GUESS WHAT? Canadians don’t want to pay any extra per month for their television. They also don’t want to lose their local TV stations.
Independent producers think that broadcasters should have to buy lots of shows made by them and those broadcasters would prefer to use those producers a little less, so that they can make (and sell) some of their own dramas.
The creative side of the industry is afraid of the word “flexible” when it comes to the broadcasters’ requests for changes to their Cancon requirements because flexible might mean less Canadian drama and comedies altogether, fewer hours in prime time and less spending overall. They want mandated hours and spending.
If none of that is a surprise to you, you’re not alone, of course. We had a look at the submissions to the CRTC from nine companies and groups and found that the positions taken up by those involved in BNC 2009-411 are largely similar – and have hardened, in fact – compared to the last time the Commission looked at fee-for-carriage (less than five months ago!).
There are a few new wrinkles though. (And yes, of course, the hearing coming in November is about more than FFC, but we’ll get to that.)
The BDUs are still vehement in their opposition to any additional fee being tacked on for the carriage of local signals. “The Commission’s determination to increase the regulatory burden with more taxation and misguided intervention demonstrates its total failure to understand the modern communications environment.
Fee-for-carriage, or “value for signal” as the Commission is now calling it, is something the CRTC has looked at repeatedly and each time has shot the idea down. This summer, however, chairman Konrad von Finckenstein and Ontario regional commissioner Rita Cugini each indicated the Commission was now of the view that a negotiated fee for local broadcasters, like those paid to specialty services, was likely a good idea.
This was carried through to the original July 6th BNC announcement of this hearing where paragraph 37 reads: “The Commission is now of the view that a negotiated solution for compensation for the free market value of local conventional television signals is also appropriate.”
Thanks to that and the aforementioned speeches, say the BDUs, the Commission has already pre-judged the outcome, despite the insistence it is looking at the FFC issue anew. And, they want any commissioner who was in on the July 6th announcement to be prevented from being on the nine-commissioner panel (yes, nine!) come November 16th.
“The evidence demonstrates that the Commission, its Chairman and at least one Commissioner have closed their minds to alternative arguments on this critically important initiative,” reads the very first paragraph of the Rogers Communications submission. That means the Regulator has broken the rules of procedural fairness and that “those Commissioners who were a party to the panel decision to proceed with FFC, or to a Commission decision to confirm the panel’s determination as announced in BNC 2009-411, should recuse themselves from the current proceeding.”
One problem with that. Every commissioner is in on such policy releases, according to a Commission spokesperson. So no one is going to be recused or will recuse themselves.
Plus, add the BDUs, armed with a new legal opinion, a fee for carriage falls outside the Commission’s purview because it would create a new copyright regime – something the Copyright Board is supposed to handle. “(S)uch power rest exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board under the authority of the Copyright Act,” reads Cogeco Cable’s comments.
However, according to CTVglobemedia, CBC and Canwest, fee-for-carriage is needed for the very survival of conventional television and its time to rebalance the industry since BDUs are nicely profitable. Cable and satellite have been earning billions based off the local TV signals they “expropriate”, said CTVglobemedia, TV stations which comprise much of the BDUs’ basic programming packages while not paying anything for them, they say.
“(I)f CBC/Radio-Canada does not receive fair compensation for its services from BDUs then the Corporation will be unable to maintain existing service levels, unable to maintain its current level of original Canadian programming creation, and unable to maintain its overall programming contribution to the system,” reads the Corp’s addition to the public record.
Cable and satellite however, point to mandatory carriage, simultaneous substitution and the recently established LPIF as how they and their customers are paying in plenty of ways already and that it’s impossible to come to a market-based agreement when the local broadcasters must be carried, no matter what happens.
“It is impossible to negotiate or arbitrate the ‘fair market value’ of conventional television signals when the distribution of these signals is required by regulation,” explains the Cogeco submission.
