Local TV Matters – It’s all about choice
**Note: this is a guest post by Steve Guiton, Chief Regulatory Officer at the CBC, about the Local TV Matters campaign that the CBC recently joined. In case you’re not familiar with the issues, the campaign centers around the cable and satellite companies paying carriage fees to carry the major broadcaster’s signals. There is some background on the issue here.**
It can all get pretty confusing. You open your cable bill every month and once again the cable companies have decided to raise your rates again.
And at the same time you’re being asked to fork over more of your hard-earned dollars, the cable companies are reporting record profits. – Does that seem fair? Do you think anyone is looking out for YOUR interests?
We’re pleased to see that today, the Canadian government issued an order in council asking the CRTC to explore how negotiating a fair value for broadcaster’s local TV signals would impact Canadian consumers like you. We’re happy to hear that, like us, they’re focused on putting the interests of consumers and Canada’s local television front and centre.
In fact, ensuring Canadian consumers are protected from having to pay more for “value for signal” is one of the key reasons behind the local TV matters campaign.
There seems to be some confusion surrounding this issue, particularly given the misinformation being put out there.
Let’s try to clarify a few pieces of the puzzle.
Canadians work hard for their money and—we hope—are fairly compensated for the work they do. That’s how it works—you help to provide a service and you get some form of reasonable compensation in exchange.
Apparently, the cable companies see it differently. For decades, they have received our local television signals for free, charged their customers for it and made a nice profit.
This model means local television stations across the country have had to rely primarily on advertising to sustain their day-to-day operations. But for years, advertising revenues have been decreasing as the number of channels has increased, to the point that this model is no longer sustainable. In other words, to maintain the diversity of local voices in the Canadian broadcast industry, things have to change.
“Great,” you say. “But I’m still going to have to pay.” Well, the fact is, those profitable cable companies could CHOOSE not to charge customers more than they already pay for local TV.
Cable and satellite companies pay over $300 million dollars a year to US specialty services and over $1.9 billion dollars to Canadian specialty and pay services. While some of these are popular services, very few of them are as popular as CBC, CTV, or Global. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to see a little less money going to channels that don’t have a vested interest in your community.
Through a fair negotiation process, some of the fees paid to specialty channels could be redirected to Local Television, without any need for raising your rates-they’re paying that money out anyway, why not have a fair share go to your local broadcaster?
Many people believe they are already paying for their conventional TV services when they pay their cable bills.
Cable companies enjoy big profits (2 billion dollars in operating profit last year alone) — with higher profit margins than even the oil and gas industry.
In the last 5 years, they have increased their rates 6 times faster than US cable rates, so, if it’s true that we’re already paying for conventional TV services, cable companies don’t need to raise your rates again, and they can certainly afford not to.
Cable companies talk about offering Canadian consumers “real choice.”
We think it’s time for cable companies to choose: whether or not to take their customers’ and their communities’ interests into account. We also think it’s time for the CRTC to restore some balance to the broadcasting system in Canada.
We welcome the transparency of a fair process moving forward to discuss this critical matter – a process that involves all Canadians, and one that enables us to protect local television service, and your pocketbook before it’s too late.
|
Email This Post |
| CBC Policies |
we are paying more and more for less and less over the years
“We also think it’s time for the CRTC to restore some balance to the broadcasting system in Canada.”
I’ve commented elsewhere on the specious nature of the CBC’s arguments.
I will just add this here: why does the CBC (and CTV and Global, etc) not demand the CRTC force the cable/satellite companies to adopt the a la carte system? Allow consumers to actually choose which channels show up on their menu?
Could it be that, oh, say, 60% of the country finds that “local CBC” stations are totally irrelevant to them and decline to pay for a signal from 400 kilometers or more away?
Not being a hockey fan, I could easily live without CBC-TV. Especially if I had to pay for it — again, and again, and again…
Well, if these local stations want to be treated just like any other channel, then (a) I ought to have the option to _not_ subscribe to them when I sign up for cable, and (b) they ought not to be able to impose their advertising over and on top of U.S. channels broadcasting. Oh, and no privileged places on the dial, either – they get put where the cable company puts them.
