Comments on: A dose of reality in the TV debate http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/ Can you think of a better name? Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Geevis http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-102156 Geevis Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:55:46 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-102156 I thought this quote from 1991, during another crisis in conventional broadcasting, would be interesting: Douglas Newell is the outspoken senior vice-president of media buying for Harrison Young Pesonen & Newell Inc. of Toronto, an increasingly influential player in determining where Canadian advertising dollars are spent. He says: "The problem is not that the broadcasters do not have enough revenue. It's that their expenses are too high. They have been so protected that they have been unable to manage their business efficiently or productively. . . . They have never really had to compete." JOHN PARTRIDGE The Globe and Mail 8 June 1991 CTV and Global are crying that the system is broken again, but NONE of the major players are lifting a finger to turn it around, to DO SOMETHING, to fix something that is broken, to get their viewers back on their respective networks. Instead, they are complaining. They cancel news and replace them by HGTV fillers in order to keep viewers away, they send out a friggin cow cross-country, they want to extort money from the cable/satellite providers and want to re-write the broadcasting act in order to allow them to add more protections which will allow them to continue to exploit their broken model. This is what CTV and Global wants: - Attack viewers with potential cable/satellite price increase - Attack viewers with increasing simsubs - Piss off paying customers with blackouts on US networks - Punish viewers in small markets by eliminating news segments because... they live in a market too small! - Punish OTA viewers by threating to shut down local stations considering they are not enough of them using rabbit ears - There is no mention of going digital in all markets - Provide NO local programming at all except for the minimal amount of news just because it's in their CRTC licence requirements - Our Canadian culture is Hollywood thanks to CTV and Global. Nice plan. None of those stations have a personality, a unique name, a presence in their community. Their only way to tell viewers "hello, we are here!" is with a simsubbed channel. No effort is deployed to attract new advertisers. No effort is deployed to take risks and schedule an original Canadian show in primetime where people are home (Sunday to Thusday), and they'll possibly like it - no, instead we only see American Idol, House, CSI, Survivor, The Office... and it's only getting worse. God Bless America. I thought this quote from 1991, during another crisis in conventional broadcasting, would be interesting:

Douglas Newell is the outspoken senior vice-president of media buying for Harrison Young Pesonen & Newell Inc. of Toronto, an increasingly influential player in determining where Canadian advertising dollars are spent. He says:

"The problem is not that the broadcasters do not have enough revenue. It's that their expenses are too high. They have been so protected that they have been unable to manage their business efficiently or productively. . . . They have never really had to compete."

JOHN PARTRIDGE
The Globe and Mail
8 June 1991

CTV and Global are crying that the system is broken again, but NONE of the major players are lifting a finger to turn it around, to DO SOMETHING, to fix something that is broken, to get their viewers back on their respective networks.

Instead, they are complaining. They cancel news and replace them by HGTV fillers in order to keep viewers away, they send out a friggin cow cross-country, they want to extort money from the cable/satellite providers and want to re-write the broadcasting act in order to allow them to add more protections which will allow them to continue to exploit their broken model.

This is what CTV and Global wants:

- Attack viewers with potential cable/satellite price increase
- Attack viewers with increasing simsubs
- Piss off paying customers with blackouts on US networks
- Punish viewers in small markets by eliminating news segments because... they live in a market too small!
- Punish OTA viewers by threating to shut down local stations considering they are not enough of them using rabbit ears
- There is no mention of going digital in all markets
- Provide NO local programming at all except for the minimal amount of news just because it's in their CRTC licence requirements
- Our Canadian culture is Hollywood thanks to CTV and Global.

Nice plan.

None of those stations have a personality, a unique name, a presence in their community. Their only way to tell viewers "hello, we are here!" is with a simsubbed channel. No effort is deployed to attract new advertisers. No effort is deployed to take risks and schedule an original Canadian show in primetime where people are home (Sunday to Thusday), and they'll possibly like it - no, instead we only see American Idol, House, CSI, Survivor, The Office... and it's only getting worse. God Bless America.

