Posted on February 24, 2011 by billcarney
Well, it seems to be true: Swiss Chalet is trying to get a license to have a tv channel that just shows its rotisserie chickens roasting, 24/7. What next? GM showing its cars in a showroom? Who pays for this? How bored do you have to be to subscribe to this channel. I thought a 24 hour fishing channel was insane. Maybe its just a joke, or a good attempt by Swiss Chalet to engender lots of earned media. How much does Swiss Chalet pay the carriers to have it bundled into a package, forcing chicken down our throats?
Globe and Mail, Feb. 23 2011
Filed under: CRTC | Tagged: Swiss Chalet | Leave a Comment »
Posted on July 16, 2010 by billcarney
Her’s something you don’t see every day in this space: Let’s hear it for the CRTC! Yes, today the regulator told Sun TV it would not accept its application for a Category 1 license – forcing the new channel to be carried on every cable package across the country, a de facto tax on consumers raking in millions for Sun TV for the pleasure of having neocon political philosophy rammed down our throats. Don’t mind if the neocons get their own channel, but the neocons should pay for it. The CRTC suggested Sun TV do what everyone else does: get a basic licence, then negotiate with carriers how to carry it. Could be as popular as the all fishing channel….
Report on Business, July 16 2010
Filed under: CRTC | Tagged: Sun TV | Leave a Comment »
Posted on July 13, 2010 by billcarney
Quebecor is trying to get the CRTC to whack CTV over its choice of programming (not Canadian enough) on the latter’s A channel affiliates, the ones that mainly show movies and satisfy CRTC Canadian content by loading up on local news. Not that it’s a bad thing, but CRTC is looking for more Canadian drama, comedy etc. than just news. More likely corporate posturing than anything else, but with TV ad revenue down significantly this year, all options are being explored to ram the enemy.
Sun media, July 12 2010
Filed under: CRTC, CTV, Quebecor | Leave a Comment »
Posted on March 31, 2010 by billcarney
Peladeau, owner of Videotron and the Sun newspaper chain, and God knows what else, is arguing today for a public debate on the role of CBC (though he doesn’t specify it, he really means CBC TV.) In the zero channel universe of the 1950′s, a national television broadcaster made sense, just as a national radio broadcaster did. In the 500 channel and counting universe, what exactly should CBC television’s role be? News and documentaries? Got those channels. Sports? Got those channels. Showcase for independent filmmakers? Check. So, let’s have a national debate on the role of CBC and its 28 platforms, then fund it accordingly. I’ll start the ball rolling: yes to Radio One, maybe to Radio Two, no to Radio Three. No to CBC English TV, yes to CBC French TV/radio outside Quebec, maybe to CBC French inside Quebec.
The future of the CBC and its pre-eminent role in our broadcasting system should be up for review. The Corporation’s funding is tied to its mandate, as stipulated in the Broadcasting Act. Just as the CRTC acted courageously in its recent decision, Parliament should now rethink CBC’s direction and funding and make it accountable in the same way as other Crown Corporations.
National Post, March 30 2010
Filed under: CBC, CRTC, role of CBC | Tagged: Peladeau | Leave a Comment »
Posted on March 29, 2010 by billcarney
This time from someone a little more qualified than the usual suspects, Dr. Michael Geist, academic expert on new technologies and copyright. His argument: the CRTC failed to consider two key factors in its non decision on fee for carriage, the consumer and the Internet. You should read the whole column to get a solid analysis of the CRTC’s failure as a regulator in this case.
Toronto Star, March 29 2010
Filed under: CRTC | Tagged: fee-for-carriage | Leave a Comment »
Posted on March 28, 2010 by billcarney
I’m back, and I’ll pass on Ann Coulter thanks (if you ignore them, they do go away.) Of more import is the CRTC’s non-decision on fee for carriage to dump the whole thing back to the two entities that can’t agree on it: over the air TV companies and cable companies. J-source rounds up the media opinion, which is universally negative (you’d think a regulator could actually regulate). Meanwhile, CBC-TV seems to be asking for its share of cable revenue as well. Pretty rich. We’re all paying for CBC TV through our taxes, then CBC wants us to pay for receiving it on cable. Talk about double taxation….
J-source, March 23 2010
Filed under: CanWest, CBC, CRTC, CTV | Tagged: fee-for-carriage | Leave a Comment »
Posted on November 27, 2009 by billcarney
The CRTC has approved a license of Al Jazeera English (AJE), not to be confused with the more controversial Al Jazeera Arabic (AJA) which has raised international concerns about it being anti-Semitics. As with all things MSM, AJE has been available on the net for some time. Anyway, glad to get another international view. We have CNN and BBC World; I’ll be subscribing to AJE for another perspective on world issues.
Globe and Mail, November 27 2009
Filed under: CRTC | Tagged: Al Jazeera English | Leave a Comment »
Posted on July 6, 2009 by billcarney
As per the budget, the CRTC upped funding for local television to $102 million. More importantly, it called for public proceedings into the future of conventional broadcasting starting in the fall. That might be more meaningful in the long term, as the CRTC is upping funding and granting one-year licenses to tide the nets over the short term.
CTV, July 6 1009
Filed under: CRTC, Television news | Tagged: public proceedings | Leave a Comment »
Posted on June 18, 2009 by billcarney
CP reports that MP’s have been studying the fee-for-carriage issue, but decided to send it back to the CRTC, which has twice rejected it. They did offer a sweetener, uping a $60 million fund for programming to about $150 million. Don’t get too excited the increase would come out of your cable/satellite fees, as would fee-for-carriage, if it’s implemented.
Canadian Press, June 17 2009
Filed under: CRTC | Tagged: fee-for-carriage | Leave a Comment »
Posted on June 13, 2009 by billcarney
In a decision announced last week, the CRTC, after lengthy hearings, decided to continue its policy of not regulating new media (web etc.) Two of its reasons are ones I’ve always argued:
1. There is no business model for NM, as there is for MSM. NM lose more money than they make (even Youtube is losing money), and while the big winners like Googol make billions, so the losers like Yahoo etc. (after a good run) also lose millions). And NM is just as affected by the ad slump as MSM, with banner ad sales down 4 per cent over last year.
2. CRTC defines NM as “complementary” to MSM. In short, one won’t replace the other and in fact they have a symbiotic relationship.
Better to let the market develop and define NM before the CRTC gets involved.
Canoe/CP story, June 4 2009
CRTC ruling in full, June 4 2009
Filed under: CRTC, New media | Tagged: June 4 2009, NM ruling | Leave a Comment »