I was just watching CBC News Network and had to stop. They had the president of CTV Globemedia crying a river. He tries to be seen as a victim of cable.

Here in the Maritimes, we don't have the luxury of having 100's of OTA channels. If we want to watch stuff, we either have to go with cable or satellite. One of his arguments was truly pathetic. He mentions that he doesn't want us, the cable users, to pay more. He just wants fairness. Well, hello. If he doesn't want us to pay more, where does he think the money will come from? ROGERS will give it free to us?
By asking the fees to cable, he will makes us pay more. Stop being hypocrite about it Sparks!

 

The CRTC's approach to this really seems to pre-suppose that fee for carriage is a done deal. Konrad Von Jackass wants both sides to work together to come up with a plan that the CRTC can approve. He doesn't want the blood of this mess on his hands, knowing what will follow.

What he fails to see is that for both sides to come to the table, both sides have to agree that something needs to change. The cable/satellite side is violently opposed to this and is not going to come to the table willingly.

 

I heard the comments from Von Finkenstein on the way into the office this morning and thought that it was refreshing.

The CRTC telling two businesses to work it out amongst themselves is, to me, a sign that they (the CRTC) don't intend on changing any of the fee/carriage structures to appease either side.

While you could argue that the current fee/carriage structures are broken in their current form at least they aren't going to get worse.

 

The CRTC's approach to this really seems to pre-suppose that fee for carriage is a done deal. Konrad Von Jackass wants both sides to work together to come up with a plan that the CRTC can approve. He doesn't want the blood of this mess on his hands, knowing what will follow.

Exactly. It's now just a question of how badly consumers are going to screwed and will they appreciate how badly they are getting screwed.

The CRTC has never been consumer friendly but any pretence is now gone otherwise why would we be having this hearing for a third time?

 

Well, in Konrad's defense he has denied Fee for Carriage twice before, and he seems to be quite angry at having to hold these hearings for a third time because Cabinet ordered them to review their previous decisions. It's sad that the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned all of its Reform-Alliance roots that advocated freedom of choice for viewers, and is now in the hands of CTV lobbyist Tim Powers, and MPs like Rod Bruinooge who has to defend Global because Canwest is such a big thing in his Winnipeg riding, or Patrick Brown crying a river because if A-Channel Barrie shuts down he won't be able to see himself on TV shaking hands at town fairs, spaghetti suppers, and all the other useless things MPs go to instead of doing their real job as legislators. Watch the Heritage Committee hearings from last Spring and you'll see.

http://www.servingbarrie.com/EN/med...mp_patrick_brown_presses_crtc_to_save_a_channel_and_local_television_in_canada/

At least Konrad is asking the right questions to CTV et all about whether FFC will change anything. Will they agree to buy more Cancon and less U.S. simulcasts? No. Will they promise to convert all their transmitters to DTV and not shut down stations in smaller markets? No. So I sincerely hope he'll stick to his guns and deny FFC once again. What is the government going to do? Order a fourth hearing? They could order them to adopt fee for carriage if they wanted, but they'd rather have the CRTC do it so they can then wash their hands of it and say "it's an arms-length agency".

I was also quite happy to see Michel Arpin criticize CTV over their request for a DTV transition delay, saying there are still U.S. stations who can't operate at full-parameters because of Canadian stations like them sitting on spectrum.

 

Hold on a second, some of those things you're saying about the Conservative government aren't right.

Well, in Konrad's defense he has denied Fee for Carriage twice before, and he seems to be quite angry at having to hold these hearings for a third time because Cabinet ordered them to review their previous decisions.

The CRTC decided to revisit this issue, not cabinet. After the CRTC scheduled these hearings, cabinet ordered them to look at the impact on consumers.

It's sad that the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned all of its Reform-Alliance roots that advocated freedom of choice for viewers, and is now in the hands of CTV lobbyist Tim Powers... Watch the Heritage Committee hearings from last Spring and you'll see.

The Conservative members of the Heritage Committee opposed FFC and wrote a dissenting report saying so.

James Moore, Minister of Heritage, might be in the pocket of broadcast lobbyists, but Harper wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand on a hot day.

 

i think what ivan fecan and leonard asper want is to force manditory-fee-for-carriage (without the ability for cable companies or viewers to opt out), bundled with the inability for the cable providers to charge more to make up for it (so global and CTV aren't seen as the enemies responsible for this), essentially making the cable companies their cash-cows, straight-jacketed into something they can't do anything about. that's just fascist/ILLEGAL, and will not work. i beleive this is what the law defines as a cartel, or racketeering. at the very least, it's extortion, plain and simple.

