The CRTC got it (mostly) right

by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:07pm - 68 Comments

I am writing this with trembling hands, willing my fingers to type the words I never thought to see under my name: The CRTC Made The Right Decision.

You can imagine my surprise. Certainly it must have come as a shock to the parties in the longrunning fee-for-carriage dispute. Both sides were demanding, and expecting, that the CRTC would guarantee them a living, as it had always done in the past. The cable (and satellite) companies expected the CRTC to continue to force the broadcasters to provide them with content for free. The broadcasters expected the CRTC to force the carriers to pay them for their signals. And if it had just been one or the other pressing their case, I’m sure the CRTC would have happily obliged.

But it couldn’t satisfy both of them, and rather than split the difference the CRTC has chosen to get out of the game altogether. Rather than forbid the broadcasters from charging for their signals, the CRTC will now allow it. Only rather than force the cable companies to carry the signal at whatever fee the broadcasters would like to charge, the cablecos will have the right to drop them, if they find the price too high — no more “must-carry.” (As, for their part, the broadcasters will be able to withdraw their signal — and “black out” programs on other networks for which they hold the Canadian rights — if the price is too low. Or they can just stick with the current system.)

In other words, rather than bind the hands of one side or the other, or worse, set the fee itself at some arbitrary level, the CRTC is leaving the two sides, buyers and sellers, to negotiate the fee between them. You know, like in any other business. Why, it’s almost as if I wrote the decision myself.

Oh sure, the rest of it is the usual bilge: Canadian content quotas, both in terms of airtime (but down from 60 per cent to 55!), and spending (30% of gross revenues overall, 5% of it on “programs of national interest”), though broadcasters will have greater flexibility to shuffle all this unwanted Cancon about the dial. But why let all that spoil a good day? Here at Andrew Coyne’s Blog, we’re all about the love. The CRTC got at least one decision right.

Well, almost right. Two corollaries are needed before I start breaking out the party hats. One, if cable companies are no longer to be obliged to carry signals, consumers should no longer be obliged to pay for them. The cablecos may decide they can live with the fees the broadcasters are charging, but consumers may think otherwise. As long as the cablecos can just pass the fee along to consumers, via the forced bundling of channels, they will have little incentive to drive a hard bargain with the broadcasters. So pick-and-pay is the logical, and long-delayed, next step, allowing consumers to choose precisely which channels they will and will not pay for.

The other bit of unfinished business is the CBC. The Corpse is mightily put out that the commission did not give it the same green light to charge for its signal, and I can’t say I blame it. So let the CBC charge a fee if it likes — but cut its public subsidy by the same amount. Over time, the idea should be to move the CBC all or nearly all the way on to pay. It would still be a public broadcaster, so far as that was thought desirable. It just wouldn’t be a subsidized broadcaster.

But that’s for another day. For today, let’s just all hug and say the words together: the CRTC got one right. The CRTC got one right…

Tags: ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Karen

    I want to point out that Andrew Coyne would not be so well known but for his weekly spot on the CBC National News. It’s ugly to hear to hear someone deride their employer. I note that he doesn’t slag his magazine or The National Post and so his low-blow digs at the CBC feel almost like bullying. Eww…

  • Lori

    I have been unemployed for almost a year. I have been considering cancelling my cable TV since I do not watch $64 of television to justify the expense. I have a computer that I can use to watch movies and the like. If the cable companies raise their rates again, I am cancelling. In addition, something must be done to allow consumers choice as to who their cable carrier can be. I live in Toronto and my carrier is Rogers, period. I can do nothing to get Shaw or Cogeco. I am not permitted to put a dish on my patio (my landlord doesnt permit them) so I am held captive by Rogers and their over priced, low quality service. We should have choice for cable carriers just like we do for phone carriers. This entire system is so antiquated and needs a major overhaul. The CRTC needs to get into the 21st century or needs to be disbanded.

  • Baringer

    I agree with Coyne, but he "next logical step" of letting consumers pick only channels they want to will never happen. The commision would have to let half the specialty channels fail. The cablecos should also be able to charge the networks for carrying their commercials, and eliminate simulcasting. For once, I'd like to see the US broadcast of the Superbowl without the Canadian ads.

  • Brian B. Wolf

    And now another tax grab, I have had it!….screw the Liberals, screw the HST, screw the e-Health/Lotto/everything-else-the-Liberals-have-touched charades, screw the TTC, screw the unions, et al!

    When Ontario and Canada gets a reality check….call me….I am moving to upstate NY!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WesternInterest WesternInterest

      Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out….

  • John Kok

    You missed the point of CTV & Global simulcasting US programming. Current CRTC rules allow or even encourage the much hated practice of Canadian commercial substitution.

  • come again

    One thing not mentioned here is the catch-22 the CBC is in. The government says, less money for you, commercialize. Run like a business. The CRTC says, you're publically financed, you can't go black (removing their only power to negotiate). So no, they can't run like a business, because they ARE public. Personally, I'd hate to be in CBC management.

  • http://www.boxescrates.net boxes_crates

    I'll back again for sure, thanks for great article :D

  • Sue

    "It would still be a public broadcaster, so far as that was thought desirable. It just wouldn’t be a subsidized broadcaster." Not very clear – When a broadcaster is not subsidized, why would it be called public? Because it provides quality Canadian content and is admired internationally, ties the country together and addresses Canadian issues? The public interest is not served by giving the lowest common denominator consumer the biggest bang for his lowbrow buck. Coyne wants to see the CBC privitized because, like other Cons, he does not understand its value.

  • MacLean's Regular

    "So let the CBC charge a fee if it likes — but cut its public subsidy by the same amount. Over time, the idea should be to move the CBC all or nearly all the way on to pay. It would still be a public broadcaster, if that was thought desirable. It just wouldn’t be a subsidized broadcaster."

    How generous of Andrew Coyne to be so fair-minded in his diktat with respect to what the CBC should do and become.

    When can the CBC choose to stop shoving his smug mug in my face so regularly? When he says so, that's when!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

    Do you reply the same way to every time a columnist makes any sort of policy proposal? Because I hope you at least have that on AutoText if so.

  • DPT

    If you don't want the CBC in your mug the answer is simple, turn your F*&^%ing TV off. Believe me you won't miss the garbage.

  • MacLean's Regular

    "Because I hope you at least have that on AutoText if so."

    It's even more sophisticated than that. It's a script I've written to respond to the AutoText Coyne uses when he talks about the CBC.. I wasn't even on the computer when that comment was generated. I was surfing across 300 channels of private broadcaster crapola looking for something to watch.

  • Reader

    "Crapola" is too kind a word for it.

  • Gruul

    I been in Canada for 2 years and in truth the televsion networks are rubbish. In UK just before I left we introduced digital TV using the normal antenna, just pay for the box and watch the free channels. it's not differcult It's called Freeview even digital radio DAB.
    Canada is so far beind it make me laugh. No wonder we turn to the like of torrents.
    Taxing Canadians is stupid all of your networks advertise between programs unlike the BBC. how can they have any good reason for hiting the public via a TV tax.

From Macleans