Whatever Happened to Originality?

Today, yet another classic television show from years gone by opens in theaters as the latest summer movie blockbuster.

The A-Team movie opening today is a remake of the 1980’s action television show of the same name. Also this summer, MacGruber, a Saturday Night Live movie spoofing the MacGyver action show from the same decade has already begun.

Remaking classic television shows is nothing new for Hollywood – past summer movie seasons have opened with remakes of Charlie’s Angels, Miami Vice, Starsky & Hutch and The Dukes of Hazard.

But enough already!

Although some of these remakes aren’t bad – the first Charlie’s Angels movie was very well done, and the remake of Starsky & Hutch was so close to the original series, it felt like I was at home watching an old re-run on TV – leave the past in the past.

When I go to the movies, I want to get lost in a completely new world, with characters I’ve never met before, dealing with situations or subject matter which is new and different.

If I wanted to watch a classic television show, I’d just buy the DVD/Blueray – in many cases those even come with NEW material of their own, such as never before released outtakes, cast and crew commentaries, actor and character bios, behind the scenes footage and more.

SO, if the old original television shows can come up with new material, how come Hollywood’s biggest and brightest movie-types can’t?

Whatever happened to originality?

Is it really true that everything that will be thought of, already has been?

Truth is, although watching a remake of an old television show brings back warm and fuzzy memories, something completely different would have caught my eye more.

And this summer, the movies are anything but original.

Aside from remade television shows of the A-Team and MacGyver, this summer’s list of movies are based on plots, storylines and characters we’ve already seen before.

Morning Glory – due out in July – is the story behind the lives of a television cast and crew trying to put together a morning news and entertainment show each day. Sounds a lot like 1987’s Broadcast News, which is still recommended viewing by any broadcast journalist students today.

Killers which opens this month is about an undercover assassin that gets married and soon discover each others hidden lives. Remember Mr. And Mrs. Smith anyone?

And although vampire movies are cult classics, most follow the same storyline, and share the same commonalities of the living undead. So this month’s opening of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, has undertones of The Lost Boys, Interview with a Vampire and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Again I ask – whatever happened to originality?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Film: Newswire: There will be a MacGyver movie, and we only have MacGruber to blame (avclub.com)
• "MacGruber" Movie Faces "Mixed" Record for SNL Films (patspapers.com)
• 'Baywatch' Bringing Its Assets to the Big Screen (cinematical.com)

The Changing Face of the Boob Tube

War has been brewing between Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite carriers for years. At issue, who should pay for locally produced programs?

Yesterday, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled in favor of the broadcasters, allowing them to negotiate charging a fee to carriers for inclusion of their signals in their channel line-up.

The ruling still requires federal court approval, and could be overturned by the court or appealed by the cable and satellite companies.

Broadcasters – including the primary television networks in Canada of CTV, Global and CBC – claim that unless they can collect a fee from television carriers, they won’t be able to produce local news and other locally produced programs.

CRTC reports confirm a loss in revenues, saying private Canadian TV broadcasters lost $116.4 million CDN in 2009, despite earning $8 million CDN in 2008 – that’s a huge drop of 93 percent.

Cable companies on the other hand had profits of $2.3 billion CDN in 2009, an increase of 11.9 percent from the $2.1 billion CDN they raked in, in 2008.

Though cable and satellite companies claim any new fees from the broadcasters will just be passed on to you and me – their customers.

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Are Canadian broadcasters just poor money managers?

The answer – as with most things in life – isn’t that cut and dry.
The real problem isn’t the broadcasters or the television carriers fault. The real blame is our own ingenuity in technological advances.

When television first started breaking into our living rooms, channel selection was pretty limited. There were only a handful of signals available over the airwaves, sent via the Very High Frequency (VHF) band. Only channels two to thirteen could be carried on this frequency, which seemed like a lot, as not even half that many actually existed. Eventually, as television and radio stations began popping up all over the United States, the American Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re-allocated all over-the-air “bandwidth” to carry the load.

Amplitude Modulation (AM) and Frequency Modulation (FM) went to radio, while television stayed with VHF, and got an additional frequency – Ultra High Frequency (UHF), which carried television stations 14 to 83.

