Tag Archives: CBC

Tou.tv: Menace to society?

Pierre-Karl Péladeau, the big cheese behind Quebecor, caused a bit of a stink this week when he wrote an op-ed (published in French in Le Devoir and in English in the Financial Post) attacking the CBC over the fee-for-carriage debate, even though the CRTC has already decided that the CBC shouldn't be able to charge cable and satellite providers for permission to rebroadcast its signals.

The CBC (or, more accurately, Radio-Canada) has been a bug up Péladeau's butt for quite a while now. He's angry that the government-funded broadcaster competes with his privately-run TVA network, and similarly how its all-news network RDI competes with TVA's all-news network LCN.

It's not that he doesn't think there should be a public broadcaster. He just doesn't want there to be one that competes with the private networks, offering popular programming and in particular taking U.S. programs and re-airing them for profit. The Radio-Canada envisioned by Péladeau is more like CPAC, contributing to the public dialogue but not with anything that people actually want to watch. Certainly nothing anyone would want to pay to advertise on.

In a way, I can see where he's coming from. Imagine if you ran a business, and next door there's a competing business that gets heavily subsidized by the government. I'm sure the CBC bosses and supporters have a ready-made retort to attack that comparison (CBC boss Hubert Lacroix touched on some of them in the National Post), but even if it's not perfect, it still makes a strong point.

If only someone who's not Pierre-Karl Péladeau (or from some government-hating conservative think-tank) would make it, it might carry more weight.

This week, though, Péladeau added another aspect to his anti-CBC rant:

Furthermore, the CBC has launched the Tou.tv website without consulting the industry, a move that jeopardizes Canada’s broadcasting system by providing free, heavily subsidized television content on the Internet without concern for the revenue losses that may result, not only for the CBC but also for other stakeholders, including writers and directors.

By "without consulting the industry", he means, well, him. Tou.tv has programming from Télé-Québec, TV5, TFO and others. V and RDS aren't included, but they have their own websites that provide video on demand.

TVA, meanwhile, doesn't offer shows on demand online, even those shows that you'd think would get a pretty high audience there. Instead, it offers them on Videotron's Illico on demand (Videotron, by wacky coincidence, is also owned by Quebecor).

Péladeau argues about "heavily subsidized television content", which is hardly new to Tou.tv. Somehow, I suspect he might be a bit more angry at the fact that Tou.tv has become popular, and might even become a Québécois Hulu, leaving TVA in the dark.

Mind you, Hulu isn't making money either.

CBC dumps Nancy Wood from Daybreak

Nancy Wood ponders future job as hot dog salesperson (from Fagstein files)

I first got a tip about this a few days ago, but was awaiting confirmation and more details. With a story in The Gazette, the news is out there: CBC is removing Nancy Wood from her position as host of Daybreak, as of June.

The corporation had wanted to keep the news quiet until Wood made the announcement on air, but after staff were informed earlier this week, it was just a matter of time until it came out. (To their credit, some of my usual CBC leaks kept their mouths shut.)

Wood tells The Gazette that it wasn't her decision to leave, which matches what I've been told: the decision came from management, and the reasons aren't clear.

The news also comes the same week the CBC announces a new regional manager for Quebec: Pia Marquard, who starts on Monday. Though one CBC employee told me they were told Marquard had nothing to do with the decision to axe Wood. Marquard replaces Rob Renaud, who was filling in. One angry employee found it ridiculous that such an important decision would be made while essentially nobody's in charge.

Needless to say, the mood at CBC Montreal plummeted with the news this week. Another employee described the work environment there as "toxic". Wood herself stepped back from the host mic after the decision was announced, only returning on Friday (Shawn Apel filled in).

Wood was hired as the permanent host of Daybreak only last August. She replaced Mike Finnerty, who left last summer for London's Guardian website.

Has CBC gone mad?

