Frankly, I don’t like the expression “dirty little secret”: it sounds nasty, an exposee of something evil, immoral and maybe even illegal. But since Canada’s private tv networks have been running newspaper ads across the country for several days now headlined “Cable’s Dirty Little Secret”, I figure they deserve the same in return.
In fact, after reading the network ad. I still can’t figure out what the “dirty” secret is?
They mention that cable networks broadcast station signals they do not pay for: is that a secret? They “reveal” consumers have to pay for the local stations, along with the U.S. and specialty channels we get: wow!! Does anybody getting a monthly bill, for even the most basic cable service, think any of it is carried to us over cable for free?
“Cable and their satellite partners need to pay their fair share. When they talk about charging you more fror local tv, tell them you already pay.” Ahh! So that’s the beef! Cable TV companies say if they are forced to shell out a share of their revenues to TV networks (Canadian and American?) they’ll pass on the cost to subscribers.
Is that a secret? Does anyone doubt it?
And what about the private networks’ “dirty little secret” … that also most people already know: they get BILLIONS of dollars a year in advertising revenues as a result of cable companies carrying their signals???
Do they share those revenues with the cable networks? Of course not. But where would their viewer numbers be without cable networks carrying them? Where would the networks’ ad revenues be if not for cable carriage?
Seems to me the private tv networks take in more revenue as a result of cable companies carrying their signals than the cable companies actually do!
That part is left out of their ad, as is the fact that Canadian private networks BENEFIT from the fact that the CRTC FORCES Canadian cable subscribers to take Canadian nework channels, even if we don’t want them. Why??? To enhance their coverage and their ad REVENUES.
What about the EXTRA millions they get by Canadian ad substitutions, where cable companies running the same show on a Canadian channel and a U.S. channel are FORCED to substitute the Canadian channel’s signal on the U.S. channel, denying viewers the right to watch the U.S. ads. Doesn’t that increase private tv’s audience and ad revenues?
The truth is both the private tv networks and the cable companies hold Canadian viewers hostage … through CRTC rules and cable company ”packaging” that gives us very little choice to choose ONLY the individual signals we want.
Consumers are held captive off by both … by the networks, through our inability to pick and choose only the Canadian stations we want; by the cable companies, through their restricive overpriced “packages” … all of it done with the co-operation of and the rules set down by the CRTC.
But the current debate over “carriage fees” deserves special attention by consumers, the CRTC and the federal government: the “corporate welfare” precedent that could be set here would be a horrible costly one for Canadians … in perpetuity.
Private tv is in trouble: the economy has affected advertising; the fracturing of the market has affected numbers; and, the availability of alternative entertainment (internet, satellite, DVD, even PlayStations and Wii) has hit their numbers; and, the declining quality of most of their local news coverage across the country is literally turning many viewers “off”.
And don’t forget the greed factor … where the huge corporate conglomerates that now own most of the private stations …. expanded into other areas and business acquisitions, here and around the world … making decisions they are now paying for, in more ways than one.
But they are private companies. With billionaire owners and/or thousands of shareholders. Why should the public bail them out?
Why should tv viewers be forced to pay a fee to watch Canadian stations they may not even want???
Why should the CRTC give private tv networks a PERMANENT share of cable revenues unless the private stations also give cable companies a PERMANENT share of their advertising revenues, generated through cable?
How will any of that help “local” television … devastated in recent years by the private networks: stations have already shut down; news in many local markets has almost been eliminated or relegated to press conferences, ambulance chasing and puff pieces; Ottawa bureaus by local stations have disappeared; and, the networks have already asked the CRTC to be able to reduce “news” coverage to as little as 5 hours a week in some markets.
Save local television? Looks like the private tv beancounters are doing more to destroy it than save it. And I suspect, even if the CRTC accedes to their demands, there is more devastation to come, especially after the Olympics.
The current economic downturn will end. Advertising will pick up. The private networks’ revenues will remain in the billions .. and no doubt start growing again.
And yet, I fear the slash and cut mindset of the private tv management will likely not change for some time to come: and Canada’s television viewers will be poorer for that.
Let’s face it, once things do rebound, private tv will not share their additional millions in profits with their cable viewers. The benefits will accrue to the owners and shareholders.
