GATINEAU – What would have been fun, was a debate.
Day three of the CRTC hearings into BDU and specialty service regulations featured the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, two groups with decidedly different constituents, and points of view, on the future policy direction of the TV industry.
The CAB represents most broadcasters in Canada who together serve basically 100% of the Canadian population. The CCSA, on the other hand, has a far smaller group of members whose companies deliver cable and broadband service to under a million rural Canadians.
While each had their turn Thursday morning during the hearing into the policies governing broadcast distribution undertakings and specialty services, it would have instead been neat to see a face-off between the two.
On the size of the basic service, both disagreed with the CBC’s assertion that the basic package for BDUs should be all-Canadian:
“The larger the basic package, the better it is… because it is better for the services,” said CAB president and CEO Glenn O’Farrell.
“We would have serious concerns with any regulated maximum number of services on basic,” said Harris Boyd, the CCSA’s regulatory consultant.
On access to BDU systems: “There should be guaranteed access to all analog and category one specialty and pay services on the basis that these services contribute significantly and substantially to Canadian programming and to diversity in the system,” said O’Farrell.
The CCSA’s whole position is a little broader, as it has requested a new small system exemption from most regulation for all systems not affiliated with the big four (Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and Cogeco) cable companies. Its proposal would “exempt small cable systems from application… of the BDU regulations. That would include exemption from the application of all distribution and packaging rules other than a) the requirement to provide the basic service to all customers; b) the requirement to provide priority programming; c) the requirement to deliver a preponderance of Canadian programming to each subscriber,” outlined Chris Edwards, the CCSA’s vice-president, regulatory.
“There is no need for an access rule beyond the basic requirements,” added CCSA president and CEO Alyson Townsend.
On fee-for-carriage, with its members taking opposing positions, the CAB came to the hearing a little handcuffed in what it could address here since, officially it could have no position. Its two largest broadcast members, CTVglobemedia and CanWest Global want tens of millions of dollars of new fees to be paid by Canadians and/or their cable and satellite companies for over-the-air television while other smaller broadcast members – most notably, Rogers – are adamantly against such a move.
The CCSA, to no one’s surprise, had no membership dissent on the issue. “We have yet to see any compelling justification for such a fee,” said Boyd. “It would be improper to levy such a new tax on BDUs and its customers.”
On genre protection: Saying that no other model can maintain the diversity of channels and therefore the diversity of ownership within the system, “genre must be maintained with all of its imperfections,” said O’Farrell, who also clarified that while his members do envision a more flexible approach to genre exclusivity, they do wish keep the overall protection.
“The preponderance (of Canadian channels) requirement is a reasonable form of cultural protection,” said Boyd, who added the CCSA members supports Rogers position of perhaps broader genre silos which would give specialties more freedom to tweak their programming.
On distant signals: “The current framework simply put, doesn’t work. It will not work. It can not work,” said the CAB’s Wayne Charman, who knows this contentious file backwards and forwards – and who gave the commissioners a bit of a history lesson (such as how distributors have ignored program deletion rights). What it boils down to for the CAB is this: “No signal should be distributed outside its local market without the consent of the broadcaster,” he said, adding that yes, despite capacity constraints, DTH companies should have to carry all local broadcasters.
For the CCSA members, it boils down to money. “There should be no increase to the compensation rates currently in place,” said Edwards.
On any increase BDU advertising opportunities: The CAB said it is not averse to talking about a revenue share when it comes to advertising on the video on demand platform or other potential new streams, but if we’re talking about advertising on the local avail time of American cable channels (which has always been reserved for promoting Canadian programmers), “The local avails should not be freed up for sale by the BDUs,” said O’Farrell. “We’re not talking about new revenue, we’re talking about more fragmenting of the advertising pie.”
At the CCSA level, many of its members have never been able to afford the ad insertion gear to even make the two open minutes an hour available for what it’s regulated for in Canada. If they could advertise, however, the technology might then be affordable. “We would like the ability to advertise. Avails are not being used because our members can not afford the ad insertion equipment,” said Townsend.
She also noted that because many CCSA members receive their signals from SRDU provider Shaw Broadcast Services (using the Star Choice DTH platform), some of those local avails contain Star Choice ads, meaning the small systems are carrying ads for its competition, “which they find, not surprisingly, unsatisfactory,” Townsend said – in one of the understatements of the year.
Look for these and many more issues as the hearing continues on day four tomorrow as Telesat, MTS, the Association of Canadian Advertisers and the Fédèration des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec take their turns.