By way of adding my opinion to this discussion I recently purchased the Major League Baseball pkg.
from Rogers, and, paid cash up front. The package is
for 6 months, ie April to October. Rogers gave me a
digital box the was intended to give me access to their
system. Then, they advised me that, while I requires the digital box to gain assess to the system I would be
required to pay a rental fee monthly for said box.
In the interim between then and now I purchased a
new plasma TV from Leons furniture at which time I was advised that with my purchase I would receive
for the next 12 months, free of charge, ( Leons pays),
Rogers HD service, and, that I would have to present
myself at my local Rogers outlet and pick up the
necessary digital box that would allow me the full
use of Roger’s HD service, at which time I was advised
that there would be a monthly rental fee for said box.
after some considerable discussion between yours truely and the Rogers ” Help Desk Technition” I was
assured that if I returned the 1st digital box and kept the second I would then have only to pay a rental fee
for one box. I agreed and returned the first box. Once everything was up and running can you imagine my
surprise when I found out that I had full access to the
Major League Baseball channels. When I made Rogers aware of this situation, and, requested that they compensate me for the overcharge, I was advised that there would not be any compensation.
Since then, my wife started to explore Bell Canada’s Expressview, securing prices etc. With all
the information she accumulated, she called Rogers
cable and complained about our current monthly invoice and the charges included on it. My wife indicated that we were thinking of making a change
a change because of what we perceived as over charging.
Within 1 day we received a phone call from an
individual whose first name is Patrice (no last Name)
whishing ti speak with me on behalf of Rogers Cable
with regard to my views on current cale service. After
venting, giving the phone over to my wife at which time
she complained about unexplained increases over the
last 2 or 3 months then handed the phhone back to me. Ms Patrice very kindly offered to appease us with a
20% monthly discount if we continued to do buisness
with Rogers, subjet of course to our agreeing to continue as a Rogers client for the next 12 months, minimum. If we decided to break our agreement and leave Rogers we would be expected to accept that we will be penalized to the extend that for the remaining
months of out new contract I would pay Rogers an additional 20.00 per.
The problem as I see it with Rogers and all the other cable and satellite providers is quite simple.
By convincing the Federal Government to shut out
operators such as the U.S. Direct TV Service providers
they, the Canadian operators succeeded in removing
any vestiges of competition, thereby insuring that
fair business practices and, indeed, quite possible
simple honesty are no longer requirements in their day to day operations.
I am sorry if this offends you by it’s lack of brevity.
I happen to feel strongly that the foxes are now in charge of hen house!
Regards
compensation
I will gladly pay extra for CBC, Radio-Canada and City TV. Global, A, CTV, Omni’s & Sunt TV I can live without. But since this is Canada I will not be given a choice.
Here’s what may happen we will be forced to take all local broadcast channels.
As for the time shifting Canadian channels only interest me if there is a huge local story and then I may tune into their news. Other than that the feeds from across Canada do not interest me..
I do fear that the west coast AMnets feeds will be soon victims of simultaneous substitution from western Canadian stations.
Since were guessing what is in store I would like to subscribe to the channels I want and not be required to take the channel I don’t want.
Here’s what we would like to purchase in our house.
Traditional Channels
CBC TO & Vancouver
Radio-Canada TO & Montreal
City TV Toronto
TVO
NBC, CBS, ABC, CW, MY TV, PBS East and West feeds
Specialty Channels
CBCNewsworld
RDI
MSNBC
BBC World
CNN
YTV
Teletoon
Much
M3
MTV
Discovery
National Geographinc
Animal Planet
BBC Canada
BBC Kids
Comedy Channel
WGN
Peach Tree TV
TCM
AMC
Bravo
TLC
Showcase
History Television
HGTV
Food Network
Don’t want sports, APTN, or most of the other drivel offered by the BDU’s
I think one thing that is being missed here is the Cable companies HAVE TO CARRY those channels and by ding so HELPED THE CHANNELS gain a larger audience. So isn’t the other way around? shouldn’t the tv stations pay the cable companies for carrying their signals ? I mean if it wasn’t for that regulation, the tv stations would only have 10 percent of the audience they have now. As for paying for the signals, what do we as consumers get in return? a few hours of “local programming” I live in Sault Ste. Marie and our “local station” is now 300 km away. Yhe rest of schedule is made up of american programming or programming i can get elsewhere – I see no value whatsoever in helping ‘local tv” from my perspective.