For those old enough to remember changing channels on their televisions long before remote controls existed – YES there was a time – there were two knobs on the boob tube. The primary VHF band, allowed you to tune in channels two to thirteen, and then you often would tune that dial to “U” (or some other similar symbol) and continue channel surfing on the other dial to get the few scattered stations on the UHF band.

As television caught on, more channels crept into the airwaves, and soon signals were being carried by cables buried deep underground. To get cable initially, you needed to purchase or rent a cable box, which allowed you to get as many as 60 to 99 channels depending on the cable box – again that seemed like way more than you’d ever need.

When digital television came out, the numbers of channels became a moot point.
Technology even solved the mysterious channel one phenomenon – channel one was never available on analogue-based systems as that frequency is actually reserved for emergency responders in many parts. But thanks to microchips, computer processors, and the completely electronic format of digital signals, digital television channels can be assigned any number, and the number of ‘em is just as endless.

This gave rose to the specialty channel boom – from the 24-hour all news networks, weather channels and other information-based programming, to the movie networks, documentary channels, there is even a channel called “Fireplace Channel” which – you guessed it, shows a roaring fire in a quaint fireplace 24-hours-a-day seven-days-a-week. Though you may start to question your sanity if you watch the Fireplace Channel for long.

And this is what is killing your local programming – not the ineptitude of broadcasters, or the greed of cable and satellite providers.

The more correct term for this phenomenon is “narrowcasting” instead of broadcasting – as specialty stations cater to very narrowly defined demographic groups. Sports channels run nothing but sports-related programming, catering to sports fans, while science, technology and nature channels cater to people interested in those specific topics, while the Fireplace Channel caters to – well – uh – er – we aren’t sure who THAT channel is for!

The point is, as television stations become more specialized, the television viewing market splits into fragments of individual viewers, each person watching the specific television stations which cater to each individual’s own interest.
I love science, technology and nature shows, found on stations such as National Geographic and Discovery. I also enjoy movies, so I get all the move networks.
You may like movies, but prefer classic cartoons, so you get Teletoon Retro.
Everyone’s individual tastes are different.

This is bad news for broadcasters, which cater to a general audience, trying to have a little bit of everything for everyone.

Why would I waste time even browsing channels which don’t typically cater to my specific interests, when I can tune right into channels that do?

So broadcasters in the traditional sense – the CTVs, Globals and CBC networks – are losing viewers, and that loss in viewers trickles down into less ad revenues, as the fewer people watching, the less likely companies will pay big bucks to promote their products and services on that channel.

Also, specialty channels offer a unique opportunity for commerce – they deliver the specific viewers interested in the specific types of goods and services for that station.

Think about it, wouldn’t, say a power tools manufacturer have a better chance of selling their products on a channel which specializes in home renovations, than on a broadcaster which may not even have a home renovations show?

As the television market continues to fragment, thanks to these specialty channels popping up all the time, traditional broadcasters will continue to lose money.

Just as the traditional broadcasters lose money, the television carriers earn more – because we are willing to pay more to subscribe to the specific channels we want to watch. That’s why the cable and satellite providers are raking in the big bucks, while the broadcasters are losing their fiscal shirts.

Allowing the broadcasters to charge additional fees to offset this loss in revenue isn’t going to make matters any better in the long-term. In the short-term, sure, any money you toss at a problem in the short-term appears to solve it.

But in the long-term, there simply won’t be enough viewers watching the traditional broadcast outlets. Unless the broadcasters begin narrowcasting, they will continue to bleed viewers until there is nothing left to but bone dust in the sand.

That’s the changing face of the boob tube.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Broadcasters get preliminary CRTC support for signal fees (cbc.ca)
• CRTC wants market forces to decide TV fee dispute (financialpost.com)
• CRTC backs TV over cable in fees dispute (thestar.com)
• Revenue gap between cable and broadcasters widens (financialpost.com)
• CRTC says cable firms should pay networks for TV signals (calgaryherald.com)
• CRTC wants market forces to decide TV fee dispute (canada.com)
• CRTC unveils a new group-based television regulatory policy (newswire.ca)

Oscar – A Snob in Life and in Death

Although the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences sounds like a highly academic intellectual organization, their science is anything but.

Most will know “the Academy” as the organization which brings us the Oscar’s every year. Most winners thank “the Academy” for the honor.

