Category Archives: Opinion

| Media, Montreal, Opinion

Lady Gaga and the media-celebrity relationship

Celebrities* and big media have this desperate yet well-choreographed symbiotic relationship. Celebrities need the media for exposure, to get in the minds of young consumers and get them to buy albums, go to concerts or movies, buy DVDs, or otherwise consume stuff that financially benefits the artist. Media need big-name artists to prove they’re cool, show off how much access they have to celebrities, and draw readers, listeners or viewers.

Because both sides benefit from this relationship (and neither really cares about the needs of the consumer), the interactions between the two are tightly controlled. There isn’t much of an alternative – there is no other way for a celebrity to get that much media exposure in so little time. The media call publicists and arrange interviews in advance of local concerts or before new albums/movies/etc. are released. The celebrities, meanwhile, put themselves out there, going on TV talk shows, Saturday Night Live, anything to get their name and face out there.

For smaller media (like, say, Mosé Persico), the relationship is far less elegant and more formulaic. A movie star sits in a chair with the film’s poster behind, while no-name media interview them one by one. The journalist tries desperately to ask a question that might result in an interesting answer, while the star tries desperately to give the same answer for the hundredth time without making it seem like a standard message from a cashier at McDonald’s.

For print media, the interview is usually in the form of a telephone call in advance of a local event. Different form, same result: two sides trying to make an uninteresting interview seem interesting even though they ask the same questions and give the same answers. The only energy comes from the tension of the journalist trying to get the celebrity to talk about personal scandal while the celebrity tries to keep on message marketing the latest production.

Tight control

Then there are those local events themselves, particularly concerts. During a concert by a big-name artist at the Bell Centre (the only concerts big media are interested in usually), photographers are let in for two or three songs (sometimes getting as little as 30 seconds to take a photo) at the beginning and then ejected from the venue so the fans can enjoy the concert without giant lenses all over the place. Writers and reporters are allowed to enjoy the entire event with their free tickets, but other than that they aren’t done many favours.

You’d think the media would balk at any restrictions on their freedoms to report, but instead they sign on the dotted line. The alternative – not having a story thousands of people are just expecting to be there, leaving coverage of celebrities to the less ethical competition – isn’t acceptable.

There’s also another factor, of course: journalists like going to free concerts. In 2007, when Gillett Entertainment Group (which handles Bell Centre concerts) didn’t give tickets to a Police concert to Le Devoir, the newspaper threw a fit. Considering that Le Devoir doesn’t cover concerts like other big media, it might seem strange that they’d be outraged at this, until you remember that journalists like free concert tickets.

Draconian demands

As celebrities’ need to micromanage their events grows, even those restrictions I mentioned above aren’t enough. Increasingly, promoters are requiring media to agree to one-time-use-only deals, which doesn’t allow the reuse of images from the concert.

Friday night at the Bell Centre, with Lady Gaga as the headliner, the rule was simple: No media. Period. No photos, no reporters, nothing. They wanted no media coverage of the first three stops of her tour (Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa), so they just said no.

In order to write his review, The Gazette’s T’Cha Dunlevy stood in line and actually bought a ticket like a commoner. To illustrate it, photos were taken of the lineup outside.

Let the fans do it

These concert reviews always seemed kind of silly to me. What’s the point? The concert is over already, anyone who cares has already seen it. Even in the event there are shows over more than one day, those extra shows are usually long sold out by the time the newspaper comes out with a review. And, most of all, the explosion of citizen media means anyone can take pictures of a stage and write about what they thought of the concert.

Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened after the Lady Gaga concert. Despite the ban on big-media photographers and video cameramen, fans captured the concert with all kinds of electronic devices, and uploaded over 200 videos to YouTube in the 24 hours after it, including the one above. You could probably edit them all together to create a (really bad) video of the entire concert.

Similarly, there are hundreds of photos on Flickr, including 150 by this one photographer and 134 by this one. Hollywood PQ posted photos of the concert on its blog along with its review.

One blogger for Tourism Montreal eagerly uploaded “exclusive” video of a rehearsal to YouTube, after sneaking in off the street. But the video was pulled due to “a copyright claim by a third party”. It was then uploaded to Facebook, but yanked off there as well.

This is all silly in so many ways. I don’t go to concerts often, but I’d be annoyed if I went to enjoy a show and all I saw were thousands of people blocking my view or blinding me with flashes trying to take really bad pictures or video. Much as I like the freedom, I’d think everyone would be better off if the concert organizers provided a professional video and professional photos of the concert to those in attendance (and the media), so we’d only see a few cameras instead. (Those cameras are already there – most of the YouTube videos were pointed at the giant screen above the stage.) The media already use press shots of cars, movies, plays and all sorts of other stuff. Why not extend it to live concerts as well? It can’t be about ethics if they allow themselves to be controlled so tightly.

An embargo with 14,000 exceptions

Brendan Kelly has a rant on his blog about an embargo on reviews of Pour toujours les Canadiens. A rant shared by Marc Cassivi and Marc-André Lussier. You see, the film officially comes out on Dec. 4, the 100th anniversary of the Canadiens franchise. But they screened it in front of 14,000 people at the Bell Centre on Nov. 16. So it’s already premiered. People have seen it. Thousands of people. But the media is forbidden from reporting on it.

La Presse called this the bullshit that it is and reviewed the film anyway, causing director Sylvain Archambault to say it was “un manque d’éthique profond”, a comment Nathalie Petrowski didn’t appreciate much.

