Broadcast This!

We've Moved!!

2008-05-16T07:39:00.000-07:00

Find recent posts here.

I just like wordpress better....

Sorry Blogspot!!!

Woman gets "forgotten" in holding cell for four days

2008-03-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

Four days, no food, no water. Left alone because a bailiff "just flat forgot about her".

Why was she being held?

Because she got swept up in a raid at a flea market in Arkansas in connection with the sale of pirated CD's & DVD's.

Bill C-10

2008-03-12T07:32:00.000-07:00

Y'know...you go away for a few months of vacation, but once you touch down, you realize that's it's as if you never left...

Even though my recent trip to Thailand was a wonderful reprieve from the "day-to-day", I will admit to checking my favorite industry-related blogs while my wife wasn't watching. So, suffice it to say, I wasn't completely shocked when I got home to find that the Canadian government is getting closer and closer everyday to finishing the infrastructure for a complete "hostile takeover" of our airwaves by those with access to private equity.

Given the perfect storm conditions that began over a year ago with the ACTRA strike and the constant bickering over the Canadian Television Fund, it's easier to get analysis from all areas of the media spectrum now that there have been so many places that the "twister" has touched down (i.e. - WGA strike, DGA ratification, upcoming SAG negotiations, Bill C-10, Canada Copyright Act).

As an ACTRA member and a SOCAN member, I'm quite interested in the developments of new media issues and regulations. This is because it helps me understand how the business infrastructure of my country (and continent) is planning to fund and distribute the media which I create personally.

However, I can't help but feel like a bit of a black sheep when it comes to an issue such as Bill C-10, which has Canadian film artists and their unions in a lather. To be clear, I'm opposed to Bill C-10 for the simple reason that it's unnecessary if you look at it from the perspective in which it's being "sold" to us. Supposedly, it's to prevent public funds from being used to create films that are contrary to public policy, or contains explicit sex or is excessively violent.

Yes, well...I would have to agree that it isn't the job of a government, on behalf of its citizens, to produce soft (or hardcore) porn or Quentin Tarantino-type flicks...but the reason that I'm opposed to the government on this one is: we haven't been producing these kinds of films through Telefilm!

Now, there is one other reason that I'm opposed to Bill C-10, and that's because I don't believe that Stephen Harper would allow his cabinet to be wasting their time on a budget item such as this if it didn't hold a significant place within his own policy objectives. I can't say conclusively what "that" may be exactly, but let me submit to you that a budget item such as this, coupled with the stacking of the CRTC, the constant draining of funds from the CTF and a general antagonistic approach from the Canadian government towards artists (yes...Liberals too! Sheila Copps was the architect of Bill C-10 after all...) belies an attitude of free market principles without giving Canadian artists access to free market tools (i.e. - money).

However, I can't join "in solidarity" with my unions or fellow artists in railing against the passage of this bill. It isn't so much that I'm opposed to ACTRA or the WGC or film creators fighting for access to more funding and opportunity to create more work - it has more to do with wanting to search for a solution *other* than bashing our collective heads against the bureaucratic brick wall that is the Canadian Heritage ministry.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until there seems to be a better option: if heading towards an integrated market, a free trade market, a free and open market - could we please start implementing tools for Canadian artists to actually compete with our competitors? How can a mixture of 10-30% tax credits help us compete with private equity from down south? They (Americans) come up here to exploit tax credits...not depend on them.

Andrew Coyne has a particularly good article on the subject in this week's issue of Maclean's. Considering the fact that his sister (Susan Coyne) is a well-respected and highly accomplished film actor/writer, I can't imagine that he's just spouting off because he's the editor.

Trust me, I'm *all* for having a vibrant and healthy film and television industry in this country. We certainly have the talent to provide it. I'm just not convinced that those at "the top" have fully come to grips with the realities of new media.

It seems to me that government, broadcasters and unions are only starting to catch on to what the music industry started to face over a decade ago. And don't let any of them fool you (if you're an artist that is...), their first priority is not to save the artist; it's to save their own job first.

Calling a spade a 'spade'.

2007-11-19T10:41:00.000-08:00

ACTRA president, Richard Hardacre, has it right.

"No amount of tinkering, layering or manoeuvring will resolve the fundamental problem of the de facto control of CanWest and Alliance Atlantis by Goldman Sachs in this deal."

The "real" crisis with striking Writers...

2007-11-16T16:32:00.000-08:00

I haven't been posting much, due to a move and its inherent complications BUT -

the real crisis with this strike is the fact that the writer's issues are but a microcosm of what is *really* happening in the world today. The writer's are you and me for one reason only:

THEY'RE BROKE AFTER TWO WEEKS!!!!

They are more than likely in the vast majority (meaning: how many of us are in the same boat?), and that's the real wake-up call.

Forget not being able to watch a favorite TV show. How shallow is that? TV? What about not being able to "get by" after only a mere two weeks of being on strike. Writer's are the middle-class of Hollywood. They make middle-class money. They're broke after two weeks off the job.

Holy crap we're in for a shit storm. And TV has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Gemini's to "shine" with Hollywood Stars

2007-10-28T12:09:00.000-07:00

Well, thank God! Finally! Some sexy talent arrives to a Canadian awards show at long last!

Gotta love our "crown" broadcasting corporation for reflecting national identity during prime time. Why ask for what the people want when you can just tell them what they want?

And Strombo has "edge"? Hmmmm.....I'm craving a Big Mac.....

From CBC.ca

Geminis to shine with Hollywood stars

The Gemini Awards gala, hosted by the CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos, will feature a clutch of Canadian stars from Hollywood including Sarah Chalke of Scrubs, Men In Trees lead James Tupper and Howie Mandel of Deal or No Deal.

A businessman has stepped in and chartered a private jet to bring a group of stars, including Andrea Roth of Rescue Me and Jason Priestley and Kathleen Robertson, who both starred in Beverly Hills 90210, directly from Los Angeles to Regina for the event on Sunday.

CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos will host Sunday's 22nd Annual Gemini Awards, which honours the best in English-language television.
(CBC)

The annual awards celebrate the best in Canadian English-language television.

Stroumboulopoulos, who hosts The Hour on CBC-TV, says this year's Geminis will be unique. The 34-year-old host has brought his Hour team on as producers of the one-hour show.

For the first time, viewers can vote online for their favourite Canadian on a TV series who is not eligible for a Gemini.

There are 22 actors up for the inaugural Viewers' Choice Award including Mandel, Keifer Sutherland of 24, Lost's Evangeline Lilly, Sandra Oh from Grey's Anatomy, Boston Legal's William Shatner and Kristine Kreuk from Smallville.

The 22nd Annual Gemini Awards will be the first live show open to a public audience. Previously, awards shows were only attended by industry insiders.

And, this will mark the second year in which the show will be held outside of Toronto. The show was held in Vancouver last year.

The audience can expect "tons of star power, great comedy and definitely a few surprises," said CBC producer Steve Sloan.

Many awards, in terms of costume, makeup, news and production, were already handed out prior to Sunday night.

