SOMETHING’S NOT RIGHT. Especially if I’m quoting Macbeth.
We have analyzed the hell out of the CRTC’s TV Policy Review which is set to begin Monday in Gatineau, but there’s something ungraspable about the whole thing. Is there too much on the table? Probably. Is the Regulator looking to solve problems it has no chance of fixing – or trying to solve some where none exist? Yes, and yes, certainly.
This is a hearing about all things English Television, or English language video. Yes I know it’s supposed to be about all things television in Canada, but let’s be honest here; most of the feedback, most of the editorials, and most of the thinking, has been about English TV. Most interveners are telling the Commission to leave the French market pretty much alone and other sectors such as third language broadcasting and TV for the disabled generate nowhere near the amount of heat as does the ultimate focus of this hearing – English language television.
(Ed note: Which makes it a little puzzling that Ontario Commissioner Raj Shoan apparently won’t be on the panel of commissioners adjudicating the hearing. So many of the companies and so many of the Canadians who responded to the Talk TV proceeding are from Ontario, and yet their commissioner won’t be on the panel, which is going to be chairman Jean-Pierre Blais, vice-chair broadcasting Tom Pentefountas, B.C./Yukon commissioner Stephen Simpson, Manitoba/Saskatchewan commissioner Candice Molnar, and Quebec commissioner Yves Dupras.)
As of this writing, there are 118 companies, groups and individuals on the agenda, and the issues to be faced are so numerous this looks to be an unwieldy two weeks that will feature some lengthy monologues and late nights, unless the Commission chamber has built in some Wipe Out-style deterrents to long-windedness…
Despite all that has gone and will go into this hearing – and the dozens of changes and decisions that will come from it, the mainstream media has boiled it down to one main topic: skinny basic plus a-la-carte channel selection (with maybe a soupcon of simultaneous substitution grumpiness as a garnish). Of course, when pick-and-pay is all the federal government wants it to be about, no matter how nuanced even that bit is, I suppose the media and Canadians can’t be faulted for focusing on that.
"Look, I’ve gone off the deep end here, I know, but so might this hearing."
In the weeks heading into this hearing, I’ve heard and read some awfully weird things about pick-and-pay that are just flat out wrong. This one was a doozie: Bruce Cran, the head of Consumers’ Association of Canada told the Canadian Press: “What store do you walk into, or anywhere else, where you’re told you’ve got to buy certain things before you can buy what you want?”
I have an answer for him. Every. Single. Store. If I need three eggs, I am told I must buy a dozen. If I buy a new car, I am told I can only select from three or four options packages, I can’t cherry pick. Is there any place I can buy one light bulb? One stick of gum? I don’t know of any. If I want a lower price on a big bag of Doritos at Costco, I have to buy two.
And if we’re going to force cable bundles to be torn apart completely, shouldn’t bakeries be forced to unbundle their cookies and sell flour, milk, sugar, oats, raisins, chocolate chips and baking powder right along side? Perhaps Cartt.ca should sell its articles by the word? By the letter?
Look, I’ve gone off the deep end here, I know, but so might this hearing.
Bulk purchasing is cheaper. Everywhere and with everything. While we’ve gone on record numerous times saying the industry should offer channels one at a time without being forced by the Commission, buying in packages will always be cheaper and most Canadians will continue to buy their everything in larger, cheaper, easier to understand packages, including their TV.
Skinny basic? This seems to be something the CRTC really, really wants despite the fact I and others find it strange that on one hand it says it wants to offer more choice to Canadians, but it wants to do it by placing tight restrictions on what can be in the basic package – even to the point of removing channels most subscribers expect to be in them – and have been for decades. More choice by taking things away? This is micro-regulation the industry and Canadians don’t need.
Why not take it another direction altogether, like the submission from OUTtv which suggests a “mega-basic” instead?
“This would provide the consumer with a large choice but be reasonable enough in price to hopefully encourage younger Canadians to subscribe to the system. It would also make the system more like Netflix where one fee is paid and the consumer gets thousands of hours of content. Netflix subscribers don’t complain that they are paying for content they don’t want. Neither would Canadians if they received most of the broadcasting system for a reasonable fee and then paid extra for premium content that they specifically want to watch,” reads its submission.
