IF CRTC CHAIR Jean-Pierre Blais is putting the Canadian consumer back into the CRTC driver's seat, as he has stated repeatedly, then surely the Commission must say no to most of the broadcasters and postulant broadcasters arriving cap-in-hand this week to ask that they be given mandatory spots (and the mandatory dollars that would come with it) in the TV channel lineups of Canadian subscription TV customers.
While there’s a long history of forcing Canadian cable subscribers to pay for channels they may or may not have wanted, back in the day, we just accepted it. Sometimes, begrudgingly. Sometimes we thought: “It was more TV and only a few dollars more! Bring it on.” Either way, we had no other options.
That was then. Powered by the myriad entertainment and information choices the Internet now provides us, I would wager that a storm of protest would rain down upon Gatineau should the decision makers say that making Canadians pay more for TV, even just a few dollars more, for almost any of these channels be approved. Thousands would abandon their TV subscriptions.
There are eight new license applicants asking for mandatory carriage (several with mandatory fees to be charged to Canadians) under the Commission’s 9(1)(h) policy and eight existing license holders asking for the same. There are six more asking for renewal (some at a higher rate) also included in this hearing.
Commission policy under the 9(1)(h) provisions state that any channel wishing such carriage must be “exceptional” in a number of ways and if the Regulator decides a license holder qualifies, it can force the channel onto all distributors – and extract a fee for each subscriber. However, those companies looking for mandatory distribution, according to the 2010 policy set for 9(1)(h) distribution, must satisfy a number of stringent conditions. Click here and scroll down to paragraph 11 to see them all – or just search for the word “exceptional” on that page.
There are a few on the list that I don’t, or won’t mind paying for. Accessible Media, for example, does a stellar job with its channels and I would wager most Canadians can understand how a few dollars a year from their TV bill being directed to help the disabled consume media in English and French is a good thing. I don’t begrudge APTN’s 9(1)(h) designation, even if I do object to a 60% rate increase. I can’t see anyone else lining up to do the needed (if lightly watched) work of CPAC, a channel I would opt to pay for, if I had to choose.
However, this hearing will likely be consumed by two applicants: Starlight, the all-Canadian film channel backed by noted Canadian filmmaker Robert Lantos and his filmmaking pals Atom Egoyan, David Cronenberg, Denys Arcand, Paul Gross, Deepa Mehta and others; and Quebecor Media’s Sun News.
As readers will be aware, both want must-carry and must-pay status but demanding Canadians be forced to pay for channels such as these is just not on.
Starlight wants a wholesale fee of $0.45 per subscriber per month (which will be closer to a dollar at retail) for a channel that will show nothing but Canadian films. Sounds like a laudable goal, doesn’t it? What Canadian would say they don’t want to see more Canadian films, which are hard to find in the theatres and on TV? In fact, Starlight’s research shows that yes, LOTS of Canadians want to see more Canadian movies on television. Eighty-three percent of Canadians surveyed would like to see such a channel launch and even after a cost is introduced (the survey said it would be three cents a day), 70% of Canadians would support the channel being added to the basic service.
Two thirds support of Canadians for such a channel? Sounds like a heck of a business that does not need mandatory carriage. If I had a new potato chip as well as statistics that said 70% of Canadians would buy bags of those chips, I bet Loblaws couldn’t sign me to a contract fast enough. If that many people support paying for such a channel, it’s a viable business already. And, if it can’t get BDU carriage, there seems to be enough interest in the research there to go over the top.
What’s also bothersome to me, though, is when you take a look at the credits of many of the Canadian films cited by Starlight in its submission. Those films have already been backed by we Canadians and our tax dollars through the likes of Telefilm, SODEC, the CMF, the Ontario Media Development Corporation and via assorted federal and provincial tax credits. And the owners of Starlight would like another fee added to force Canadian TV subscribers to pay for these films yet again? I find that unpalatable.
Truth to tell, this is likely a channel to which my family would choose to subscribe, but it should be just that – a choice, not something foisted upon us all. As a consumer, I’d actually prefer it was an over-the-top channel on Netflix or something, where I could search for Canuck films and watch them whenever and wherever I want.
As for Sun News, it’s asking for a time machine and with the news genre already deregulated, the Commission can not go back in time and mandate carriage of Quebecor’s money-losing (it lost $18.5 million in the 2012 broadcast year) news channel. Granting Sun News 9(1)(h) would amount to effectively re-regulating the news genre.
The research submitted by Sun News is cleverly worded, where it concentrates on a perceived lack of distinct news voices in Canada, or a too-homogenous viewpoint among the existing broadcast players, insisting that the country needs an independent news organization that challenges the “consensus media”. However, that pitch is a completely subjective judgement of editorial content that simply shouldn’t be applied to CRTC regulations over TV news channels. The channel’s point of view on the news of the day can and should have no bearing in regulatory law. What if its future editorial direction changes? Would its license then be revoked? Does that not put the CRTC in the position then of regulating news content?
The Sun News application also talks a lot about awareness, meaning too few Canadians know about it or that they just can’t find it in their channel lineups (most of us can get it if we really want it and yes, I do subscribe to the scrappy outlet). Given the fact Sun News has only been around for two years as of this month, the fact it has five million subscribers and that 57% of Ontarians are aware of the channel (and 41% of Albertans), according it its research, is pretty good. That awareness, however, simply has not translated into enough sales, which is a challenge for its marketing and promotions department, not the Commission.
I am somewhat sympathetic to the plight of Sun News. Its Canadian competitors have a much lengthier history and are far more ingrained in the consciousness of Canadian viewers – and both CBC News Network and CTV News Channel are quite profitable now. But looking back at the launch of CTV News 1, as it was called in 1998, the channel lost millions every year until finally turning a profit in 2004 as it, too, struggled for awareness and viewers.
Although, while CTV New Channel lost $13 million over its first six years, Sun News has already lost $32 million.
Despite those harsh numbers and the claims that will be made by so many this week about how special they are, chairman Blais had this warning during his speech at the CMPA Prime Time conference in March: “There's no question: the CRTC is a serious supporter of Canadian creators and the stories they want to tell. But, under my watch, you will not see a protectionist. I'm a promotionist.”
What do you think? On target or off our rocker? Let us know in the comments box below or at editorial@cartt.ca.
