Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Save local TV, stop the TV tax!

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, November 2, 2009 11:51pm - 86 Comments

Sorting through the duelling barrages in the interminable public relations war between the cable and broadcast industries over “fee for carriage” — now mercifully coming to an end — I find myself agreeing with both sides.

Yes, it is unfair that cable companies should get to use the broadcasters’ signals for free. And yes, it is outrageous that the broadcasters should be foisting another tax on the long-suffering television public (to say nothing of using their news programs to promote it): because if the cable companies are forced to pay the broadcasters for their signals, you can bet the consumer will wind up paying for it in the end.

In any logical universe, there would be a simple solution to this. In that universe, the broadcasters could charge a fee for their signals if they wished — but cable companies would be under no obligation to carry them. Cable companies could pass on these fees to consumers — but consumers would not be forced to subscribe to channels they didn’t want. Instead of forbidding broadcasters to charge for signals the cable companies are obliged to carry that consumers are then forced to pay for, nobody would be forced or forbidden to do anything.

And in the end, everyone would have to compromise, and to share. The broadcasters and the cable companies would negotiate fees between them — it would be more than zero, probably, but less than the broadcasters would prefer. The cable companies would try to pass this on to the consumer, succeeding only in part.

But that’s not the world we live in — not in this country. In this country, everything is decided by the CRTC, everything is based on force, and as a consequence, nobody has any incentive to share or compromise: it’s winner take all, depending on who can get the CRTC to side with them. So rather than focus on making better programs, or cutting rates, or otherwise improving their product, both sides spend inordinate amounts on crude propaganda campaigns trying to sway the public their way, and thus to pressure the CRTC and/or the cabinet to award them the prize.

So, as I say, I agree with both of them, but only because they’re both wrong.

Tags: broadcasters, Cable, CRTC, trickiness, whining

More by Andrew Coyne

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

My home town has already 'lost' it's local televisions. CBC cut it in the early 1990s. There is no 'local' CTV affiiliate. Ironically, the only local television comes in very small doses from Rogers Cable. It strikes me as odd that in the name of 'saving' local television, my neighbours would be forced to pay a tax for a service that they do not have, through an entity forced to charge it which is actually the only entity currently offering that thing at no additional cost.
Joe P. Lumber

Haven't you guys heard of BitTorrents?
Ted

I am one not to care as long as my bill doesn't Increase. But the more i see the argument playing out on my T.V. I see the Providers ( the cable and the satellite companies taking on the form of an American company ,FOX News approach to their fight ), Can you( the local channels) Promise that what you say is true?? that you want to talk aboutthe money that they charge Us will go to funding local TV , or will we back her in 5 yrs ?
Guest

Both sides are wrong
Linda L

Linda
Stop the tax on TV well if they put another tax on TV l will stop watching TV Because l fine now that there is not much on TV l watch now so if you put more Tax on People will fine other things to do Music is one or read a book. TV now is not the same as before.Only time l watch TV is for Soap so l can stop all together. so will other people.we are now Tied of Taxs That is all they do any more.Thank you.linda
Slimsilver

What people don't seen to understand is that local broadcasters don't want the general public "There viewers" to pay any tax.
The Satellite and cable broadcasters are lying to use through there ads. Your local broadcaster want's the satellite and cable companies to pay for there program's that hey are taking for free.
And pay the local channels directly the same as they do for foreign channels.
They say well your local tv channel want's the CRTC to impose a tax on you.That is not true guys its the cable and satellite companies that want the CRTC to block the Local broadcasters from getting a Judgement for compansation
What better way for the big business to get you the people to help them.
They will just tell you some thing that bug's most of us that we are going to have pay more TAXES and that would get most of us up in arm's.
So don't let them fool you into helping them Email your Satellite or cable provider and tell them to start paying for all there channels they are charging you for and stop stealing your $$ that you pay for your local broadcasting channel's.

http://intensedebate.com/people/russellmcormond Russell McOrmond

Amusing that you have picked sides on this when both of those two sides are lying to you. This is also not a new issue, but one that has been ongoing for decades.

The fact is that any mandatory increase in the cost of doing business to the cable companies will be passed on to consumers. This is the way all businesses work in the real economy. The broadcasters are simply lying to you in trying to pass the buck onto the cable companies for a decision the broadcasters are initiating and thus must be held responsible for. The cable companies are not already charging you for these stations, and while I will agree they steal your money in other ways that this isn't one of them.

The only reasonable solution to this request by broadcasters is that for any broadcaster that wants the fee should also have to negotiate for position on the "dial" (IE: no longer guaranteed a low spot on the dial) as well as attract customers (E: no longer be mandatory as part of basic cable). I suspect if consumers were actually given a choice to pay for these "local" stations that the broadcasters would find out few people actually want them.

Note: I will be speaking in front of the CRTC on this issue, based on the following submission:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5079

It should be clear that I'm not siding with the cable companies in this given I'm making a proposal to effectively clarify the cable companies as redundant and eventually non-existent.

http://intensedebate.com/people/russellmcormond Russell McOrmond

I'm gathering your not a researcher, and don't want to spend a moment to look up easily found facts.

The URL I gave you is to a site that would make it quite clear I don't work for (or even morally support) much of the entertainment industry. It also links to my self-employed business at http://flora.ca . None of my customers are from the television networks or the cable/satellite companies, although being self employed I have had the opportunity (and requirement) to understand the basics of business. I know that if a cost for me goes up that I have to pass this on to customers one way or the other (increased costs to them or reduced service). That's just a fact of life, like gravity.

You have been convinced that the cable companies have been collecting money from you that was for retransmitting over the air stations to you. I don't know why you think this as it is simply not true. They have not been collecting this money from you, so if they are asked to pay an increased fee then it will be passed on to consumers one way or the other (increased cost, reduced service). I'm pretty convinced that even if basic cable stays the same (highly unlikely) that the so-called time-shifted retransmissions will be long gone (IE: reduced service).

The rest of your message is as well researched, so no need to comment. It isn't likely you would have read past my first sentence anyway ;-)
Slimsilver

You have been convinced that the cable companies have been collecting money from you that was for retransmitting over the air stations to you. I don't know why you think this as it is simply not true. They have not been collecting this money from you, so if they are asked to pay an increased fee then it will be passed on to consumers one way or the other (increased cost, reduced service). I'm pretty convinced that even if basic cable stays the same (highly unlikely) that the so-called time-shifted retransmissions will be long gone (IE: reduced service).
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Researcher ??? Maybe
You are Double talking and contradicting yourself again Russell.
You just said it yourself if the Local broadcasters win there claim with Cable and Satellite services then they are just going to pass it on.
Why Russell they are collecting it from us already.
It is the same as you in your business if the cost to you goes up and you pass it on to your customer base and if they dont like it you can loose them as customers.
But if you double charge them the increase and they learn of it that will cost you your business.Am i right yes i am.
But the difference is between you and these thieves is they have the consent from our Government leaders to do it and will get away with it FOR NOW.
You can do all the research you want russell but you only see what you want i do mine and sift through the crap to find the truth it would surprise you how much of this stuff you find on cable and satellite companies are lie's to hide what they are realy doing.
There research team must be busy sending out crap to bury this stuff deep to hide it.
rob

lets not forget ctv owns bell and shaw owns star choice……