The Regina gala will give out trophies for drama, comedy, acting, feature documentary and top news anchor.

The Gemini Awards will be broadcast at 8 p.m. on CBC Television on Sunday.

Telefilm funding frozen

2007-10-25T13:55:00.000-07:00

From CBC.ca

Figures from 2006 show a drop in a share of the box office for Canadian film, especially for French-language films, yet federal funding for film remains frozen.

In a year that spawned box office successes Bon Cop, Bad Cop, Trailer Park Boys and Oscar-nominated Water, Canadian films took just 4.1 per cent of the box office in this country.

Canadian-made productions earned $34.7 million in 2006, down from $44 million in 2005, and market share fell, according to funding agency Telefilm's annual report.

Bon Cop, Bad Cop, the bilingual cop buddies comedy, set a new box office record of $12.1 million, most of it in Quebec.

But French-language box office suffered a steep slide overall and English-language box office, while on the rise, amounted to just 1.7 per cent of total film tickets sold.

"It's a humbling figure, absolutely," Wayne Clarkson, executive director of Telefilm, told CBC News. "But actually that's a huge increase. It used to be just .3 per cent."

The success of films such as Bon Cop and Trailer Park Boys has encouraged Telefilm to put more of its funding toward comedies, as the return seems to be so good, he said.

"What we've noticed is that we were doing too many conventional dramas and not enough comedy," Clarkson said. "There's a wealth of comedic writers in this country."

The decision to spend more Telefilm dollars on comedy in the English market could result in five or six comedy features produced annually, he said.

Wayne Clarkson, Telefilm executive director, is 'hopeful' of receiving more money.
(Telefilm)

English-language films made in Canada also get overshadowed by the huge marketing budgets for Hollywood films, so Telefilm is directing money toward supporting the release of new films.

One beneficiary was feature film Shake Hands With the Devil, which received financial incentives for marketing in both the English and francophone markets.

The steep decline in French-language box office — from 26.6 per cent in 2005 to 17.1 per cent in 2006 — was a result of fewer films on offer in 2006, according to Telefilm's annual report.

This supports the position of francophone filmmakers who put pressure on the federal government for more money last year, saying filmmakers with a great track record were being turned down for funding.

Number of films made declines

Just 32 films were made in 2006, down from 36 in 2005 and 47 in 2004. Francophone films had a record box office share in 2004, a year marked by strong productions such as C.R.A.Z.Y.

Although films such as Le secret de ma mère, Maurice Richard, Les Boys IV and Une dimanche a Kigali each earned more than $1 million in 2006, the smaller number of films made resulted in smaller overall box office.

The federal government has yet to commit more money to Telefilm, though Clarkson says he's "hopeful."

However, SODEC, the Quebec film funding agency, is devoting an extra $10 million to get some additional films made.

But as Quebec talent gets more ambitious, the cost of individual films is rising.

"Quebec producers will be looking to international partnerships," Clarkson said, pointing to Denis Arcand's L'Âge des ténèbres which had international financing.

"Ultimately there will be demand for new money, if we want to sustain the growth we've seen so far."

Writers Guild votes overwhelmingly to authorize a strike

2007-10-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

In what union officials say is a record turnout, 90% of members approve a walkout if a contract can't be settled by Oct. 31.

By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 20, 2007

Hollywood's film and TV writers are ready to trade their pens for picket signs if they can't reach a deal with their employers by Halloween.

Members of the Writers Guild of America voted by an overwhelming margin to authorize their leaders to call a strike if they can't negotiate a three-year contract with the major studios to replace one that expires Oct. 31. Of 5,507 members who voted, 90% favored granting a strike authorization. Guild officials said the turnout was a record for the union, which has nearly 12,000 members.

"Writers do not want a strike, but they are resolute and prepared to take strong, united action to defend our interest," said Patric M. Verrone, the guild's president. "What we must have is a contract that gives us the ability to keep up with the financial success of this ever-expanding global industry."

The vote -- sought by guild leaders to give them more leverage in negotiations that have been stymied by deep differences -- marked the first time writers have voted on such an authorization since 1988. That vote paved the way for a 22-week strike that cost the entertainment industry an estimated $500 million.

The vote doesn't mean there will be an immediate strike, but it gives guild leaders the option of calling one sometime after the expiration of the contract.

Few were surprised by the results announced Friday, given that contract talks have been highly contentious and both sides have spent months preparing for a showdown. Seeking to defuse tensions, the major studios on Tuesday withdrew a proposed revamping of the decades-old residuals payment system, removing a major stumbling block to negotiations.

But that decision came too late to have much effect on the vote because most guild members had already cast their ballots. Studios have held the line on the union's other key demands, such as granting residuals for shows streamed over the Web free and giving writers a bigger cut of home video sales.

"A strike authorization vote is a pro forma tactic used by every union in the country, and usually the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of a strike," said Nick Counter, president of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers.

"We are not surprised with the outcome of this vote, given reports of how this election was conducted. Our focus is on negotiating a reasonable agreement with the WGA."

Writers have rallied behind a theme that might best be summed up by the Who's hit song "Won't Get Fooled Again." Writers maintain they were shortchanged years ago when they agreed to a discounted pay formula for home video sales, only to see that business take off. And they're determined not to make the same mistake again as the digital revolution upends the entertainment industry.

"The guild made a bad deal 20 years ago and they've been angry ever since and they don't want to do it again," said Jonathan Handel, an entertainment industry attorney with TroyGould in Los Angeles and a former associate counsel for the Writers Guild. "That's why we're seeing a line drawn in the sand."

For their part, the studios maintain that DVD sales are needed to offset rising marketing and production costs, and they contend that it's too early to lock into pay formulas for shows distributed online because technologies are rapidly changing and they're still grappling with uncertain business models.

Although the vote drew wide support from writers, one of the guild's more prominent members blasted the union's handling of the ballots.

Writing on his blog Thursday night, Craig Mazin, whose credits include the films "Scary Movie 4" and the upcoming "Superhero!" accused the guild of breaking from a long-standing practice of conducting elections through secret ballot. Mazin wrote that a union "strike captain" called him, saying she had been informed by the guild that Mazin had not voted, and she urged him to do so.

"I'm disgusted with guild leadership for daring to be so bold, and for abandoning such an obvious and necessary prerequisite for a fair and decent democratic referendum," he wrote.

A guild spokesman said, "Members were encouraged to vote, but how they voted was completely secret."

Until recently, conventional wisdom was that the guild would not walk out immediately but would work without a contract until early next year, to line up its negotiations with the more powerful Screen Actors Guild, whose contract expires June 30. SAG representatives have been sitting on the sidelines of the writers' talks, and both unions have been closely aligned on a number of issues, especially concerns about Internet pay. As is often said, writers can't shut down production, but actors can. For that reason, many studio executives have been more focused on preparing for a possible actors' strike next summer.

In an effort to shift the spotlight back on their union, Writers Guild leaders have declared in recent weeks that members are prepared to walk out as early as Nov. 1. The change in strategy was partly an effort to jump-start negotiations that were going nowhere, according to guild insiders. Guild leaders also reasoned that they could inflict more damage by striking during the middle of the fall TV season than by waiting until early next year, when studios would have stockpiled more scripts.