]]> By: Neville Ross http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-100334 Neville Ross Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:15:22 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-100334 This is not the same thing; this is a local entrepreneur and local investors/the community buying up a station and continuing it by focusing on local news, sports and whatnot, and featuring local community programming-much like a low-power UHF station, but in high-power instead, and much like how most TV stations in Canada and the USA started in the late '40's/early '50's. What we all truly need in Canada is some trustbusting of these media oligopolies, so that TV and other media can really flourish again. This is not the same thing; this is a local entrepreneur and local investors/the community buying up a station and continuing it by focusing on local news, sports and whatnot, and featuring local community programming-much like a low-power UHF station, but in high-power instead, and much like how most TV stations in Canada and the USA started in the late '40's/early '50's.

What we all truly need in Canada is some trustbusting of these media oligopolies, so that TV and other media can really flourish again.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99691 Fagstein Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:38:32 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99691 I don't know about that idea. Government-funded radio and television stations already exist, for one. It's called the CBC. I don't know about that idea. Government-funded radio and television stations already exist, for one. It's called the CBC.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99690 Fagstein Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:37:21 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99690 Discovery Channel is showing a rerun of Mythbusters as I write this. History Channel has scheduled M*A*S*H for later. And these are the analog cable channels. The digital stuff is even worse. Most importantly, these channels show very little original programming. Discovery Channel is showing a rerun of Mythbusters as I write this. History Channel has scheduled M*A*S*H for later. And these are the analog cable channels. The digital stuff is even worse. Most importantly, these channels show very little original programming.

]]> By: Neville A. Ross http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99684 Neville A. Ross Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:14:07 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99684 Mostly because TV costs way too much to operate-there should be a fund or some kind of law that allows a local entrepreneur to buy a TV/radio station and run it if a larger company doesn't want to, with the government putting up half of the cost. Mostly because TV costs way too much to operate-there should be a fund or some kind of law that allows a local entrepreneur to buy a TV/radio station and run it if a larger company doesn't want to, with the government putting up half of the cost.

]]> By: Neville A. Ross http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99683 Neville A. Ross Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:09:20 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99683 Except that only Teletoon Retro shows reruns: Teletoon doesn't, History Channel just a little bit, YTV a little bit (some people complain not as much as they used to)-ditto for all of the others. Most local TV channels show reruns, or at least used to. Except that only Teletoon Retro shows reruns: Teletoon doesn't, History Channel just a little bit, YTV a little bit (some people complain not as much as they used to)-ditto for all of the others. Most local TV channels show reruns, or at least used to.

]]> By: Neville A. Ross http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99680 Neville A. Ross Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:03:38 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99680 The US got rid of that rule in 1995, when Bill Clinton destroyed it, allowing Clear Channel and like-minded companies to be able to buy up all the radio stations in a given city. The US got rid of that rule in 1995, when Bill Clinton destroyed it, allowing Clear Channel and like-minded companies to be able to buy up all the radio stations in a given city.

]]> By: CTV wants the right to prevent you from watching Grey’s Anatomy – Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-99409 CTV wants the right to prevent you from watching Grey’s Anatomy – Fagstein Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:56:11 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-99409 [...] my last blog post on the subject, I was a bit skeptical of this idea. Cable companies have little incentive to carry local stations, [...] [...] my last blog post on the subject, I was a bit skeptical of this idea. Cable companies have little incentive to carry local stations, [...]