The media can whine about embargos, but nobody forces them to agree. Maybe it’s time big media flex those big muscles and just say no. Show they have ethics, buy a ticket like the rest of the world if they want to see a movie or a concert, and that they’re not about to get pushed around by those who are most desperate to control the media.

I’m not holding my breath though. If not for free tickets to big-name concerts or previews of Hollywood movies, how would we differentiate big media from small?

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post referred to big-name music performers and movie stars as “artists”. I’ve changed it to “celebrities”, though perhaps “celebrity artists” or “pop culture stars” might be more accurate. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with a more accurate description.

| Opinion, TV

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.

| Navel-gazing, Opinion, Technology

My new, cheap remote control

My new remote, much like the old one

My new remote, much like the old one

Yesterday, I did something stupid.

Actually, I did many things stupid. First, I put my glass of orange juice on a table I knew perfectly well wasn’t stable. Then I wasn’t careful when I sat down, knocking the table and causing the glass to spill onto my remote controls.

Then, thinking I was brilliant, I decided to rinse the orange juice off my Videotron illico remote (taking the batteries out first to avoid short-circuits). It worked, in that the orange juice stickiness was gone. But being impatient, I put the batteries back in after only a couple of hours (the case was dry, but the internals were still soaked), and shortly thereafter started smelling the familiar scent of a blown capacitor.

So I was in the market for a new remote (I suppose I could have just tried to replace the capacitor, but I can’t open the remote without breaking it and I value my sanity). It had been hours, and not only is walking the six feet to the television a horrible idea to even ponder, but the thought of pressing the “CH+” button a hundred times to switch between CTV and the Comedy Network made me want to shoot myself in the head.

Since the Illico remote has special functions (that aren’t accessible on the box itself), I didn’t want to get a general universal remote, and lose something important like the on-screen guide navigation. Looking at Videotron’s website and that of electronics retailer Future Shop, I found both quoting a new Videotron-branded remote at $35. Thirty-five dollars for a plastic case, some buttons and an infrared transmitter. I’d blame Quebec union labour, but these things were made in South Korea.

Rather than pay that ridiculous price, I headed down to cheap electronics store Addison Electronique. They specialize in raw electronics. If you need a resistor, a switch or a breadboard, that’s where you go. They suggested a similar remote that they said was compatible with Illico boxes, and it only costs $8.

Left: Videotron-branded RT-U49C-15+. Right: Pioneer BR-360

Left: Videotron-branded RT-U49C-15+. Right: Pioneer BR-360

Though the Videotron remote is Videotron-branded, it’s hardly unique. Rogers, Time Warner and other digital cable providers use identical remote controls and boxes by the same manufacturers, with only the branding changed. The Pioneer remote is supposed to go with a Pioneer-made digital cable box, but has a similar design and uses the same codes as the one used by Videotron.

I took a chance (Addison has a no-refunds-no-exchanges-it-doesn’t-matter-if-it’s-an-empty-box-you-ain’t-getting-your-money-back policy), took the remote home and it worked perfectly once I got the AAs in.

The differences are minor. Missing on the knockoff remote are the “all” and “mode” buttons, the # button for HD zooming, the M1/M2 memory buttons and the favourite button, none of which I ever use. The device buttons don’t light up, and there are a few buttons (Menu, help, day +/-) that don’t do anything. But all the important stuff (guide, info, A/B/C, VCR-style controls for video on demand, and the usual remote functions) work fine.

In fact, I discovered the new remote had an extra feature the old one didn’t: it communicates properly with my television set, something the old one never could achieve despite hours of entering programming codes. I can now remotely turn on and off the TV (and control its volume) with the same remote I use to change the channel.

So, if this new remote does all the same functions and is essentially equivalent in every way that matters, why does Videotron’s remote cost more than four times as much?

UPDATE (Nov. 29): $8 too expensive for you? It’s only $5 at Acces Electronique on the West Island.

| Montreal, Opinion

Projet Montréal’s snow-removal plan

From February 2008: Will all weekends be like this?

From February 2008: Will all weekends be like this?

The snow hit the fan Tuesday morning, with La Presse reporting that Projet Montréal plans to change its snow removal policy for the Plateau and Ahuntsic-Cartierville (the two boroughs it holds the mayor’s seat for).

Instead of paying expensive overtime and equipment charges, the borough would increase the minimum amount of snowfall before they bring in the dump trucks from 8 to 15 centimetres. They would also no longer truck away snow on weekends, instead leaving it until Monday, to save money.

Note that this applies to snow removal, not snow clearing. The plows will still push snow to the side of the street and clear the way for traffic. What this will affect is parking, which tends to get creative when there are snowbanks.

Note also that this won’t apply to major thoroughfares, which are the central city’s responsibility, and so probably won’t apply to most places travelled by city buses.

But small residential streets that get significant snowfall on weekends might have to live with it for a day or two more.

Despite the reported non-trivial savings this move would create ($500,000 to $1 million, by Projet’s estimate), the reaction has been negative (or, at least, skeptical). Tristan Péloquin did a video streeter for Cyberpresse and only found one person who thought it was a good idea. Catherine Handfield found merchants whining about how a lack of parking would affect their businesses. Even Patrick Lagacé picks up the flag of the Pro Car Party (albeit reluctantly, and with a tiny car), saying snow clearing is expensive but needs to be done.