Yet, the public is being asked to bail them out with PERMANENT additional revenues through cable operators, even once the economy and their own advertising revenues rebound.
That’s the real dirty little secret.
So the CRTC should resist their demands for corporate welfare through cable carriage fees that, once set and passed on to viewers, would never be rescinded.
Harv Oberfeld
21 responses so far ↓
1 Fred // Oct 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Greedy cable companies helping greedy TV stations all because the CRTC rules our lives.
Get rid of the CRTC except for technical issues . .. .Canadians don’t need the government big brother/sister telling us what we can watch and which adverts get played in our homes.
The CRTC is well past its prime . . . . time to nuke it.
2 Lou // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I was all for the cable companies (read Shaw) until I received a bill with a $6/2 month increase with no explanation. I could phone them and ask why the increase, but the answer that I get will probably p..s me off more. When I see the commercials for and against the cable companies and the TV stations, I flip channels because I end up screaming at the TV. And what choice do I have, either Shaw or Telus. I choose Shaw because I hate them less then I hate Telus.
Didn’t the cable companies just get a huge sum of money from the government for overpaid taxes. I am a bit confused about the articles I have read. Maybe someone could explain it to me.
(Response: I agree the cable companies have a lot to answer for regarding rates and the way they “package” programs instead of just letting us take exactly what we want. But giving private tv networks a piece of their income is not the answer to those problems. h.o.)
3 Anon // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Harper’s Conservatives have graciously decided to ‘forgive‘ $450 in monies owing from big media… a quid pro quo for uncritical ‘reporting’ in the next election?
4 Lou // Oct 14, 2009 at 12:02 am
I agree with you that tv networks should not get a piece of the cable company’s incomes. I am a former employee of Canwest Global (newspaper division) and was lucky enough to get out before the s..t hit the fan, unlike the unfortunates who are still employed by Canwest, any division. (But that’s another story).
Just after my first email, 2 employees showed up at my door from Shaw. And I ripped them new ones. When I asked about the increase, they had the non-answer that I wanted. They most likely wish they didn’t ring my door bell. LOL
5 Antonia // Oct 14, 2009 at 1:18 am
Great post. Too bad the newspapers owned by broadcasters aren’t producing material like this.
Oh and BTW: Anon at 8:47 nails it. The CRTC has worked out a deal with the broadcasters that will allow them to get away with not paying hundreds of millions in ”Part II” licence fees, which I liken to the rent they should pay for using the public airwaves.
http://www.cab-acr.ca/english/media/news/09/Part%20II_nr.shtm
Yup, just watch CTV and Global during the next election.
6 Lynn // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:41 am
I know one thing. If they up my bill I am cancelling my cable. I am sick and bloody tired of increased cost vs my decreasing net income. I am fed up.
Do not come to me to subsidize your bottom line because of your fiscal mismanagement.
As for the ad whether it be the cable company ad or the t.v. station ads, I switch the channel.
You want better ad revenue? Stop with the crap you are showing. I watch better quality shows on the higher channels. If I want reality t.v. I’ll look in my rear view mirror during my shift.
7 Brian // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:33 am
harv…did you send your comments off to the CRTC? if not, you should!
(Response: Yes ..have printed it out and mailed it off. If anyone else wants to write ” Re: CARRIAGE FEES” ..send it to Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0N2 h.o)
8 Crankypants // Oct 14, 2009 at 7:09 am
Nothing like billionaires fighting billionaires. The irony is that both sides are doing their best song and dance to woo the general public who they really can’t relate to. To the cable/satellite companies we are nothing more than an account number and to the TV moguls we are nothing more than a statistic for ratings purposes upon which they can base their advertising rates. Maybe they are taking a page out of our politicians handbook where they woo our vote during an election then treat us as nothing more than pariah after the results are in.
Before the advent of cable/satellite the television stations were limited to the strength of their broadcasting towers. Now their coverage is pretty well unlimited. One has to assume that their expanded coverage gave them leverage to increase their advertising rates and therefore their revenues.
It seems that the TV moguls are trying to bite the hand that feeds them. They may wish they never opened up this can of worms.
