Comments on: Battle of the fee-for-carriage misinformation campaigns http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/ Can you think of a better name? Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:25:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-107868 Chris Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:50:31 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-107868 I think the CRTC should give the TV stations the right to ask for fees and then let them negotiate with cable carriers. But I think netwroks would fold pretty quickly if they were exposed to a lockout by the cable companies. I think the CRTC should give the TV stations the right to ask for fees and then let them negotiate with cable carriers. But I think netwroks would fold pretty quickly if they were exposed to a lockout by the cable companies.

]]> By: yesisaiditfirst http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96897 yesisaiditfirst Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:53:01 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96897 It amuses me that the television stations are in the financial difficulty they are in because the advertising market has been saturated and has been hurt by the global recession. They only have so many minutes of advertising inventory in a day. However, if they were not on cable and satellite in the first place that inventory would be worth even LESS! They need satellite and cable more than satellite and cable needs them. No advertiser will want to advertise on mediums that are not seen on cable and satellite. Why doesn't anybody talk about this? What will be next? Ask the internet providers to pay local TV channels a fee for allowing the said TV stations to have websites and streaming video. Again the locals need internet and cable and satellite to survive. I have satellite - tax or no tax if you are not on one of my 800 channels I will never watch. I do not have an antenna attached to my TV. Local TV better get more creative than asking for a hand out from people who don't need them. It amuses me that the television stations are in the financial difficulty they are in because the advertising market has been saturated and has been hurt by the global recession. They only have so many minutes of advertising inventory in a day.

However, if they were not on cable and satellite in the first place that inventory would be worth even LESS!

They need satellite and cable more than satellite and cable needs them. No advertiser will want to advertise on mediums that are not seen on cable and satellite. Why doesn't anybody talk about this?

What will be next? Ask the internet providers to pay local TV channels a fee for allowing the said TV stations to have websites and streaming video. Again the locals need internet and cable and satellite to survive.

I have satellite - tax or no tax if you are not on one of my 800 channels I will never watch. I do not have an antenna attached to my TV. Local TV better get more creative than asking for a hand out from people who don't need them.

]]> By: Fassero http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96368 Fassero Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:21:07 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96368 Absolutely. But I was talking about absolute dollars. TQS wasn't, like, $1-billion plus in the red. And, of course, one of it's control owners when it filed was.......CTV Globemedia. And even so, Remstar bought it for quite a bit more than 3 bucks. Absolutely. But I was talking about absolute dollars. TQS wasn't, like, $1-billion plus in the red. And, of course, one of it's control owners when it filed was.......CTV Globemedia. And even so, Remstar bought it for quite a bit more than 3 bucks.

]]> By: Janis Maharaj http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96360 Janis Maharaj Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:06:32 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96360 It is really hard to figure out the facts in this case. Howver, it goes without saying that rural areas like ours are now suffering the results of the loss of our local channels such as the MCTV channel in Timmins, Ontario. I don't mind paying an extra $10.00 a month to get my local channel back. I will simply have the cable provider cut off some of the garbage specialty channels that we never watch, which will decrease my bill about $20.00 per month. Maybe the bigger stations are making lots of money, but there are lots who aren't because the population to float them through ad revenues is not there. Don't hand me the bull about "not enough population - then do without." After all, the big centres are busy taking our natural resources and profitting from them, when WE do the hard work digging up the gold. The government needs to find a way to ensure that these local stations survive. I could care less about the big city stations, our small stations contribute to our quality of life. It is really hard to figure out the facts in this case. Howver, it goes without saying that rural areas like ours are now suffering the results of the loss of our local channels such as the MCTV channel in Timmins, Ontario. I don't mind paying an extra $10.00 a month to get my local channel back. I will simply have the cable provider cut off some of the garbage specialty channels that we never watch, which will decrease my bill about $20.00 per month. Maybe the bigger stations are making lots of money, but there are lots who aren't because the population to float them through ad revenues is not there. Don't hand me the bull about "not enough population - then do without." After all, the big centres are busy taking our natural resources and profitting from them, when WE do the hard work digging up the gold. The government needs to find a way to ensure that these local stations survive. I could care less about the big city stations, our small stations contribute to our quality of life.

