Local TV: What Are We Saving Exactly...Again?

First, go read Uncle Jim's A Tale of Two Business Models...it's relevant to the following repost, and well worth reading. I'll wait.

A reprint, from May earlier this year, but in light of the CRTC hearings going on this week in Gatineau it seemed apropos to post again. And my story shouldn't be seen as support for the cablers or a direct attack on CTV...it's just a specific example against the argument being put forth by all OTA broadcasters now. And yes, this was written before the cabler/broadcaster battle devolved into an all out media war...but after watching a couple of days of the hearings, fee for carriage (oops, I mean value for signal) to save local TV and regional TV stations remains at the center of the storm.



On Saturday afternoon I stopped by the open house held at the CTV station in Regina which was part of the network's recent nationwide campaign to Help Save Local Television...a campaign that has seen more advertisements air on your TV set than for the promotion of any Canadian homegrown program that I can think of.

Below are the key talking points highlighted on the front page of the pamphlet they were distributing to the (unsuspecting) public:

Local television impacts everyone

Now is the time to hold the cable and satellite companies accountable

Current regulations in Canada allow cable and satellite companies to take CTV programming without paying for it. These companies then charge you, the consumer, for the programming they take from us for free. The satellite and cable companies that deliver the TV signal to your house are reaping huge profits at the direct expense of local Canadian TV stations.

Now YOUR local television station is in financial trouble, and we need YOUR help!

Local television stations should receive compensation from cable and satellite companies that carry our local programming.

First let it be said that I don't have a lot of love for the Shaw's, Rogers, and other cable and satellite companies across Canada (you can watch Shaw Cable's Ken Stein debate the issue with CTV's Jacqueline Milczarek HERE), but so much of the information in this CTV pamphlet is just dead wrong.

1) Cable and satellite companies don't take CTV programming without paying for it. Like Global and CBC, CTV is an Over The Air (OTA) network, which means you can receive it in your home with an antennae. For free. Cable, however, delivers a cleaner, clearer signal, and thus CTV chooses to have its signal/programming delivered via this mechanism because it reaches more eyeballs in a better quality form = higher ad revenue. Furthermore, because their signals are available freely over the air as per a priority carriage mandate means the OTA channels must be made available to and distributed by all cable/satellite subscribers.

2) Cable and satellite companies don't charge you, the consumer, for CTV's programming...they charge you for the pipe - the delivery mechanism for the TV signal. They built and implemented a television signal delivery system (cable or satellite) that they can provide you, the consumer, if you choose to subscribe, and that's what they are charging you for (thus, they are called 'cable providers').

3)Finally, your 'local' television station isn't in trouble, the CTV (or all OTA broadcasters for that matter) business model is in trouble. Like Global, CTV doesn't really offer much in the way of programming that consumers couldn't get if we could just choose U.S. networks on their own. It seemed only fitting this 'Save Local TV' open house took place the same time as Canadian network programmers landed in L.A. to spend spend spend on American shows for the new fall season.


There are four 'local CTV stations' in Saskatchewan, same as Alberta...whereas there is only one, CTV Winnipeg, in Manitoba and one, CTV British Columbia (essentially Vancouver) in B.C..


Regina's CTV station, CKCK, really only produces local newcasts. And between the four Saskatchewan stations they produce two news magazine-style series: the Prairie Farm Report and Farmgate, and Indigenous Circle, a weekly program dealing with Aboriginal issues at home and beyond.

How do I know this? Because I asked some of the helpful and smiling CKCK employees only too eager to Save Local TV: "What local programs are we trying to save?"

A woman mentioned the three above programs, though went on to add: "But we're just an affiliate - we just put on what the network says we have to put on. But there is the news!" I asked if the carriage fee (oops, value for signal) requested by the campaign would ensure the production of more 'local' programming. I got a lot of blank stares.

Then I asked when the Regina station was going to go HD, because even though I can view CKCK in analog on channel 6 on my cable channel dial (or channel 2 over the air), I tend to only watch my HD channels from my cable package...and in my cable package those signals come from either CTV Toronto(channel 509) or CTV British Columbia(channel 519) (...unless of course the U.S. scheduling of said program has messed with CTV's schedule and I receive the Lost or Law And Order simsub transmission from one of CTV's other 'A' Channel eastern affiliates like Barrie or Windsor or London or from Victoria in the west, complete with local commercials!).