]]> By: Fassero http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98899 Fassero Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:00:59 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98899 I think I alluded to this earlier - CTV has some major debt convenant problems about to kick in (if they haven't already) and I expect their particular level of desperation to escalate more still. In fact, I think it will be inevitable that the next "threat" will be to shut down the entire "A" network which, of course, they'll had argue that they were "forced" to take as part of the CHUM purchase while being "forced" to sell the better OTA stations that CHUM had to Rogers. Never mind the money they're wasting on "LocalTV Matters"; I bet that PALES to the money they flushed in what has turned to be a huge number of very poor new US TV show acquisitions and what looks like a disastrous year for their "So You Think You Can Dance Canada" franchise (partly caused by Fox's last minute decision to squeeze another season of the US edition which ended up competing with the Canadian one.) The problem with Local TV is how much is worth saving I'm sorry to say. The penetration of cable and satellite signals into even the most rurual of locations have allowed Canadians literally a window to the world which, in the giant scheme of things, is really what they want from TV. I look at the A station in Barrie, Ontario as a great example. Even 20 years ago, that was really the sole TV station available to Southern Ontario cottagers. Now with the extension of cable and sat signals, cottagers now have full services and the TV packages that go with them so they only thing they might need "locally" now is a traffic report which they can get from radio. I love the idea of having local television from various local markets if only because it's nice to see how the rest of Canadian culture lives. The problem is I don't want ALL of them but the CRTC forces it on me. And worse, I like specialty but the cable and satcos set up their packages to stick me with crap like 16 CanWest "speciality" channels that all seem to have "Family Guy" fit within their milieu. So, yeah, I don't like what either side is putting forth in their propaganda campaigns. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the tiny handful of representatives from both sides bascially combine to run the entire industry here and that's the biggest problem of them all. I don't know if we could go back to the old days of families running local channels but watching the way they have become so diluted and irrelevant since being run by large broadcasters, I sometimes wonder if the CRTC should just let the networks surrender their local licenses and let foreign buyers take a crack if local buyers can't be found. Surely there has to be a way to, for instance, deliver true local news at reasonable costs and even pad it when locally-relevant investigative news shows or game shows or whatever. I think I alluded to this earlier - CTV has some major debt convenant problems about to kick in (if they haven't already) and I expect their particular level of desperation to escalate more still. In fact, I think it will be inevitable that the next "threat" will be to shut down the entire "A" network which, of course, they'll had argue that they were "forced" to take as part of the CHUM purchase while being "forced" to sell the better OTA stations that CHUM had to Rogers. Never mind the money they're wasting on "LocalTV Matters"; I bet that PALES to the money they flushed in what has turned to be a huge number of very poor new US TV show acquisitions and what looks like a disastrous year for their "So You Think You Can Dance Canada" franchise (partly caused by Fox's last minute decision to squeeze another season of the US edition which ended up competing with the Canadian one.)

The problem with Local TV is how much is worth saving I'm sorry to say. The penetration of cable and satellite signals into even the most rurual of locations have allowed Canadians literally a window to the world which, in the giant scheme of things, is really what they want from TV. I look at the A station in Barrie, Ontario as a great example. Even 20 years ago, that was really the sole TV station available to Southern Ontario cottagers. Now with the extension of cable and sat signals, cottagers now have full services and the TV packages that go with them so they only thing they might need "locally" now is a traffic report which they can get from radio.

I love the idea of having local television from various local markets if only because it's nice to see how the rest of Canadian culture lives. The problem is I don't want ALL of them but the CRTC forces it on me. And worse, I like specialty but the cable and satcos set up their packages to stick me with crap like 16 CanWest "speciality" channels that all seem to have "Family Guy" fit within their milieu. So, yeah, I don't like what either side is putting forth in their propaganda campaigns. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the tiny handful of representatives from both sides bascially combine to run the entire industry here and that's the biggest problem of them all. I don't know if we could go back to the old days of families running local channels but watching the way they have become so diluted and irrelevant since being run by large broadcasters, I sometimes wonder if the CRTC should just let the networks surrender their local licenses and let foreign buyers take a crack if local buyers can't be found. Surely there has to be a way to, for instance, deliver true local news at reasonable costs and even pad it when locally-relevant investigative news shows or game shows or whatever.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98720 Fagstein Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:09:04 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98720 Actually, the fee for most new digital specialty channels are not determined by the CRTC, but are set by agreement between the provider and the broadcaster. The CRTC only regulates the fees of channels it forces cable providers to add to their basic packages, like RDI and CPAC. <blockquote>If CTV and Global no longer want to run broadcast stations. Then they should return their licenses to the CRTC so that the CRTC can open the door for new applicants. </blockquote> That's exactly what happened in Brandon, Man. Now western Manitoba has no commercial television station. It's easy to think that without CTV and Global a bunch of entrepreneurs would be banging down the CRTC's door for broadcast licenses to replace them, but in small markets that's just not happening. Actually, the fee for most new digital specialty channels are not determined by the CRTC, but are set by agreement between the provider and the broadcaster. The CRTC only regulates the fees of channels it forces cable providers to add to their basic packages, like RDI and CPAC.

If CTV and Global no longer want to run broadcast stations. Then they should return their licenses to the CRTC so that the CRTC can open the door for new applicants.

That's exactly what happened in Brandon, Man. Now western Manitoba has no commercial television station. It's easy to think that without CTV and Global a bunch of entrepreneurs would be banging down the CRTC's door for broadcast licenses to replace them, but in small markets that's just not happening.