Nancy Wood, CBC Daybreak

To call the decision bizarre would be an understatement. Wood has an incredible amount of experience, both in journalism in general and specifically at CBC. Before taking the Daybreak post, she was a reporter for CBC television out of Montreal, and before that she was the host of the province-wide Radio Noon. As I wrote in August, Wood was a shoo-in for the Daybreak job, which makes it even more ridiculous that she would be yanked from that post.

During her brief tenure, she continued Finnerty's tech-friendly improvements to the show, which included using Twitter and Facebook, accepting emails and text messages during the show, and producing a daily podcast. As a regular listener to that podcast, I can attest to the fact that Wood is professional yet personable, and certainly has no flaws that would warrant such a decision.

It's not clear what will happen to Wood, though she hasn't been fired from CBC. She may return to her previous job as a TV reporter.

Why?

So why is Nancy Wood being pulled out of the Daybreak chair? CBC isn't talking, and the person in a position to answer these kinds of questions doesn't start her new job until Monday.

If this were a commercial station, the first place I would look is ratings. I don't have access to detailed numbers, so until someone leaks them to me, I won't be able to tell you much. One former CBC radio host told me ratings are probably a major factor in a case like this.

But even if the answer is ratings, so what? Wood hasn't had a chance to build an audience in the morning, and this decision is more likely to alienate listeners than attract them. This is CBC, not CHOM. Supposedly the one place outside of community and campus radio where there's a consideration more important than ratings.

The candidates

CBC hasn't announced who it plans to replace Wood with (they haven't announced she's leaving either, technically), and the staff doesn't know yet.

I'll copy and paste some suggestions from my post after Finnerty left, linking to Daybreak podcasts (all MP3) from fill-in hosts last summer. Not to look down on them, but I honestly don't see any of them improving upon Wood:

To that list I'd add Steve Rukavina, who has filled in for departed hosts, and Sonali Karnick, currently the Daybreak sports reporter and one of the hardest working people in that office. Both are professionals and would make good hosts, but would also suffer from a comparison to Wood.

"Boneheads, boneheads, boneheads!"

A Facebook group has been started to keep Nancy Wood on Daybreak. It has 17 80 369 members right now (including myself, though that's more to keep tabs on it than to participate in any campaign). There's also some commentary on the show's Facebook page.

Radio watcher Sheldon Harvey has some comments as well on the news, which he calls "extremely disappointing."

UPDATE (Feb. 21): The Gazette quotes Wood's personal Facebook page saying she and the CBC are "in talks" but "nothing inspiring." The International Radio Report on CKUT (hosted this week by Harvey) also quotes from Wood's Facebook (MP3) and the brief, cryptic messages that appear there, including that it was not a "they" but a "she" (Marquard?) that made the decision to remove her, and that no, this is not a joke, she's been "canned."

UPDATE (Feb. 22): Rukavina filled in for Wood on this morning's show and apparently will for the remainder of the week. No mention of this story at all during the first Daybreak show since The Gazette broke it Friday evening.

UPDATE (Feb. 24): Gazette pop culture columnist Basem Boshra on Wood's dismissal:

Hey, guys, nice work finally getting rid of that Nancy Wood from Daybreak. I'm getting so sick already of hearing her warm, intelligent, engaging voice in the mornings. Can't wait until she's gone in June - it feels like she's been on the air for, like, months! Definitely time for a change. And, hey, I don't want to tell you how to run your business, but if you're looking for smarter, more entertaining voices to anchor your flagship show, I hear Ted Bird and the equally hilarious Tasso are still looking for work. Think of all the wacky impressions!

UPDATE (Feb. 25): Mike Boone and Doug Camilli also weigh in, along with a bunch of letters to the editor.

Those who want to complain are being sent to Communications Manager Hugh Brodie, hugh.brodie@cbc.ca or 514-597-5813.

PJ Stock too cool for Montreal

PJ Stock

P.J. Stock, a former journeyman NHL player turned hockey analyst, has come to the realization over the past few months that he was stretching himself a little too thin. His main gig at Hockey Night in Canada involved a lot of travelling between Toronto and Montreal on weekends.

