U.S. broadcasters lobbying CRTC on signal regime

Four U.S. broadcasters have hired an Ottawa firm to lobby the CRTC on its distant signals regime as Canada's Supreme Court considers a decision that could impact the system. According to a May 25 federal lobbying registration, Public Interests Research and Communications Inc. consultant Francis Schiller has been hired to represent a coalition called the Working Group of U.S. Television Stations on Signal Retransmission in Canada and to lobby on Canadian broadcasting issues including the CRTC's distant signals regime that came into effect last September. The regime, outlined in an October 2008 CRTC decision, requires broadcast distributors to get the consent of local broadcasters before carrying their signals in non-local markets. That consent can involve compensation for carriage of the signals. According to the lobbying registration, the group—which represents broadcasters KSTP-TV in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, (an ABC affiliate), WDIV-TV in Detroit (NBC), and Buffalo, N.Y., stations WIVB-TV (CBS) and WNLO-TV (CW Television Network)—has hired Public Interests to lobby the CRTC on its definition of “local signals” and “distant signals,” and on sections 21 and 22 of the CRTC's broadcast distribution regulations related to distant signals and non-Canadian signals. The four over-the-air broadcasters also hired the Public Interests firm to lobby on the satellite relay distribution regulations, the requirements for stations to receive authorization for distribution in Canada, and the “egulatory framework relating to vertical integration,” the lobbying registration said. Michel Arpin, former CRTC vice-chair of broadcasting, told The Wire Report in an interview that he believes the U.S. broadcasters are interested in how the CRTC defines “local signals” so they can receive compensation similar to that outlined in the commission’s “value for signal” regime. The Supreme Court of Canada is now considering the CRTC's jurisdictional authority to implement the value for signal regime, which gives local, over-the-air TV stations the right to negotiate carriage terms with the broadcast distributors that carry their free TV signals. The court's decision, depending on which way it goes, could impact the distant signal regime. Rogers Communications Inc. said in April that, if the Supreme Court quashes the CRTC's proposed value for signal policy, the company intends to use that decision to strike down the distant signal regime. “They’re not lobbying for distant signal, they’re lobbying for local signal,” Arpin said. “My educated guess is that they’re more than likely talking about being recognized for value for signal.” Arpin said the CRTC did not address U.S. broadcasters when it first proposed value for signal because the regulations were intended to appease the concerns of Canadian networks that complained they weren’t being fairly compensated for their signals under the old regime, which did not require distributors to gain the over-the-air broadcasters’ consent to carry their signals. He said U.S. broadcasters can now collect money from Canadian distributors through the distant signals regime, but that value for signal compensation could prove to be more lucrative over the long term. “If ever the CRTC has the jurisdiction to introduce value for signal, then they want to be recognized as an organization that has a right to that money,” he said of the coalition of U.S. broadcasters. Arpin noted that producers, such as networks and TV stations, own the rights to the TV programs they create and are entitled to licensing fees under the Copyright Act if their shows are aired in Canada. Neither Public Interests nor any of the American TV stations was available for an interview. A source with knowledge of the situation, who asked not to be identified, said the group is seeking “preliminary discussions” with the CRTC about policies that require distributors to gain broadcasters’ consent to distribute their signals. The group believes “consent rights are essential for a sustainable television system” but it is not currently pushing the CRTC to take any specific actions, the source said. If U.S. stations won the right to negotiate terms for the Canadian carriage of their signals, Canadian distributors may be put at a disadvantage, but Canadian broadcasters could reap some of the benefits, Arpin said. He said Canadian distributors could drop some U.S. stations if they couldn’t reach affordable carriage agreements, which could reduce competition for Canadian broadcasters. Service providers would suffer if people living close to the U.S. border dropped their subscriptions so they could pick up U.S. stations over the air, he said. Ken Engelhart, senior vice-president of regulatory for Rogers, said the value for signal regime is probably the issue behind any lobbying U.S. broadcasters are doing in Canada. Rogers, along with distributors such as Cogeco Cable Inc., Telus Corp. and Shaw Communications Inc., are against the CRTC’s value for signal plan. Engelhart said it would be “disastrous” if U.S. broadcasters won the right to negotiate compensation for their signals. “Customers would end up paying more for exactly what they’re receiving today,” he said. “Not only you have money coming out of the cable systems, but money coming out of Canada.” John Pollard, president of CHEK, an independent, local TV station serving Vancouver Island and British Columbia’s lower mainland, said the right of consent for out-of-market carriage has not been a significant issue for his station, and it’s not clear to him why it would be a concern to U.S. stations. “I get calls from places like Portland saying, ‘Do you know you’re on cable in Portland?’” Pollard said. “Do I care?” he asked rhetorically. “No.” Pollard said distant signals fees CHEK receives has little bearing on the broadcaster’s overall business plan. He said the primarily impact of distant carriage is that he receives more complaints. “I have a guy in Newfoundland who watches us all the time who says, ‘Let me help you with your programming,’” he said. news@thewirereport.ca

U.S. broadcasters lobbying CRTC on signal regime

News | June 18, 2012

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

U.S. broadcasters lobbying CRTC on signal regime

News | June 18, 2012

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Freedom Mobile no longer pursuing full MVNO status

Federal arbitrator releases paid time political broadcast schedule

TV broadcasters denounce streamers’ appeals of CRTC’s broadcasting contribution decision

CRTC considering expanded mandate for Broadcasting Participation Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us