It’s Rogers vs Rogers and Bell vs Bell at the CRTC
Sometimes when you start researching and writing, it’ll take you to unexpected places. Those places could be far off lands only tangentially related to your initial interest (thanks to Wikipedia), or keep you focused on the matter at hand, while consolidating your position. The latter is true in the case of this article, which I thought was going to be just a bit of information on the CRTC Fee For Carriage (FFC) issue, which a couple of jabs at the ridiculous PSAs both sides are showing. It became something different…
If you haven’t already heard, the issue is whether cable and satellite providers should compensate local TV stations for carrying their channels. As it stands now, cable and satellite providers don’t have to pay local TV stations to carry this signal, though specialty channels and US stations are compensated. This goes back to an old CRTC ruling about providing access to local programming on then new technologies like cable. Instead of paying for the individual channels, cable and satellite providers have to pay a 1% fee (of gross broadcasting revenues) into the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF).
More recently, local broadcasters managed to convince the CRTC that in the new media landscape, major providers like Bell and Rogers should be compensating such stations with the FFC. Their argument is that while the providers pay over $500 million a year for US content, they’re paying zero to local stations, which have been suffering for some time. The CRTC is looking again at the issue, and in the meantime has temporarily increased the LPIF from 1% to 1.5%. If you’re wondering why you saw your cable bill sneak up a little bit recently, that’s the reason why…
Since the whole ‘fee for carriage’ issue is being re-examined from scratch, we’ve seen the growth of two distinct astro-turf (ie: fake grassroots) movements going on, asking you and me to support and spread the news about their position in the compensation. One is the “Stop The TV Tax“, and the other is “Local TV Matters“.
Stop The TV Tax, which is backed by Rogers, Bell, Telus and other providers makes use of the “Oh noes moar taxes!” trigger to anger up the blood of the average joe, which is exemplified in this PSA reminiscent of a political ad…
…and suggests that this ‘TV tax’ will add a preposterous $120.00 to your monthly bill. Of course, that’s a load if I’ve ever seen one. I imagine the only people who can find this PSA effective are those who automatically start frothing at the mouth when they hear the word ‘tax’ in ANY context. It’s much easier to anger up the blood with ‘taxes’ than it is with ‘fee for carriage’, and an ‘anti-tax’ movement of any kind is always garner a certain number of supporters, regardless of the accuracy of the presentation.
Conversely, Local TV Matters is backed by the CBC, Global, CTV, A-Channel and others. They focus on community and “Hey, we’re the little guy just like you” sentimentality. Their PSA, which has been airing a lot lately, too much for my taste given that it’s over 2 minutes long…
You don’t have to watch the WHOLE thing. You should get the gist of it in the first 30 seconds. The argument from the Local TV crowd is that the debate should be about promoting local programming, which helps build community. It doesn’t matter who ultimately OWNS said local stations, of course, and there’s the rub.
One would think it’s pretty clear cut. Except that it’s not.
As most of you already know, Bell, who hates fee for carriage is also part owner of CTVglobemedia, which wants it. Rogers subsidiary Rogers Media also owns local broadcaster A-Channel amongst others. In essence, the two biggest players are arguing that they don’t want to shuffle money from one division to another.
What makes it even more annoying is that both groups are obviously fudging numbers, and massaging statistics to make their cases. One can spend hours wading through the data each side presents and try to fact check it. Big groups like this have professional media companies doing their damnedest to take the moral high ground.
When I first started to write this article, I was split on the issue, and didn’t intend on taking a side. I just found the media conglomerates at war with themselves angle amusing. While I was talking about the issue with a friend, I realized that ultimately, I’m FOR the fee for carriage, and AGAINST the bill hikes. Here’s why…
Without fee for carriage, the smaller stations not owned by Bell or Rogers will suffer, while the subsidiaries get propped up by upper management. This will lead to even MORE homogenized programming. Just take a look at the new CityTV and CP24 these days for an example of homogenized banality.
Also, the so called ‘increases’ that the “Stop The TV Tax” crowd worry about are way exaggerated. What they present as reality ultimately doesn’t make sense. If the FFC fee for carriage (even at a high rate per station) replaces the LPIF, then that 1.5% is going back into the pockets of the providers. Similarly, since the majority of local TV stations are either owned or partially owned by the same parents as the cable and satellite providers, any new funds said local stations receive from a new FFC can be offset by changing operating budgets at said stations, which means the corporate masters can keep those coins in their coffers.
In the long term, it seems obvious why, as providers, Bell and Rogers don’t want to pay the fee. Truly independent stations, which are extremely rare already, would suffer the greatest, whereas instituting the FFC would level the playing field, and certainly NOT be as expensive as they let on. When you control a market though, you can do what you want, which is why we’ve seen cable bills go up at 4 times the rate of inflation. Take a look what you were paying for 5 years ago, and what you’re paying now.
If the FFC is instituted, and cable and satellite bills go up $10 a month, I’m officially done with paying for TV altogether. Sure, I’ll have less channels, but other than a couple of shows, everything I want to watch is broadcast in HD over the air for free, which looks much better than the relatively crappy compressed signals from Rogers (especially Rogers) or Bell (satellite doesn’t have the same bandwidth constraints.
And those shows that aren’t available over the air are available online, either through the network websites or other avenues. Much like I ditched my land line for a mobile phone, I can easily ditch cable for HD over the air.
Regardless of which side you’re on, both websites offer links to get a hold of the CRTC, and the CRTC will be taking public input until the end of October 2009.