Although networks have enough shows to carry them through the fall season, a strike next month would disrupt midseason programs that begin airing in January and next year's TV pilot season. A prolonged walkout could force the networks to cancel a number of series in advance of the key February sweeps period, when the networks showcase their best shows to drive up ratings that help establish the advertising rates for television stations.

Writers Guild leaders also were said to be concerned that the Directors Guild of America would negotiate an early deal, setting a framework for the other talent unions and potentially undercutting the Writers Guild's own goals. The Directors Guild has laid the groundwork for negotiations to begin this year, well before its contract expires in June.

Walking out next month, however, poses a considerable risk for the Writers Guild. Today's studios are better able to withstand a strike than in 1988 because they're owned by media conglomerates with deep pockets.

For their part, network executives have been preparing for a strike for months and say they will be ready should a walkout happen. They've ordered an unusual number of pilots for next year and have lined up a plethora of reality TV shows, sports programs and shows culled from their libraries to fill the airwaves during a strike.

Writers are rushing to finish scripts by Oct. 31, the deadline many studios have imposed. Some feature film studios have put a moratorium on signing deals with writers until the contract dispute is resolved.

Writers also are trying to grapple with far-reaching strike rules the guild recently announced. The rules could prove especially nettlesome for so-called hyphenates, writers who also work as producers and directors, who find themselves caught between two warring groups. To keep working, and to avoid possible fines and sanctions by their unions, some writers have signed contracts to work as "producer consultants," said one entertainment industry attorney, an arrangement that would allow them to cross picket lines.

Global laying off 200 across Canada

2007-10-04T20:04:00.000-07:00

"New digital technology will permit broadcast centres to insert graphics and sets that are tailor-made for the local news markets, while creating a look that will unify the newscasts under the Global and E! umbrellas."

From the Financial Post:

CanWest cuts 200 TV jobs; moves to more digital offerings
Barbara Schecter, National Post
Published: Thursday, October 04, 2007

TORONTO -- CanWest MediaWorks expects to shed about 200 jobs from its news operations over the next 18 months as it centralizes broadcasting operations in four cities and invests in new digital technology.

Christine McGinley, senior vice-president of operations for CanWest MediaWorks, which runs the Global Television and E! networks, said news coverage in cities including Hamilton, Montreal and Winnipeg will continue to be assigned, gathered and anchored locally, but newscasts will be broadcast from control rooms in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto.

The reorganization does not require approval from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission because the hours of local programming required by the broadcaster's television licences will be maintained, said Ms. McGinley.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

"We are evolving from an analogue to a digital world, and we have to be there whether we want to or not," she said, noting a regulatory requirement for all Canadian broadcasts to be switched over to high-definition signals by 2011.

Production staff affected by the cuts announced Thursday are being encouraged to apply for 50 new positions at the four broadcast centres, which are all expected to be operational by the spring of 2009.

CanWest is investing $30-million in the new digital broadcast centres. The annual savings resulting from the job reductions will be determined when the exact number of layoffs is known, a company spokesperson said. One analyst estimated the savings would amount to about $7-million to $10-million a year.

The cuts will go further than production and technical staff in the Maritimes and Quebec, where news operations are unprofitable, said Ms. McGinley.

Six full-time and two part-time employees in Quebec City were given layoff notices Thursday, leaving two full-time news staff to cover events there, she said.

CanWest employs about 2,000 production staff across its broadcasting operations, with about 1,500 of those at its stations across the country.

Steve Wyatt, senior vice-president of news and information at CanWest MediaWorks, said the new digital technology will permit broadcast centres to insert graphics and sets that are tailor-made for the local news markets, while creating a look that will unify the newscasts under the Global and E! umbrellas.

American TV shows sweep Top 10 in Canada

2007-10-03T05:46:00.000-07:00

"Once again, Canada television shows failed to crack the top 20 primetime list despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent annually by the Canadian television fund."

From Digitalhome.ca

The first week of the fall television season in Canada is now complete and BBM Nielsen Media Research reports that, for the key adult 18-49 demographic that advertisers cherish, every primetime show in the top ten was produced in the United States and rebroadcast in Canada.

Once again, Canada television shows failed to crack the top 20 primetime list despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent annually by the Canadian television fund.

The top five primetime shows in Canada among viewers 18-49 for the week of September 24th were House, Grey's Anatomy, Survivor: China, Heroes and CSI.

Nationally, House was seen by 1.93 million adults 18-49 while Grey’s Anatomy delivered 1.42 million and Survivor: China garnered 1.34 million viewers. Among all viewers aged 2+, the top show in the first week of the new fall season was Grey’s Anatomy on CTV delivered 2.6 million viewers while Survivor: China came second with 2.45 million viewers.

The following is a list of the Top 10 Primetime shows in Canada for the week of September among Adults 18-49 according to BBM Nielsen Media Research

House (Global) - 1.93 million
Grey's Anatomy (CTV) - 1.42 million
Survivor: China (Global) - 1.34 million
Heroes (Global) - 1.14 million
CSI (CTV) - 1.11 million
CSI Miami (CTV) - 1.1 million
Desperate Housewives (CTV) - 1.01 million
CSI New York (CTV) - 963,000
Prison Break (Global) - 920,000
Family Guy (Global) - 827,000

Canadian primetime television shows failed to crack the top twenty among Adults 18-49.

Shaw "extremely disappointed" he can't bring U.S.A. to CAN

2007-09-26T13:28:00.000-07:00

Shaw Communications disappointed with CRTC denial of access to USA Network

CANADIAN PRESS

September 25th, 2007

CALGARY - Cable TV company Shaw Communications Inc. (TSX:SJR.B) says it's "extremely disappointed" with the federal regulator's decision to deny access to the USA Network, the major basic cable programming service in United States.

"The CRTC is continuing on a path of protectionism for the benefit of certain Canadian programmers at the expense of Canadian television customers," Peter Bissonnette, president of Shaw Communications, said Tuesday.

"Shaw strongly believes that Canadians deserve access to the best national and international sources of programming - that is what the Broadcasting Act promises."

In January, Shaw applied to add USA Network to the lists of non-Canadian services that Canadians are allowed to receive. The CRTC turned down the application on Sept. 19, citing the need to protect the niche Canadian digital service Mystery TV, which airs three of the same programs.

Shaw said CanWest Global (TSX:CGS), which owns Mystery TV with TVA, acknowledged in its intervention on the issue that "USA Network is truly a general-interest service. It does not limit itself to any one particular genre but is rather a leading provider of original series, off-network television shows, sports events and blockbuster theatrical events."

The CRTC's decision "is particularly surprising given its statements in recent speeches and proceedings about the need to focus on consumers and respond to the challenges of black market satellite, the Internet and other new technologies," Shaw said in a release.

Shaw Communications is a diversified communications firm with 577,000 kilometres of fibre, whose core business is providing broadband cable TV, high-speed Internet, digital phone, telecommunications services and satellite direct-to-home services through Star Choice.