So I asked: would my 50 cent per month carriage fee that the network is requesting of the CRTC going to support/save Regina's local station? Or Vancouver or Toronto or Windsor's local station? I again received blank stares, and some humming and hawing that they weren't sure about the HD going local but were sure that at least some of the money would come back to the Regina station.

Then I mentioned that most of the information in the pamphlets they were handing out was flat out wrong: that cable providers provide a delivery mechanism to consumers willing to pay for it...that's why they are called cable providers. And that's what we are paying for, the cable pipe, not the programming that CTV either produces or buys from the U.S. to simultaneously substitute their ads into.

I got some rather surprised looks and a lot of looking around. Then someone then asked if I was going to sign the petition (I said no). Then a hand was gently placed on my elbow and I swear someone whispered: "Look, we don't want any trouble here."

Trouble? For just asking a few questions? Anyway, I was getting some pretty cold looks so I edged my way out the door and beat a hasty retreat.


That's when I noticed yet another chartered bus arriving with another load of what appeared to be mostly senior citizens. Starstruck, they disembarked and tottered into the station gushing about how much they loved their local station. Not surprisingly, they didn't bat an eye when pressed to sign the petition. Sigh.

And I missed the balloon in the sky, Uncle Jim...but I did see them putting it back in the truck.



It was all smiles and hugs but frankly, smelled a little...funky, best exemplified IN THIS CLIP of CTV's Vice President, Corporate Affairs Paul Sparkes at the open house in Toronto answering questions from a CP24 reporter...lots of: "Oh let's not get bogged down by the details and clog our heads up with facts and truisms and regulatory lingo...isn't local TV great!"


Look, we know Toronto and Vancouver and Montreal will probably always have their own local news and some locally produced programs, but for the rest of us spread across the great land of ours, 'local TV' doesn't really exist anymore.

I get my U.S. signals from Detroit and/or Seattle. I get my Global signal primarily from Toronto and Vancouver, same for my CTV signal. CBC's feed also originates primarily from Toronto, but at least they adjust the times to fit the time zones so every show on the network comes on at the same time in each region. But I can't say the same for the U.S. feeds or Global and CTV feeds. In my neck of the woods, prime time begins either at 6pm (8pm EST) or 9pm (8pm PST).

Now it doesn't seem that long ago when our local CTV would produce daily talk shows and documentary series and even kids/drama programs. But today, other than the odd informational or newsmagazine show and a couple of newscasts a day I don't really have a local station anymore, and haven't for some time. And I would say the same goes for most of the other outlying regions in Canada.

So, the wrongness of the CTV campaign aside, whose 'local TV' would we be saving exactly?

I Love The Smell Of CPAC In The Morning...

DING! And there's the bell!

According to today's Toronto Star, "Today CRTC hearings are a battlefield again. It's the private broadcasters versus the cable and satellite providers. You, the consumer, are somewhere in the middle."

Read the rest of Iain Marlow's article HERE for the results of the weigh in.

And then at 8:30 am EST head over to CPAC and watch Round One HERE.

The hearing lasts ten days. There should be plenty of quick jabs followed by some low blows, but at end of the fight it's doubtful anyone will be smelling victory.


DAY ONE recap by Globe and Mail HERE and Toronto Star HERE.


And I will add that though not surprising, it was rather annoying to hear today the problems and issues facing the broadcasters/cablers and our industry while primarily using examples from Toronto and the Greater Toronto area...oh, and Ottawa and Brandon, briefly. This after a half a year national campaign to support 'local television'.

Pox News...And A Video Hankering To Go Viral

So, hearings begin Monday in Gatineau that will see Canadian broadcasters, cable companies, and a lot of those "creative" guilds parade in front of the CRTC to state their position and voice an opinion on fee-for-carriage/save-local-tv/stop-tv-tax for the third, yes the third, time.

I'm really not sure what else can be said that hasn't been said ad nauseam already about the topic...though an insider did tell me that the BDU's or the Broadcasters have been known to pull a new proposal out of their pants at a hearing. I'm holding my breath. Seriously!

But if you feel like you need a primer that goes beyond the battling ads/PSA's/Influencing Heritage Minutes? (WTF would you call them?) that you can't avoid on your TV sets because they air ALL. THE. TIME., then watch this decent debate of the issues that was on TV Ontario last night HERE (A Pox On Both Their Houses) or podcast HERE....and then check out this video put together by the Writers Guild of Canada.



And with that as the last word, for now, we'll see you Monday.

Well, Will It?