The CRTC is also to blame for allowing (in Alberta) only two options (Shaw & Bell) to operate as legalized taxpayer robbers. Did the taxpayers of both America and Canada not pay to put those satellites into the atmosphere? Sure these companies ran the cable and installed the lines, but we paid dearly for that back in the 60″s and still do for them to just flip a switch.. Now they charge you for the equipment to receive the newest technology (HD and digital) which if you buy a new TV is all that is on the market. Bassic TV is now 24 mostly nonsense channels, with the exception of the local channels, now they want more money for that!!! Why is it that Government no longer fights for the people and not just corporations, lining their polictical parties bank accounts?. I’m a babyboomer on a fixed income and to me this not what growing old was suppose to look like in Canada, but there again growing old is not a choice!
its definately time for the crtc to get off their lazy rearends and do something about all the forms of tv, cable express vu and starchoice they have nothing on them but reality shows and pure BS THEY BRAG ABOUT ALL THE CHANNELS THEY HAVE , BUT THEY NEVER SAY THAT THEY ARE ALL THE SAME CHANNELS BUT COME FROM DIFFERENT TIME ZONES
I like and support local TV. In fact I want more of it.
however to me the “Local TV Matters” campaign smells a bit like Astroturf to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
What it should be is that Cable and Sat companies offer all local/regional broadcast stations for free or for a small access fee. The consumer would have to pay for any equipment and connection costs of course. The rest of the channels can then be ordered at a higher fee. Sort of like what FreeHD Canada proposes to do.
This of course would not make the broadcasters happy either because then they would have no case to get money from the distributors.
I am not subscribed to a Cable/Sat services. I am fortunate enough live in an area that has a half decent amount of local broadcast channels (a few them Digital/HD, more to come with the transition)
What no one seems to be talking about is how many transmitters in rural areas may be shut down after the digital transition. I doubt the privates can afford or will fork out the millions required to upgrade all their sites, and I have no idea where CBC/Radio-Canada will find the money to upgrade theirs. I have a feeling alot of those transmitters will be shut down and not replaced with the assumption that most people have Cable or Satellite by now.
I apologize if this comment turns out to be random gibberish. It is 2am and I am going to bed.
The advent of cable television was a gift to the conventional over-the-air broadcasters. It increased their audiences & therefore the rates they were able to charge for advertising for years. The “the cable/sat co’s are carrying our signals for free” argument is misleading and deceptive. I’m disappointed to see that CBC has joined in this phony campaign. As a consumer I’m fed up with being used as a pawn by both broadcasters & signal distributors. How about try and work TOGETHER to solve some of the problems that both sides face.
Local tv only matters when there is local programming and local news.
Rogers TV, for instance, has daily newscasts and daily programming in place and they are expanding programming in many places. Not many made in LA features in those line-ups. The CBC people probably laugh at the production values, but at least the shows are there.
Ditto the above poster’s point about rural service.
CRTC needs to be more accountable. They are the ones that govern cable companies. How they can justify cable companies for charging customers for FREE channels is just another form of thievery. The charges for these FREE channels have gone on for years by cable companies! We should all receive refunds for the charges the cable companies have charged us for these “freebies”.
I would like to subscribe to direct tv but to no avail in Canada. Canadians are limited of choice. Shaw is no different! It would be nice to be able to choose any number of channels one prefers and be charged accordingly instead of having the channels chosen for you and a monthly charge for channels we NEVER watch!
No freedom of choice in this country!
The CRTC needs too give a fair share to Canadian Networks,the cable companies are having their cake and it too. We tax payers must ensure that The CRTC allows fair compitition practices,allowing Canadians too get the bestvalue for their dollar,the Canadian Networks should get a fair shair of the market,take it away from the Cable giants. I personally will be contacting my MP on this issue,I am personally sick of being taken too the cleaners,let the crap hit the fan!