Give it a shot

Even though I’m perhaps a little biased because I don’t have a car, I’m willing to give Projet Montréal the benefit of the doubt and let them try this plan. I’m just as skeptical as the rest, in fact I have an added concern: If the idea is to save money by trucking away snow only during business hours, wouldn’t that cause incredible traffic chaos? Plus, why can’t truck drivers be regularly scheduled to work on weekends?

This is the first major policy initiative that Projet Montréal has come up with since the election, and unlike many of its promises during the campaign, it’s a logical, conservative, money-saving idea rather than a bold vision for massive spending. If we’re going to use their control of the Plateau borough as a testing ground for their eventual control of the city, we need to let them try stuff. If it fails, they can always switch it back with relatively little work.

They’re talking and listening

Part of this plan that intrigues me is also how Projet is going about it. While the Tremblay regime would just declare it a fait accompli and present it to city council, backing down only under overwhelming public protest like they did the Park Ave. name change, Projet is setting up a public consultation, Dec. 16 at 7 p.m. at the police brotherhood office on Gilford St.

Luc Ferrandez, the Plateau mayor, has also taken to his blog to get his message out directly to the citizens, bypassing the media filter. While I don’t think La Presse or other media got anything wrong here, hearing directly from a politician on his own terms can help people understand a bit more of the context and reasoning behind Projet’s plan. This is a clear example of why Ferrandez was right not to shut down his blog after the election.

Even if this project fails, doing so with democratic principles and by deferring to common sense would go a long way toward showing responsible leadership on behalf of Projet Montréal.

For the sake of municipal budgets, let’s hope this idea is a lot smarter than everyone thinks it is.

| Opinion, TV

What if we stopped subsidizing local TV?

One of the arguments used against conventional television broadcasters in Canada – CTVglobemedia and my corporate overlord Canwest especially – in this whole fee-for-carriage debate is that they’re both giant megacorporations and own a slew of cash-cow specialty television channels.

The broadcasters counter that they can’t take profits from one part of the business and subsidize another.

As much as the knee-jerk consumer reaction might be that this is exactly what they should do, they’re right. It makes no business sense for a profit-generating enterprise to not be generating profit. If conventional television doesn’t make money, then subsidy or no subsidy, it will eventually be shut down.

CTV and Canwest purchased their specialty arsenals knowing the conventional model was going down the toilet. If it came down to it, neither would have any trouble shutting down their entire conventional network and moving completely to specialty channels. But conventional TV is still making money (only just) and they’re betting on a fee-for-carriage solution to get them more.

But as much as the broadcasters are arguing against subsidizing their own operations, they have no trouble demanding exactly that from cable and satellite broadcast distribution companies. Not only do they benefit directly from the new Local Programming Improvement Fund in small markets, but their expensive Canadian dramas and comedies get large subsidies from the Canadian Media Fund, formerly the Canadian Television Fund. Both of these funds get their income from cable and satellite companies.

And cross-subsidization is what the conventional broadcasters do for local programming. In fact, even though they constantly whine that the “model is broken”, the basic premise of using profits from reselling U.S. programming to fund Canadian and local programming remains. This isn’t done because CTV and Global have hearts of gold and see the value in homegrown television, it’s because the CRTC forces them to air this kind of programming as conditions of license.

Continue reading →

| In the news, Montreal, Opinion

The barrier stays

The barrier segregating Montreal West from the Ville Saint Pierre district of Lachine is here to stay. The Quebec Court of Appeal this week upheld a lower court ruling that Montreal West was within its rights to setup a barrier to car traffic between the two towns. Though Montreal (which the Lachine borough is part of now) may appeal, I’d wager their chances of getting heard at the Supreme Court level are slim. If the barrier comes down, it’ll be because of a deal among neighbours, not because a hand was forced by the courts.

Montreal West argues this isn’t about building a wall between rich and poor (there’s no restriction on pedestrian travel), but the only issue is safety. I couldn’t find any evidence of a problem when I checked it out two years ago. But it seems to be enough to convince people that it’s necessary. And that’s why it’s the same argument used by other cities who erect barriers between neighbours.

Continue reading →

| Canadiens, Opinion

Four Habs Fans … plus one

I have, in the past, been critical of amateur bloggers following pro sports teams. Particularly in the wake of the success of my employer’s Habs Inside/Out website, I just couldn’t fathom how people without access to the team and with daily jobs that might affect their posting schedule could ever really hope to compete for news. Even analysis, it seems, hasn’t been very convincing (though people talking out of their ass about what players the Canadiens should sign and what lines they should put them on is a problem in just about every medium).

But while many of these blogs are long gone from my RSS reader, one is proving me wrong. Four Habs Fans is reminding me that if you can’t be informative, you can at least be funny:

©FHF

©FHF, or is it TFS? Or BGL or GMS or something...

It’s not perfect – they use acronyms for nicknames that makes it hard to follow if you’re new – and it’s rather sexist with the scantily-clad women (not that I … uhh … pay attention to the hotties or anything). But this Photoshop job alone has me singing its praises now.

Okay, maybe not singing. But I’ll offer them a lap dance.

Meanwhile, HIO’s Mike Boone – who also relies more on humour than original breaking news or analysis to create a following – is offering to liveblog Habs games from the home (or bar) of just about anyone with an HDTV and WiFi.

| Media, Opinion

Jeff Lizotte and his desperate pleas for attention

Ever hear of this guy Claude Vorilhon? He’s a crazy former race car driver wannabe who decided to start a religion centred around him because he thought he saw aliens. Apparently part of this religion requires gaining as much media attention as humanly possible, which saw increasingly ridiculous stunts culminating in the announcement that the group had cloned a human being in 2006. Of course it was complete bull, but the media bought it anyway. I’m hopeful that they’ve learned their lesson because we haven’t heard much from the Raëllians since.