9 StevieB // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:03 pm
We are not powerless. Tell your MP that broadcasting in Canada needs to be corrected or we’ll vote elsewhere. We deserve unbiased news coverage that is not controlled by media moguls. Canada’s news & documentary shows used to be the envy of the world, now it’s laughable. If all of us withdraw our votes, changes will happen.
(You’re absolutley right … IF enough people were motivated to act. But alas, too many just don’t really care enough to do that. That’s the problem…. at least for now. h.o.)
10 Gary // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I know this is a hot topic, and I love your “Keeping it Real” concept. But if I may point out a few things on the “protectionism” side of the issue. Yes, cable companies are required to carry the local stations. The reason for this is that your “local” station (mainly refering to the network it belongs to) pays the USA networks a fee to carry programs such as NCIS etc. In many cases, the USA channels will broadcast the same program at the same time as the Canadian ones will. And in order to protect the Canadian networks advertising stream that is being run on the Canadian stations, the cable companies are required to substitue the local stations feed of this broadcast over top of the USA feed. Remeber that a lot of the advertising revenue comes from people wanting their ads to run to the Canadian public.
What would be the point of paying a USA network for the rights to broadcast a tv show in Canada, if everyone watched the USA feed? You get stuck with American advertising, and no Canadian content.
The Canadian networks share advertising revenue with the local stations on their network. In addition to running the network feed of the show, a certain percentage of advertising time is also allotted to the local station to carry LOCAL advertising for their area. LOCAL advertising revenues would disappear very fast if the local companies had no audience to get their information to, if it were not for the CRTC mandating the replacement of the USA feed.
What gives “cable/satellite tv” the edge is of course, a better quality signal, especially for people who don’t live within (example) 50 miles or whatever, of the local stations. And of course, the added variety of alternate programming, time shifting, etc.
So yes, LOCAL advertisers (and to a smaller part network advertisers) are guaranteed a little more bang for their advertising dollar, because they know the message they paid to be delivered, is indeed going to get to their audience.
Perhaps more of the issue is the granting of broadcasting licenses (especially in the USA) for every tom dick and harry that wants to open up a station of some kind. There are only so many people, and when you start to segment out little areas for this and that, then you start to segment out advertising potential.
This is the reason why you get 4 or 5 minutes of ads every 10-12 minutes, instead of the 2 minutes you used to get in the past. The markets in North America and the regulators need to stop giving away broadcasting licenses like they were candy, otherwise we are going to end up with someone wanting to run a station every few blocks. And those stations will only be able to afford to run for 2 hours a day, because they can’t get enough revenue to survive.
The CRTC also mandates that there be a certain portion of Canadian Content that all networks are required to carry. They do this by providing the resources and tools necessary to create programs such as the old hit “Due South”. But the networks do not receive any royalties from these shows. They bear the costs, or make major contributions to the costs of making these shows and literally get nothing in return. Which is the reason why the Local Programming Fund was created many years ago, to assist the Canadian networks and stations with those costs.
Now it seems, the Harper Government has decided to “forgive” $450 million dollars, as reported in the Globe and Mail (www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-broadcasters-agree-on-fees/article1315591/)
Put it all together, and thats the reason why local tv will disappear. Which means local news and information will be gone, and you will get nothing but American information.
And that’s the reason why you need to support local tv.
(Response: You make some very good and valid points. I am totally in favour of supporting local tv … made a great lviing there and have many friends still there. But the key is NOT a taxpayer (viewer) subsidy to privately owned corporations: that’s the role of owners/shareholders who also reap the huge profits in good times. And in any privately owned business, the profits from the past should support the companies over tough times. Not to mention how they have contributed to their own woes by bad management decisions, expansions and investments. In return for the “goldmine” that tv stations CAN be …with quality programming, the CRTC used to and should REQUIRE significant local news programming as part of the mandate. I believe the CRTC has slipped badly in this regard. And giving the stations billions in viewer subsidies wont bring back the stations they’ve already closed/sold off or likely prevent further slashing in the future. h.o.)
11 seth // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Years ago cable tv companies started stealing signals off the air from American and Canadian TV stations and making a profit delivering the signal to subscribers. After many court battles the CRTC approved the theft and it is now legal. However if you try to tap into their cable/satellite to steal their stolen content you being the little guy goes to jail. The rule is if are going to be a thief you need a big one and pay out a lot campaign donations.