On the Toronto stock market Tuesday, Shaw shares rose 15 cents to close at $25.25.

It's all about the "brand".

2007-09-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

Corus revamp includes 53 layoffs
Canadian broadcaster offers 'focused' changes
By TAMSEN TILLSON
From VARIETY.com

TORONTO -- Toronto-based Canadian broadcaster Corus Entertainment issued 53 pink slips Tuesday as part of a streamlining process that began in July.

Changes include the merger of Corus' interactive team with Nelvana Studios, its animated division; cuts to broadcast and post-production departments; and the combining of acquisitions and original production at the pay channel Movie Central and its Corus Kids division.

In addition, the company's ad sales group has been retooled with the creation of a "platform innovation team" and a post, VP of non-linear business development, as well as the merger of kids' ad sales teams.

"These changes ensure a strong, brand-focused approach for creating superior content for audiences across all platforms," said a release from the company, whose cable channels include YTV, Treehouse, W Network, and pay channel Movie Central, as well as radio interests.

A publicly listed company, Corus is controlled by the Shaw family, which owns Shaw Communications, Canada's second-largest cabler.

Buy Low/Sell High

2007-09-17T06:15:00.000-07:00

Subprime and the Alliance deal take 2

2007-09-14T06:36:00.000-07:00

Though this article from the Globe and Mail briefly touches on the issue of the junk bond crisis (Subprime in other words), it's another glimpse into the reality of Leveraged Buyouts (LBO's), and how these nasty little schemes end up enriching the investment bankers who make the deals and hurt those who have no clue (the investors, the little guy....like the pensioners who unwittingly hold CanWest in their portfolios).

An excerpt (from Globe & Mail):

If there's a crisis brewing in the markets, CanWest always finds a way to step in the middle of it. After it bought Hollinger International's Canadian newspapers in 2000, it got caught in a credit squeeze, resulting in a horrible bond deal at usurious interest rates. When the company decided to float those papers as an income trust in 2005, it got hurt again; the deal closed just as it began to look like then-finance minister Ralph Goodale was going to tax trusts (he didn't). When it went to finance the Alliance deal this summer ... well, you know - it ran full-speed into the junk bond meltdown.

What Price Salvation?

2007-09-06T16:13:00.000-07:00

This is an article that I wrote for FilmCan.org on current industrial relations....

What Price Salvation?
by: Jason Chesworth
from: FilmCan.org

While reading the latest report on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF), I was reminded of a friend who put herself on a personal weekly “point system” as a way to reward herself for accomplishing certain daily tasks. If this friend got out of bed before 10 a.m. and made the bed, she received one point. Working on her art that day got her five points. She even had a score for making love to her husband (I don’t know the score of that particular). Throughout the week, she was able to “redeem” certain accumulations of points for prizes, like the latest issue of Wallpaper (25 points) or a new CD (50 points). This scheme had the effect of controlling her personal finances and motivating her at a particular moment in time. However, the CTF report isn’t inspiring, and it isn't a story of self-motivation, unless you view beaureaucratic bodies such as the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) as an integral part of the Canadian identity. Regulatory boards such as these can often seem like nagging moms reminding you to eat your broccoli or brush your teeth before you go to bed, and most debate on media regulations is sure to be intensely boring to someone in Anytown, Canada eating a bag of Lays in front of the latest episode of CSI: NY.

click here to read the rest of the article.

Kim Hume new Director of Policy at ACTRA

2007-09-05T18:34:00.000-07:00

From Playback Magazine:

Kim Hume has been promoted to director of public policy and communications at ACTRA National, effective immediately, where she takes over from Ken Thompson.

Hume, who has been with the organization for six years and most recently served as public relations officer at ACTRA Toronto, will oversee all aspects of public policy and communications. Thompson, meanwhile, has been hired as the new director of copyright and broadband law at Rogers Communications.

"Hume brings a wealth of experience in communications, organizing and lobbying to her new position, along with extensive involvement in arts advocacy and the union movement," according to Wednesday release from the office of executive director Stephen Waddell.

Subprime crisis and Alliance takeover

2007-08-30T18:36:00.000-07:00

Y'know....

I've been wondering if this whole 'subprime crisis' that is affecting our markets was going to "touch" the Alliance Atlantis takeover by CanWest Global. Why? Because CanWest's aquisition of Alliance is happening because of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (which has really pioneered the use of "commercial paper"....commercial paper, of course being the type of debt at the centre of the "subprime crisis"). In short, it's a leveraged buyout....the kind of buyout that accelerates debt....and who's on the hook, ultimately???

Well....the citizens (read: taxpayers) are always on the hook for everything.

So - the CRTC is stalling the hearings for the CanWest (Goldman Sachs) takeover of Alliance Atlantis to look at some of the paperwork that was late in being 'processed'...

I wonder if they're trying to figure out just how much "junk" is underwriting the borrowed bucks in this leveraged buyout....

Read the Financial Post article here....

CRTC officials grill Astral over Standard Broadcasting price

2007-08-29T08:53:00.000-07:00

Suggest deal worth more than $1.08-billion

GRANT ROBERTSON

MEDIA REPORTER

August 28, 2007

GATINEAU, QUE. -- Astral Media Inc. faced tough questions yesterday from federal broadcast regulators who suggested the broadcaster is low-balling the $1.08-billion purchase price of Standard Broadcasting Ltd. - a deal that will create the largest commercial radio company Canada has ever seen.

At hearings held yesterday to scrutinize the massive takeover, officials with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission indicated they believe the Standard transaction is worth more than Montreal-based Astral is letting on, and that certain items have been left out of the purchase price to keep a lid on regulatory payments.

Astral executives were questioned about the stock price used to value more than two million shares changing hands in the deal, which the CRTC argues is being understated.

Read the rest here

"We control all of the West. We're a powerful family."

2007-08-26T07:12:00.000-07:00

Great long article in the Globe on Jim Shaw. Good to see that the broadcasters are doing so well. Now if only he'd share the wealth with the rest of the industry...

From the Globe:

Confessions of a cable guy The industry is chugging along, and the money is rolling in.

By: GRANT ROBERTSON

August 25, 2007

KELOWNA, B.C. -- The doorbell rings at Jim Shaw's summer home in the Okanagan Valley and the head of Shaw Communications Inc. answers wearing khaki shorts and no shoes.

It's an unusually hot day, even for this famous apple-growing region of B.C., where the chief executive officer of Canada's second-largest cable company has spent much of August.

"Don't worry," he says, padding through the lakeside house in Kelowna. "We're not too uptight around here."

Casual indeed. Moving swiftly into the kitchen, Mr. Shaw pushes a stack of papers - his work for the morning - to one side of the dinner table and offers up a chair.

Read the rest of the article here

Kenney for Heritage Minister?

2007-08-06T20:18:00.000-07:00

At least with Bev Oda, nothing really happened (except for the steady drift into less funding), but if Jason Kenney gets the job of Minister of Heritage....he may actually do something, and that would be terrifying!