I'm glad Konrad finally grew a pair and is standing up to tweedledumb and tweedledumber about this. we probably will see a fourth hearing if this fails, thanks to CTV and Global paying off their friends at the Ministry of Heritage, but the cable companies would make it a living hell for them to pass. i doubt this will end, unless the CRTC finally states "look, you want fee-for-carriage? lose the must-carry status since you can't have both. oh, and you'll need to meet that 1:1 CANCON requirement if you want must-carry. otherwise, go away." Canwest won't be that big of an issue to deal with since they're already on their last legs anyway...

 

Well, hold on here. Yes, the CRTC did refuse FFC twice. But this hearing was their idea, to discuss "negotiated value for carriage". The next hearing in December was forced by the government. Konrad isn't upset that he's having to hold this hearing, he's upset that he's going to have to make a decision that will ignite a firestorm.

If each side came to an agreement and held hands while the consumer got bent over, Konrad would be thrilled because he could jabber on about free markets and negotiated fairness, blah blah blah. Instead, he's the hillbilly daddy with the shotgun forcing Cletus to get into bed with his ugly daughter Hilda the night of their forced wedding.

 

I don't understand what Ivan Fecan means by this statement. Has CTV given money to the cable/sat companies directly to pay for infrastructure? NO, the money has come from the subscribers, debt holders. This attitude er, "ticks" me off to no end.

"We subsidized the construction of their nation-wide delivery systems that have enabled digital services, telephony and Internet businesses,” Mr. Fecan said. “They have grown rich off the 40-year investment we made in them. And now it's time to benefit from our investment.”

“We need to collect what is ours, or we need to walk away in whole or in part. Our investors deserve nothing less,” Mr. Fecan said."

 

It is a pity that the CRTC does not have the power to change the law and invite DirectTV into the Cdn market provided that they carry CBC/TVO and a few other public stations free to all of NA. Should have been done years ago. Then CTV/Global and Rogers/Shaw/Bell could just be left to fight it out amongst themselves.

In more practical terms. I think that the Cdn OTA networks must be prohibited from buying exclusive rights to US programs to show in Canada. Non-exclusive would be ok. To stop them from being able to sue cable Cos and force blackouts. This is not quite the same as stopping simsubs... they could still do that.

 

I think that the Cdn OTA networks must be prohibited from buying exclusive rights to US programs to show in Canada

And therein lies the rub. The only reason Cdn networks have the Cdn rights is the U.S. networks are forced to sell them to Cdn networks.

 

Who's forcing them to sell? Also, it's possible to sell non-exclusive rights. It all depends on what's agreed to.

 

Who's forcing them to sell?

The government.

NBC, CBS, FOX etc are not allowed to operate in this country.

 

The government is not forcing them to sell. If they chose to not have the shows available in Canada (beyond border regions), then no one is forcing them to sell to Canadian broadcasters. However, as a business, it's in their interest to sell as widely as possible. At this point it becomes a business deal, subject to whatever conditions are agreed to. Those conditions might include exclusive rights at higher costs or non-exclusive at lower cost. Also, some shows are on BDUs, without involving the broadcasters at all. One such example is PBS.

 

The government is not forcing them to sell. If they chose to not have the shows available in Canada (beyond border regions), then no one is forcing them to sell to Canadian broadcasters.

Yeah right.

Its called protectionism. The Canadian government says if you want to sell your widget, or in this case, a television show, in our country then you have to sell first to a Canadian company who can then sell it to Canadian consumers. It's the reason why we have so many Grey Markets in this company and why we pay more for so many products in this country.

U.S. companies aren't stupid. Half a loaf is better than nothing but its still protectionism at its finest.

 

From G&M:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/cbc-pushes-cheaper-cable-package/article1366265/

CTV officials suggested they may be prepared to pull their stations off the cable service if they are not compensated.

Go ahead... don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out.

Simsub free zone- we all win.

 

Go ahead... don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out.

Simsub free zone- we all win.

I think you missed the key point in his argument: They (being CTV) would still hold the Cdn. broadcast rights.

CTV's argument is that because they are still broadcasting OTA in the market, the cable co. would still have to black out the American broadcast. In Cdn. markets that CTV does not have a transmitter, the American broadcast would not be blacked out.

So, if CTV withheld their signal in the larger Cdn markets, the viewer would either have to get an antenna to get either the CTV or the US broadcast, or use other means to get the content - on-line, grey market, etc...

CTV's proposal is a gamble that where they don't have a transmitter, they don't need the ad revenue generated by BDU distribution.

So,... there is no "Simsub free zone- we all win.", in their proposal as far as the consumer is concerned. Just a "Simsub zone - CTV wins".