]]> By: 1weasel http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96352 1weasel Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:07:43 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96352 Not to mention that the broadcasters are bumping advertising on their channels to run rebuttals immediately after the BDU's ads. Not to mention that the broadcasters are bumping advertising on their channels to run rebuttals immediately after the BDU's ads.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96341 Fagstein Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:51:46 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96341 <blockquote>the Quebec stations/networks are not as money-losing as the English networks</blockquote> You remember one of them just went bankrupt, right?

the Quebec stations/networks are not as money-losing as the English networks

You remember one of them just went bankrupt, right?

]]> By: Fassero http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96317 Fassero Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:11:54 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96317 We're kind of quibbling with words and probably meaning about the same thing. The networks are basically arguing that having "subcriber" revenue on top of the ad revenue would make the local programming (which is really mostly news these days) more profitable/less money-losing. On the French market part, I was too ambiguous. My intended point was that the Quebec stations/networks are not as money-losing as the English networks but, of course, that's really only because they never really went on big television acquisition binges. I think the French stations deliver more localized content than the English ones but by the thinnest of hairs. I'm not sure I'd buy your take on the "equation". If literally true, all you are doing is re-inforcing the notion that the networks really want fees to give them more cash to even more overpay for (mostly U.S.-based) programming. Local programming from over-the-air is almost entirely comprised of news now. I think you've displayed enough study on how truly "local" the Montreal-based network affiliates are in terms of their newscast breakdowns (i.e. lousy). By the way, I'm not totally apologetic to the broadcast providers (cable/satellite) either. There is something not so nice about the way they literally force consumers to buy channels they don't even want and the way they merely transferred to new revenue cut by just arbitrarily raising everybody's bills by the same percentage was appalling. However their "stealing free channels" and charging for them is worth a fortune to the networks due to simsubbing which they could not possibly derive otherwise. I think you can also bet on CTV getting more and more one-sided in this whole matter if only because their debt picture looks to be far worse than CanWest's. We're kind of quibbling with words and probably meaning about the same thing. The networks are basically arguing that having "subcriber" revenue on top of the ad revenue would make the local programming (which is really mostly news these days) more profitable/less money-losing. On the French market part, I was too ambiguous. My intended point was that the Quebec stations/networks are not as money-losing as the English networks but, of course, that's really only because they never really went on big television acquisition binges. I think the French stations deliver more localized content than the English ones but by the thinnest of hairs.

I'm not sure I'd buy your take on the "equation". If literally true, all you are doing is re-inforcing the notion that the networks really want fees to give them more cash to even more overpay for (mostly U.S.-based) programming. Local programming from over-the-air is almost entirely comprised of news now. I think you've displayed enough study on how truly "local" the Montreal-based network affiliates are in terms of their newscast breakdowns (i.e. lousy).

By the way, I'm not totally apologetic to the broadcast providers (cable/satellite) either. There is something not so nice about the way they literally force consumers to buy channels they don't even want and the way they merely transferred to new revenue cut by just arbitrarily raising everybody's bills by the same percentage was appalling. However their "stealing free channels" and charging for them is worth a fortune to the networks due to simsubbing which they could not possibly derive otherwise.

I think you can also bet on CTV getting more and more one-sided in this whole matter if only because their debt picture looks to be far worse than CanWest's.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96151 Fagstein Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:08:24 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96151 <blockquote>Well, since fee-for-carriage supposedly would make local programming (including news) more cost effective to produce</blockquote> Local news is judged based on expenses vs. advertising revenue for the newscasts. That equation won't change under fee for carriage. <blockquote>Local news in most cases is pretty much an oxymoron anyway (except in the Quebec French market which is probably why we don’t see any of those players joining in looking for the handouts.)</blockquote> Don't think the Quebec French markets are better serving local news. TQS has no local news at all, and TVA stations outside Montreal and Quebec City are required to produce only five hours a week of local programming (and that's up from 3.5 hours).

