On the flip side, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Sure, cable providers like Rogers give TV networks a platform to get their content out to consumers, and thus increase advertising. But without this content, cable providers would be selling empty space (or those swiggly lines that used to come on at 4 a.m.: remember those?!) But there could actually be something to fill the holes: U.S. stations!
I find it strange that a country that's supposedly struggling to compete with our neighbours to the south in providing good content would be taking steps to interfere with the distribution of its programming. It sounds as though the request is in attempt to find another means of making money, especially in light of issues like the writer's strike and online streaming and downloading that have been plaguing the TV industry as a whole. But will customers say "no big deal" to paying a few extra bucks for their cable and satellite TV companies (because, let's face it, the added costs to providers would be translated on our bills), or will this be the last straw that begins a boycott of TV altogether? I don't know about you, but every three or four months, my bill seems to increase anyway. So I wouldn't be too happy even if it meant adding yet another two-bucks to my monthly bill. No thanks.
Given the ongoing debate, the CRTC is supposedly conducting a massive review of the entire TV broadcast landscape, examining issues like if providers should pay networks for distributing their content, and if Canadian content regulations should be re-examined? Right now, a good portion of the programs airing on Canadian networks are U.S. programs that certain subscribers could, in theory, watch through the U.S. networks instead.
My proposal: get rid of the U.S./Canada divide when it comes to TV, and just air programming that consumers want. Air Canadian shows in the U.S. and vice versa, and let the viewers decide what's great. After all, in the movie and music scene, it's often a surprise nowadays to find out that a popular artist or actor is actually Canadian. Why does that distinct divide still exist in TV land?
As for the network vs. provider debate, it surprises me that companies like CTVglobemedia are asking for money from the distributors of its content when much of it is actually U.S. programming. What's more, as I discussed in an older post, the programming is also often not broadcast up to par with the U.S. version, particularly when it comes to high-def versions.
I just think that, given the current state of the TV industry, causing a stir that could potentially lead to more money out of consumer's pockets probably isn't the best idea. And if the CRTC decides that yes, we should just allow U.S. programming to enter direct in order to help the ailing industry, Canadian broadcasters could be in real trouble. It would be a surprise if the CRTC does decide to go this way, but I think it might just be the kind of shake-up we need. I've always wondered whether forcing Canadian "culture" onto residents is actually promoting anything but a nation that's scared of losing its culture.