Jeff Lizotte: Douchebag with stupid hair

Jeff Lizotte: Douchebag with stupid hair

Second on the list of ultimate attention-grabbers is Bombe.tv’s Jeff Lizotte, aka Jeff Lee. And his ethics aren’t much better. In August, he put up a hoax video about a Teletoon van being stolen. It turned out to have been a publicity stunt for Télétoon’s fall launch. Last month, he faked another video about using an iPhone to steal a Bixi.

Now, his latest pathetic stunt is offering to sell his Facebook profile photo (for a week) for $1,000. And the media have been eating it up: Patrick Lagacé, Dominic Arpin, Patrick Dion, Urbania, Salut Bonjour. They use the stunt to discuss an apparent larger issue of how much of our lives we’re willing to sell for advertising interests, but only Lagacé mentions the fact that Lizotte is a hoaxter.

This morning comes word that the campaign was successful, and some sucker marketing company will own his face for a week starting Monday.

Yeah, I realize that by writing this I’m giving this douchebag exactly what he wants: more attention. I wish there was some way to avoid that. And maybe I’m stating the obvious to some people. But I can’t ignore it when someone uses lies to manipulate the media (and social media) for selfish purposes and isn’t called on it. Jeff Lizotte is a serial liar. It’s time we stop taking what he says at face value.

So please, ignore him. Unfriend him on Facebook, stop following him on Twitter, remove Bombe.tv from your RSS reader. Send a message that you won’t be manipulated to service his ego. But most of all, don’t believe anything he says that sounds newsworthy, because it’s probably not true.

At least Raël’s desperate publicity stunts come from some delusional sense that it will eventually bring peace to the world.

| Media, Opinion

When journalists become politicians

The race for the leadership of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, which is already being framed as unions vs. employers, is also causing a lot of journalists to campaign, and not just for themselves, like Nicolas Langelier.

Radio-Canada’s Philippe Schnobb wrote supporting the candidacy of François Cardinal, as did current president François Bourque, who (perhaps unethically) used the FPJQ’s website and internal means of communicating with its members to send not only a partisan message, but one that outright attacks one of the FPJQ’s own members and his bid for the presidency (he even went to the point of criticizing the guy’s Facebook status updates, which someone has posted online anonymously).

It’s not that I think Martin Bisaillon shouldn’t be judged based on his views, or that I agree with them, but this campaign got really dirty really fast, to the point of (anonymously) drudging up the angry Facebook updates of a guy who’s been locked out of his job for almost a year, as if it’s some sort of scandal that he’s on the wrong side of this legitimate debate.

Either way, it’ll be over this weekend, and these journalists can go back to shaking their heads at politicians who pull these kinds of things during campaigns.

On the happy side, meanwhile, the FPJQ’s magazine Le Trente has just launched its blog.

UPDATE: Like, as soon as I publish this, I read (on that same blog) that Bisaillon has pulled out of the FPJQ leadership race, citing these attacks as the main reason. Brian Myles of Le Devoir, who was running with Bisaillon, will throw his hat in for the president’s job against Cardinal.

Democracy in action, I suppose.

UPDATE (Nov. 13): Trente has an interview with the two (new) candidates for FPJQ president. François Cardinal, meanwhile, calls for a ceasefire in this ugly campaign.

| Montreal, Opinion, Photos

For sale: attitude

Anna Duncan for sale sign on a building on de Maisonneuve Blvd.

Anna Duncan for sale sign on a building on de Maisonneuve Blvd.

I find it funny how much real estate advertising is reduced to showing the faces of the realtor, as if that had any bearing on the property for sale.

Look at a newspaper classified section, and that’s where you see all the headshots of pretty women – not the personals or the employment ads, but real estate.

Still, this window poster from Londono Group’s Anna Duncan caught my eye a little while back. Sure enough, she’s a former fitness trainer. Now she’s being badass on For Sale signs.

I’m not sure if that makes it more or less likely that I would buy a condo from her.

| Media, Opinion, Technology

All your eggs in one Scribd

This blog post at the Globe and Mail is kind of funny.

It started off innocent enough: the Globe wanted to embed a part of the auditor-general’s report into a news article, so it posted a chapter to a website called Scribd, which converts PDFs into embeddable Flash applications.

The auditor-general, however, apparently took exception to that move. It wasn’t because of copyright infringement – the report is freely available on the AG’s website. It was because, the office said, “On the Scribd website, it appears, or it makes it appear, that anyone using the document or accessing the document has an ability to adapt the content and use it in different ways.”

Their concern was people altering the document, and potentially making others believe the alterations were genuine.

Setting aside for the moment the AG office’s apparent misinterpretation of technology and the power people have to alter other people’s Scribd documents, not to mention the fact that this in no way prevents people from forging AG reports (is this really a big issue? Is there a huge auditor-general-report counterfeiting industry out there I don’t know about?), I suppose such a concern makes sense. And besides, all they were asking was to link to the report on the AG’s website instead, a small accommodation.

The Globe initially relented, replacing their embedded Scribd document with a link to the PDF on the AG’s website. But after the public (well, okay, noted copyright activist Michael Geist) objected, the Globe changed its mind and reposted the Scribd document.

