It’s been brewing for awhile now, don’t pretend you haven’t noticed. You may have even joined a facebook group showing your support for one side or the other but do you truly understand the issues?
There’s a reason I haven’t waded in on this subject yet – I didn’t feel as if I knew enough to choose a side. One side wants local TV to survive and the other claims they’re just trying to create a new tax to buy more foreign content. One side is making tons of money and claiming it’s the other side that’s incompetent and after cash. It’s all very confusing and contradictory. I haven’t done much research but I’ve thought about it a bunch and here’s how I come down on this little dust-up…
My first inclination is to side with local TV – they’re the underdog and haven’t gone as wildly negative as the cable companies have.
This all started because cable companies rebroadcast local channels without paying them for the content. They’re selling something they don’t own, didn’t create, didn’t buy, and never paid a dime for. That doesn’t strike me as the slightest bit fair. And if that wasn’t enough they even use the logos of local networks in their advertising materials. So it seems like cable is in the wrong here based on simple morality.
The situation got worse when advertising money dried up due to the financial crisis – car companies are usually one of the biggest advertisers and they haven’t exactly had money to burn lately. So the cable companies are branding this as local TV being incompetent and needing a bailout. I suppose leaner and meaner organizational structures could help but clearly that’s not enough.
What we have here is a common goods problem. Cable TV takes and gives nothing back from local TV and now local TV is withering from a variety of factors. Cable companies seem to lack the foresight to see that if local TV stations fall, it will hurt cable in the long run. It’s short-term greed over long-term viability. These groups should have a synergistic relationship, not a parasitic one. I pay extra for time shifting so I can watch broadcasts from other parts of Canada, if those local stations go under I won’t need that add-on anymore. And that’s just one example.
I also have to hand it to local TV for pointing out the crazy rate increases cable has pulled over the last few years – well above inflation and cost of living. In fact not too long ago I called to complain about an increase I was only told about a month after it went into effect – in the end they did nothing and blamed the increase on fuel prices. Are they driving the shows to my house in a Hummer or something? Add a fuel surcharge to installation or service calls if that’s the problem – raising everyone’s rates without telling them is a cash grab.
So what’s our way out of this mess?
Should local TV have the right to charge for rebroadcast of its content on cable? Absolutely. Should local TV be able to sue companies that use it’s logos without permission? Certainly. As I understand it neither of these is the case however. So first off these things need to change at whatever level that is required but that alone won’t solve the problem.
The problem is monopolistic tendencies of the cable companies. Ant-trust and anti-collusion laws need to be enforced on cable companies.
In my region we used to have Rogers Cable but then some big corporate deal decided that Rogers would get Central Canada and Shaw would get Western Canada and they would stay off of each other’s turfs to save money. That’s collusion (when two or more companies in the same industry work together when they’re supposed to be competing against each other). 2 large companies with combined near-complete market share agreeing not to compete and carving up the country like colonial Africa or something. At the time I was too young to understand just how wrong it was. And now we’re reaping the crop of these seeds of anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
But what about Bell and Telus TV and the new Rogers service you ask?
Bell’s prices are pretty decent but for many people a satellite dish is not feasible – if they live in an apartment building or rent their home they may not be allowed by the owner, not have access to where they need to adjust it, not have the necessary line-of-sight…the list goes on. Plus I’m not fond of satellite technology for TV but that could just be my ignorance and inexperience talking.
As for Rogers and Telus, they don’t provide service in my area. And it’s not like I live in the country or anything. I don’t even live in a suburb. I live in a city with over half a million people in it according to the 2006 census and counting the surround metropolitan area that number jumps to over 2 million as of 3 years ago. I live less than 3 miles from the center of the city. I used to have a cell phone with Telus for about a decade and found their service fantastic; I would seriously consider switching if I were able but I am apparently out of both of their service areas. It’s 2009 for God’s sake – when did less than 3 miles become an insurmountable hurdle for technology? I can get wireless internet on a laptop or blackberry but no cable TV alternative?
So unless I try a satellite dish, which I may not even be allowed to do, I have precisely one choice when it comes to TV. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. And besides, why bother? It seems like these companies have a pretty congenial relationship anyways, how is it likely to be any different even if I could switch?
Oh, and what’s with cable TV including the CBC in it’s hit list in those attack ads? You’re going to war with people you’ve been stealing from, a war likely to be decided by the government, and you decide to attack the national broadcaster supported largely by federal funding? You’re going to call THEM incompetent and greedy? Their president is appointed by the Prime Minister – you’re not exactly helping your case before government here. Heck, forget all that – you’re going to pick a fight with the oldest existing broadcasting service in Canada? The people who bring us hockey? If you think you can win a war for the hearts and minds of Canadians against Don Cherry you’ve clearly gotten too big for your own good.
So here’s my prescription:
Step One: Government has to allow local TV to charge for rebroadcast of their product.
Step Two: Government has to allow local TV to go to go court to protect its brand.
Step Three: Government needs to step in and stop anti-competitive actions by these huge cable companies. They either need to break up these companies into smaller units, hold them legally accountable for collusion, or in areas where competition is not viable fix their rate of price increases to the rate of inflation until such time as competition is present in the market or do some combination or perhaps even all three.
I suppose the only alternative is to cancel your cable altogether and get whatever you need off the internet, legal or otherwise, but even then guess who has a stranglehold on the internet provider market.
When the government, big business, or the market doesn’t provide moral, ethical, and legal alternatives what are we to do? I’m more than willing to pay a fair price for cable TV but the prices aren’t fair and the money isn’t going to the people who create the content. If it’s legal for cable TV to steal its TV shows and make a huge profit off of it how can it be illegal to steal TV shows and not make a profit at all? It seems that pirates now have the moral high ground on the cable companies. How about that?