Often embroiled in controversy for choosing best actors, movies, and other Hollywood-types based more on popularity than for talent, last Sunday’s show was supposed to have put much of that behind it. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences changed how votes were cast and some of the categories to do just that.

However, as with many things from so-called “La-La Land” – the Academy has been re-writing its version of science, which has landed it in a different kind of controversy.

Usually, after the Oscar’s, there is much debate about who won and who didn’t. This year, the controversy is over who died. Well not exactly – more to the point, which famous celebrities who have passed on should be honored and which should be excluded – if any?

The executive director of the Academy apologized today for intentionally leaving out Farrah Fawcett from the segment which pays tribute to Hollywood celebrities who have died in the past year.

Numerous agents, publicists and other Hollywood insiders were honored along with several big name celebs – but the Oscars snubbed one of television’s greatest icons, forever to be remembered as one of “Charlies’ Angels.”

Michael Jackson – who isn’t a movie or television star, but one of music – was honored at last Sunday’s Oscar tribute. But other famous faces including Gene Barry (from both versions of “War of the Worlds”) nor Bea Arthur (the gravely-voiced strong woman behind “Maud”) were ignored.

Bruce Davis, the person who’s been heading up the “in memoriam” segment since it began at the 1993 Oscar’s says he thought about including Farrah Fawcett, but as she was more of a television star, he felt the TV Academy Awards would be a better place to pay her tribute – and they did. He said they included Michael Jackson because he was the subject of a movie documentary.

It is like being that one kid that was always last to be picked to play on the baseball team, because neither of the two kids choosing players for their respective teams wanted that one kid on their team.

Kids can be cruel – but that’s because they are young and don’t know any better. When adults do it, is just mean spirited evil ill will.

We’re not talking about deciding who is the best actor in a dramatic supporting role – this isn’t a contest about who died better -- we all die. When someone famous passes away, we expect they will be honored in front of and by their peers, because that is just the right thing to do.

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences needs to either completely remove the memorial section from its Oscar awards, or stop using it to promote their own discreet social inner circle, and pay tribute to all famous faces that passed on.

Until then, the Oscar statues aren’t worth the gold they are plated with.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Academy apologizes for Farrah Fawcett snub (cnn.com)
• Academy Defends Farrah Fawcett Omission (shoppingblog.com)
• Farrah Fawcett Oscar snub: Academy apologizes, cites 'remarkable' TV career (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• TV: Newswire:Farrah Fawcett, Bea Arthur, Ricardo Montalban, Ed McMahon omitted from Oscar tribute (avclub.com)
• Farrah Fawcett Oscars 'In Memoriam' Omission Was Intentional (mtv.com)
• Oscar bosses defend Fawcett snub (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Academy: Farrah Fawcett Left Out Of Oscars Tribute On Purpose (huffingtonpost.com)

Mashed Potato Wrestling, Scantily Glad Women, and Local Television – What Matters?

Maybe it is just part of being Canadian, to automatically denounce anything coming directly from our home and native land – that is until that thing makes it big down south.

Canadian actors, singers, song writers and other famous people from North of the American border never seem to make it big in Canada, until they garner recognition outside of Canada. Then, all of a sudden, our eyes open big and wide, and we proudly proclaim “he’s Canadian, eh?”

From Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Shania Twain and The Bare Naked Ladies, to Elisha Cuthbert and her 24 co-star Kiefer Sutherland (who’s dad is also a famed Canuck – Donald) – all these famous Canadians make us home-grown-proud. But that hometown-pride never surfaced until they became known in the big U.S of Eh, eh?
Local Canadian television is falling victim to our fascination with American programming traveling over airwaves, digital cable and satellite signals.

Just this past Wednesday, Rogers Broadcasting killed 60 local Canadian television jobs, when they laid off these people from their recently purchased CityTV stations in Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and their flagship station which started it all, CityTV Toronto.

Rogers Broadcasting which owns CityTV, claims the ‘restructuring’ was necessary in the highly competitive industry.

Although the hardest hit are those whose jobs are no more, when a broadcaster cuts people, everyone sees it. The local lunch, evening and late night newscasts are gone from all stations except for the flagship station in Toronto, which still has both a dinner-hour newscast and their late night news. All stations were lucky to keep their morning programs.

