A while back, there was a remarkable story about how the chairman of the CRTC, Konrad von Finckenstein, told broadcasters CTV and Canwest that if they want fee-for-carriage, they ought to just negotiate with the cable and satellite companies. If the broadcasters got what they wanted, great. If not, the broadcasters could just withdraw their content from transmission.
What the...?
Pay me, or I keep my stuff. Isn't that the free market? What is von Finckenstein playing at?
The saga of Canadian television seems absurd. While being questioned by Heritage Committee MPs on solving the crisis that has struck Canadian television, Konrad von Finckenstein explained that the problem he has with fee-for-carriage is that he has not been given "enough assurances" that the new revenue stream would be used by broadcasters to support local broadcasters.
This despite the fact that both CTVglobemedia and CanWest stated a commitment to support local stations with fee-for-carriage revenue in a written submission to the CRTC.
This despite the fact that both Ivan Fecan (CTVglobemedia) and Leonard Asper (CanWest) stated a commitment to support local stations with fee-for-carriage revenue in a hearing in front of the chairman of the CRTC.
Just what does this guy want?
In an appearance before MPs, CRTC head Konrad von Finckenstein explained that he doesn't have the answer on how to save television, nor will he implement an answer that people have been trying to explain to the CRTC for years.
It is time for the government to move on this. It looks like there is enough support within parliament to pass rule changes and bypass the CRTC.
I'm no expert on the subject of the economics of TV advertising, but I've written quite a few pieces recently on CanWest and the need to redesign the fee model for television. Based on comments and emails, I think quite a few people are still not clear just how cable and satellite distribution hurts broadcasters, and why broadcasters are owed some sort of compensation.
So I'm going to try and explain how it all works.
I doubt it. But in 2008, when Leonard Asper of CanWest and Ivan Fecan of CTVglobemedia put aside their differences to jointly address the CRTC on the question of carriage fees, Phil Lind of Rogers Communications dismissed their concerns on the basis that there was no need for carriage fees, since the broadcasters were profitable at the time.
Does that mean that Phil Lind will support carriage fees today? Someone should ask him.
With news that the government is looking at helping out Canada's private broadcasters, it is imperative that whatever else happens, this does not a result into a bailout for the CRTC. The regulator needs to be held to account for its considerable level of responsibility for the situation that we find ourselves in.
It would be churlish of me to point out that setting up the rules for Canadian television broadcasters such that they actually have a chance to succeed is something that ought to have been done years ago. But better late than never, as long as it doesn't turn out to be too late.
Unfortunately, it seems like it going to be a photo finish.
CanWest Global has dodged the bankruptcy bullet for the moment. First, the Aspers got an extension from creditors to mid-April. Now they are using this time (and an injection of funds from an old debt) to work with bondholders to come up with a solution that both sides can live with.
This is great news...but that success is based on convincing banks and bondholders that there is a profitable future for CanWest. The CRTC can do a lot to make that happen.
My TV is broken. Oh, I still get a picture and sound from it, but the Canadian TV model is breaking down. I would like to fix it, but like all good medicine, a lot of people are not going to like the taste of it.
Unfortunately, the right solution will most adversely affect people who seem to think that they are the only ones with good taste, period.
There are extensive archives arranged by month and by category.