Well, since fee-for-carriage supposedly would make local programming (including news) more cost effective to produce

Local news is judged based on expenses vs. advertising revenue for the newscasts. That equation won't change under fee for carriage.

Local news in most cases is pretty much an oxymoron anyway (except in the Quebec French market which is probably why we don’t see any of those players joining in looking for the handouts.)

Don't think the Quebec French markets are better serving local news. TQS has no local news at all, and TVA stations outside Montreal and Quebec City are required to produce only five hours a week of local programming (and that's up from 3.5 hours).

]]> By: Fassero http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96147 Fassero Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:30:07 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96147 Well, since fee-for-carriage supposedly would make local programming (including news) more cost effective to produce, then they don't need the simsubbing anymore. And, of course, that's why the whole campaign is a joke. They want the carriage fees AND the simsubbing and the entire reason is to finance the lavish sums they pay for U.S. programming (often absurd because each network wants to stockpile content so the competition can't get it and the U.S. networks know this) plus manage the piles of debt they accumulated trying to form giant media monopolies. Even if they got the handouts, bet dollars to donuts within a year they'll be begging the CRTC to cut their domestic content limits even more. Local news in most cases is pretty much an oxymoron anyway (except in the Quebec French market which is probably why we don't see any of those players joining in looking for the handouts.) Well, since fee-for-carriage supposedly would make local programming (including news) more cost effective to produce, then they don't need the simsubbing anymore. And, of course, that's why the whole campaign is a joke. They want the carriage fees AND the simsubbing and the entire reason is to finance the lavish sums they pay for U.S. programming (often absurd because each network wants to stockpile content so the competition can't get it and the U.S. networks know this) plus manage the piles of debt they accumulated trying to form giant media monopolies. Even if they got the handouts, bet dollars to donuts within a year they'll be begging the CRTC to cut their domestic content limits even more. Local news in most cases is pretty much an oxymoron anyway (except in the Quebec French market which is probably why we don't see any of those players joining in looking for the handouts.)

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96141 Fagstein Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:12:31 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96141 <blockquote>They live and thrive (they are, after all, parasites) off the US production studios.</blockquote> I don't think either CTV or Global would deny this. Their argument is that the profits made from U.S. programming (which is still the most popular in Canada) is used to support money-losing local news operations.

They live and thrive (they are, after all, parasites) off the US production studios.

I don't think either CTV or Global would deny this. Their argument is that the profits made from U.S. programming (which is still the most popular in Canada) is used to support money-losing local news operations.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96139 Fagstein Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:10:50 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96139 Do you have a CRTC source for these "published operating profits"? Because the link I provided still lists it at $8 million for the industry. Your links are to (1) an opinion piece which doesn't source its facts, and (2) a quarterly report which doesn't show a figure for conventional television. Do you have a CRTC source for these "published operating profits"? Because the link I provided still lists it at $8 million for the industry. Your links are to (1) an opinion piece which doesn't source its facts, and (2) a quarterly report which doesn't show a figure for conventional television.

]]> By: Peter http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96135 Peter Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:25:21 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96135 Fassero: Exactly. If CTV and Global are actually really concerned about receiving compensation for their signals because of "local TV", they won't mind that simultaneous substitution is dropped because that wouldn't affect local news. But of course they'll come out firing if they hear even the slightest of indication that simsubbing will no longer be required with a FFC. They live and thrive (they are, after all, parasites) off the US production studios. Fassero:

Exactly. If CTV and Global are actually really concerned about receiving compensation for their signals because of "local TV", they won't mind that simultaneous substitution is dropped because that wouldn't affect local news. But of course they'll come out firing if they hear even the slightest of indication that simsubbing will no longer be required with a FFC. They live and thrive (they are, after all, parasites) off the US production studios.

]]> By: Jan Innes http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96125 Jan Innes Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:44:02 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96125 Hi Steve, The $400 million figure is derived by combining published operating profits presented by CTV and Global within their annual reports and filings with the CRTC. Here are some useful links for your readers: http://j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3533&PHPSESSID=dd4b2f984c3e75887592e2aefd0652ed http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2009/14/c6996.html Hi Steve,

The $400 million figure is derived by combining published operating profits presented by CTV and Global within their annual reports and filings with the CRTC.