Be Thy Own Enemy Be True

Local programming is under attack in Canada – but we are our own enemies.

Thanks to digital television signals, we are no longer limited to a mere twelve channels – for those of us old enough to remember those dark and grainy television days. Remember when your TV only had channels two to twelve, and you had to turn the knob to “UHF” (for Ultra High Frequency) to get any remnants of ghosting channels, often fuzzy at best, from beyond the basic twelve?

These days, we hook up a digital receiver, which is magically connected to either a digital cable outlet, or a digital television “co-ax” cable which is attached to a microwave satellite dish, bouncing digital signals to the stars.

There is literally no limit to the number of channels these digital signals can receive, so in theory, the sky really is the limit.

And that has created a whole new way of broadcasting – narrowcasting – and this is what is killing local television on both sides of North America, and probably elsewhere these digital signals soar.

Narrowcasting is the ability to create targeted television stations – not just programs, but complete television stations – geared towards specific demographics.

Back in the late 1980’s, we were introduced to the first of this kind of station – MTV. MTV was the first station to cater specifically to teenagers and their musical tastes, creating a whole new form of broadcasting, the music video.

Speed jump to present day, and we have several music video channels, each one playing videos for specific musical tastes. From metal to smooth jazz, to country – but these narrow focused stations aren’t limited to just music.

Shop-a-holics can rejoice on the shopping channels, techies can swoon in on the latest techy toys on their own channels, there are movie channels for movie lovers, History Television for history buffs, even Book Television for those who wish they were reading something instead of sitting in front of the tube. . .

For every culture, religion, special interest group, demographic – some of the many channels I’ve seen pop-up on my digital box: NASA TV (for us astronomy/science buffs), Discovery Health (for medical/fitness buffs), Canadian Odds Channel (for those who want to bet on the horses, but don’t want to deal with a slimy bookie at the track), The Game Show Channel (for those who like to yell out answers at their TVs), Teletoon Retro (showing us old folks classic cartoons) . . . the list goes on and on and . . .

Before all of this, we all watched the same local twelve channels. Not everything appealed to everyone, and the biggest gripe was “there never is anything interesting on TV,” but at least we all watched. Thanks to narrowcasting, we all watch different channels, often leaving the general interest local stations fending all alone for viewers.

Local stations were a bit of this, a bit of that, a bit of everything, because they could never narrowfocus on any one thing. Their audience was the mass appeal of television – back in the days when there were so few television stations, we were subjected to whatever the television executives thought we wanted to see.

Now the tables have turned, and by our tuning in – or more likely out – we dictate what the television executives run, else they are forced to do what Rogers Broadcasting’s executives did, and slash programs and jobs which just aren’t capturing the viewers.

But the real problem is us.

We don’t care enough about what goes on in our own backyards – how could we when we are drawn to scantily glad women wrestling in a vat of mashed potatoes on the Mens channel, or that hypnotizing infomercial for the Sham WOW?

Hmm. . . learn about a six car pile-up on the local news, or watch mashed potato wrestling chics? What a world we live in.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rogers cuts Citytv programs, jobs (canada.com)
• It's War in Canada's Television Industry - Thanks to the Government (jordansdaily.blogspot.com)
• TVO's dynamic digital media strategy continues to broaden its educational reach (newswire.ca)

CBC Rebranding Nothing More Than a Patch Job

For weeks now, Canada’s national broadcaster – the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) – has been running ads bragging about how they’ve completely made-over their all news channel, Newsworld. They even took their flagship weekly nightly national news show “The National” and revised it too with a new set, new logo, and now it also airs on weekends.

When I was a journalist, I watched “The National” and CBCNewsworld religiously – what Canadian newshound doesn’t? But back then your choices among the news networks were limited to CNN, CBCNewsworld, CTVNewsn

Image via Wikipedia

et, and a handful of local newscasts.

I still tune into the CBC every so often, but find myself more drawn to BBC World and occasionally CNN. CBC – although an excellent news outfit – just wasn’t all that interesting anymore. The reporters always covered their stories in the same style, anything innovative usually being a documentary done by an independent person and bought by the CBC.

That’s probably why they recently did a complete rebranding of their news coverage, I’m obviously not the only person who they’ve lost as a regular viewer over the years.