The funniest part was when the cable companies started a campaign against grey market sat dishes calling the owners thieves, the MSM piled right on with them. Bill Good was particularly bad.
A few years ago a company called IcraveTv set up a cable tv antenna system to pick up these same signals and make a small profit distributing these signals on the internet, The Crtc, called them thieves and shut them down. Weren’t paying the campaign donations and buying those expensive lunches for the CRTC folks. Now that Telus and Bell are doing it – no problemo.
Right now I watch Hulu.
12 blaffergassted // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:58 pm
And I thought it was an anarchist plot to take CPAC off the air.
13 Henri Paul // Oct 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm
It all comes down to whose ox is being gored in this discussion.
When the term local TV or stations are referred to, which viewers are they referring to, the viewer that’s 20-25 kms from the station or the viewer who is 400 kms from the station?
In my case Im about 350km from global ( bctv) I sure as hell don’t consider that as local TV.
Im on Shaw satellite.
Why do I have to subscribed to multi repeat TV stations,religious stations, shopping stations, TSN?
There is only one way I will accept this subsidization of the TV stations and that is Im allowed to pick the amount of, and the stations I wish to view.
Failing this, I could repurchase a dish with only American stations,and don’t anyone say I can’t,as up to 10-12 years ago that’s how I received most of my TV.
One of the very reasons I came back to Canadian programing was for the News, well we all know that has pretty well gone down the toilet now, therefor at this point of time it would take very little discouragement to drop these so called Canadian stations and their crap.
Matter of fact I could get by with just a CBC station along with CBC news-world.
(Response: You’re a perfect example of why I resent the CRTC forcing people to take ANY stations they don’t want; ideally it should be YOUR right to decide. However I am willing to concede that by forcing us to buy packages that include all basic Canadians stations, we provide $$$ to support Canadian tv. through the ads they run. But to add on another cost by giving them a share of cable fees on top …that’s just too much. h..o)
14 AJ // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:13 am
Great discussion here. I think that the CRTC is or should be going the way of the Dodo bird, Eatons, Woodwards and Baseball Caps.
15 Dan R. // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:58 am
The CRTC also mandates that there be a certain portion of Canadian Content that all networks are required to carry.
=========
For example:
Global shows 7.5 hours a day of news, two showings of ET Canada and the rest for the day and evening is pretty well 100% US programming. Where is their cancon other than the same old news for a third of the day?
(Response: I haven’t analysed their daily output … but surely they run more Canadian content than you suggest! h.o)
16 Patrick Bell (Not the MLA) // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:15 am
I’m down to “basic” cable and almost ready to get rid of it…I rarely watch it!
(Response: Actually there is still some good programming avialable … but mostly on the specialty channels. Too bad we can’t just take those … without the basic (ie local network stations)! h.o.)
17 Gary // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for the objective response to my initial comment, and I’ve taken some time to look over the new ones and your added response as well.
I agree that it would be nice to say “Ah, I just want channel 2 and 23 and 99, because none of the others interest me”. When cable was first setup, the electronics were “old hat” and many companies would do the mechanical filtering of frequency “groups” and when you wanted another ‘package’ they had to send someone out to change that filter on your line. Obviously not cool or cost effective in todays instant-demand society.
One of the reasons to provide “bundles” in the old days and why certain channels could be a part of one package and not another was that the frequency range these channels are on are NOT contiguouse. In other words, (example) channel 2 was not the next frequency to channel 3. And this goes all the way back to the original mechanical tuners that were on TV’s, and the breakdown of ranges between UHF and VHF. (Gee, do we even remember any of that now?)
Times have changed, analog is on the way out, digitial is on the way in. The electronics are better and those on a dish or that use a cable supplied converter/control unit now have the capability of turning on and off individual channels. But at the same time, the electronics of these units are STILL designed to deal with “packets” of channels.