Though he contributed regularly for CBMT's evening newscast, he cut that weeks ago (CBC says it's looking for a replacement). Last week, he said goodbye to an afternoon radio show on the Team 990. He'll be replaced there by Randy Tieman of CFCF.

Stock says he wants to spend more time with his family. And admiring himself in the mirror.

A Mary Christmas

Speaking of people being fired before Christmas, hundreds of CBC employees and friends are rallying around Mary McGuire, a cafeteria employee at the Maison Radio-Canada, who was just told that her services won't be needed by the catering service the CBC subcontracts to.

They've started up a Facebook group, whose members include Michel C. Auger and anglo CBCers Kristy Snell, Kristy Rich, and even some not named Kristy. They say after 36 years of serving them coffee, McGuire deserves to stick around.

UPDATE (Dec. 24):

A Christmas miracle! A day later, Mary has been un-fired.

The CBC-Post monster is getting bigger

Hey, remember when the CBC and National Post signed that content-sharing agreement and everyone was like "dude, WTF?"

Well, it looks like they're extending it to include coverage of the Vancouver Olympics (press release, press release on NP site), producing a "co-branded" website for coverage.

The CBC used to be king for Olympics coverage, but then it lost the rights to CTV, so it will for the first time since 1994 be covering an Olympics it doesn't have rights to. And considering how television rights crippled CTV so much it had to show still images instead of video, expect CBC to face similar obstacles in February.

Similarly, the Post's competitor the Globe and Mail is the official national newspaper of the Games. That won't mean exclusive rights and it's not clear if there are any editorial implications of this designation, but it puts the Post one step behind, at least psychologically.

But ... the CBC and National Post hate each other.

Or, at least, that's what they want us to think.

Anyone else think this is like the second season of a bad sitcom where the two main characters' anger toward each other boils over and they explode in a torrent of rage that's suddenly interrupted when they spontaneously get aroused and start passionately sucking face, leading to a long night of hot sex?

Are the CBC and National Post ... getting it on? Is this Olympics website their illegitimate love child?

If so, when's the hangover and walk of shame?

I can’t hear!

Journalists have short tempers when they're under pressure. Fortunately those of us in print don't have microphones capturing our frustrations. We also don't have to worry about not realizing we're live.

Via The Tea Makers.

RadCan pulls plug on online RDI streaming

It happened on Oct. 29, but it seems few people either noticed or cared. The first news story came out two weeks later that Radio-Canada has stopped livestreaming of its RDI all-news network online.

The reason? "Faciliter les discussions avec les câblodistributeurs".

Some reaction online (including the video above) was negative, suggesting that Radio-Canada doesn't get it, that we own the corporation and that the cable companies have nothing to fear from online streaming.

Here's what gets me though: RDI is a must-carry network for cable and satellite. There's no choice in the matter. The CBC even forced StarChoice to include it as part of its "English essentials" basic package last year. Because of this, the wholesale rate is set by the CRTC: $1 for RDI in francophone markets and $0.10 in anglophone markets.

So, what kind of discussions are we talking about here? There's nothing to negotiate.

Besides, RDI isn't the only one doing this. CPAC, the political affairs channel funded by the cable and satellite companies, also streams for free online. In fact, it annoyingly starts playing automatically when you go to the CPAC website.

I understand the worry from cable and satellite companies: if broadcasters stream all their stuff for free, then consumers might realize they're being gouged and start cancelling their television services.

But for the public broadcaster to pull its feed, to intentionally deny access to its services from Canadians, solely to please the cable and satellite industry, that's outrageous.

I sent an email to Alain Saulnier, who was quoted in the Cyberpresse piece, asking for clarification, but there was no response.

Battle of the MS Paint

According to La Presse, Radio-Canada is considering a French version of Battle of the Blades. That's interesting news.

Blades

But I'm not sure about the picture they used to illustrate it.

I realize cutouts like this are used often in printed newspapers without an indication that the photo has been manipulated, but it's clearly called for here, no?