]]> By: ATSC http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98718 ATSC Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:59:44 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98718 Local TV is based on local TV stations. Stations with a license to broadcast on the public airways. They can run ads. They must be carried on local Cable systems. Plus, they have the added advantage to have SimSubs as directed by the CRTC. That means that if they are running the same program on a US station, then the signal of the Canadian station is placed over the US station. You know that thing that upsets so many fans during the Super Bowl. Specialty Channels have another type of license. They run less ads. Their programming must be speciality type based on their license. They cannot broadcast over the air. They must be distributed only by Cable/Sat services. And they are allowed to obtain a subscription fee for every Cable/Sat subscriber that their signal is distributed to. This fee is determined by the CRTC. And the fee for each station is not the same. Now, in most cases, those specialty channels are owned by the current complainers such as CTV, Global, CBC/SRC. Basically they are collecting subscriber fees on those speciality channels. Now, they want their Broadcast channels to be allowed to do the same. Even though those broadcast channels are suppose to be made available free over the air. If CTV and Global no longer want to run broadcast stations. Then they should return their licenses to the CRTC so that the CRTC can open the door for new applicants. And as for the CBC/SRC. If the current management seems to think that they are going the double dip into the publics pockets with this demand for another fee through cable subscribers, then Ottawa should look at replacing the current management. As for Fagstein's point about speciality channels charging a fee and then running repeats. This as well needs to be looked at. Those channels have become worse and worse since the original CRTC rules. Plus, plenty of those channels are forced upon the consumer with no choice. By both CRTC rules and by the Cable/Sat companies grouping then within packages. The real concern about this whole situation should be about allowing the consumer to decide what they want to watch, and what they want to pay for. Not about greedy companies pretending to do us a favour. Local TV is based on local TV stations. Stations with a license to broadcast on the public airways. They can run ads. They must be carried on local Cable systems. Plus, they have the added advantage to have SimSubs as directed by the CRTC. That means that if they are running the same program on a US station, then the signal of the Canadian station is placed over the US station. You know that thing that upsets so many fans during the Super Bowl.

Specialty Channels have another type of license. They run less ads. Their programming must be speciality type based on their license. They cannot broadcast over the air. They must be distributed only by Cable/Sat services. And they are allowed to obtain a subscription fee for every Cable/Sat subscriber that their signal is distributed to. This fee is determined by the CRTC. And the fee for each station is not the same.

Now, in most cases, those specialty channels are owned by the current complainers such as CTV, Global, CBC/SRC. Basically they are collecting subscriber fees on those speciality channels. Now, they want their Broadcast channels to be allowed to do the same. Even though those broadcast channels are suppose to be made available free over the air.

If CTV and Global no longer want to run broadcast stations. Then they should return their licenses to the CRTC so that the CRTC can open the door for new applicants. And as for the CBC/SRC. If the current management seems to think that they are going the double dip into the publics pockets with this demand for another fee through cable subscribers, then Ottawa should look at replacing the current management.

As for Fagstein's point about speciality channels charging a fee and then running repeats. This as well needs to be looked at. Those channels have become worse and worse since the original CRTC rules. Plus, plenty of those channels are forced upon the consumer with no choice. By both CRTC rules and by the Cable/Sat companies grouping then within packages.

The real concern about this whole situation should be about allowing the consumer to decide what they want to watch, and what they want to pay for. Not about greedy companies pretending to do us a favour.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98712 Fagstein Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:02:56 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98712 Actually, yes. I don't see why specialty channels should be paid a fee to bring us cheap reruns loaded with commercials. Actually, yes. I don't see why specialty channels should be paid a fee to bring us cheap reruns loaded with commercials.

]]> By: Heather http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98705 Heather Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:16:16 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98705 So based on your logic, History Channel, Home and Garden TV, Teletoon, TSN etc should be just happy to get their signal on the dish and shouldn't be asking for a fee on top of it? Your understanding of the concerns of local TV is laughable. So based on your logic, History Channel, Home and Garden TV, Teletoon, TSN etc should be just happy to get their signal on the dish and shouldn't be asking for a fee on top of it? Your understanding of the concerns of local TV is laughable.