The auditor-general, determined to push its case, then filed a copyright infringement claim with Scribd itself, and Scribd took the document down. The Globe responded by hosting a copy of the PDF on its server and pointing to that.

As Geist says, this is a clear case of government exploiting crown copyright against the media (unlike in the United States, government publications and works in Canada are subject to copyright, though it is rarely enforced). It also brings up questions about the Globe’s editorial processes and the auditor-general’s office wanting to control information.

But the last part of this story makes me wonder: Are we relying a bit too much on fly-by-night third-party free-as-in-beer services?

It’s one thing to use Google Analytics or WordPress or Linux, but Scribd? Twitter? CoverItLive? These services are young, run mainly out of venture capital financing (instead of a sustainable business model), and there’s no guarantee they won’t just close up shop tomorrow, taking all our data with them. (And unlike Linux or WordPress, they’re not open source, which means they control their software and your data.)

As the Scribd case showed the Globe, the service can unilaterally delete your data, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Twitter has periodic outages that nobody can control, yet some have already turned Twitter into a mission-critical component of their business model.

Just because it’s free – even to big media companies – doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

| Opinion, TV

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.

| Montreal, Opinion, Radio, TV

Election coverage tonight: “Election? What election?”

It is time.

It is time.

In federal elections, it’s customary for television networks to suspend normal programming and air an election special with the big national anchors sitting at Parliament Hill or at a special “election desk” in an undisclosed (but elaborately decorated) location.

In provincial elections, much the same thing, but on a more local level. The graphics aren’t as cool, and the sets aren’t as elaborate, but still attention is given to the big event.

In municipal elections today, even though they’re happening in cities across Quebec, the amount of coverage depends entirely on what language you speak.

If you’re a francophone, you’re in luck, because Montreal is the centre of your media universe. Both LCN and RDI will have election specials all evening, and the main networks Radio-Canada and TVA will have results specials later.

If you’re an anglophone well, election coverage is expensive, and there are cheap rerun movies or U.S. programming to run instead. Not a single anglo network (not even the all-news networks) has special coverage planned for the election. You’ll have to wait for the regular local newscast.

Here’s how it breaks down, ordered by the amount of coverage:

  • RDI: Live coverage from 6:30pm to 12:30am (anyone thinking RDI is a national network serving all French Canadians – including those outside Quebec – is clearly delusional)
  • LCN: Live coverage from 7:30pm
  • CBFT/Radio-Canada: Because of the ADISQ gala tonight, election coverage will begin once it’s over at about 10pm. They expect to be done by 11:30
  • CFTM/TVA: Occupation Double is more important than the news. After that, there’s Dominic Arpin’s Vlog. They might get to it at 10:30. A movie is scheduled at 11.
  • CKMI/Global: News Final is at 11:30, giving a total of 30 minutes for election and other local news.
  • CFCF/CTV: The Amazing Race and Desperate Housewives tonight. Regular local newscast is at 11:30, which will have up to 15 minutes of coverage before it gives way to SportsNight. UPDATE: CTV says it won’t have SportsNight tonight in favour of election coverage, and will have updates during primetime commercials.
  • CBMT/CBC: Battle of the Blades and The Nature of Things are on for tonight. There’s no local news on weekends, so the best hope is a mention on The National at 10.
  • CTV News Channel: No special coverage is planned, but it’s live from the newsroom all night, so they’ll probably air significant developments live if they’re of national interest.
  • CBC News Network: No special coverage is planned. A documentary on Barack Obama will be airing when election results start coming in. The National is at 9, which will probably mention the results, at least in brief.
  • CFJP/V: Their only news bulletin is at 5:30pm. No election coverage is scheduled.
  • CIVM/Télé-Québec: No news department means no election coverage whatsoever.
  • VOX: Haha, just kidding.

This information is based on published schedules, so it’s possible there might be special coverage on one of these networks that they havn’t told the TV guide (and on-screen digital schedules) people about. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for the conventional TV stations.

Better options on radio, online

So what’s an anglo to do when you can’t get local news before 11?

  • CBC Radio is a solution. Nancy Wood (host of Daybreak, who hopefully isn’t working tomorrow) and Andrew Chang (host of the TV newscast) will be live in the radio studio tonight from 9pm to 11pm, and they will be streaming live video online. They’re also live-blogging the results.
  • CJAD also has live election coverage this evening.
  • And, of course, if you don’t need the voice of gravitas from a radio or television anchor, don’t forget about the print media. The Gazette will have liveblogging from reporter Jim Mennie, and Cyberpresse is all over this.

Montreal City Hall will be hosting a results party tonight, with everyone welcome as of 7:45pm.

And if you don’t want the media filter, you can get the results straight from the source.

I’m heading to work, where I’ll be in the thick of it tonight putting together election pages for a special section of The Gazette tomorrow, which means I won’t have time to liveblog the results (or coverage thereof). Feel free to share what you see and hear below.

Some polling stations were delayed in opening so they’re being kept open later. Expect results no earlier than 9pm.

| Montreal, Opinion

Candidates to watch tonight (UPDATED)

Well, probably more like “candidates I’ll be watching tonight”. Here are some of the few recognizable names on the ballots. Voting closes at 8 p.m.

UPDATE: Wins/losses below.

Ahuntsic-Cartierville

  • François Purcell (mayor, Union Montreal): Union Montreal won two of four seats in this borough, plus the borough mayor. Of them, only a single candidate stands for re-election because of local scandals. Can a Purcell-led clean slate convince the voters they’ll be any different? LOST to Projet Montréal’s Pierre Gagnier.

