The ball is dropping in less than 6 hours to ring in the New Year and I’m at home finishing my blog post on the CRTC Bonanza; sexy right?! This battle between broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers was my focus for December, so I’m really cutting it close to the wire to make sure that these posts all get archived in the same month and year.
I am incredibly passionate about this issue, I think that’s clear, but it has literally infiltrated every possible aspect of my life, in ways that I didn’t think were even possible. On nights out with friends we wind up talking about this issue in the back of pubs or the stoop of an apartment building. For the organization that I’m volunteering with, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of Canada, local television is important for promotion and publicity of local events and to raise awareness. As I sit down and write this, there’s not really anything on so I’m checking out HBO Canada on demand and just realized that I can’t wait to watch Bloodletting and Other Miraculous Cures. Each of these regular parts of my life – going out, volunteering, and watching tv – are affected by this issue.
So if you haven’t figured this out by now, let me spell it out: I AM ON THE SIDE OF THE BROADCASTERS because as they so eloquently stated in their ad campaigns, LOCAL TV MATTERS! However, the commercial campaigns that were mounted by both sides were so effective that in the beginning, my uninformed opinion would sway depending on which commercial I’d just seen.
Me: “Yah! Local TV does matter, how can the other side even claim to have an argument?”
Me (2 minutes later): “EFF THOSE GUYS!!! They want to TAX me?! No. Way.”
Oh yah, if you don’t know any better, it’s so easy to be swayed. And the reality of the situation is not enough people knew what was going on. So I wanted to find out what was going on… plus, as previously discussed, my dad forced me to. Once I knew who the players were and what they wanted, I noticed how many people had no idea. I would be out with friends and a commercial would play and someone would say “oh man, I better not get taxed for TV” and that would get it going. I’d explain to someone what the cable and satellite providers are calling a tax is really just the transfer to the consumer of the cost of the fee for carriage of the broadcasters content. The reaction is always the same: “So it’s not a tax?” This happened more than once.
No. IT IS NOT A TAX. When I *finally* got through all the layers of bull, I could not believe that the cable and satellite providers had the audacity to call the fee for carriage a TAX. The fee for carriage is the value that the cable and satellite providers should pay for the content generated by broadcasters, and they are camouflaging the fee that they would charge to their customers under the guise of it being a tax when that simply is not the case. It is a boldfaced lie, because a tax implies a charge from an authority (The CRTC – fair enough) where the money is to be used for public purposes, and that’s the lie. The fee for carriage is going to be transferred to the consumer and will be going to broadcasters for their content. It is entirely possible that the cable and satellite providers will not only pass on the carriage fee to the consumer, but also mark it up – think about it, when’s the last time Rogers or Bell provided something to you at cost?
In addition to infiltrating my social life, this issue may also affect my volunteering efforts. Local Television is important to community events, it raises awareness and helps call to action individuals and businesses in that community. I volunteer with the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of Canada with event publicity for an upcoming fundraiser that will be held in Toronto. Local television will play a big factor in the days leading up to events to both sell tickets as well as helping raise awareness of Crohn’s and Colitis in the city. Local TV matters not only to those who watch it but to the people of a community, even if not everybody watches it. Local television can rally a community and be the catalyst to spreading good news and bad news and general information across all other media via word of mouth. I, for one, like to know what’s happening in my neck of the woods, and as much information as I can find online, I also know that it doesn’t give me everything the local news broadcast does.
I understand that the internet is the fastest way to get information these days, but I also think it’s important to note that in smaller communities, news typically gets overlooked in large national news coverage – particularly with community events and human interest pieces. These are all items that are covered in local news broadcasts and I think that some communities would suffer with the loss of local TV because they will not be as closely knit as they once were. The broadcasters provide communities with the glue that keeps them together, and I believe that we underestimate its importance with the emergence of online newspapers and TV channels.
Finally, my passion and the reason I firmly back the broadcasters is because Canadian content is at risk should the cable and satellite providers get their way. If the broadcasters are not provided with a fee for carriage and the ramifications of loss of viewership and as a result advertising dollars take place; it will be the end of original Canadian programming. Television does not define our culture; however it is undeniable that CanCon contributes to the way we are viewed around the world and within our own borders. This is should not be a matter of greed, but rather ensuring that original Canadian content available to all Canadians because I believe that fundamentally all Canadians deserve access to high quality programming that reflects our nature and talent.