CTV has offered up a potential change for the CRTC when it comes to that mandatory carriage issue by saying a new negotiated fee regime could also include a proviso where the local ‘caster could choose mandatory carriage or a fee.
Its proposed new framework would include: “granting conventional television stations the authority to choose between must-carry rights and (FFC),” it reads.
But that’s part of its framework is dependent on the Commission approving the rest of the new regime it has proposed: where if the BDU and broadcaster can’t come to an arrangement, that BDU can’t carry the American 4+1s until a deal is hammered out. CTV’s submission calls it “enforcing their territorial program rights.”
And Canwest has even gone as far as asking for a program deletion regime where if it chose to schedule CBS’s NCIS on Sunday (a show which Canwest owns the Canadian rights to), for example, rather than on Tuesday where it is shown Stateside, Canadian BDUs would have to black out the airing on the U.S. local stations it offers. Such deletion requests “would be the exception, rather than the norm,” says Canwest.
As for the group-based licensing approach, complete with group-based exhibition and/or spending requirements, this is generally supported by both broadcasters (Canwest’s lengthy submission spends lots of time on that issue) and BDUs, but not the Canadian Film and TV Producers Association, for example.
“(T)he CFTPA has significant reservations about exclusive reliance on the establishment of a single, flexible group CPE (Canadian programming expenditure) that would allow discretionary services to shift, at will, Canadian programming expenditures amongst services within a broadcast corporate group,” wrote the producers’ group.
“We are deeply concerned that it could lead to significant negative consequences with respect to contributions to certain types of under-represented programming, which are generally more costly to produce – unless several safeguards, including appropriate service and/or genre-specific minima are also put in place. We have similar concerns with respect to implementing group-wide Canadian content exhibition requirements.”
But, we’ll leave the last words, for now, with a couple of the close to 200 Canadians who officially submitted comments on record for the public process – and we weeded out the ones which were obvious form letters aided by one side or the other…
Said Natalie Chisholm of Calgary, Alta.: “I oppose any new taxes to bailout broadcasters. The consumer should not be held liable for other people’s screw ups. Everyone is charging more for their services, but yet our pay-cheques stay the same. This is not a contest on who can make more money illegitimately, it’s about maintaining our country as the best place to live in the world. I as a tax payer, am sick and tired of being "raped" of my wallets contents, more so because I have NOTHING left to give. This isn’t England and this most certainly is NOT a third world country. This sends out a message that Canada is lacking in their involvement, trying to keep this country great. You (single handily) are adding to the darkening of the very foundation our country was built upon! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! I can’t give anyone anymore, I’m tapped out which means, there are others out there like me, who are living below poverty even though we work 40+hrs a week because we keep getting charged for services that have become less of a novelty, and more of a pre-requisite to our survival.”
Here’s a comment from the other side – and to our admittedly skimmed view of the individual comments, they seemed pretty evenly split.
Said Marilyn Bodner of Lanigan, Sask.: “I wish to add my support to retaining local stations by whatever means that will keep them viable. We receive our signals via Starchoice satellite. I am aware that the satellite/cable operators have warned that if they are required to pay the local operators to use their signals, then that charge will be passed along to the consumers. Hopefully these are just idle threats and we won’t be charged – but if that happens, I would be quite willing to pay a small extra monthly fee in order to keep the locals.”
And then there’s this one – which takes a swing at everyone.
Said Stacey Bushman of Abbotsford, B.C.: “As a mother of 6 children from infant to teenager, I can not afford any addition fee’s. If these fee’s are added on to my bill, I will promptly cancel my tv subscription. We as Canadian citizen’s are taxed enough in this day and age without adding 2 more taxes onto TV. We need a break somewhere. Absolutely sickening the way all these big companies seem to think that we can afford all these increase’s. I make good money at over $25 an hour and I still cant afford to live. Go figure. The big guys keep getting rich while they sink us not so important people deeper and deeper into dept.”
We run these to remind the regulatory combatants and referees just who your viewers, customers and constituents are – and that a lot of them are angry… at you.