Anjou

  • Luis Miranda (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Will a city probe into corruption – with Miranda as the star player – cause a fed up electorate to sweep him out of office? He won with 58% of the vote in 2005, but that was at he head of the independent Équipe Anjou party, before it merged with Union Montreal. WON.

Côte des Neiges/Notre Dame de Grâce

  • Michael Applebaum (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Everyone seems to dislike him, but they keep voting him back into office. The heavily anglo and allophone borough will stick with his party, right? WON.
  • Brenda Paris (mayor, Vision Montreal): One of Vision’s two token anglophones, Paris (who lives in St. Henri) is best known for sitting on the STM’s board as a representative of its users, even though she’s clearly a politician. She ran for Union Montreal in the Southwest borough in 2005, and lost to Vision’s Line Hamel. LOST to Applebaum.
  • Helen Fotopulos/Gérald Tremblay (city councillor, Côte-des-Neiges district, Union Montreal): Our dear mayor’s colistière, Fotopulos was the borough mayor for the Plateau, but was demoted by Tremblay to make room for Labrecque (who supposedly has more green cred). She isn’t running against any star candidates, but if she loses and he gets edged for the mayor’s seat, Tremblay is out of council entirely. WON.
  • Marvin Rotrand (incumbent city councillor, Snowdon district, Union Montreal): the #2 guy at the STM, Rotrand is a respected politician despite his party (he’s differed with them on some votes). WON.
  • Peter McQueen (city councillor, NDG district, Projet Montréal): The perennial green guy from NDG, McQueen runs in just about every election, and usually gets pretty close for the Green Party, if only because he’s in one of the hippiest places in this part of the country. A municipal election with its low voter turnout might be most likely to get him elected, but will smart greens jump to Hanna? WON.
  • David Hanna (city councillor, NDG district, Vision Montreal): The other token anglo with Vision Montreal, Hanna is a professor and an expert at urban planning. If qualifications were the only consideration, he’d win easily. LOST to McQueen.
  • Jeremy Searle (city councillor, Loyola district, independent): A former city councillor who hasn’t had much luck since 2005, Searle endorsed himself (PDF) in his newspaper column. Can he make a comeback? LOST to Union Montreal’s Susan Clarke.

Lachine

  • Claude Dauphin (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): The chair of the executive committee, he’s currently Tremblay’s #2 at city hall, and linked to its scandals as much as Tremblay is. Will Lachine voters say they’ve had enough? WON.
  • Lise Poulin (borough councillor, Canal district, Union Montreal): The only non-incumbent running on Union Montreal’s Lachine ticket, Poulin is confined to a wheelchair and her election would bring increased diversity to borough council, if not city council. But without much individual name recognition, she’d need a strong party-line vote to bring her into office. And that’s not likely to happen when your party is Union Montreal. WON.

LaSalle

  • Manon Barbe (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Another borough almost entirely controlled by Tremblay’s party, will the domination continue now that it’s so tainted with scandal? WON.
  • Oksana Kaluzny (mayor, Parti Ville LaSalle): The head of one of the borough parties in this election, can she and her candidates be swept into office in a protest vote for local independents? LOST to Barbe.

Île Bizard-Ste. Geneviève

  • Richard Bélanger (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Union holds every seat in this borough, and really, what are the chances rich car-driving West Islanders are going to vote for Louise Harel or Richard Bergeron? WON.

Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve

  • Réal Ménard (mayor, Vision Montreal): A long-time Bloc Québécois MP, Ménard was lured by Harel to join Vision and run for the mayoralty in this heavily francophone riding, bumping incumbent mayor Lyn Thériault to a city councillor spot. Considering how many times he was elected under the BQ riding, there’s very little question he’s going to win tonight. WON.
  • Monique Comtois-Blanchet/Louise Harel (city councillor, Maisonneuve-Longue-Pointe district, Vision Montreal): Harel’s seat if she doesn’t become mayor, I don’t think she’s too worried about it. WON (Louise Harel takes the seat).
  • Louis Cléroux (city councillor, Hochelaga district, Union Montreal): One of the young candidates for Tremblay (in what will probably be a no-hope district for his party), Cléroux is a geek entrepreneur with 1,600 friends on Facebook. Even if they all vote for him, it’s going to be tough. LOST to Vision Montreal’s Laurent Blanchard.

Montreal North

  • Gilles Deguire (mayor, Union Montreal): Union swept this borough in 2005, but only two candidates are running again. Fredy Villanueva, and the societal problems connected with that (including the high crime rate in the area) will be a big factor in this vote. WON.

Outremont

Pierrefonds-Roxboro

  • Monique Worth (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Another Union sweep in 2005 (most winning more than 50% of the vote), Worth entered politics to fill the seat of husband Harry Worth after he died. She’s been borough mayor in 2001, and will probably stay that way. WON.
  • Michael Labelle (mayor, Vision Montreal Projet Montréal): Running again after losing to Worth in 2005 as a Vision Montreal candidate, Labelle is now under the banner of the car-hating party in the West Island. Good luck with that. LOST to Worth.
  • Bertrand Ward (city councillor, West district, Union Montreal): He’s been a city councillor for 20 years now. Might as well make it 24. WON.