]]> By: ATSC http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98614 ATSC Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:25:17 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98614 Wheather it's 50¢ or 10¢. It's the principle idea behind it that is just wrong. As you pointed out in your article, Cable/Sat services help in distributing their signals. Yes, it's very true that they also help fragment the audience as well. But, put some worth watching and I'll watch. One other point that needs to be looked at is local stations that have low power transmitters. CKMI, CFTU, and CJNT all have such lower power on their transmitters that some parts of the island you actually need cable, or a exterior TV antenna, just to get them. That of course is on purpose. They very well know that by CRTC rules, local TV stations must be carried by the cable company, thus they use cable as a form of distribution of their signals, while saving on transmitter operational costs. Who is actually taking advantage of who? Wheather it's 50¢ or 10¢. It's the principle idea behind it that is just wrong. As you pointed out in your article, Cable/Sat services help in distributing their signals. Yes, it's very true that they also help fragment the audience as well. But, put some worth watching and I'll watch. One other point that needs to be looked at is local stations that have low power transmitters. CKMI, CFTU, and CJNT all have such lower power on their transmitters that some parts of the island you actually need cable, or a exterior TV antenna, just to get them. That of course is on purpose. They very well know that by CRTC rules, local TV stations must be carried by the cable company, thus they use cable as a form of distribution of their signals, while saving on transmitter operational costs. Who is actually taking advantage of who?

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98493 Fagstein Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:52:07 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98493 I don't endorse anyone. I don't endorse anyone.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98492 Fagstein Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:49:13 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98492 CTV and the broadcasters haven't negotiated a rate yet. It might be $0.50 per month per station, or it might not. CTV and the broadcasters haven't negotiated a rate yet. It might be $0.50 per month per station, or it might not.

]]> By: James Lawlor http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98476 James Lawlor Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:36:53 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98476 When my RSS feed said "TV debate" I thought you were talking about the municipal election... Come on Steve. Who do you endorse? When my RSS feed said "TV debate" I thought you were talking about the municipal election...

Come on Steve. Who do you endorse?

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98464 Anonymous Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:09:36 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98464 Global knew when it came to Quebec back in the late 90's exactly what the situation was. It would get a license based in Quebec City, with its promise to maintain a bureau in Sherbrooke and Montreal. Now, there is no Quebec City office, there is no Sherbrooke bureau, and there is basically no news produced in Montreal.(1 anchor and four reporters spread over 7 days, with Toronto weather and sports and all show production from Vancouver. This tells me that local TV doesn't matter to Global. So: Global @channel 234 on Bell TV= waste of bandwith Yeah I'll sign that letter! Global knew when it came to Quebec back in the late 90's exactly what the situation was. It would get a license based in Quebec City, with its promise to maintain a bureau in Sherbrooke and Montreal.
Now, there is no Quebec City office, there is no Sherbrooke bureau, and there is basically no news produced in Montreal.(1 anchor and four reporters spread over 7 days, with Toronto weather and sports and all show production from Vancouver.
This tells me that local TV doesn't matter to Global.
So: Global @channel 234 on Bell TV= waste of bandwith
Yeah I'll sign that letter!

]]> By: ASTC http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98463 ASTC Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:03:56 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98463 Good to see someone in the media pointing out how stupid this whole arguement really is. But it is for certain that if CTV and it's broadcast comrades get their way, Montrealer who have Cable and Sat subscriptions can expect their bill to go up by $4.50 a month. We have 9 Over the air stations (CBFT, CBMT, CFTM, CFCF, CIVM, CFTU, CFJP, CKMI, CJNT). The Save Local TV gang wants 50¢ per local channel. So 9 x 50¢ = $4.50 before taxes. You can sure as hell expect the cable and sat companies will not absorb this cost. Greed, greed, greed. Good to see someone in the media pointing out how stupid this whole arguement really is. But it is for certain that if CTV and it's broadcast comrades get their way, Montrealer who have Cable and Sat subscriptions can expect their bill to go up by $4.50 a month. We have 9 Over the air stations (CBFT, CBMT, CFTM, CFCF, CIVM, CFTU, CFJP, CKMI, CJNT). The Save Local TV gang wants 50¢ per local channel. So 9 x 50¢ = $4.50 before taxes. You can sure as hell expect the cable and sat companies will not absorb this cost. Greed, greed, greed.

]]> By: JS http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/10/23/fee-for-carriage-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-98461 JS Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:01:08 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=7271#comment-98461 What the CRTC needs to do is impose ownership restrictions like they have in the US. The fact that CTV owns 11 stations in Ontario in the first place is disturbing. What the CRTC needs to do is impose ownership restrictions like they have in the US. The fact that CTV owns 11 stations in Ontario in the first place is disturbing.

]]>