Here are some useful links for your readers:

http://j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3533&PHPSESSID=dd4b2f984c3e75887592e2aefd0652ed

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2009/14/c6996.html

]]> By: Horonymous http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96120 Horonymous Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:57:25 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96120 Mispinformation from both sides. Mispinformation from both sides.

]]> By: cancer du sein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96099 cancer du sein Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:39:53 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96099 I am against this and have been from the start. If I receive a the signal of from the broadcasting station via satellite or cable it will cost me money. But if I receive this signal over the air by a conventional TV antenna it will not cost me money.Sound like nothing more than a money grab from the networks and discrimination against those with cable or satellite. I am against this and have been from the start. If I receive a the signal of from the broadcasting station via satellite or cable it will cost me money. But if I receive this signal over the air by a conventional TV antenna it will not cost me money.Sound like nothing more than a money grab from the networks and discrimination against those with cable or satellite.

]]> By: Fassero http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96069 Fassero Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:31:24 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96069 A bunch of babies, especially CTV and CanWest who simply want everybody to pay for their badly misguided (and overprice) media concentration strategy that has now backfired. The CRTC should just compromise and tell the networks to freely negotiate fee-for-carriage but, in exchange, cable and satellite will no longer be forced to provide simultaneous signal substitution. Then watch the networks say something along the lines "oh, well never mind then." A bunch of babies, especially CTV and CanWest who simply want everybody to pay for their badly misguided (and overprice) media concentration strategy that has now backfired. The CRTC should just compromise and tell the networks to freely negotiate fee-for-carriage but, in exchange, cable and satellite will no longer be forced to provide simultaneous signal substitution. Then watch the networks say something along the lines "oh, well never mind then."

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96012 Fagstein Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:27:26 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96012 <blockquote>Isn’t CTV owned by Bell?</blockquote> Bell Canada has a 15% interest in CTVglobemedia. The rest is split between the Thomson family's Woodbridge Company, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, and Torstar (which owns the Toronto Star). And to be clear, this is an information and lobbying campaign. There are no lawsuits here.

Isn’t CTV owned by Bell?

Bell Canada has a 15% interest in CTVglobemedia. The rest is split between the Thomson family's Woodbridge Company, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, and Torstar (which owns the Toronto Star).

And to be clear, this is an information and lobbying campaign. There are no lawsuits here.

]]> By: Anonyme http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-96010 Anonyme Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:59:28 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-96010 Isn't CTV owned by Bell? If so, are we witnessing one subsidiary of BCE suing another subsidiary of the same corporation? Isn't CTV owned by Bell? If so, are we witnessing one subsidiary of BCE suing another subsidiary of the same corporation?

]]> By: Tux http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-95998 Tux Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:26:10 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-95998 The first convulsions of a medium destined for death. The internet has mostly taken over music, it's working on books, conventional phone service is on its way out to be replaced by free VOIP, television is well entrenched, but the fact is no one is going to pay for content when they can get it for free, especially overproduced generic crap shown nationally with nothing in it of local interest. Why watch the news when you can read Montreal City Weblog and Fagstein? Why watch (or pay for) broadcast TV when you can download any TV program you could want practically instantly, in high quality, and commercial free. The first convulsions of a medium destined for death. The internet has mostly taken over music, it's working on books, conventional phone service is on its way out to be replaced by free VOIP, television is well entrenched, but the fact is no one is going to pay for content when they can get it for free, especially overproduced generic crap shown nationally with nothing in it of local interest. Why watch the news when you can read Montreal City Weblog and Fagstein? Why watch (or pay for) broadcast TV when you can download any TV program you could want practically instantly, in high quality, and commercial free.

]]> By: Marc http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/05/battle-of-the-fee-for-carriage-misinformation-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-95983 Marc Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:06:59 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7134#comment-95983 Again this whole problem is the same one affecting radio: so much is owned by so few. Again this whole problem is the same one affecting radio: so much is owned by so few.

]]>