Happy Canadian Television Fund Day!!

2007-07-01T11:53:00.000-07:00

Yes, while you're out preparing the fireworks and polishing off that Canadian beer to celebrate your Nation - the perfectly-timed release (perfect for the CRTC et al), of the CTF Taskforce report on the Canadian Television Fund is being released in such a manner as to be surely forgotten by even the industry itself.

The CRTC report, released late in the day on Friday (not exactly primetime, eh?), says that while payments from the likes of Shaw and Co. (read: Videotron) should be maintained, BUT - the CTF should be concentrating its efforts on popular programming. Hmmm....in a time of war, what does *that* mean? But, I digress...

But, Canadian television's best friend, Jim Shaw, re-instated his firing squad the day the report was released.

Happy Canada Day!!

P.S. - I was recently in touch with Antonia Zerbisias (see previous post here) - who told me that she has stopped covering media issues because (as she says): "I was tired of banging my head against the wall of my own echo chamber."

A sad day for media coverage for sure. A huge loss considering the timing of her "retirement" coincides with so many major decisions being made. You should read her prescient article, BTW.

Farewell, Antonia!

The Death of the Internet?

2007-06-25T18:03:00.000-07:00

Canadian TV is crap....

2007-06-25T08:30:00.000-07:00

...or so we constantly hear (at least I do when talking to the "regular folk"). But my rebuttal is two-fold:

1. How do we even know what the quality of Canadian programming is, when there is precious little of it being purchased by private broadcasters, and...

2. American programming is considered good?!

Cable cabal

2007-06-10T16:07:00.000-07:00

Kevin Baker, Weekend Post

A note on my cable bill says the rate will be "adjusted" next month. The last increase, 8%, came not even a year ago. Now another 11%? Canadians' dollars are hard-earned, our leaders always tell us. We deserve accountability. I take up the phone.
"This makes 19% in under a year, yet I can't find where it says what new services I'm getting in return. Can you tell me what they are?"

Several months before, when I called about the last rate increase, the agent said, "There are so many reasons I could give you." I said let's hear them. He went away to ask someone, then came back to say he'd have to go ask someone else. Did I want to wait? Eventually, he told me MTV Canada had been added to my lineup. "Is that all?" I said. "There are so many reasons I could give you," he said, returning to the top of his script.

Later I found out MTV Canada had taken over TalkTV's licence. There was no additional service, just one unwatchable channel in place of another. I had fallen for a switcheroo scam. If they try pulling that again, I am ready. This time, I will get some accountability.

In January, my cable company's CEO, Jim Shaw, explained why he was stopping contributions to the Canadian Television Fund, saying he was waiting for a "statement of accountability." He wanted to know what shows the CTF paid for, how many people watched them, what revenues they earned. He singled out one CTF-supported show as an emblem of the fund's failure, Trailer Park Boys, "with all those guys running around half-naked, swearing and smoking weed." Besides those crimes, the Boys are satellite-and cable-TV thieves who siphon signals from fee-paying subscribers. The rascals are folk heroes, while cable-TV bosses are folk villains. Jim Shaw makes out like a bandit (his compensation package was nearly $6-million in 2006), yet receives none of the Boys' outlaw glory. The injustice would rankle anyone. So I know Shaw's people will understand the importance of accountability and give me the answers I seek. Here's what the agent tells me this time: "Because we're growing so fast, it costs more to get the service out to you guys."

This paragraph is a few calming thoughts so my head doesn't explode: tranquil lake, Boston Legal, fragrant forest, The Office, resplendent alpine meadow, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. There.

It sounds like there's a flaw in your business plan, I tell the agent. Maybe if you stopped growing, you could keep costs down and pass the savings on to customers. Oh, we're committed to growth, she says happily. Which amounts to telling me I can expect another increase any time.

In Alberta's growing cities, no doubt it costs more to hook up new houses in remote subdivisions than new condos downtown. First, there's the gas to drive out there. But my little old house is already hooked up. The service already gets out to me. Why should I pay higher cable-TV fees to subsidize urban sprawl? And why is robber-baron capitalism fine for a cable boss, but "you guys" are supposed to hold hands and cheerfully embrace kindergarten-variety socialism? I am livid.
An ingeniously twisted circle, then: TV is balm for a psyche bruised by everyday life. Excessive cable-fee increases further pummel the psyche; TV-providers' excuses ravage the psyche even more. TV's soothing relief then becomes that much more precious, worth every extra cent.

© National Post 2007

Online repression rising: Amnesty International

2007-06-07T08:14:00.000-07:00

CBC News

The internet is increasingly being used to repress free expression worldwide and technology companies are complicit, speakers at an Amnesty International webcast discussion of online censorship said Wednesday.

The discussion — marking the one-year anniversary of Amnesty's Irrepressible campaign — featured internet experts and free speech activists from around the world who described a growing phenomenon of censorship and repression being enabled by the internet even as people use the medium to gain a voice.

"Governments still fear dissenting opinion and the new technology, as well as helping out freedom, is giving new tools to those who want to curtail that freedom," Kamal Ahmed, executive editor of the Observer newspaper said in his opening remarks.

Pointing to companies like Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., which have been accused by human rights groups of helping governments censor free speech and repress their citizens, Ahmed noted that raising awareness of the issues confronting internet users and the companies involved in them is crucial to ensure that access remains free to all.

"It must be one of the most important issues of the century," Ahmed said.

University of Toronto professor Ron Deibert joined the discussion online, pointing out that the amount of content filtering has sharply increased since he began monitoring and tracking such efforts four years ago.

"The picture is rather troublesome," Deibert, director of technology and democracy project CitizenLab, told those present and watching online. "The scope, scale and sophistication of internet surveillance and content filtering is growing worldwide."

Deibert said that when he and the OpenNet Initiative began tracking countries engaged in content filtering, they found such evidence in only four nations out of 41 they looked at. Four years on, that number has risen to 25, pointing to an alarming trend.

Another trend is the increasing amount of content that is being censored. Now they're blocking a much wider swath, Deibert said.

The list has grown to include human rights information, independent news sites, blogs and blogging service sites, and online information in local languages — anything that could be used to help people assert their rights or become more informed about the world around them, he said.

Enabling this effort is technology — commercial software and hardware — much of it made in the U.S., Deibert said.

Companies like Secure Computing Corp., Fortinet Inc. and Websense Inc. are among those whose software is used by repressive regimes, he said. The countries are now using a technique called just-in-time filtering, he added.

"[Countries] leave the internet open most of the time except around special events like elections, then they slowly turn the tap off," Deibert said, adding that by using this approach, the governments maintain plausible deniability that they are behind any censorship but still achieve their goals.

"In light of what has gone on in Estonia, the prospect of an arms race in cyberspace is very real and has to be taken into account," Deibert said, expressing concern about official U.S., Russian and Chinese internet doctrines. "We can no longer take the internet for granted as a tool that helps human rights…. [It] is being carved up, colonized and militarized."