So, when I recently tuned into the newly revamped “The National” I was eager to see what changes the executives at CBC made to win me back.

What a disappointment – aside from the set, and on-screen graphics, e

Image via Wikipedia

verything was good old fashioned chisel chinned CBC. All the stories were reported in the exact same, cardboard-cut-out, textbook journalism method they have always been.

That’s great if you’re using the CBC to train wanna-be journalists, but not so good if you’re trying to win back lost viewers.

I was expecting new and innovative ways to report on the things happening in the world around us. Instead, I got the same boring cookie cutter stuff the CBC has been dishing out for over 20-years.

CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge – a great Canadian journalist – continues to host the flagship “The National” just as he always has, from behind an anchor desk.
He’s standing behind the desk, and occasionally they bring in a reporter standing across from him to provide some “live” dialogue – but other news stations have been doing this for years.

The news pieces still tell the basic story – but they don’t dive deeper. In fact, some were already out of date. They had a story about what happens to your digital life when you die – your facebook, Twitter, blog and other social networking sites. This story broke on many of those social networks three-weeks earlier, and CNN and the BBC had already run stories on this at least two-weeks earlier.

Where was CBC three-weeks ago?

It was a Thursday night, and that meant they had their regular poli

Image via Wikipedia

tical panel, which also hasn’t changed in several years – same people, same topics, same opinions. They are interesting to watch, they’ve been doing this political panel for so long, and everyone has chemistry between and among them. But it’s all the same song and dance.

Then they had their editorialist Rex Murphy – he’s an amazing writer, but despite the zillion years he’s been doing the same thing on the same television show, you’d figure he’d learn to write for television. He doesn’t sound like he’s reading, but his dialogue is clearly written for the printed page – he went on to emphasize bullet points about what the Canadian Liberal leader needs to do to be the leader. Bullets work well in print – in broadcast they sound crass, elitist, and academic.

Actually much of Rex Murphy’s commentary would read well, but was too long winded and wordy for television. In print, you can take your time, re-read sections if you want to – can’t do that on TV or radio. Well I suppose you can thanks to PVRs/Tivoli – but that’s no excuse. It is just as important to write for your intended audience as it is to write for your intended media in this multimedia world. And Rex Murphy isn’t new to broadcasting, he’s been doing the same thing, for the same network forever.

For a rebranding of their news outfit, CBC didn’t do much more than slap a new coat of paint onto an old wall. Essentially it was nothing more than a patch job, using new computer-generated graphics. And that is really too bad, because I only saw one show, and already could see the paint peeling and falling off.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CBC, National Post announce content-sharing deal (cbc.ca)
• CBC rebrands Newsworld as 'News Network' (thestar.com)
• CBC News reveals new look, program changes (nationalpost.com)
• CBC revamps news flagships (thestar.com)
• CBC Montreal announces 3 new hosts (cbc.ca)
• CBC's revamped The National glitzy but a little contrived (thestar.com)

Bubble Boy a Hoax – No? Really?

As fast as our world rotates, some things always stay the same. Take the news media last week, when they all rode the wave of “boy accidentally takes off in a hot air balloon” story.

I was at the office and just passing by one of the many lunch rooms which have TVs tuned to a local all news channel. People were gathered around the TV, watching in horror, live coverage of a giant silver hot air balloon, which supposedly was carrying a little boy who had “accidentally” taken off in it.

I know not everyone that is a parent is really cut out to be a parent, but even the worst parents on the planet wouldn’t let their kid go up in a hot air balloon unattended. And even if they did, just how does one accidentally take off in a hot air balloon?

When I was a reporter, I covered a handful of hot air balloon stories – so I know, these things are typically tethered to the ground by two or more thick, long and strong ropes, tied-off to bolted anchors in the ground. One doesn’t accidentally just go up in one of these contraptions – you have to make a very concerted effort to untie all the ropes from the anchors – and not just one of them – all of them.

Something smelled like rotten tuna as I watched the TV coverage. That and later on when I got home, I heard on the news that the little boy was never i

Image via Wikipedia

n the balloon in the first place, he was always safe on the ground.

Sure enough, the next day, rumors started spreading about how the whole thing was a hoax. Just some media stunt to give some trailer-park trash people the attention they crave. I guess they didn’t qualify for the Jerry Springer Show.