Canadian television has a bad reputation, particularly among Canadians. However there have been huge inroads made to its improvement. Even CBC (which I thought was the MOST boring network when I was growing up) is creating high quality programming that millions of people are watching, and get this – it even produces a good sitcom (18 to Life), a great crime-solving drama (The Border), and an even better family drama (Heartland) among others… are you watching? Part of the reason we’re in this mess with the broadcasters and a fee for carriage is that people are not watching Canadian TV and would rather watch big budget American Network drama and comedies that do not have an ounce of Canadiana in it – unless of course it is to make fun of us. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy myself a good episode of Glee, FlashForward, or Dexter, those are all shows that don’t really have a Canadian equivalent, but I think that Canadian television is time equally well spent, and I feel proud whenever I watch great television that represents us as Canadians.
I hope in 2010, you give Canadian TV a chance. There’s great stuff you might not even know about, and my new year’s resolution is to do my best to bring to your attention some content which I think is great, along with stuff I think is not-so-great just so that you can form your own opinion. Start discovering what great stuff we have to offer, it’s a lot of fun, and you might just be surprised!
Also, apologies, I know I said I'd keep it short, but I obviously got carried away. I apreciate you sticking through that big long post!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
CRTC Bonanza: Part 2 - Who Wants What?! (and what it means...)
Great, so after reading yesterday's post you know who the major players are and what they do. It’s time to get into the core of the issue which is what the broadcasters want versus what the cable and satellite providers want and what it means for the consumer.
So these two groups have co-existed for years, and the CRTC regulations have been around for years, and we’ve never heard one side slander the other. So what’s the problem NOW?
This all came about because of the transition of over-the-air analogue signals for television to digital transmission which frees up the airways as mandated by the CRTC. The American switchover, as dictated by the Federal Communication Commission took effect February 17, 2009.
Since the inception of cable, the cable and satellite providers were able to carry the signal from Canadian broadcasters at no cost to them because they were transmitted over-the-air and so they simply offered them as part of the basic cable packages. Now, with the switch to digital transmission, the providers can no longer receive those Canadian broadcasts, and the broadcasters as asking for the right to negotiate a fair value for their signals.
It is important to note that the cable and satellite providers have been paying American networks hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the right to carry transmissions and making the American programming available to their cable and satellite consumers. But the cable and satellite providers believe that they’ve not been paying for years, and even a small cost to them would represent an increase of an infinite percentage of what they previously paid and as a result that is unacceptable.
The broadcasters are trying to protect local programming and original content, and the millions and millions of dollars a year the cable and satellite providers pay in carriage fees goes to American networks like ABC, CNN, the CW, and FOX which have no Canadian content regulations. Part of that stems with the fact that people simply aren’t watching enough Canadian content but would rather watch blockbuster TV shows like Lost, Heroes, CSI, CSI:Miami, CSI:New York, and CSI:wherever the hell else there’s a crime that needs to be solved.
It’s a cycle. Broadcasting makes their money through advertising revenue – that’s it. Canadians watch American TV shows and as a result the broadcasters need to pay American networks for the rights to broadcast their shows to increase viewership. They can then use viewership to sell advertizing. If there was more viewership for Canadian content, then they would be less reliant on American networks and wouldn’t be in such a cash crunch.
Now we’re at a crossroads. The CRTC wants the cable and satellite providers to work it out with the broadcasters. In fact the CRTC is exasperated at the fact that the providers do not want to negotiate a value for carriage with the broadcasters. If the providers opt not to negotiate with the broadcasters, the providers can simply blackout (basically choose not to carry the feed) the broadcaster channels on your cable package.
What does that mean for you? Well it means that if you have cable, and 80% of Canadians do (which is one of the highest cable penetration rates in the world) then you will no longer get the bottom channels on your dial like Global, CTV, CBC, A-channel, TVO, etc... Which means you won’t have Canadian content in your cable package, and since you will no longer be able to get those channels over-the-air, you will need a special digital receiver that will work specifically for those bottom local channels.
When I was first explained all of that, I didn’t really know what it meant for me as a consumer and what it meant for the future of Canadian TV. Well this is how it works: If we need a special receiver for those local broadcasters, it will work like when when you have to switch the input on your television to watch a DVD or play your gaming system. So if you want to watch CBC or CTV, you’ll have to switch the input. But even more inconvenient than that is the fact that this isn’t going to happen on its own, a receiver will not miraculously find its way to your home... there will be an upfront cost to consumers, and it’s likely to be in the low hundreds.
This is where the downward spiral of CanCon begins. It’s unlikely that there will be enough supporters due to the cost and overall inconvenience that the Canadian broadcasters will lose viewership and thus any leverage they had for the much needed advertizing dollars. And without advertizing dollars, broadcasters will not be able to produce newscasts or original programming. Goodnight Canadian Content.