“The flat per monthly fee (something like $80.00 per month?) would support all eligible services as determined by the Commission. Eligible services could be the current basic services, 9(1)(h) services and services that contribute Canadian content to the system through their CPE requirements…
“…We would suggest, as a starting point, that a service with a CPE requirement of 20% would receive $0.02 per month per subscriber; a service with a CPE requirement of 30% would get $0.04 per month per subscriber; and a service with a CPE requirement of 40% would get $0.08 per month per subscriber. Since the digital subscriber base in Canada is in the 9 million range, these amounts would put most of these services in a similar financial position to where they are now. However, they would have the advantage of a larger subscriber base from which to monetize. In any event, the basic fees could be comparable to current amounts, but stable for services that contribute to the content and diversity of the system,” it reads.
"Hulu monitors, shares the information, and pays the channel’s revenue based on performance." – OUTtv
The $80 fee seems pricey to us, but if you tie that idea into something earlier in the OUTtv submission, namely a pay-for-performance system which would copy Hulu when it comes to compensating programmers, then you have something REALLY new: “A broader channel offering approach is more aligned with some of the emerging platforms such as Hulu, where all of the content is generally available to those who subscribe to Hulu Plus, but subscriber behaviour is monitored to manage subscription portion payment to the channel partners. Hulu monitors, shares the information, and pays the channel’s revenue based on performance,” reads the submission.
“In the future consumers will want a broadcasting system that more closely resembles the emerging platforms like YouTube, Netflix and Hulu in some important ways. One way is that they will want more choice and the freedom to select individual content that appeals to them without having to constantly subscribe and unsubscribe to different services. The other is that they will want a rational payment system that allows them more flexibility in respect to their viewing habits.”
Netflix, which will appear on the hearing’s final day, is not only commissioning new programming (much of it to critical acclaim), it is also signing deals for linear TV series, taking what has been a lucrative, reliable line of business away from Canadian broadcasters. The CRTC’s own Communications Monitoring Report released Thursday morning shows a marked drop in traditional TV viewing, especially among younger Canadians who are watching more content online. None of this is a surprise to anyone.
We are way past the video delivery and consumption transformation tipping point already and it’s hard to see how the results of this hearing will change much of anything, to be completely frank. We’re looking forward to the theatre of it all and still believe that the industry here will thrive and grow no matter what comes from it – but Canada is a small part of a global video market for English TV content and that’s the basis for all future competition in the segment, despite what happens over the next fortnight.
ED NOTE: This is the 16th, and last, story from our summer-long analysis of the official submissions made to the CRTC for its Let's Talk TV, TV Policy Review. The first 15 are linked below. Please let us know what you think of the series at editorial@cartt.ca. We'll keep it confidential if you like. Watch for our wall-to-wall, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the hearing beginning Monday, which can be heard live at crtc.gc.ca, watched live at cpac.ca and Cartt.ca editor and publisher Greg O'Brien will tweet the proceedings live, too. You can follow along with him at @gregobr and @CarttCa.
Canadians demand to be at the heart of a new broadcasting system
Rogers and Corus want to overhaul Terms of Trade with producers
Does the industry fear what the set-top box data might say?
What’s the value of individual services – and how can consumers complain?
The CRTC must act to save local television
Different rules for different language markets
Genres have long been monkeyed around with. Do they still need protection?
Is basic bloated? Does it need a diet?
Pick and pay in Canada strikes out with U.S. media heavyweights
U.S. border stations want to use Let's Talk TV to wrest cash from Canadian BDUs
Should Yankee go home? The changing role of U.S. channels in the Canadian broadcasting system
No “Netflix Tax”, company warns CRTC
Snap Judgements: Everyone wants more choice – tied to a lot of ifs, ands, buts…
Original artwork for Cartt.ca by artist Paul Lachine, Chatham, Ont.