I mean, some people notice these things.

UPDATE (Nov. 13): After being alerted to the error, Cyberpresse has fixed the image. Apparently an online editor took the cutout (used for a section front) and didn't think to replace it with the original photo.

CBC fee-for-carriage solution isn’t really one

The fee-for-carriage/local TV debate is over. The CBC has solved it. In was a stroke of absolute brilliance, the Mother Corp. has come up with a system that makes local broadcasters happy, reduces cable costs for consumers, and provides a fair system that doesn't threaten cable companies' profits.

Oh, and they solved the digital TV transition problem too.

Haha, just kidding. Their proposal does nothing of the sort.

On Tuesday, the CBC heralded a submission it made to the CRTC that "offers a solution to the issue of the affordability should a compensation regime for the value of local television signals be implemented."

I asked the CBC for a copy of this submission, and they kindly forwarded it to me. I've uploaded it here for you to read (PDF).

Here is the key part of the CBC's proposal (emphasis mine):

The CRTC should require cable and satellite companies to offer consumers a small, all Canadian basic package which would include all local television stations plus a few other licensed services.  The rate for this small basic package would not exceed a maximum rate established by the CRTC.  This would ensure the affordability of television service for all Canadians.

Consumers would be free to purchase – but would not be required to purchase – any additional services they may want that are not included in the small basic package.  The cable and satellite companies would negotiate with broadcasters to determine the compensation payable for the services they distribute – including the local television services in the basic package.  The CRTC would act as arbitrator in any situations where the parties could not agree.

The CBC explains how this would work in its "straightforward" three-step process:

First, the Commission would need to determine the services to be included in the streamlined basic package.

Second, the cable and satellite BDUs would have to negotiate wholesale rates with the programming services included in the new basic package – including the local television stations.  Commission arbitration would be available if the parties could not reach an agreement.

Third, the Commission would approve the proposed rate to be charged for this basic package.

Wait, hold on a second. Wasn't the entire point of "negotiation for value" that consumers would have the choice of what local television stations they would carry on cable? The CBC's proposal does away with that (what a surprise) and goes back to forcing the cable companies to carry their stations. It mentions that they would "negotiate wholesale rates", but what kind of negotiation can you have when the only response the cable and satellite companies can give is "yes"?

So this would go to "arbitration" in front of the CRTC. Which means the CRTC would simply set the rate for carrying local stations.

In other words, this is fee for carriage.

In fact, it goes beyond fee for carriage. Now the CRTC would set the price for basic cable as well, and say what channels can and can't be carried on it:

Cable and satellite BDUs would not be permitted to include any additional services in the basic package beyond those required by the Commission.

Surely they could throw in some freebies (like advertising channels) and nobody would get hurt.

The CBC's argument includes a lot of charts and data showing that cable and satellite companies are rolling in cash while broadcasters face certain doom. These things, of course, we knew already. It also brings up all the "save local TV" talking points, like how taxes aren't taxes:

It has become all too common in the Canadian communications environment for cable and satellite companies to disguise items on their consumers’ bills as government imposed retail taxes when they are not (e.g., “system access fee”, “government regulatory recovery fee”, “LPIF tax”, “CRTC LPIF Fee”).

While fee-for-carriage is still up in the air, the LPIF fee is a tax as much as the GST is. It's a mandatory percentage fee added to the total price of a service that's taken by the government. The fact that the CRTC says the cable companies should pay it instead of consumers is semantics at best.

It's not that I oppose the LPIF, or even fee-for-carriage, but don't get all bent out of shape because we call a tax a tax.

Cheap cable solves digital TV?

The submission also pretends to offer a solution to the digital TV transition. In addition to requiring many people across the country to modify or replace television sets that are up to half a century old, the transition will mean many Canadians in remote regions won't have access to free, over-the-air TV, because the broadcasters are too poor/cheap to replace the analog transmitters with digital ones.

