CBC, CTV, Global get CRTC approval to charge cable operatorsfor their signals.

[rafterman]

Ha ha ha...look for an increase in your cable t.v. charge in the very near future.

I'm definitely willing to pay more.

TV gets nod to negotiate signal fees
Susan Krashinsky
16:12 EST Monday, Mar 22, 2010

Gatineau, Que. — Canada's conventional television networks should be able to negotiate payment for their signals, which are currently available for free to cable and satellite distributors, the federal regulator ruled on Monday.

It's an issue that has gone before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission twice before.

During a set of hearings in November, the broadcasters – CTV Inc., CBC and CanWest Global Communications Corp., which owns the Global network – argued once again that in an environment of crumbling advertising revenues and fragmented audiences, they should have access to an additional revenue stream from the distributors that make money providing those signals to Canadian homes.

The result is not exactly what the broadcasters wanted: fee-for-carriage, as was proposed in the past, would have seen the federal regulator require distributors like Rogers Communications Inc. and Bell Canada to pay the conventional networks the same way they pay for the signals of specialty and pay television services. Value for signal, on the other hand, simply puts the CRTC's endorsement behind a negotiation process.

The CRTC decision said that “the system needs revision so as to permit privately owned television broadcasters to negotiate ... to establish the fair value of [their signals].”



The CRTC's new policy
“The new approach to licensing on the basis of ownership groups reflects the trend of media convergence”

View


Under the new system, the broadcasters would have the choice every three years to negotiate value for their signals. If they choose to do so, they give up regulatory protections that require cable and satellite companies to carry all the conventional networks and to place them at a preferential point on the dial (on channel 8 instead of 508, for example). That three-year option was proposed by CTV at the hearings in November.

If the broadcasters choose to negotiate, and are unable to come to an agreement with a distributor, they could pull their signals from the cable or satellite feed in question and also block other channels on the same service from broadcasting programs to which they have purchased the Canadian rights.

So, if CTV and Rogers were unable to make a deal, there might be no cable distribution of CTV for Rogers' customers and also a blackout on any channel with American Idol in its prime-time lineup.

The only broadcaster left out of the new framework is the CBC. Because it is a public broadcaster, a negotiation process that could involve the network pulling its programming does not fit with the CBC's mandate, according to the CRTC.

The decision comes after a CRTC report last Friday that showed broadcasters operated at a loss in 2009, for the first time since the commission began recording industry numbers in 1996.

The CRTC's decision on Wednesday noted that “the dramatic change in proportions indicates a significant shift in market positions.”

Cable and satellite distributors once again boosted their profits in 2009, and also increased the fees they pay to specialty and pay television channels for the privilege of distributing their programming. The broadcasters now want a slice of those fees, which last year amounted to a total of $2.5-billion.

Private broadcasters lost $116-million before interest and taxes, wiping out an already meagre profit of only $8-million in 2008. However, they also spent more on foreign programming than ever before, a practice that was strongly criticized by the cable and satellite firms during the course of the debate.

The CRTC has introduced a minimum spending requirement for Canadian programming of 30 per cent for the three largest private broadcasters (CTV, Global and CITY-TV). For companies such as CanWest that own both a conventional network and specialty stations, the regulator will allow more flexibility on how they distribute some of that spending among their conventional and specialty services.

 

[oldjones]

Or get them all over the air for free.

 

[Hangman]

Or the cable companies just stop carrying local crap like Air Farce or whatever and just feed us a steady diet of "CSI: Wherever" and "American Reality Clones."

Who cares what CTV or Global actually produces themselves? It's junk.

 

[Safdar]

I wouldn't care if the cable/satellite companies stopped carrying these channels. They just broadcast programming that I can watch on the US stations.

 

[Lapper]

I wouldn't care if the cable/satellite companies stopped carrying these channels. They just broadcast programming that I can watch on the US stations.

i would disagree as tons of people watch cbc's hockey night in canada and ctv's sportsnet.

 

[Meesh]

I wouldn't care if the cable/satellite companies stopped carrying these channels. They just broadcast programming that I can watch on the US stations.

You might have missed this part...

If the broadcasters choose to negotiate, and are unable to come to an agreement with a distributor, they could pull their signals from the cable or satellite feed in question and also block other channels on the same service from broadcasting programs to which they have purchased the Canadian rights.

So, if CTV and Rogers were unable to make a deal, there might be no cable distribution of CTV for Rogers' customers and also a blackout on any channel with American Idol in its prime-time lineup.

 

[T.O.tourist]

also a blackout on any channel with American Idol in its prime-time lineup.

like that would be a bad thing

 

[Hangman]

i would disagree as tons of people watch cbc's hockey night in canada and ctv's sportsnet.

