GATINEAU – Shaw Communications is so opposed to any type of fee-for-carriage for conventional broadcasters that it wouldn’t even consider a hypothetical question on the matter yesterday.
During the hearing into the policies governing broadcast distribution undertakings and specialty services, which wrap up today in Gatineau, commissioners have been asking such questions of intervenors for the entire hearing, forcing companies and their executives to ponder “what if” scenarios from genre protection to a shrunken basic cable package.
But clearly, the most contentious issue facing the CRTC policymakers from this hearing is the potential for a fee-for-carriage being paid to over-the-air broadcasters by consumers – through their cable, satellite or telco TV provider.
When pushed by chairman Konrad von Finckenstein and telecom vice-chair Len Katz to consider a hypothetical scenario where such a fee could be considered (like tying a fee to the creation of local content, for example, something the panel does seem to be leaning towards) Shaw president Peter Bissonnette wouldn’t take the bait.
“There shouldn’t be fee for carriage,” was Bissonnette’s answer. “There is nobody restricting (OTA broadcasters) from making their local broadcasts better but themselves.”
Full marks to Shaw for staying stubbornly on message, too. They didn’t back down from any of their positions, many of which are out of step even with their cable brethren, and repeated the company mantra over and over – that they always think of what the customer wants first, and that’s what the Commission should be doing, too.
When asked about a limited, inexpensive package of basic channels which would be predominantly – if not all – Canadian, Bissonnette said: “We don’t think it would be terribly appealing to our customers.”
When asked about the opinion of some Canadian specialties who say there should be more access provisions to ensure carriage because the large distributors are just too large to negotiate with, Cynthia Rathwell, VP regulatory affairs and programming for Star Choice said: “That’s not beneficial to the system or our customers.”
When complaining that its request to add USA Network to the eligible satellite list was turned down last year: “Our customers feel disadvantaged because they can’t get that service,” said Bissonnette.
When asked why Shaw and Star Choice don’t carry certain Canadian channels even though their competitors do, SVP corporate and regulatory affairs Ken Stein said: “There’s no market demand for them, no customer demand for them.”
While so much focus on the customer is, ultimately, a good thing for business, chairman von Finckenstein felt compelled to point out the Broadcasting Act doesn’t say “do what the customer wants.” Instead it focuses on many other objectives prescribed by Parliament, like the creation and exposition of Canadian culture.
Von Finckenstein pushed Shaw on a number of topics, notably that it doesn’t carry many of the category two digital specialties which are carried by other distributors across the country – and even by competitors in Shaw territories like SaskTel, MTS and Bell ExpressVu.
“I hear a litany of complaints from everybody about the BDUs power being totally disproportionate,” said the chair. And the primary protections from that are genre exclusivity and access. Shaw is alone in wanting all of that gone. “You are the only ones saying ‘preponderance’, and that’s all,” said von Finckenstein.
Shaw is on the record that offering 51% Canadian services to customers is all that’s required because most of the services in packages are Canadian anyway and that’s how most people buy their TV. “Our customers tell us they love Canadian programming,” noted Stein. Shaw customers can also pick some digital Canadian channels a-la-carte.
“We launched digital on the basis of a pick-and-pay environment,” added Stein, and such choice, he continued, “is something the programmers have never liked from the beginning.”
Those programmers have also noted Shaw’s digital penetration lags the rest of Canada but Stein insists that’s a small price to pay for customer satisfaction. “We did it to give people a choice.”
Plus, noted Rathwell, some of the channels that do have mandatory carriage do little to deserve their spot on the dial and do not have the quality of programming necessary to attract viewers and subscribers. “The value proposition often slides as a result of the guaranteed access provision,” she said.
The hearings wrap up today with Corus Entertainment as the headliner.