In May, Estonia's internet infrastructure was crippled by a massive attack that coincided with a sharp decline in the Baltic state's relations with Russia, which was threatening sanctions over a decision to move a Soviet-era war memorial. Moscow denied responsibility for the attacks, although they appeared to originate in Russia.

Companies that aid and abet activity that helps repress free expression must be called to account for their actions, said Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights.

"U.S.-based corporations are playing a major role in the latest iteration of how … rights are being repressed," the executive director of the Washington, D.C., rights organization told the audience after joining the discussion online. "They must be held accountable."

Alleging Yahoo, Google and internet hardware maker Cisco Systems Inc. are just a few linchpins of online repression, he called on them to correct their ways, but added the only way that was likely to happen would be if they were forced to.

'When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do.'—Morton Sklar, World Organization for Human Rights
"When it reaches a point when a corporation is contributing to torture, contributing to arbitrary detention, they have to ask if this is something they should do," Sklar said.

He focused on the case of Wang Xiaoning, who criticized the Chinese government online and is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.

The group is suing Yahoo, alleging Chinese bloggers, journalists and human rights advocates have been detained, imprisoned and tortured on the basis of information that Yahoo gave authorities there.

"People need to be more aware of these cases that the internet is being used in this way to create torture and repression," Sklar said, noting that a resolution is on the agenda at Yahoo's June 12 shareholders' meeting would require Yahoo to form a human rights committee to examine how it should handle some cases.

Concerns about censorship and repression should not be reserved only for countries with poor human rights records, according to participants in the Amnesty webcast.

"This is something people in the West should be worried about as well," BBC technology correspondent Clark Boyd told the audience before introducing an American video-blogger.

Josh Wolf served more than 220 days in a federal prison after he refused to turn over to authorities tapes of an anti-G8 protest he recorded in 2005, citing journalistic privilege.

"I go out to gather information and disseminate it to the public," Wolf said. "That's a journalist."

His prison time has earned him the distinction of experiencing the longest imprisonment of any journalist in the United States for refusing to surrender his work to authorities, and has sharply highlighted the need for a federal shield law for the media.

"As we take steps to protect … the professional press, we have to think about bloggers as well," Wolf said

CRTC approves more TV ads

2007-05-18T07:38:00.000-07:00

New policies on digital transition, closed-captioning also released

CBC Arts

Canadian viewers won't see a hike in their cable and satellite TV bills because of a new subscription fee broadcasters proposed last fall, but they will likely start seeing more commercials soon, under changes the CRTC announced Thursday.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revealed its decisions regarding several contentious issues discussed during hearings last November that scrutinized the state of Canada's TV landscape.

The federal regulator has denied the proposal from conventional broadcasters — including CanWest and the CBC — to introduce a subscription fee to cable and satellite companies who carry their signals, currently available free over the airwaves.

Supporters had argued that the so-called "carriage fee" was a necessary measure because traditional broadcasters are facing an increasingly difficult climate where audiences are fragmented and advertising growth is slow.

However, the cable and satellite companies called the proposal a new "tax" that would force a hike to the consumer, which could then cause viewers to drop their service and seek out other TV alternatives, like grey-market satellites from the U.S.

Gradual reduction of advertising restrictions

While the CRTC did not feel the subscriber fee "to be warranted at this time," it recognized the financial difficulties faced by conventional broadcasters and decided to remove restrictions on how much advertising they can air as an alternate way to increase revenues.

Continue Article

Currently, broadcasters can show up to 12 minutes of advertising per hour, including segments promoting programs in their lineups.

As of Sept. 1, this will increase to a maximum of 14 minutes of advertising in prime time — between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.

A year later, the limit will increase to 15 minutes across all time periods. As of September 2008, all advertising time restrictions will be lifted. The CRTC will review the impact of these increased ad times.

"The Commission considers it essential that [over-the-air] broadcasters have the flexibility to maximize advertising revenues to respond to the negative impact of audience fragmentation," according to a statement from the regulator issued Tuesday.

Analog-to-digital deadline

The CRTC also set Aug. 31, 2011, as a deadline for Canada's switch from analog to digital and High-Definition broadcasting signals. An exception will be made for northern and remote regions that lack digital transmitters.

Many other countries around the world have already set their target dates for the switch.

In December, the Netherlands became the first country to switch completely to broadcasting digital signals for television. Other European countries are set to switch this year, while the U.S. is scheduled to end analog TV transmission in 2009.

Japan and the U.K. plan to complete their own move to digital by 2011 and 2012, respectively.

A deadline was necessary, the regulator said, to avoid a situation where Canadian viewers "turn to foreign programming to take advantage of this new technology because there is not enough Canadian digital programming available."

The commission also said that it is confident that the next few years will provide ample time for broadcasters to make the necessary technological transition, as well as give creators enough to time to produce Canadian programming in HD.

Tuesday's announcement also included a new closed captioning policy — English- and French-language broadcasters will have to caption 100 per cent of their programs between 6 a.m. and midnight.

CRTC defers look at Cancon

The commission praised French-language broadcasters for devoting a "consistently high" level of their programming budgets — about 90 per cent — to Canadian content.

The corresponding situation in English Canada was "cause for concern" because the proportion English-language broadcasters spent has decreased to approximately 40 per cent, the regulator said.

However, the CRTC deferred its examination of specific spending by broadcasters on Canadian programming until the licence renewal hearings scheduled for spring 2008.

For years, various groups have criticized the CRTC's 1999 decision to remove the rule forcing private conventional television broadcasters to spend a minimum amount on Canadian dramatic programming. They charge that the result has been a sharp drop in Canadian-made TV shows.

The Directors Guild of Canada; the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; the Writers Guild of Canada; and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) are among the groups that issued statements Thursday criticizing the CRTC for failing to issue clear directives on what broadcasters should spend on Canadian-made programming.

The CBC said it was "disappointed" with the decision and, in a statement, called it "a great day for broadcasters airing U.S. programming.

"By increasing the number of advertising minutes in American programming aired by Canadian private conventional broadcasters, both English and French, the CRTC has effectively increased the value of this programming, and removed the incentive for private broadcasters to create more Canadian drama," the public broadcaster said.

Internet radio broadcasters dealt setback

2007-04-17T07:07:00.000-07:00

From cnn.com

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Internet radio broadcasters were dealt a setback Monday when a panel of copyright judges threw out requests to reconsider a ruling that hiked the royalties they must pay to record companies and artists.

A broad group of public and private broadcasters, including radio stations, small startup companies, National Public Radio and major online sites like Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, had objected to the new royalties set March 2, saying they would force a drastic cutback in services that are now enjoyed by some 50 million people. (Time Warner is also the parent company of CNN.)

In the latest ruling, the Copyright Royalty Board judges denied all motions for rehearing and also declined to postpone a May 15 deadline by which the new royalties will have to be collected.
However, they did grant leniency on one point, allowing the webcasters to calculate fees by average listening hours, as they had been, as opposed to the new system of charging a royalty each time every song is heard by an online listener. That exemption counts for last year and this year. After that, the new per-song, per-listener fee structure goes into effect.