They can watch cable sports.

 

[girorok66]

So, if CTV and Rogers were unable to make a deal, there might be no cable distribution of CTV for Rogers' customers and also a blackout on any channel with American Idol in its prime-time lineup.

Great! Less junk on the tubes!

You can get HD OTA broadcast of CBC such that you can watch Hockey Night in Canada in 1080i. Same for CTV. In fact, I watched their whole Winter Olympics coverage in HD for free. No cable/satellite service is needed.

 

[doggee_01]

i have a good idea why not make it a fee for each channel you watch-no packages i could cut my bill in half
say $2 per channel if you want 20 channels its $40 and you pick the channels.........
no much too simple!

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Actually, despite the title of this thread, CBC is excluded from the ruling and is ineligible to negotiate for fees for service.

 

[Rockslinger]

Actually, despite the title of this thread, CBC is excluded from the ruling and is ineligible to negotiate for fees for service.

True, CBC is a public broadcaster so is ineligible.

Anybody here watches TV over the Internet?

 

[Prof. Plum]

Great! Less junk on the tubes!

You can get HD OTA broadcast of CBC such that you can watch Hockey Night in Canada in 1080i. Same for CTV. In fact, I watched their whole Winter Olympics coverage in HD for free. No cable/satellite service is needed.

What channels do yo get with your OTA?

 

[oldjones]

What channels do yo get with your OTA?

2(three channels),4,5,7,9,11,17(3channels)23,29,41,44,47,49,57,64,66.

Go to Zap2it enter your postal code, then select 'Broadcast(Antenna)' from the 'How do you get your TV?' list. It'll show you all the available signals

 

[Cycleguy007]

If not for the fact that I have 3 teenagers, I would cancel TV altogether... I just don't watch TV broadcasts anymore... haven't for 3-4 years now... I do watch 4-5 TV shows (which I got hooked on a few years back when I was still a slave to the box...), but I can DL them on my PC and watch at my leisure, and COMMERCIAL FREE!

When the kids move out in a couple years... I say bye bye to regular TV!

Anyone else feel this way? Or am I the only one...

Just curious.

 

[onehunglow]

I seem to recall that in anticipation of this announcement many networks have created low budget garbage channels so that they would make money off of them without a lot of input. eg Oldies channels showing reruns from 40 years ago. Most would not want it but if it comes in a bundle, you are paying for some crap you don't want.

 

[oldjones]

I seem to recall that in anticipation of this announcement many networks have created low budget garbage channels so that they would make money off of them without a lot of input. eg Oldies channels showing reruns from 40 years ago. Most would not want it but if it comes in a bundle, you are paying for some crap you don't want.

That's true about the extra channels, but not about paying for it, if you're watching OTA. You pay zero. And where else can you watch Alfred Hitchcock, Mike Hammer, or Air Wolf?

 

[needinit]

If not for the fact that I have 3 teenagers, I would cancel TV altogether... I just don't watch TV broadcasts anymore... haven't for 3-4 years now... I do watch 4-5 TV shows (which I got hooked on a few years back when I was still a slave to the box...), but I can DL them on my PC and watch at my leisure, and COMMERCIAL FREE!

When the kids move out in a couple years... I say bye bye to regular TV!

Anyone else feel this way? Or am I the only one...

Just curious.

I agree completely...can't wait to get out of the Cable contract and paid for TV.

PS If you're a Mac user, there are some good options for TV connectors (same for PCs I suppose, but not as slick)... http://www.elgato.com . Not sure how good the EyeTV hybrid is for PC (I find Windows Media Center a bit 'choppy' - slow response to remote etc.

 

[Amused]

Or get them all over the air for free.

That is reason that this ruling is stupid and thus typical of most of the CRTC rulings. The cable companies are simply a conduit for television broadcasts and provide an alternative to using an antenna. The private TV networks are suppose to create programming to attract viewers who will tune into their programming and sell advertising to those viewers. Now the 'private' companies want to feast at the public trough thus erode away the incentive for creative programming. Stupid, stupid, stupid

 

[Tangwhich]

That is reason that this ruling is stupid and thus typical of most of the CRTC rulings. The cable companies are simply a conduit for television broadcasts and provide an alternative to using an antenna. The private TV networks are suppose to create programming to attract viewers who will tune into their programming and sell advertising to those viewers. Now the 'private' companies want to feast at the public trough thus erode away the incentive for creative programming. Stupid, stupid, stupid

I couldn't disagree with you more.. the CRTC made the right decision here.. the cable companies make money from their broadcasts, why should they get their "supplies" for free, paid for by somebody else. There's no public trough here.. it's one private company using the product of another private company to make money without paying any royalties. I don't often like what the CRTC does, but in this case they picked the right side.