Although the family is obviously not playing with a full deck of cards for even conceiving of this stunt, and children’s aid should be called in to look at the parenting skills and quality of life these nutbars provide to their kids, all the blame rests squarely on the media.

Sure, had a little boy really been caught up in a hot air balloon, drifting over the American mid-west out of control, that would be newsworthy.

But there were so many holes in this story that anyone who’s been in a newsroom long enough should have known it couldn’t possibly be legit.

The news media gets so wrapped up in their own fiction sometimes, they forget to do their job. What exactly is the job they forgot to do.

Think, ask, and report.

THINK about the situation. Really think about it – does it make sense that a little boy could have accidentally taken off in a hot air balloon all by himself – no of course not! Whether or not the little boy was really in the hot air balloon, it was not an accident. Either he was placed in there by someone else and set adrift, he untied the ropes with help from friends (it usually takes more than two people to launch one of these massive balloons), or -- hello – he’s not in the hot air balloon to begin with!

ASK – always ask questions, that’s the primary job of all reporters in the news media. And if you’re thinking – as you should be – you’ll ask questions relevant to the situation which should tell you if you’re chasing a hoax, or your next Pulitzer Prize winning story.

My question – why didn’t anyone ask how a little kid could have launched a hot air balloon all by himself? I’ve seen groups of big strong men struggle to launch these things – here we have one little boy and he’s supposed to have done this all by himself?

Report the news, based on your thoughts, questions and observations. This they did – problem is because the media didn’t think, they didn’t ask the questions that needed to be answered, so their reporting of events was misleading, false, pure speculation and hype.

Thanks to that media hype, everyone is kicking themselves around the water cooler, as the truth about this hoax is revealed.

If you are one of those people kicking yourself because you fell for the prank – don’t. It’s not your fault the news media failed to do their job.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 6-year-old boy floats away in balloon (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Boy, 6, floats away in homemade hot-air balloon (thestar.com)
• Balloon Dad's Former Partner Says He Was "Always Scheming" (alan.com)

It’s War in Canada’s Television Industry – Thanks to the Government

War has been declared between Canada’s local private broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers over who should pay for Canadian content.

Many Canadians are more than familiar with “funded in part by a grant from the Canadian Film and Tax Fund” tagged at the end of most Canadian-made productions. This fund was setup by the federal Canadian government many years ago, to ensure Canadian broadcasters had an incentive to produce their own Canadian-grown content, rather than relying solely on American-made productions.

Recently, the federal government decided to change where that money comes from, and as is typical of governments looking for more money, they imple

Image by William Hook via Flickr

mented a new tax to cover Canadian-made content.

The federal government passed this tax onto the cable and satellite providers, as a fee equal to about $10 per subscriber. Naturally, the cable and satellite providers have passed this new tax onto their subscribers. And this is where the battle cries began.

In tough economic times as we’ve been in, we’re all trying to save money. And for most of us, if that means cutting back on our entertainment expenses, say cancelling some of the channels we don’t watch to save a handful of dollars, for the most part we’ll do just that.

Research has shown that for every price increase in cable and satellite services, over 40 percent of those subscribers will adjust their subscriptions to counter the increased fee. According to the same study, about five percent of cable television subscribers hit

Image by Mark Blevis via Flickr

with an increase of $10 or more on their monthly bill will actually cancel their cable services completely.

So, just ahead of the addition of this new tax on their customer’s bills, the cable and satellite companies informed their customers of the new fee, and in a not quite objective letter, blamed the local broadcasters for the cash grab. They even included contact information so their customers could complain directly to their local federal Members of Parliament (MPs) – how nice of them.

The local television stations retaliated claiming they would go off the air, if they didn’t have this funding to produce quality, Canadian programming. Their news crews did “investigative” pieces on how the money is used, and what will happen if the government seed money stops coming. They ran – and continue to run – ads saying they will go out of business if they don’t get the money to produce Canadian content.

The cable and satellite companies continued the battle, with their own ads, more letters and emails to their customers, and claims that Canada’s private broadcasters made a combined total of over $4 billion in profits – hardly penny-poor in need of a handout.