Many webcasters say the sharply higher royalty fees will put them out of business. Talk of the ruling dominated a one-day meeting of Internet radio broadcasters being held in Las Vegas alongside the annual conference of the National Association of Broadcasters, a group representing local radio and TV stations.

N. Mark Lam, the CEO of Live365 Inc., a privately held company that aggregates audio streams from thousands of radio stations and other small webcasters, said that under the new royalty rules, "there is no industry."

Lam, who joined the venture capital-backed company about two years ago, said Live365 just barely broke even last year and had about 4.5 million unique listeners every month.

Also on Monday, several Internet radio broadcasters announced a campaign to raise awareness of the issue and encourage listeners to write to their representatives in Congress.

Small broadcasters have received relief from Congress in the past, benefiting from a law passed five years ago that gave them a break on royalty rates. The legislation allowed them to pay about 12 percent of their revenues instead of having to calculate per-song, per-hour rates like larger companies had to.

David Oxenford, a lawyer representing several webcasters, said the next step was likely an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but he noted that process could take at least a year. Meanwhile, he said, the prospects of successfully getting a court to block the decision of the royalty board judges is slim.

SoundExchange, a nonprofit group that collects the online royalties from webcasters and distributes them to record labels and artists, hailed the ruling in a statement and said it looked forward to working with Internet radio companies in order to ensure that the industry succeeds.
Jonathan Potter, the head of the Digital Media Association, which represents several large webcasters including Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN network, said his group was not currently in talks with SoundExchange but may be soon. He said his group and other webcasters would be turning to Congress, where he said he sees "a lot of legislative support."

The royalties in question only cover digital transmissions of music, and don't apply to terrestrial radio stations, as traditional radio play is seen as a benefit for record labels by promoting sales of recorded music. Both digital broadcasters and regular radio stations pay a separate royalty to the publishers and composers of music.

ACTRA ratifies, Toronto gets a new studio and everything is back to normal...

2007-04-14T09:09:00.000-07:00

Or is it?

What is the "status quo" these days anyway?

ACTRA members ratified the new IPA (this isn't really breaking news as it was expected when the strike was ended). Toronto may get a new studio for all those big blockbusters that are just itching to shoot here (although, the rumours of Toronto getting a huge "boost" to its production capabilities are getting as stale as they are old.)

At least actors can't be blamed for sagging production levels anymore.

Viva la revolucion!

Shaw Says Profit Gains 74 Percent

2007-04-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

When you're posting profits of the size that Shaw is currently boasting, you can't help but wonder how much of it will actually benefit Canadians (shareholders and subscribers notwithstanding).

VOIP and the internet are kickin' TV's ass....

The question that occurs to me is this....what is the incentive for the big broadcasters to invest in Canadian programming when their increasing profits are coming from broadband subscribers? With the recent move in the telephone industry and the Canadian Television Fund being "re-evaluated", how much longer will we have to wait to find out that our airwaves have "officially" become taken over by cheap and profitable American programming?

Phone companies flood CRTC with deregulation filings

2007-04-12T11:01:00.000-07:00

note: while this isn't exactly a "broadcast" issue on the surface, it is a very important development considering the fact that telecom companies are also broadcasters. This tells us a) how the CRTC can be over-ruled by a sitting government and, b) just how powerful "market forces" can be in the decision-making process.

From CBC.ca

Canada's established phone companies have wasted no time in exercising their newly won freedom to apply for deregulation of local phone service across the country.

In the last 24 hours, Bell Canada, Telus, and Aliant have all filed applications with the CRTC for permission to relax the stringent rules that currently regulate how the big phone companies market local phone service and how much they must charge.

Bell Canada filed applications that would affect the markets in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, London, Hamilton, and Quebec City. It said more filings for other markets are on the way. Telus filed similar applications for Vancouver and Edmonton, and also said additional applications for deregulation in other major markets would be coming. Aliant filed for deregulation of markets in the Halifax area.

The flood of applications followed the announcement April 4 by Industry Minister Maxime Bernier that he would open competition in local phone markets where there are at least three different carriers in operation, including cellphone providers.

Canada's established phone companies have wasted no time in exercising their newly won freedom to apply for deregulation of local phone service across the country.
In the last 24 hours, Bell Canada, Telus, and Aliant have all filed applications with the CRTC for permission to relax the stringent rules that currently regulate how the big phone companies market local phone service and how much they must charge.

Bell Canada filed applications that would affect the markets in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, London, Hamilton, and Quebec City. It said more filings for other markets are on the way.

Telus filed similar applications for Vancouver and Edmonton, and also said additional applications for deregulation in other major markets would be coming.
Aliant filed for deregulation of markets in the Halifax area.
The flood of applications followed the announcement April 4 by Industry Minister Maxime Bernier that he would open competition in local phone markets where there are at least three different carriers in operation, including cellphone providers.

That overruled a CRTC policy that said the existing phone companies would continue to face restrictions in the local phone market unless their competitors had a 25 per cent share of the market.

Bernier said the new policy, which takes effect April 18, would lead to more choice for consumers and lower prices. That's certainly what the incumbent phone companies were saying Thursday.

"Local service deregulation in Vancouver and Edmonton will bring the full benefits of competition to these cities," said Telus executive vice-president Janet Yale in a statement.

Aliant said its customers "will experience the full benefits of competition, with greater value through increased choice and flexible offers that can be delivered in a more timely manner."

Lee Iaccoca tears Dubya a new one...

2007-04-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

note: this is a remarkable piece of writing considering Lee Iaccoca's experience with being an influential leader. This alone gives hope that *some* powerful people are willing to speak out and "call a spade a spade".

George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right?

Click here to read an excerpt from Lee Iaccoca's new book "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?"

Apple sells 100 million iPods

2007-04-10T07:35:00.000-07:00

note: what's most newsworthy about this ariticle is that (as far as I know), this is the first time Apple has 'officially' acknowledged the number of units sold.

From CBC.ca

Apple Inc. says it has sold 100 million units of its iPod, with the Cupertino, Calif.-based company declaring the product is "the fastest-selling music player in history."
Since the first iPod was sold in November 2001, the device has become a defining icon in the portable music world.

The iPod has changed the way many music lovers acquire, store and listen to music, the company said. “Without the iPod, the digital music age would have been defined by files and folders instead of songs and albums,” musician John Mayer said in an Apple news release.
The iPod has become so popular that it has spawned spinoff industries that make everything from fashionable cases to speaker systems. More than 70 per cent of U.S. 2007 model vehicles have an iPod link, the company said.

The model and colour of number 100,000,000 are unknown, the website ilounge.com said, but "it appears to be in the company’s possession, rather than on a store’s shelves awaiting sale."
In January, 2005, Apple kept unit number 10,000,000 as a memento, ilounge said.
The iPod sales have been credited with boosting Apple's profits and stock price.

Under-reported stories # 2

2007-04-07T14:45:00.000-07:00

Alcan spill turns Saguenay River red

Company says the substance will not endanger the environment

I'm not saying that this is under-reported right now. Let's hope this one stays in the news to see if they actually clean it up.

