OTTAWA - The CRTC's controversial hearings on the future of Canadian television were brought to a close Thursday after nearly three weeks in which the giants and the small fry of the industry battled for survival and a bigger piece of the multi-billion dollar industry.
The hearings have been marked by fiery exchanges, insults and even humour, but there was no mistaking the importance of the first major review of the Canadian broadcasting system in 15 years to everyone involved and viewers.
"The rules you administer have evolved since the dawn of cable," noted Ian Morrison of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
"The Canadian broadcasting system is an ecosystem where each of the components is inextricably linked so that a change in one will affect the others. It is therefore vital to consider their interdependence, and its consequences."
One of the consequences, he warned, is that after the CRTC renders its decision later this summer, Canadians viewers could be left with fewer choices - not more - and the ability to access less not more distinctly Canadian broadcasting.
Before and at the hearings start on April 8, commission chairman Konrad von Finckenstein made clear he wanted less regulation and was putting most major aspects of the rules governing the industry on the table, including:
-The size of the basic package of channels offered to Canadians by cable and satellite distributors;
-Whether certain mandated specialty stations like CBC's Newsworld should be guaranteed a spot on the cable menu;
-Whether specialty stations should continue to enjoy genre protection;
-Whether cable firms can insert ads on on-demand services;
-And perhaps most controversially, whether convention stations such as CTV (TSX:BCE), Global (TSX:CGS) and CBC should be paid by the cable companies for their signals.
The last issue so incensed cable operator Shaw Communications Inc. (TSX:SJR.B) that chief executive Jim Shaw rifled an angry letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggesting the government intervene to reign in its disobedient regulator for failing to follow the marching orders it had been given.
But when it came time to personally confront the regulator this week, Shaw was a no show and offered no explanation, instead sending a team of seven headed by president Peter Bissonnette.
"I thought he would have done (us) the courtesy ... since we have been subject to his criticisms, I feel I should have been given the opportunity of dealing with them one on one with him personally," responded von Finckenstein after being told.
In broad strokes, the hearings have largely pitted conventional broadcasters against the cable operations, and the cable operators against smaller, independent specialty channels.
Private broadcasters such as CTV and Global mostly support the current system but are asking cable and satellite for a 50-cent-per-channel monthly charge to carry their signals.
They argue they have been giving away their signals to the cable operators for 30 years and with advertising dollars fragmenting, they can no longer afford to do so, while still continuing to pay the lion's share for costly Canadian shows and local news.
If granted, the fee would cost cable and satellite subscribers between $2 and $8 a month, depending on how many conventional stations are included, and net broadcasters about $300 million annually.
Meanwhile, the cable and satellite operators want to remove protection for specialty channels, arguing that otherwise Canadians will turn to the Internet and other unregulated platforms to get the programs they want.
The publicly-owned CBC, meanwhile, has also requested a fee-for-carriage charge in return for carrying more drama shows, but have gotten little support from other networks.
Meanwhile, small players, such as specialty channel VisionTV owner S-VOX, are pleading to the CRTC to ensure that the "clash of titans" doesn't end up with them getting trampled in the rush to de-regulate.
They say for the regulator to do away with genre protection would open them to competition from U.S. channels, as well as undermine their market share by allowing an unlimited number of Canadian start-ups.
Almost missing from the hearings was the views of ordinary Canadians, although many of the more than 60 witnesses came armed with contradictory polls intending to show they had the public's best interest at heart.