Image via Wikipedia

Although these very same service providers aren’t exactly desperate for cash either, making mega-huge profits off their subscribers. One of the biggest cable companies in Canada – Rogers Cable -- has made so much over the years, they have bought professional sports teams and stadiums. Currently, Rogers owns Major League Baseball’s Toronto Blue Jays, and their home stadium, formerly “The SkyDome,” renaming it “The Rogers Centre.”

SO what is the truth in amidst all this propaganda from the local Canadian private broadcasters, and the cable and satellite companies?

The truth is the federal government continues to demand Canadian content produced and aired by our local broadcasters, but has decided they just don’t want to fund it anymore. So they mandated – through the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) that all television service providers pay this fee, else they would block the signals of the major American networks – ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX.

This whole war started because some select members of our federal government were looking for a new revenue stream and they realized the government had been subsidizing Canadian content for years. Back in the mid to late 1990’s, they changed the rules governing local Canadian channels and television service providers.

They began retooling the Canadian Film and Television Tax Credit, and a

Image via Wikipedia

t the same time ended the mandate that all television providers had to provide a community access channel. For years, the law of the land was quite clear – if you wanted to be a cable or satellite company, you had to provide a free, public access channel which was open to the local community for their news, information and access to locally produced content.

As more diverse as the television dial became, the government realized it was impossible for the television service providers to cater to the many needs of their subscribers with one channel, and they removed that mandate for a local community channel from the rule book – with some lobbying from the television providers themselves – naturally.

This unfortunately also opened up the possibility, to the federal government, that they no longer needed to pump as much money into funding local Canadian content. But they always put pressure on the television broadcasters to continue to create this home-made content.

And rather than face the wrath of the Canadian population as a whole, for cutting this subsidized funding for Canadian-made productions, they decided it would be an easier political pill to swallow for the television service providers. They never thought for a second, that the television service providers would in turn, pass this new tax onto their customers – though that just makes sense.

And now we have a war of words being aired very publicly on televisions across the country, as the big cable and satellite companies go head-to-head fighting for what each believes is in their best interests.

While us lone consumers who subscribe to these services are stuck in the middle of it all – all while watching are cable and satellite bills increase.

What should be done, is to go back to the original model, where television service providers, local private broadcasters, and the federal government each contribute a fair share of money to a fund for local, Canadian content – without charging anything directly back to us subscribers.

This was how it was for much of the 1970’s until the late 1990’s, when the federal government introduced laws to deregulate the cable and satellite industry. They had hoped that these changes would open the market, which in turn would lower the cost for subscribers via good old fashioned competition.

That plan fell through the ice like a barrel full of bricks, as many of the smaller, local cable companies were bought up and swallowed by the already mega-large cable and satellite providers.

And now it has come full circle, as the government’s plans to increase competition have failed, but they continue to act as if they were successful, by implementing this new tax. But because deregulation has failed, there isn’t a broader, more competitive customer-base to draw additional funds from.

Yet the government – never all that quick on the uptake – is still bargin

Image via Wikipedia

g ahead with their plans to increase funding for Canadian content, by adding this new tax.
And we haven’t even scratched the surface when we toss the end of analogue signals into the mix. This year, American stations stopped broadcasting on what was called “over-the-air” via the good old fashioned Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band. Remember when you were able to just plug in a TV anywhere there was an electrical outlet, and watch fuzzy stations using “rabbit ears?”

Not anymore in the States – and soon not anymore in Canada either. As digital signals, with their high definition digitally crisp and clear pictures dominate the landscapes, both Canadian and American federal governments have decided to acquire those UHF frequencies used by television broadcasters for emergency signals and lower-band cell phones. So if you don’t already subscribe to cable, eventually you will have too – otherwise all you will see on your TV is your own reflection.

Maybe we all should write our local MPs and tell them to wake up, look around, and work with what is, rather than what they thought would have been?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ottawa asks CRTC to review TV fee-for-carriage (financialpost.com)
• Ottawa orders new hearings in TV fee flap (thestar.com)
• Facts a moving target in Local TV Matters press conference (newswire.ca)
• Ottawa to make decision on fee-for-carriage (thestar.com)
• Moore directs CRTC to tackle fee-for-carriage (cbc.ca)
• Analog Is Dead. Long Live Digital? (npr.org)