Plateau Mont-Royal

  • Luc Ferrandez (mayor, Projet Montréal): One of the most visible and outspoken candidates for Projet Montréal, he’s also their best shot at a borough mayor position. Can he pull it off? WON.
  • Michel Labrecque (mayor, Union Montreal): The chair of the STM, Labrecque is among the more respectable members of Tremblay’s party. But will his personal popularity (as much personal popularity as a public transit nerd can have, anyway) be enough to counter the negative perception of his party? LOST to Ferrandez.
  • Alex Norris (city councillor, Mile End district, Projet Montréal): A former journalist (and an anglophone!), he’s racked up individual endorsements from such high-profile Montrealers as Thomas Mulcair and Mike Boone. WON.
  • Nimâ Valérie Machouf/Richard Bergeron (city councillor, Jeanne-Mance district, Projet Montréal): Bergeron’s consolation prize, he takes this seat if she wins and his bid for mayor falls short again. But they have some strong opposition. WON (Bergeron takes the seat).
  • Nathalie Rochefort (city councillor, Jeanne-Mance district, Vision Montreal): One of the MNA-losers-turned-municipal-politicians, Rochefort was elected in a by-election for the Liberals in Mercier, but lost in two subsequent general elections to the PQ’s Daniel Turp. LOST to Machouf/Bergeron.
  • Marc-Boris St-Maurice (city councillor, Jeanne-Mance district, independent): our local pothead and his crazy idea of public urinals. Does he have a chance against Bergeron and, you know, real politicians? LOST to Machouf/Bergeron.

Rivière des Prairies-Pointe-aux-Trembles

This borough, especially in Pointe aux Trembles, was very close in the last election, with the seats about split between Union and Vision. That might mean Harel will pull through this time, but all the seats here are worth watching. (UPDATE: Vision won 2/3 of the city and borough council seats, but Union has the mayoralty.)

Rosemont-La Petite Patrie

  • André Lavallée (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): A VP of Tremblay’s executive committee, Lavallée is a big political figure. But will that work against him? LOST to Vision Montreal’s François Croteau.
  • Pierre Lampron (city councillor, Vieux-Rosemont district, Vision Montreal): Louise Harel’s new right-hand man (you know, after the unfortunateness with Benoit Labonté), Lampron is supposed to be above even the slightest whisper of corruption. Can Rosemont residents trust that? WON.

Saint Laurent

  • Alan De Sousa (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Well liked (even La Presse endorsed him in their non-endorsement editorial, along with Labrecque and Lavallée), he’s the green guy in Tremblay’s executive committee. Not facing stiff competition for mayor, he’ll probably win re-election easily. WON.
  • Bryce Durafourt (city councillor, Côte de Liesse district, independent): I wrote about Durafourt in 2007 when he ran for a school board position. He’s at it again, and he’s the only independent running in the borough (if you include the Louise O’Sullivan candidate as a member of a party). LOST to Union Montreal’s Laval Demers.

Saint-Léonard

  • Michel Bissonnet (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): Though he was replacing Frank Zampino in a by-election, the former Liberal MNA won with 94% of the vote. He ain’t going anywhere. WON.

Sud-Ouest

This borough has high turnover from the last election, which was also heavily disputed. Union Montreal has only one incumbent, and Vision has none. But can Projet Montréal make a breakthrough here?

  • Line Hamel (mayor, independent): Hamel, the councillor who was dumped by Vision Montreal after her father was charged with fraud. Now she’s running independently for mayor. She’s known, but she also has scandal attached. LOST to Vision Montreal’s Benoit Dorais.
  • Ronald Bossy (city councillor, Saint-Paul-Émard district, independent): Another ejected Vision councillor, Bossy is running by himself. The man he beat last time, Paul-Émile Rioux, has since switched from Union Montreal to Vision Montreal, which just goes to show how revolving-door municipal politics are in Montreal. LOST to Vision Montreal’s Huguette Roy.

Verdun

  • Claude Trudel (incumbent mayor, Union Montreal): The former chair of the STM, Trudel is mayor of a borough that has hippie working-class voters on one side, and yuppie condo dwellers on Nuns’ Island. Any decision he makes is liked by one half of his electorate and hated by the other, which puts him in a volatile position. WON.
  • Ken McLaughlin (borough councillor, Champlain-Île-des-Soeurs district, Projet Montréal): The formerly anonymous author of the Walking Turcot Yards blog, McLaughlin is as green as they come. But he’s running for the district that comprises Nuns’ Island. Not exactly a lock. LOST to Union Montreal’s Andrée Champoux.

Ville-Marie

  • Sammy Forcillo (city councillor, Peter-McGill district, Union Montreal): Moved west from the Sainte Marie district, Uncle Sammy is beloved in the Gay Village, but will he be able to convince enough in the McGill and Concordia ghettos to vote for the party instead of Boulos? WON.
  • Karim Boulos (incumbent city councillor, Peter-McGill district, independent): The Union-Montreal-turned-Vision-Montreal-turned-independent candidate whose wife has been nagging me for weeks to get more exposure on my blog, Boulos won with 54% of the vote in 2005, but that was with the party name attached. He’s visible in the area with campaign posters (something Union and Vision has sworn off), and he’s surprisingly honest about politics on his blog. Will that be enough to hold on to the seat? LOST to Forcillo.
  • Fergus Keyes/Louise O’Sullivan (city councillor, Peter-McGill district, Parti Montréal Ville-Marie): The name of the fourth party leader might draw some votes, but against Boulos and Forcillo, her chances are slim. LOST to Forcillo.
  • Benoit Labon… euh, right, the Vision candidate for Sainte-Marie dropped out on orders from Louise Harel (who Labonté brought into the party in the first place, ironically). Because it happened after the deadline, Vision won’t be running a candidate in that district.
  • Frédéric Rappaz (city councillor, Sainte-Marie district, independent): The author of Entendu à Montréal is running his own campaign, but I doubt he has as much name recognition in the general public as he does in the blogosphere. LOST to Projet Montréal’s Pierre Mainville.
  • Milan Mirich/Michel Bédard (city councillor, Sainte-Marie district, Montreal Pride Party): That other guy running for mayor. LOST to Projet Montréal’s Pierre Mainville.

