War of Words and Misinformation

Broadcast Versus Cable-My View
With the battle that is being waged on our TV stations in recent weeks between Cable and TV Broadcasters, I decided to write this article as we are witnessing a lot of misinformation rather than fact. I, like others, want to retain our local TV station, but at the same time I think both parties should be more honest with us.
First a little background. I grew up in the early part of the TV industry starting my working career in 1966 at CKVR in Barrie which was owned at the time by the Snelgrove family. It is said the VR stood for Valerie and Ralph. Here is how I view the currect dispute between the broadcasters and cable.
I want to first stress that I think the local market television stations are an important part of the media fabric in Canada. Aside from the CBC government sponsored broadcaster, these local TV stations, which were originally owned by entreprenueurs, developed the foundation of the TV industry in Canada providing a community need. What does bother me today is the rhetoric and misinformation that is being spewed by both parties as part of a fear mongering PR campaign. I believe most of the misinformation is coming from the Broadcasters.
Now a little history from my recollections. Before cable or satellite, we all received our TV signal on roof top or small tower antennae or in many cases set top “rabbit ears”. We were limited to VHF channels 2 to 13 in the beginning. You could receive 4 or 5 stations ranging from clear to snowy pictures even in the city and towns.
Then came cable. It connected homes in the built up communities to a broader range of stations including the major US networks. All these “over the air” broadcasters saw this new method of distribution as an advantage to them as it broadened their audience reach. They were no longer restricted by their broadcast signal area and the receiving antennae. I can recall that combined with its high power broadcast transmitter, and the advent of cable, CKVR reached well into Toronto making it an attractive media outlet for advertisers on a budget. It was a very profitable operation. All the broadcasters were quite willing and anxious to have their signals included on the limited number of channels available when cable first started. The Broadcasters are now saying in their TV spots that the base rate and basic cable or satellite fee was to pay them for those signals. That is blatantly false in my estimation. The basic fee paid for the cable distribution systems infrastructure and now the satellites that carry the signal. These companies were by no means profitable in the beginning. Just ask Phil Lind of Rogers who had to go a few times with hat in hand to extend bank lines in the formative years. The base rate was never intended to be revenue shared with the local Broadcaster. It was intended to cover costs and hopefully provide a profit which it now does to the benefit of their shareholders. We do still believe in a free enterprise economy, I think? There is some thought that in the early days of cable and limited channlels, the Broadcasters might have paid a fee to be carried by the cable companies, but the CRTC in its wisdom at the time set the basic business model with both parties. I could go on on how the CRTC developed cable substution at the request of the broadcasters, whereby the local station, if running a US originated program at the same time as its US counterpart, had its signal and commercial inserted in that channel's slot on cable and got credit for the audience. That is still the policy today. How is that fair? The CRTC has went out of its way to support the broadcasters in Canada.
Most of the founders of our TV broadcasters understood how the system should work. For over 30 years most did an honourable job of balancing service, profit and social responsibility. That concept disappeared slowly in the last number of years of private and public ownership and then was completely obliterated with the mass takeovers during the last decade. Our current major TV broadcasters simply don't understand the local markets, their social and ethical responsibility to the communities and viewed these local stations as a liability. If allowed by the CRTC they would discard them. Look at the A Channels. CTVglobe Media never wanted them when they purchased CHUM in the first place. They wanted the major market CITY stations and paid a significant price to get them. As we all know the CRTC did not permit the concentrated ownership monopoly of two major stations in a market, requiring CTV to divest the CITY properties and take the A Channels which was a reversal of their plans with Rogers at the time.
I believe the problem is much deeper. We all know that over the last three decades with the advent of home videos, the internet in the 80's, the continued growth of satellite communication and now the electronic entertainment devices the world is a different place to do business. The tuned hours for TV have diminished because of it. The large Broadcasters themselves diluted their business and revenue stream with the development of specialty channels that for the most part are specialty in name only. They took the huge profits of their conventional properties and tried to fill the available channel slots with the idea of protecting their existing advertising revenue stream. Even a first year business student would have suggested that the pie of advertising dollars, which was not getting bigger, was being sliced into smaller pieces. The recession of the last year took care of the rest. The Broadcasters must admit that they developed a bad business model that was doomed for failure. They also failed to keep some of the profits for a rainy day.
With that said and done I would ask both the Cable and Broadcasters to be the businessmen they are capable of being. It is called negotiation. I for one have no problem of paying a few extra dollars if it means we can retain my local station. If these stations want to be paid for the signal, I want to know what I will get in return. Will they provide a local morning show, local morning and noon news program in addition to 6 and 11? Will they do more than news features and provide local programs of interest to my community?
The CRTC could also invoke a National TV licence fee like the UK and share the revenue with the broadcasters based on some formula. The cable companies should not be the ones saddled with collecting the extra revenue to correct an economic problem that the broadcasters created and then be painted as the pariahs of the issue.
We have a good broadcasting system in Canada. I also know it much more complicated than my brief letter. It is unfortunate that there are no founding fathers left to straighten out the mess. They would have certainly resolved the problem before it got to be a battle of egos and wills. We need both strong cable companies and broadcasters and I ask both to work toward that common goal.
And please! It is a great tune and music video that the Local TV Matters are running, but you know and I know the content is at best false and more likely a bold face lie!