Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Television battle heating up

Hopefully Thanksgiving weekend provided folks with extra time to recharge and catch up with family and friends. Or maybe you just chilled with a good book or lounged in front of the television. Yours truly spent a fair portion of the weekend watching TV in upper New York State and back here at home.

If TV ads are a proxy for public debate, the difference between the Americans and us is striking. South of the border, the health insurance debate along with mid-term election positioning dominates the airwaves. Here at home the most pressing national issue is, apparently, how much you and I will pay for monthly TV viewing and who is at fault.

And our elites have the temerity to be smug when it comes to Americans and health care. At least their politicians have the courage to openly and vigorously debate the roles of government and the private sector when it comes to health insurance and health system reform. Canada? Not so much. But I digress.

Back in June I first wrote about the simmering battle between the networks and big cable/big satellite providers over who should pay what for local programming. Since then, both sides have become more entrenched in their positions in the lead up to crucial CRTC hearings next month.

The TV networks have cried poverty up until now but what has become clear from the ads orgy is neither side is hurting for cash. Just look at the millions of dollars each side is spending on their multimedia campaigns. The TV guys are on-line at www.savelocaltv.ca and big cable/satellite has countered with www.stopthetvtax.ca.

If one were to judge by look and feel alone, I’d give the nod to the cable side in terms of issue positioning and messaging. They have followed the cardinal rule of advocacy; better to frame an issue and marshal support when you are against something as opposed to being in favour. As well, their TV ads and advocacy tools are simply better.

But neither side should be too smug. This debate is eerily similar to the 2004-2005 NHL lockout a few years back with the TV networks in the role of whiny, woe-is-me millionaire players and the cable/satellite conglomerate looking like the affluent billionaire owners. Getting warm and fuzzy for either side is somewhat revolting.

And both sides refuse to answer the pressing questions.

Cable and satellite providers need to explain why our bills continue to climb and why their packages of channel offerings are so limited and cookie cutter? Especially when the costs of their service offerings in the wireless and Internet access domains have plummeted over time. As an aside, I continue to trim my channel services but my cable bill just keeps on rising?

As for the TV networks, they continue to skirt the broader issue of their unsustainable, sell-ads-to-fund-operations business model in our 500-channel — no, scratch that — 1,000-channel universe. And their record of gutting local programming for more than a decade speaks to their longer-term strategic direction.

The CRTC hearings start in 18 days. It would be a welcome change to get real answers and less propaganda from both sides. But don’t set your PVR, this programming change is unlikely to crack the fall line-up.