For those of us who are on fixed incomes and are not able to get out and engage in outside activities the TV has an important role. Having quality shows to watch is a blessing.
Cable subscriptions constantly going up will compete with food prices. A concerted boycot of cable services may help to make this point clear.
The profits and the incomes they make could be better used.
I agree that cable is too expensive for what you receive. I would also like to see some competition for Shaw. The channels they offer are limited–get lots of French ones which I never watch, also religion and stuff like that. In all their “vast” listings, most of the time if you don’t see something on one channel, it’s on 3 or more at a different time. It’s time someone else could list their options and prices. Thankyou.
i think it’s ridiculous how crtc has allowed almost annual increses for cable tv service. tHEY DON’T SEEM TO REALIZE MOST AVERAGE PEOPLE DON’T GET ANNUAL INCREASES IN THEUR INCOME..7 WHAT INCOME THEY GET IS PRETTY WELL SPOKEN FOR BYE THE GOVT IN ONE TYPE OF TAX OR ANOTHER.
THE REASON FOR THESES ANNUAL INCREASE GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS IS USUALLY FOR IMPROVED SERVICE. Well I for one have failed to see the type of improvement that would be warranted by such annual ijncreases. Also I dont see the need for this latest proposal of a 1.5% increase to help certain public tv stations. If they can’t generate enough income to run a succesfull operation on theit own then they should fai.
Thetype of programming most stations are turning out makes it difficult to even watch them. The fact one could get numeroud stations isnt so important either as if you flag your dial around evry second station is likely carrying the same program .all in all I think the public is being overcharged for the cable co’s service as it is with out any further increases,
I am a widow on fixed income. My income increase per year, is approximately $3.50. (three dollars and fifty cents)The cable company increases are $5 dollars every 4 to 6 months and if you call and complain, you get a rude,angry, respnse from the person answering the phone.
I’m seriously considering cancelling my cable.
With increases in PUC and Gas as well, I soon won’t be able to live in my own home. Marg J.
This isn’t the right place, but…
According to CNN, the Canadian delegation to the UN walked out on the address of the Iranian President.
According to CBC Newsworld, I should buy a Ford Taurus. (That’s a bit bogus, as I can’t remember the model of automobile being advertised. Which is telling in and of itself.)
I pay to receive CNN; I get something of value. Why should I pay more for the CBC than I already do? So they can catch up with the world?
I don’t know if you have watched the new 90 minute CBC local newscasts where you live. If it happens to be Toronto, don’t bother. The good folks at CBC local news in Toronto have managed to squeeze 20 minutes of news into their 90 minute package. I sure hope it is better elsewhere in Canada but I fear it can’t be. Let’s face it, a city of 5 million has a lot more stories than a city of 250,000 or even a million.
I tried to be fair. I didn’t review the show during the first week to give the producers, reporters, hosts and writers time to get their act together. I even chose an excellent local news day to tape and parse the program. But I was highly disappointed by the effort.
If filling 90 minutes was the goal, then the local news team delivered. There was no dead air. On the other hand the constant repetition of the same facts and pictures over-and-over again was enough to drive even the most passive viewer to throw a brick at the television.
The newscast is broken up into three shows: 5:00, 5:30, and 6:00. None of the programs have a distinct personality and none of them deliver a comprehensive take on the day’s news. Basically each half-hour is the same as the last. Same stories. Same reporters. Same basic feel.
The five o’clock show had three produced news stories, none of them one of the major local stories of the day and only one produced by the Toronto team. The report out of Ottawa on a possible federal election by Julie Van Dusen was dropped in as a kicker, the last story. It was a dreadful piece that broke all the conventions of television reporting, had few pictures and didn’t really explain the story. So maybe it was good to bury it at 5:28. There were two weather casts, the second one overly long and there were about eight minutes of commercials; excessive no? But what was most bothersome was the way the main stories were treated. Four different reporters standing around on the street telling us radio style, what they found. Sure they dropped in the odd clip and picture, but they did not produce reports. Oh, and there were 10 promos for what was coming up later on the 5:30 and 6:00.