Deirdre McMurdy had some fun this weekend and writes up a nice piece about the on-going battle between the Canadian Broadcasters and Canadian BDU's (Cable/Satellite Providers)...a battle that reached embarrassingly childish proportions on Friday with their dueling press releases (first the BDU's, then the Broadcasters).

So here's the 411: The broadcasters, who used to fight all the time, have now become frenemies. They've formed an awesome clique that's, like, totally ragging the cable companies that carry and distribute their programming. They say the cable companies like Rogers and Shaw and Videotron should pay them something for the programs they've been getting for free. The cable companies are LOLing that and have become BFFs to push back. They say they'll pass that new cost on to consumers directly. OMG!

The official name for this whole issue is fee-for-carriage, although the two sides have tried to put Lip Smacker on it and put it into a more consumer-friendly package. The broadcasters call it a "Save Local Television" campaign (because they can't afford to support local tv stations unless they get more cash). The cable folks say it's a "TV tax." And they're throwing down on each other all over Twitter and Facebook.

They've been fighting about it for years: This fall, the federal regulator, the CRTC, is going to hear them squabble over who started the fight for the third time. Every single time this happens, it costs the broadcasters (who say they're pretty much broke) and the cable companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and lobbying bills. This time around, that tab includes the price of aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns as well. And it costs taxpayers in terms of the time and effort of the CRTC staff.

Read the rest of the article HERE. I enjoyed it's playful tone and nice recap of the state of all things Broadcaster/BDU...though she never really answers the question posed in the title of the piece: 'Will "TV Tax" Save Canadian Television?'

Well, will it?

LPIF Redux

I'm going to repost my thoughts from last month on the Local Programming Improvement Fund as this blog's been swarmed over the past week via Google searches like:

What is this LPIF fee?
Why is there an LPIF fee on my bill?
What the hell is a LPIF fee?

And of course: LPIF WTF?

The reason for this sudden interest in the LPIF (Local Programming Improvement Fund) is that it's started showing up as a line item on people's September cable bills...as promised by the BDU's.

But there also seems to be a lot of confusion accompanying the apparent consumer anger with having to fork over yet another cable bill cost. You see, there's also the FFC or Fee-For-Carriage issue out there now and on people's radar....an issue that sparked a big fight between the Broadcasters and the Cable/Satellite Providers. Such a big fight that, as Grant Robertson reports, the government recently stepped in and gave fee-for-carriage its own special CRTC hearing in December to try to resolve the issue.

From the Globe & Mail:

In July, the CRTC opened the door for the networks to be compensated by the cable and satellite companies when it announced that it would allow negotiations between the two sides, and enforce an arbitrated solution if a compensation deal could not be reached.

However, the Conservatives are staunchly opposed to the proposal, which could be unpopular with some voters. Though the cable and satellite companies don't have to pass the cost on to customers, the major carriers such as Rogers Communications Inc., Bell Canada, and Shaw Communications Inc. have already said they will.

Yesterday's development (to hold another hearing in December) stems from a Canadian Heritage parliamentary committee hearing this summer, where the TV networks argued they need new funds to support struggling small market TV stations and to produce local programming.

Later in the article, the broadcasters chime in:

The big broadcasters were still optimistic, though, that the issue could go their way. CTV, CBC and Global are arguing their case together, arguing that the cable industry has been misinforming consumers with letters enclosed in bills that inflate the potential impact on their monthly invoices.

CanWest Global Communications Corp. said the hearings in December will be an opportunity to set the record straight on those figures. "I think what they're saying is consistent with what we're saying, which is that this is an important issue for consumers," said Charlotte Bell, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs at CanWest.

"I think it's important that consumers get the right information because this is about the future of local television. And the consumer is right in the middle of it."

"...this is about the future of local television. And the consumer is right in the middle of it."

"...to support struggling small market TV stations and to produce local programming."

And therein lies the confusion. This recent article is about FFC (fee-for-carriage), but it could just as well be about LPIF (local programming improvement fund). And most regular folks have been seeing it as such. As one commenter wrote: "Why am I paying a fee on my cable bill for improving local programming now when hearings won't be happening until December?"

Um. Because they're two different things. The broadcasters already received a fund to help local stations and local programming, the LPIF, and now they're seeking fee-for-carriage yet are still using the 'for local stations and local programming' argument (I'm guessing it gets more traction than the 'poor management and advertising dollars are down but we don't want to change our business model' argument).

Got it now? Make sense? I hope so, though I'm sure it won't make paying an extra cost on your cable bill (that wasn't supposed to be passed onto the consumer) any easier to swallow.