Hopefully you’re saying to yourself “that’s a lot of great information and I think I get it now and can form my own opinion, but what do you think?” Well thanks for asking, and let me tell you, I have an opinion, it’s pretty strong, and I will let you know what it is in my next instalment... And I promise it won't be this long! :)
So these two groups have co-existed for years, and the CRTC regulations have been around for years, and we’ve never heard one side slander the other. So what’s the problem NOW?
This all came about because of the transition of over-the-air analogue signals for television to digital transmission which frees up the airways as mandated by the CRTC. The American switchover, as dictated by the Federal Communication Commission took effect February 17, 2009.
Since the inception of cable, the cable and satellite providers were able to carry the signal from Canadian broadcasters at no cost to them because they were transmitted over-the-air and so they simply offered them as part of the basic cable packages. Now, with the switch to digital transmission, the providers can no longer receive those Canadian broadcasts, and the broadcasters as asking for the right to negotiate a fair value for their signals.
It is important to note that the cable and satellite providers have been paying American networks hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the right to carry transmissions and making the American programming available to their cable and satellite consumers. But the cable and satellite providers believe that they’ve not been paying for years, and even a small cost to them would represent an increase of an infinite percentage of what they previously paid and as a result that is unacceptable.
The broadcasters are trying to protect local programming and original content, and the millions and millions of dollars a year the cable and satellite providers pay in carriage fees goes to American networks like ABC, CNN, the CW, and FOX which have no Canadian content regulations. Part of that stems with the fact that people simply aren’t watching enough Canadian content but would rather watch blockbuster TV shows like Lost, Heroes, CSI, CSI:Miami, CSI:New York, and CSI:wherever the hell else there’s a crime that needs to be solved.
It’s a cycle. Broadcasting makes their money through advertising revenue – that’s it. Canadians watch American TV shows and as a result the broadcasters need to pay American networks for the rights to broadcast their shows to increase viewership. They can then use viewership to sell advertizing. If there was more viewership for Canadian content, then they would be less reliant on American networks and wouldn’t be in such a cash crunch.
Now we’re at a crossroads. The CRTC wants the cable and satellite providers to work it out with the broadcasters. In fact the CRTC is exasperated at the fact that the providers do not want to negotiate a value for carriage with the broadcasters. If the providers opt not to negotiate with the broadcasters, the providers can simply blackout (basically choose not to carry the feed) the broadcaster channels on your cable package.
What does that mean for you? Well it means that if you have cable, and 80% of Canadians do (which is one of the highest cable penetration rates in the world) then you will no longer get the bottom channels on your dial like Global, CTV, CBC, A-channel, TVO, etc... Which means you won’t have Canadian content in your cable package, and since you will no longer be able to get those channels over-the-air, you will need a special digital receiver that will work specifically for those bottom local channels.
When I was first explained all of that, I didn’t really know what it meant for me as a consumer and what it meant for the future of Canadian TV. Well this is how it works: If we need a special receiver for those local broadcasters, it will work like when when you have to switch the input on your television to watch a DVD or play your gaming system. So if you want to watch CBC or CTV, you’ll have to switch the input. But even more inconvenient than that is the fact that this isn’t going to happen on its own, a receiver will not miraculously find its way to your home... there will be an upfront cost to consumers, and it’s likely to be in the low hundreds.
This is where the downward spiral of CanCon begins. It’s unlikely that there will be enough supporters due to the cost and overall inconvenience that the Canadian broadcasters will lose viewership and thus any leverage they had for the much needed advertizing dollars. And without advertizing dollars, broadcasters will not be able to produce newscasts or original programming. Goodnight Canadian Content.
Hopefully you’re saying to yourself “that’s a lot of great information and I think I get it now and can form my own opinion, but what do you think?” Well thanks for asking, and let me tell you, I have an opinion, it’s pretty strong, and I will let you know what it is in my next instalment... And I promise it won't be this long! :)
Monday, December 14, 2009
CRTC Bonanza: Part 1 - Who's Who?!
So it’s been a while since my last Canadian TV Beat post. I’m sorry for that.
My dad said I should look into what’s going on in the CRTC hearings and that took way longer than I had anticipated. In fact, I thought I had it figured out as I sat down to write, but then I spent 45 minutes discussing it even further with the old man to really understand who the players are, what they want, and what the ramifications will be for the consumers.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the last couple weeks trying to wade through all the information slash bullshit that’s been all over the airways and internet. You know what I’m talking about… all the “Stop the TV Tax” vs. “Local TV Matters” campaigning that has been going on. To be honest, I’d been so confused by all of it that I just tuned it out. But once my dad forced challenged me to pay attention again, and I did a little research, I found it was pretty interesting stuff.