I've already argued that this digital transition is completely unnecessary, and that goes double for remote areas with few television stations. But the CRTC is going ahead with it anyway, and in August 2011 will create a problem where none existed.

So what is the CBC proposing? Well, their argument is that cheap cable can replace free television:

While not everyone would choose to subscribe to such a service, those who did not would not be deciding on the basis of affordability.

If this sounds a bit familiar, it's because Bell thought up the same thing with cheap satellite. Both seem to ignore the fact that cheap is not free. Though it's unclear how much basic cable would cost under CBC's plan (I'm willing to guess it won't be much cheaper than it is now), it will still be infinitely larger than zero.

There's also another problem with this idea: The CRTC setting the rate for basic cable tips the economic scales, and reduces the incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the cable market, especially in remote areas where the economies of scale don't work out as well in their favour.

Perhaps the CRTC would set a different rate for big-market and small-market cable, but then it starts to get more complicated.

What is basic?

The CBC's submission is based on the premise that basic packages contain a bunch of channels that Canadians don't want and are being forced to pay for. It doesn't list them, nor does it list the channels it would want to keep.

To get some context, I looked at the channels that are included in my basic (digital) service through Videotron:

  • 10 broadcast stations:
    • CBFT (2, Radio-Canada)
    • CBMT (6, CBC)
    • CJOH (8, CTV Ottawa's retransmitter in Cornwall)
    • CFTM (10, TVA)
    • CFCF (12, CTV Montreal)
    • CIVM (17, Télé-Québec)
    • CFTU (29, Canal Savoir)
    • CFJP (35, V, ex-TQS)
    • CKMI (46 Global)
    • CJNT (62)
  • Three parliamentary channels:
    • Assemblée Nationale
    • CPAC (French)
    • CPAC (English)
  • Eight must-carry specialty networks
    • CBC News Network
    • RDI
    • The Accessible Channel
    • Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network
    • The Weather Network
    • MétéoMédia
    • Avis de recherche
    • TV5
  • Télé Achats (an advertising network that would be silly to demand subscriber fees)
  • VOX, Videotron's public access channel
  • Cable barkers, including the Canal Info Videotron (Channel 1), the video on demand barker channel and the Viewer's Choice / Canal Indigo barkers
  • GameTV
  • Local radio stations, Galaxie and other audio-only services

With the exception of GameTV and the advertising channels (which we're not charged for), these are all part of the basic service because the CRTC requires it to carry them.

So which of these channels would the CBC make discretionary? Surely not the parliamentary channels, nor the cable access channel, nor its own all-news channel.

Maybe I'm on the wrong track. For one thing, Videotron forces its customers to choose a package (either a theme package or an a-la-carte channel package) in addition to the basic service. This would stop under the CBC proposal.

On the satellite side, there's Bell TV, whose digital basic package includes, besides broadcast television stations and must-carry networks, the following:

  • Treehouse
  • W Network
  • CTV News Channel
  • Vision TV
  • Teletoon Retro
  • MTV Canada
  • The Shopping Channel

These would also be pulled from the basic package under the CRTC proposal.

There is also, of course, analog cable, in which everyone gets the same service. That includes more channels, including:

  • Vision TV
  • YTV
  • MuchMusic
  • TSN
  • CMT
  • VRAK.TV
  • MusiquePlus
  • RDS
  • Showcase
  • Bravo
  • Discovery Channel
  • W Network
  • Canal Vie
  • MusiMax
  • Canal D

But analog cable doesn't provide for discretionary channels, at least not on the level of digital.

Despite my criticisms, there's some merit to some of the CBC's proposal, specifically the creation of a basic package, whether on satellite, digital cable or analog cable. The practice of forcing people using digital services to add packages to basic lineups needs to stop.

But what the CBC is proposing is fee for carriage, and that's a tax. And it would do nothing to stop the cable and satellite oligopolies from further solidifying their hold on the market.

CBC Radio’s new news chime

CBC Radio news chime: before (MP3)

CBC Radio news chime: after (MP3)

Better? Or worse?