The 5:30 newscast opened with the same story done in exactly the same way as on the 5:00. I would have thought it impossible but the “Breaking News” host fumbled her way through the same script making even more mistakes than her first try.
Once again produced stories were hard to find. There were three in the half hour. This time two were produced locally and one was actually on one of the big stories of the day. The “i-desk” sort of produced another story on Ryerson University orientation using a tiny camera that made it look like a bad internet piece. I don’t know why, but the “i-desk” host then promoted the camera he used. Was the camera a freebie? Since when does CBC plug product in the news?
Once again the show was dominated by eight minutes of commercials and two weather casts. It’s easy to fill 90 minutes when half the time is eaten up by weather and commercials. In this half-hour there were ONLY six promos for stories coming up later on the news.
Okay, I said to myself, the plan is to pack all the good stuff into the six o’clock package. I was prepared for a dynamite production in the time slot with the most available viewers.
It was not to be. The six began exactly the same way as the five and the five-thirty. The “Breaking news” desk host once again fumbled her way through the same facts and pictures as we had seen twice before. In this half-hour there were four produced stories. I am being generous. One was a series of man-in-the-street interviews; the lowest form of what passes for journalism. A second was a repeat of one of the produced stories from the first half-hour.
In this portion of the 90 minutes there were, count ‘em, three weather casts and 7 ½ or 8 more minutes of commercials. In fact the newscast was mostly made up of more repetition of the same facts presented in the same way as the first two half-hours.
On a day in which there was a lot of news CBC local produced 8 stories to fill a 90 minute newscast. By my calculation that’s about 15 minutes or ¼ of the time, in comparison there were about 24 minutes of commercials and about 13 minutes of the same weather over-and-over.
90 minutes of bad smoke and crappy mirrors is not going to cut it with even the most unsophisticated audiences. I don’t blame the producers. I blame CBC management. You can’t add airtime to an already starving show and expect success. Without more money and more staff you are dooming the local news to failure. The news people are doing their best with what they have. It would be either folly or stupidity to expect more. From where I sit, the latter wins.
If the local CBC local news is better where you are, please let us know.
Cable? They have some nerve charging what they do
when people are subjected to the awfull program’s many channell’s offer, let alone raising their prices. Saturday’s and Sunday’s should be totally free.
It’s nothing but Sport’s on most of the channel’s or somebody selling stuff. Very sick so called comedy on cable 44. I certainly could live without that rubbish. For those of us that are “Shut In’s” it’s like extra pain on top of that we already haver to put up with. There also should be a special low rate for Senior’s and the Disabled.
I don’t know who is the worst, the Cable company’s or the Cell phone company’s since they both overcharge
the people .
Not only does my cable bill keep going up, but my choice of channels keeps going down – talk about paying more and getting less! Examples: losing the coverage of all the PGA golf tournaments; losing access to PBS. I want to see Globalive get into this game – just for a start!
Have they no coincence, have they no ethics, have they no feeling of right and just plain wrong.?!
Have they not gouged us enough, Grab every penny every drop of milk from the children,
When will our savour imerge and stop all this,
When will we see fairness, Justice and the ability to see us as humans with families and basic needs, which for so many, untainted food is a luxury, and watching our local stations will also be a luxury,
Not everyone can afford the outragous cost for cable, and the only thing we had was our local stations that gave us a feeling of belonging.
What they are doing is wrong, and if they allow them to illimunate them, to force the public into the cable system, or do without. is just down right greedy.
and we have seen enough of greed to last ten lifetimes
i pay too much for my cable right now, especially for what i get. i turn on my tv and there is very little to watch. are the days of quality programming over? i persinally think they are. i think the cable companies are ripping off their customers. if i had a reasonable alternative to cable i would jump at it and tell the cable company where they can shove their business in no uncertain terms.
It looks to me as though the cable companies are trying to double dip.
Their charges are very high as it is and it seems there are more and more popular programs being changed from the packages we use to get, to premium (read extra charge) chanels.