News

What a Difference a Year Makes: Bell on Local Television Channels

Last year, when Bell’s purchase of CTV was undergoing regulatory approval, the company went out of its way to emphasize its support for the struggling local channels it was acquiring as part of the deal. At a CRTC hearing on the issue in February 2011, company officials stated:

the ‘A’ channels, which have struggled tremendously over the last several years, require assistance to continue to maintain their current programming levels. They also require investment to be broadcast in high definition, which will improve ‘A’ channel programming quality and allow for HD simulcasting. Together these investments will help ensure that ‘A’ channel local programming can be sustained and can remain available to these communities.

The same hearing included an appearance from Randy Goulden, the Executive Director of the Yorkton Film Festival in Yorkton, Saskatchewan. Goulden extolled the virtues of a Bell – CTV merger for local CTV channels:

CTV’s local television stations are a great part of the Canadian broadcasting system. They provide invaluable promotion and publicity of our initiatives and our programs, raising our profile to a level we would not have the opportunity to enjoy without their support. The Yorkton Film Festival supports CTV’s acquisition by Bell as it will make CTV a stronger company and that, I believe, will enable organizations like mine to continue to grow.

Just over a year later, Bell now says the Yorkton station is potentially on the chopping block. As the CRTC conducts hearings on the Local Programming Improvement Fund and the Supreme Court of Canada holds its hearing on the fee-for-carriage, Bell says that “we won’t continue to fund chronically unprofitable stations, tiny stations in tiny little towns.” Yorkton is on that list, along with at least five other stations (which Bell says could grow to 10 stations if the LPIF shrinks). Bell promised to keep the A channel stations operational for three years during the regulatory process, but no similar promises were made for local CTV channels. In other words, the owner may have changed, but the game remains the same – use threats to close local channels as the basis for demanding additional revenues through regulation.

Tags: / / / /

6 Comments

  1. I don’t think that anyone should be surprised by this. Bell was not doing the CTV thing out of the goodness of their hearts, they just wanted more content to leverage their services. It had nothing to do with keeping local content. When these things happen they tend to spin it initially to try and make sure that their true intentions are not really known and unfortunately people believe them.

    I would be saying the same thing if this was Rogers.

  2. pat donovan says:

    onward
    and the multiverse shrinks, oddly enough, to whatever is profitable.

    not the old cable regs, where if you showed up they had to broadcast it.

    live streaming of jr hockey? Take it to the web. Right?

    Then the web will get swarmed under, the same way the CBC’s streaming is under attack.

    Like publishing, only the bestsellers will get published.
    (It took 5000 copies to get a second novel contract in the fifties. Today, it takes a best-seller listing)

    I do NOT know why people aren’t abandoning the big three in droves.

    packrat

  3. Most people have no alternatives to the big three.

  4. No alternative to the big three? If those ‘most people’ plant themselves in front of the television every night and can think of nothing else to do, they deserve what they get.

  5. >Rick said: No alternative to the big three? If those ‘most people’ plant themselves in front of the television every night and can think of nothing else to do, they deserve what they get.

    That’s great that you can switch your 20,30,40 year old habits so easily but people have way more important things to worry about these days then buying media boxes, buy netflix, installing OTA antenas and spending hours and hours figuring out what and where they can watching on their media box instead of the already available cable where you just need a remote control to change channels.

    Those other alternatives you talk about will cost WAY more to go out and do than say $75 for cable+

  6. >end user said: Those other alternatives you talk about will cost WAY more to go out and do than say $75 for cable+

    Though I would agree to that in the startup, but over a course of a year, that $75 has turned into a $900 bill (not taking into account bi-annual rate hikes). If one is only watching a small handfull of channels, and are in the right location, $100 for an OTA antenna, and cabling. A couple of hours one Saturday to get it all connected, and that’s it. Then to add something like Netflix. $8 a month to add to an internet bill…they still are ahead of the game.