The world is changing, technology is changing. The old ways are gone in many ways but the concepts they were based on still hang in there. Groupings of channels are based on MARKETING by the cable companies. They take some of the crap stations that they may only pay 5 cents per client and combine them with more popular ones that they pay 25 cents for. And then the real specialty ones they can pay as much as 50 cents for. So for them, it is a matter of combining the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I do think that, even if they are forced by the CRTC to supply local channels with the rest of their service, that the locals deserve something from it. Perhaps the answer is to pay 5 cents per client to the main network and let them divy the funds out to their stations. Thats only going to “cost” then maybe 20-25 cents of their profit and considering the HUGE fees they charge and the profits they make, it is not going to cut THAT much into their bottom line.
For me, I think the bigger issue we have, is where you draw the line between reasonable profits and excessive profits. According to some information I have read, the cable/sat folks combined make 2 billion a year, where as the networks combined make only 8 million a year.
IF indeed this is true, and we are getting SO upset about silly TV, then why the hell are we not combining efforts into legislation and regulation of the 4 major banks? They continue TO THIS DAY to EACH make an average of 2 billion dollars in profit per quarter, and thats 8 billion dollars per year, with 4 banks… that means 32 BILLION dollars per yer of profit.
The banks continue to raise service fees, when they say only 10-15% of their profits come from that side.
I have no objection to reasonable profits from any place. I do object to corporate greed and crappy legislatures that let them get away with it. The CRTC does need to get into a fair handshaking but if THEY need to… then the Government needs to wake up and do the same thing with the banks AND the oil companies.
As it stands now, the rich just get richer, the poor get a LOT poorer, and we as a population let them get away with it.
You have a reference to our society site, and now you know the reason why we exist.
And thanks for doing what you do. More people need to get involved.
18 Dan R. // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:57 pm
(Response: I haven’t analysed their daily output … but surely they run more Canadian content than you suggest! h.o)
==========
Such as?
I just looked at their schedule. There 24 hour schedule from 5:30 am this morning until 5:30 am tomorrow.
. 5:30 – 9 am morning news, then Hundred Huntley street, World vision, paid programming, TV Made me do it, noon news 12-1 US syndicated talk shows until 5 then two more hours of news, then ET Tonight, then ET Canada, then 3 hours of US simi subs, then one more hour of news…Then repeat of ET Tonight and ET Canada then Steve Wilko’s then Psychi detectives and from 2:30 am – 5 paid programming then Believers voice of Victory until 5:30 am when the news starts again.
I don’t see any can con other than news and ET Canada…..
(Response: Huntley Street I believe is done in Toronto ..but your overall point is well taken. That’s what the CRTC should address … not just how to protect the companies so they can give us more crap. h..o)
19 Al P // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The cable companies have monopolies because CANADA gave them monopolies. They will continue to abuse us regardless of what the CRTC does. We messed up, we privatized wrong and gave monopolies to the wrong people.
Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw, etc. should be ashamed of their behaviour, abusing their control over cable etc. to push their self serving messages.
Canadians we are in trouble, these companies do not operate in a competive manner yet have an iron grip over OUR infrastructure, on our land, and on our spectrums. Sadly they try drag bystanders into their fights with the CRTC who was meant to represent CANADA.
20 Henri Paul // Oct 16, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Harv, I submitted my opposition to the CRTC via their site, but to be safe I will also fax them a copy.
Do you think I should send the bad guys a copy ,if so, who do I fax a copy to? Would you know or have the their fax number?
Yes I know Im being a pain in the ass, but what the hell, its my nature.
(Response: No idea of fax numbers..you might want to check each network’s website under Contact Us. But gald you wrote. My spies tell me the networks have asked ALL THEIR STAFF to write the CRTC and also to get 10 RELATIVES AND FRIENDS each to write as well supporting their bid for corporate welfare. h.o.)
21 Kees // Dec 6, 2009 at 4:54 am
I just dont get it. Was on Shaw dish and cannot get the local channel. But can get some hicktown far away I dont care about. Shaw nickles and dimes you on a very regular basis. So now I am on Telus tv. Not sure how that will work out in the long run. What I really like is Free to Air television. So you buy a reciever and pick any signal that is not scrambled. And that is where I think the solution is. Throw it all open. No more scrambling of signals. Just like it used to be with antennas on the roofs. And let the cable/satellite/networks compete for those customers who like to get packages/individual channels. To me that is the solution.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.