The only reason Cdn networks have the Cdn rights is the U.S. networks are forced to sell them to Cdn networks.

I always understood that Cdn. broadcasters don't buy their content rights from the American network; they buy it directly from the production company, of which the American network may be a stakeholder, but for legal reasons is still a separate entity. The difference being that an American network may not actually want to purchase the Cdn. rights in some circumstances. Can anyone in the industry clarify this point?

cheers.

 

So, if CTV withheld their signal in the larger Cdn markets, the viewer would either have to get an antenna to get either the CTV or the US broadcast, or use other means to get the content - on-line, grey market, etc...

Actully the all the BDUs need to do is grow a pair and say we will not blackout, Shaw has stood up from time to time, they just need to band together...they can't shut all of the BDU's down or any really, the backlash would be phenomenal!

 

Read This and It will finalize the arguement!

All cable station's receive the broadcasts absolutely and charge you for your basic cable and or satellite fee. Yet they should receive it and sell it to you. So if I develope a product and hand it on free that person should sell it and make a profit. I should get paid as well for the product you are receiving from me and reselling! It is not rocket science. Good business says you do not give the public a free product as the advertisers pay the salaries of the staff and yet someone else should be able to sell that product that you send out and profit. Check your cable and or satellite bill your paying the cable and or satellite company for that station trust me! Mike P.S. You as anyone else is paying for those stations on your bills as they are the basic stations and then the person(s) selling them get the profit! Review this carefully and reply!

 

I should get paid as well for the product you are receiving from me and reselling!

As people have said, your argument is flawed and they are already getting paid from their advertisers...

A more realistic analogy is that by yourself, you can distribute 10 items and get paid 10X by your advertisers. Thanks to bribery, you get the government to force all the local stores to pickup items from your house and to distribute them, increasing the distribution to 10000 and making you earn 10000X. Since you feel that 10000X is not enough, you also want the stores to provide an extra 10000Y...

 

No, read this instead

I have no horse in this race (I desire wall-to-wall digital OTA asap) so I'm not taking sides in the dispute between the broadcasters and the BDUs.

dtvman1, your premise that CTV and the other broadcasters have a commodity product that they can "sell on" (as you put it) is fundamentally wrong, and I'm not being vituperative. They entered into TV broadcasting over the last century with business models based on how to operate within the laws and regulations. So did the BDUs.

I invite you and everyone to read this timeline of Canadian broadcasting as soon as possible so that you understand the fundamentals of TV broadcasting in Canada:

OTA, Cable, and Satellite TV in Canada: the Historical View

Once again, the "product" offered by CTV and other TV broadcasters in Canada is not a commodity that can be "sold on".

 

This has been re-hashed endlessly. Your argument makes little sense (dtvman1, not stampeder). How about I say that since I'm a cable company, you as a broadcaster have to pay me for carriage?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand... These CBC guys are a joke. Commissioner Candice Molnar asked them what they would think of a scenario where they got value for signal and consumers were given the choice to subscribe to them at all. They tried to not answer the question, but when pressed said that no, they did not support giving consumers the choice of whether to subscribe to the CBC (and pay for it) or not.

 

Re: Read This and It will finalize the arguement!

You seem to be forgetting the BDUs provide an expanded audience for the broadcasters. Also, why should someone pay to receive a broadcast over cable, when a neighbour with an antenna don't have to pay? Many on cable don't have any alternative.

 

whether to subscribe to the CBC (and pay for it) or not

We already pay the CBC through our taxes and have no say in the matter. We (on cable & satellite) also pay the recent LPIF and the cancon fee that's been around for years. Of course, they wouldn't dream of allowing mere citizens to decide what they want to pay for. Don't forget, it's the same CBC that for years, when it was the broadcast regulator, refused to allow competition. Until 1960 or so, every Canadian TV station that wasn't CBC owned had to be an affiliate. No choice in the matter whatsoever.

 

Also CTV, Global and CBC are further giving away their product for free on their websites.

If the 2 sides can't come up with a palatable Plan B, the viewing public will find alternatives. So I still say... don't let the door...

These could include OTA, torrents, sopcast, DVDs, US Satellite services, US Webcasts through proxies or turning off the TV and cancelling cable altogether.

The last one would screw both sides equally.

 

How about I say that since I'm a cable company, you as a broadcaster have to pay me for carriage?

There's absolutely nothing stopping the BDUs from doing just that.

That would make for quite the poker showdown .

 

The BDUs should charge for carry. After all, they're required by law to carry those stations. Why shouldn't they be compensated? Otherwise, it's expropriation of their networks.

 

Are these hearings being carried live on CPAC?