Rogers filed its submission with the CRTC in advance of November's CRTC hearing on the structural reform of the Canadian television industry. While many issues will be discussed at this proceeding, of critical importance to Rogers and its 2 million customers, is the issue of fee-for-carriage.
The CRTC has already twice rejected a fee-for-carriage scheme, once in 2007 and again in 2008. This year, Parliament's Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studied the issue and decided not to support the concept. Yet, broadcasters, seeking to increase their profits at consumers' expense, have once again forced fee-for-carriage back onto the CRTC's agenda.
Rogers continues to oppose fee-for-carriage as an unnecessary bailout for over-the-air broadcasters and an unfair tax on cable and satellite television subscribers. " 'Claims by CTV and Canwest/Global that the advertising-supported business model for over-the-air conventional television broadcasting is broken, are simply wrong,' " says Phil Lind, Vice Chairman of Rogers Communications. He adds, " 'advertising revenues will rebound at the end of the recession.' "
In its submission, Rogers argues that while OTA television services have always been distributed by cable and satellite companies without payment, OTA television broadcasters profit enormously from the quality and extended audience reach this carriage gives them, and are well-positioned to get through the current economic downturn.
Rogers also charges that on the basis of speeches delivered by the Chair and another member of the CRTC in June publicly supporting fee-for-carriage, as well as in the Commission's decision on July 6 to impose such a regime, the Commission appears to have prejudged the outcome of the hearing. Lind explains, " 'The CRTC has broken the rules of procedural fairness. In order to ensure an impartial hearing, any Commissioners who were a party to the July 6th decision to impose fee-for-carriage should not take part in this proceeding.' "
The Rogers submission also argues that fee-for-carriage would create an irritant on the trade front between Canada and the United States. Lind added, " 'U.S. border broadcasters would also demand carriage fees if fee-for-carriage were to be implemented. And if successful, consumers would face even higher monthly bills.' "
A research report filed with the Rogers submission, and prepared by Strategic Counsel, confirms that Canadian consumers overwhelmingly oppose the fee. Eighty-five percent of customers surveyed rejected the notion of fee-for-carriage. Sixty-one percent of Rogers subscribers said the proposed fee would result in them downgrading their service, while 16% said they'd drop their cable service outright.
Source: Broadcaster, 09/14/2009
|