Yesterday, the CRTC handed down its decision on the high-profile squabble between Canada’s television networks and broadcasters about whether the latter needs to pay fees to the former.
The CRTC concluded networks could demand fees for their previously free signals but they would have to negotiate the value of those signals with the cable and satellite companies. However, apparently recognizing the potential legal questions and challenges, the CRTC has also asked the Federal Court of Appeal to review the new “value for signal” system before it kicks in.
If the court gives the green light, the industry and consumers will be in for a wild ride. Suddenly, cable and satellite companies would be forced to negotiate with conventional broadcasters for payment to carry their signals. TV stations would be able to withhold their signals completely from a cable or satellite company if they don’t like the way negotiations are going. Because they pay for the rights of a given television show in a given season, the cable firm would be blocked completely from transmitting it in any capacity.
CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein remains skeptical–as he was during last fall’s consultation period–that consumers will see the cable bill hikes executives have been warning of.
“It’s not the only game in town, after all consumers can watch all of this on the Internet for free, and they might do that if you raise your cable company’s freight too high…” he told The Canadian Press.
“It’s in the parties’ own self interest to come up with a solution that’s in the best interest of the consumer.”
Though the CRTC decision was long awaited, it seems to have resolved little for the short term nor quell the rhetoric emanating from all sides:
Here is some of the chatter about the decision and its effects.
•Michael Geist, syndicated technology law columnist
“[Perhaps the CRTC] hopes the blackout option is so unpalatable both to broadcasters and broadcast distributors that it will force the parties to reach a deal. Consumers may not be inclined to wait around for this particular fight to be resolved, however. Given that… the programs are readily available online, and U.S. over-the-air digital signals are freely accessible to sizable percentage of the Canadian population, basing a broadcast policy on forced scarcity in a world of abundance hardly seems like an optimal approach.”
Phil Lind, vice-chairman of Rogers Communications Inc.
“The CRTC today has essentially placed a tax on all cable and satellite customers. While the over-the-air broadcast sector has had financial challenges during a tough recession, the commission has decided to penalize our customers and impose fees for services that are available free over-the-air for anyone with an antenna or on the Internet.”
Paul Sparkes, CTV’s executive vice-president, corporate affairs
“They have recognized that there is value associated with the content that we produce, so we’re very happy with that. I’d like to thank the thousands of Canadians who wrote in to the CRTC in support of our position and in support of local television.”
Kevin Crull, president of Bell Residential Services
“[The] decision is bad news for Canadian consumers. The CRTC is prepared to have Canadians pay even more to subsidize profitable broadcasters and their ever-increasing spending on U.S. programming. It is outrageous for the CRTC to completely ignore the huge profits broadcasters are making from their specialty channels, not to mention the fact that they are increasing what they spend in the U.S. while they are actually cutting Canadian content at the same time.”
Ian Morrison of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
“It was a business-as-usual decision, punting the opinion to the Federal Court of Appeal, which is months if not years away…”