Villeray-Saint-Michel-Park Extension

  • Anie Samson (incumbent mayor, Vision Montreal): Running for Vision as an incumbent in a heavily francophone (and sovereignist) area, Samson shouldn’t have much trouble getting re-elected. WON.
  • Marcel Tremblay (mayor, Union Montreal): Except Samson is up against the mayor’s brother, a parachuted candidate from NDG, for whatever that’s worth. LOST to Samson.
  • Harry Delva (city councillor, François-Perreault district, Vision Montreal): Heavily involved in the local Haitian community, Delva is best known as the host of Noir de Monde on CJNT television. Union’s Frank Venneri is the incumbent, but his victory in 2005 wasn’t a landslide. LOST to Union Montreal’s Frank Venneri.
  • Elsie Lefebvre (city councillor, Villeray district, Vision Montreal): A one-time MNA for the Parti Québécois in Laurier-Dorion, Lefebvre is young and hard-working, one of the few people I’ve actually witnessed campaigning in this area. She’s up against Union incumbent Sylvain Lachance. WON.
  • Mary Deros (city councillor, Park Extension district, Union Montreal): Deros, who left Vision in 2007 to join Union Montreal, is up against people with a lot of hard-to-pronounce names in this small, heavily-ethnic district (there’s even a challenger who’s part of the Ethnic Party of Montreal). Has she done enough for Park Extension to warrant another term, or will opposition split the vote? WON.
Posters adorn lawns in the heated Hampstead race

Posters adorn lawns in the heated Hampstead race

And in the suburbs

  • Hampstead: Incumbent Bill Steinberg is up against a slate of opposing candidates.
  • Beaconsfield: Incumbent (and former CTV reporter) Bob Benedetti has two challengers, and each council seat has between two and four candidates. He LOST to David Pollock.
  • Longueuil (Jacques Goyette LOST to Caroline St-Hilaire) and Laval (Gilles Vaillancourt WON re-election and swept the council) also have heated races this year.

Races not to watch

  • Baie D’Urfé and Dorval Island: All the candidates were acclaimed, so neither city is voting today.
| Opinion, TV

CTV wants the right to prevent you from watching Grey’s Anatomy

As we all know, CTV – and its growing “Local TV Matters” coalition of conventional television broadcasters not owned by telecom companies – doesn’t want the CRTC to impose fees on cable and satellite companies, but wants the power to negotiate fair rates for their signals. In a new TV ad (yes, they made even more of them), CTV literally brings out a table and two chairs and says “we just want to talk”.

In my last blog post on the subject, I was a bit skeptical of this idea. Cable companies have little incentive to carry local stations, and aren’t about to pay for them. Consumers also wouldn’t miss much if those stations disappeared. Most of their programming comes from the United States, and nothing outside of the newscasts is locally produced. And even then, local news and crappy Canadian programming are increasingly available online, where CTV doesn’t charge Canadians directly to watch. (I can only assume from the “Local TV Matters” logic that I am stealing CTV’s programming from its own website).

I pointed out why I don’t think local stations would have much of a bargaining chip at this table, even with the right to pull their signals:

Unless blocking U.S. channels is part of this plan, Canadians could tune into stations from Burlington, and all we’d miss aside from local news are shows like So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

Well, it turns out that’s exactly what CTV has in mind. This is what they told the Calgary Herald:

“We need a hammer,” says Sparkes.

For instance, broadcasters say they should have the right, as a negotiating ploy, to pull their signals from cable along with the rights to shows they own in their local markets, such as the popular series House — without cable simply importing the show from an American broadcaster.

In other words, if Videotron and CKMI can’t agree on a fee, CKMI would have the right to demand that Videotron not only be barred from distributing CKMI’s feed, but be forced to black out U.S. stations that carry programming CKMI has rights to, like House, Entertainment Tonight, The Office, 90210 and Family Guy.

This proposition is a scary one for consumers. Canadian broadcasters want the right to block out U.S. broadcasters from cable.

Blackouts are common in cable these days, but they’re never imposed by the CRTC. Instead, they’re usually done because of demands from major sporting leagues who have broadcast agreements with different broadcasters in different markets. In each case, it’s the broadcaster that wants to be blacked out to comply with that agreement.

But this is different. And aside from the unbelievable public outrage CTV’s idea would cause if it was ever invoked, and the dangerous precedent it would set, here’s why I think the CRTC should turn them down on this point:

Canadian rights to U.S. shows are set by contract between the Canadian networks and U.S. networks. The CRTC is in no way involved in these deals, nor should they be. But giving Canadian networks the power to block U.S. stations based on these private contracts means that the CRTC (and cable and satellite companies) would be bound by agreements made between private commercial companies. That’s simply unreasonable.

But then, reason wasn’t a part of this from the beginning, was it?