CCA urges CRTC to regulate cable and satellite rates

CCA Bul­letin 27/09

Novem­ber 3, 2009

Just the Facts

The fed­eral gov­ern­ment has recently instructed the CRTC to hold a pub­lic hear­ing to ask the assess the impact on con­sumers of com­pen­sat­ing over-the-air tele­vi­sion broad­cast­ers – such as CTV, Global and CBC – for the dis­tri­b­u­tion of  their sig­nals by the cable and satel­lite indus­try. This is an impor­tant issue indeed because, as the Order in Coun­cil (OIC) points out, the vast major­ity of Cana­di­ans receive their tele­vi­sion broad­cast­ing ser­vices, includ­ing Cana­dian over-the-air (OTA) tele­vi­sion ser­vices, through dis­tri­b­u­tion undertakings.

In a brief pre­sented yes­ter­day, the CCA sup­ports the estab­lish­ment of  “value for sig­nal” (or fee for car­riage), pro­vided the CRTC also imposes Cana­dian pro­gram­ming expen­di­ture require­ments on OTA broad­cast­ers.  The CCA also urges the CRTC to re-regulate cable and satel­lite rates to ensure that this pay­ment, as well as the Local Pro­gram­ming Improve­ment Fund (LPIF) con­tri­bu­tion, is not passed along to con­sumers, and to oth­er­wise pro­tect con­sumers’ inter­ests.

Tell me more

Twice over the past two years, the CRTC has rejected a the notion of “fee for car­riage”, which the broad­cast­ers have rela­beled “value for sig­nal”. How­ever, the Com­mis­sion reopened the ques­tion for the hear­ing due to start in Gatineau (Que­bec) on Novem­ber 16. Over the past months, a fierce pub­lic cam­paign has pit­ted broad­cast­ers against dis­trib­u­tors, the lat­ter using both tra­di­tional adver­tis­ing as well as social net­work­ing tools like Face­book to denounce what they call a “tax on tele­vi­sion”, which they claim they will be forced to pass on to consumers.

This has led the gov­ern­ment to ask the CRTC to hold a spe­cial con­sul­ta­tion on the spe­cific issue of the impact on con­sumers. Prompted by the two par­ties at war over the issue, thou­sands of Cana­di­ans have sent their com­ments to the Com­mis­sion over the past sev­eral weeks. The dead­line for pub­lic inter­ven­tions was yes­ter­day and this addi­tional hear­ing on the issue is sched­uled to start on Decem­ber 7. The CRTC will then make rec­om­men­da­tions to the gov­ern­ment, who will make the final decision.

In its brief, the CCA notes that in the OIC addressed to the CRTC, the gov­ern­ment refers to only two con­sumer inter­ests at stake in the debate, namely cable rates and access to local news ser­vices.  The CCA states that there is actu­ally a third con­sumer inter­est which the Com­mis­sion should con­sider, namely access to high qual­ity Cana­dian drama and other under­rep­re­sented pro­gram­ming gen­res, as pro­vided in sec­tion 3 (i) of the Broad­cast­ing Act:

“the pro­gram­ming pro­vided by the Cana­dian broad­cast­ing sys­tem        should be var­ied and com­pre­hen­sive, pro­vid­ing a bal­ance of infor­ma­tion, enlight­en­ment and enter­tain­ment for men, women and chil­dren of all ages, inter­ests and tastes.” (empha­sis added)

The CCA states that with prof­its of $2 bil­lion a year, the dis­tri­b­u­tion com­pa­nies can and should absorb the new con­tri­bu­tion which would ensure that Cana­di­ans have access to qual­ity Cana­dian pro­gram­ming, and that the best way to pro­tect con­sumers is to start again reg­u­lat­ing rates for cable and satel­lite services.

Finally, the CCA sub­mits that the Com­mis­sion should deter­mine itself the appro­pri­ate level for a value for sig­nal pay­ment, tak­ing into account the impact this would have on both the broad­cast­ers and the dis­tri­b­u­tion under­tak­ings.  Given the tone that the debate has taken in recent months, the CCA con­sid­ers it would be both utopian and irre­spon­si­ble to hope that such an issue can be deter­mined through a direct nego­ti­a­tion between the par­ties involved.

What can I do?

It is too late to inter­vene in the pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion, but you can con­tact both your MP and the Min­is­ter for Cana­dian Her­itage, the Hon. James Moore, to say that your sup­port both the “value for sig­nal” con­cept and the reg­u­lat­ing of cable and satel­lite sub­scrip­tion fees to pro­tect consumers.