I’m not going to lie to you, this issue is pretty complex and there are so many different aspects to it that I didn’t even know what to start. So first things first, I looked into who the major players are.
We’re looking at a battle between the broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers. I had never really put much thought in two the fact that two groups are different entities. I’ve always been more of a content-focused kind of girl, so I didn’t know who did what, and I certainly didn’t know how the CRTC mattered (that’s the Canadian Radio-television Transmission Commission, just in case I wasn’t the only one in the dark).
There’s a lot of information out there, so here’s the long and the short of it.
WHO’S WHO:
The CRTC is an independent public authority that is in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications. The CRTC is the middle guy in this battle, the arbitrator if you will and its main purpose is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public
The broadcasters are guys like Global, CBC, and CTV and their campaign is “Local TV Matters”. Broadcasters’ jobs are two-fold: They create content like TV shows and newscasts for their channels and they also broadcast that content (along with rights to broadcast content purchased from American networks) over-the-air to our TV’s. Typically these are the lower channels on our dials and the ones you can get even if you don’t have cable… I became pretty familiar with those six or so channels during my last year in university. The broadcasters are also required to follow the CRTC regulations for Canadian content.
The cable and satellite providers are guys like Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco, and mounted the “Stop the TV Tax” campaign. They provide us with our cable packages and our monthly cable bill for their service. The providers carry the signal from networks in the United-States (and across the world) for a fee, and create the infrastructure required for us to receive the signals via our cable boxes (or PVR… I love my PVR!).
Now you have a pretty good idea of who the players are and what the basic function is each group plays in your couch-sitting-television-watching escapism experience. I found that to be my biggest problem, not really knowing who did what. Hopefully now you can move forward in understanding the entire issue, because kids, this is just the beginning.
Check back tomorrow – I’m going to get into why each side launched these campaigns and what it is that they want, because from there it’s a clear path to understanding what it will mean for us.
My dad said I should look into what’s going on in the CRTC hearings and that took way longer than I had anticipated. In fact, I thought I had it figured out as I sat down to write, but then I spent 45 minutes discussing it even further with the old man to really understand who the players are, what they want, and what the ramifications will be for the consumers.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the last couple weeks trying to wade through all the information slash bullshit that’s been all over the airways and internet. You know what I’m talking about… all the “Stop the TV Tax” vs. “Local TV Matters” campaigning that has been going on. To be honest, I’d been so confused by all of it that I just tuned it out. But once my dad forced challenged me to pay attention again, and I did a little research, I found it was pretty interesting stuff.
I’m not going to lie to you, this issue is pretty complex and there are so many different aspects to it that I didn’t even know what to start. So first things first, I looked into who the major players are.
We’re looking at a battle between the broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers. I had never really put much thought in two the fact that two groups are different entities. I’ve always been more of a content-focused kind of girl, so I didn’t know who did what, and I certainly didn’t know how the CRTC mattered (that’s the Canadian Radio-television Transmission Commission, just in case I wasn’t the only one in the dark).
There’s a lot of information out there, so here’s the long and the short of it.
WHO’S WHO:
The CRTC is an independent public authority that is in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications. The CRTC is the middle guy in this battle, the arbitrator if you will and its main purpose is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public
The broadcasters are guys like Global, CBC, and CTV and their campaign is “Local TV Matters”. Broadcasters’ jobs are two-fold: They create content like TV shows and newscasts for their channels and they also broadcast that content (along with rights to broadcast content purchased from American networks) over-the-air to our TV’s. Typically these are the lower channels on our dials and the ones you can get even if you don’t have cable… I became pretty familiar with those six or so channels during my last year in university. The broadcasters are also required to follow the CRTC regulations for Canadian content.
The cable and satellite providers are guys like Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco, and mounted the “Stop the TV Tax” campaign. They provide us with our cable packages and our monthly cable bill for their service. The providers carry the signal from networks in the United-States (and across the world) for a fee, and create the infrastructure required for us to receive the signals via our cable boxes (or PVR… I love my PVR!).
Now you have a pretty good idea of who the players are and what the basic function is each group plays in your couch-sitting-television-watching escapism experience. I found that to be my biggest problem, not really knowing who did what. Hopefully now you can move forward in understanding the entire issue, because kids, this is just the beginning.
Check back tomorrow – I’m going to get into why each side launched these campaigns and what it is that they want, because from there it’s a clear path to understanding what it will mean for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
