they refused to push the CRTC into FFC. They also said that no MP would want to be blamed for higher cable bills.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
844 Posts
They media are all twisting the facts as usual. The committee did not say NO to FFC, what they did was do what politicians usually do which is- avoid dealing with the issue and pass it on to someone else. Since this is a very contentious issue and there was quite an uproar from the public, the politicos found an out- the CRTC! They referred the decision back to the CRTC to allow them to deal with it:

The majority report avoided fee-for-carriage altogether, leaving it to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to decide.
Now it will be interested to see what the CRTC rules, in light of the fact that BDU's want nothing to do with this. The CRTC was apparently leaning in favour of some sort of negotiated FFC but I don't think that BDU's will go for that either so is it possible we will see the Commission say 'NO' for yet a third time?!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
32 Posts
Circle July 6th on your calender

The CRTC will have a decison reguarding Conventional Television
it was on the wpg free press website yesterday by the canadian press
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,066 Posts
CHCH Hamilton

Interesting tidbit about CHCH in the article. I'm beginning to wonder if the station will become an "A" Channel affiliate. The "A" network is the only one in Canada without a presence in the GTA...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
actually, CKVR-TV's signal does manage to reach Downtown Toronto, at least as fringe reception, similar to how i used to get the analog fringe signal of WNWO-TV from Toledo... and it's carried throughout the GTA from Hamilton to Oshawa and Halton to Peterborough on basic cable...

that might prevent CHCH-TV from switching to A, since their grade-A signal blankets most of Toronto quite well (it's across the lake and line-of-sight... shouldnt' be hard at all). However, the CRTC might say "fringe reception isn't protected..we only protect out to grade-B coverage", in which case, CHCH-TV might easily flip to become "A Hamilton-Niagara-Toronto"
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,066 Posts
I can get both local Kitchener CTV, Global, TVO; and Toronto CTV, TVO and Global. And Hamilton SUN and Toronto SUN. So there doesn't seem to be any issues with network overlap.

CHCH broadcasts in digital HD; which means A could be carried by BDU's as an HD signal. They'll probably save money by purchasing a station already HD-capable, than doing an upgrade on their existing stations. And Hamilton would allow them to hit more people than any of their other Ontario stations....

I see potential for Hamilton, either way. Especially with RIM Billionaire Jim Balsillie pushing for an NHL team there. Should that happen, we're going to see a big fight for TV rights....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Exactly, bigoranget. It's no longer CTV (primary)/A (secondary) vs. Global (primary)/E! (secondary). It's only going to be CTV vs Global. CTVglobemedia says they're only renewing the A licenses for 1 year after Aug. 31 to see what the financial landscape is like. So I don't think there's ANY primary/secondary life past the upcoming 2009-2010 TV season... if that long! Any small TV stations (A, E!) will have to be bought by another (maybe Shaw) and/or shut down.

Shaw could use the RTN - Retro Television Network (sub-channels only in the U.S.) model and buy only the strongest small town stations (I'd assume Hamilton, London/Windsor, Brandon, Victoria) and make a kitschy all-retro strong of stations.

Edit: There's no guarantee that a RTN would stop the loss of money, but could allow some stronger stations live to see another year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,457 Posts
CHCH could become an independently owned A affiliate. There is no reason for CTV to own it. That is, if CTV would allow it.

Now if they do become A affiliates, their Ottawa and Alvinston transmitters at least will need shut down, since those are already A markets (Pembroke and London).
Their Muskoka transmitter could be at risk also, if they became an A affilate.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I have merged these threads since its the same topic.

Is the CRTC going to give conventional stations money and if so how?

Call it a LIPF or FFC, either way it means more cash out of Canadians pockets.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top