In Debt We Trust

2007-04-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

Independent journalist released from U.S. prison

2007-04-04T15:53:00.000-07:00

Independent journalist Josh Wolf has been released from prison after spending over 225 days behind bars. The 24-year-old Wolf spent more time in jail than any journalist in US history for protecting his sources.

Basic cable service basically on its way to oblivion

2007-04-03T21:09:00.000-07:00

Countries in Europe already switching off analog connections

Peter Nowak, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, April 02, 2007

TORONTO - Television subscribers who haven't upgraded to digital won't have a choice for much longer -- basic TV is going the way of the dinosaur.

Basic cable television, where the set receives its signal from a plug in the wall or over an antenna, is being turned off around the world in favour of digital, which offers interactive features plus higher-quality video and sound through a decoder box that connects to the TV.

In December, the Netherlands became the first country to turn off basic television, otherwise known as analog, with all subscribers now on digital.

At least five European countries are set to follow this year, including the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland. The United States will shut off in February 2009. Even China is tuning out, in 2015.

The governments in these countries have mandated the switch-off for a number of reasons, all of which inevitably come down to revenue. Turning off analog will free up a good deal of airwaves, which the government can auction off for other uses. It will also free up space on cable providers' pipes, which they can use to sell more high-definition programming.

Television makers will also benefit through increased sales of digital sets.

The downside, observers say, is that the consumer will end up paying for it. "It's all to sell more televisions," says Thomas Astebro, associate professor of strategic management for the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. "The equipment producers have an interest in people upgrading. It's giving a boost to this whole industry."

Canada's approach is unique in that the government has not ordered a switch-off and will instead rely on market forces. It won't be a forced death like elsewhere, but analog will still die in Canada.

Toronto-based Rogers Communications Inc., Canada's largest television provider, has 2.27 million total subscribers, 1.13 million of whom are on digital. The company is adding new digital customers or converting basic subscribers at a rate of 220,000 to 250,000 a year. At that pace, Rogers says it will have a digital box in each of its households within three to four years.

Digital is more lucrative for a cable provider in that customers must rent a box -- $3.99 a month in the case of Rogers -- and can use on-demand services such as pay per-view movies for an extra fee. Increased digital uptake is thus translating into better monthly average revenue per user.

The nation's second-largest cable provider, Calgary-based Shaw Communications Inc., has about 31 per cent of its 2.21 million TV subscribers on digital, but the pace of conversion is ramping up as well. In the company's third quarter ended Nov. 31, digital subscriber additions grew twice as fast as basic.

Jim Shaw, the company's chief executive, has echoed Rogers' sentiments saying he would "never" shut off analog.

The choice may not be in the hands of the cable companies, however. Television makers are ending production of analog-capable sets for the U.S. That production will have a spillover effect into Canada.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

A Red Herring?

2007-04-02T19:10:00.000-07:00

This CBC.ca article says that the CTF will increase spending to "$265 million on production of Canadian programming over the next 12 months, a slight increase in its annual budget".

However, the Harper Government has provided no more money in its recent budget.

Does this mean that there will be a slight decrease in the CTF's annual budget next year?

Or, does this mean that the broadcasters are making more money and therefore their CTF contributions are slightly bigger?

Is American programming paying for Canadian production?

Under-reported stories # 1

2007-03-30T06:06:00.000-07:00

Forgive my tardiness in posting. The last few posts got "lost in the ether" as I seemed to have a bug in my blog account. (It's a shame....you don't find out until *after* you do all of the work that your post will "crash")

So, this will be brief but there is definately more to come in the next few days.

Here's a little story from 2005 that has some interesting relevance in today's world.

Trouble in Gootopia

2007-03-13T12:01:00.000-07:00

Viacom sues Google/Youtube for copyright infringement

Mark Cuban just wants to ask "why"?

My idea for the new Canadian Television Fund

2007-03-07T14:23:00.000-08:00

(or, why I'll never become a politician)

I've got an idea! Why not let the broadcasters create their own funds like they want to do so badly. Let Shaw & Videotron put up their own money to finance production and own the rights (in other words: buy) and let them distribute the programs over the airwaves that they control. Fantastic.

No...superfantastic!

Let's keep the CTF and make it 100% Canadian tax-payer owned, for the "Canadian" part of the Television Fund. Let's divert all war-bound money towards the creation of good story-telling as told by Canadians.

Just kidding...

TV gets closer to the computer

2007-03-01T06:35:00.000-08:00

Apple does NOT have the market cornered on video content convergence. Slingbox is taking TV to your computer...not the other way around.

War?...What War?

2007-02-28T11:37:00.000-08:00

Remember how Michael Jackson was bigger news than the Downing St. Memo?

Have you stopped to wonder yet why we all know so much about Anna Nicole , Britney and the Oscars and why we don`t hear about U.S. Warships gathering in anticipation of airstrikes on Iran?

Why broadcasters put a high price on the internet

2007-02-27T12:58:00.000-08:00

If the word pipeline is not enough to convince; check it out for yourself.

Antonia, my love!

2007-02-27T12:38:00.000-08:00

God bless this woman for writing about the CTF and sharing her insight and opinion. I wish she wrote on media every day.

"Last, but far from least, since when does the protection of commercial interests so baldly trump the public interest? How much longer before all CRTC licensing hearings are held in private too? Don't they also deal with "commercial realities?" - Feb 27, 2007 - Toronto Star

Finally...we can start looking at the forest

2007-02-23T07:39:00.000-08:00

ACTRA has ended its strike (pending ratification by its members, of course...I'll eat my keyboard if they don't), having won major concessions and stood firm for Canadian labour in the face of strong external pressure. Kudos to the ACTRA negotiating team and to the CFTPA for finding common language that allows us all to move on...for now.

The new agreement made significant gains in many areas for ACTRA members, and identified financial realities that producers face in this new age of content creation.

New Media

Despite reaching a tentative agreement on Feb. 16th, Hollywood flexed some muscle and kept the two sides from reaching a deal until the following week because the studios did not want to set a precedent on new media before heading into negotiations with SAG and the WGA later this year. The Americans have an agreement separate from the Canadian producers which allows them to negotiate on a "production-by-production" basis until the issue is "re-opened" in 2009.

It's ain't over 'til it's over

Let me re-iterate my thanks and support to both ACTRA & the CFTPA for meeting the challenges head on and for working so hard. That is (I feel), the real precedent which has set the stage for the next few years of what I believe will be constant negotiation between all parties in the broadcasting industry.

My concerns?

Will the American studios approach the "production-by-production" basis of negotiation in the same fashion that they approached the IPA negotiations? Meaning: will they try to wear ACTRA down with prolonged disputes over single percentages on a "production-by-production"basis?
Will the production industry (service industry specifically) continue to blame actors for the lack of production? Put another way: when SAG goes to the table with the AMPTP, will the actors be portrayed as "hurdles" on the way to a whole new world of advertising revenue?
Will Canadian television programming even exist for Canadian producers to create and Canadian actors to work on?

But, doesn't Canadian TV suck?

No, the financing of Canadian TV sucks.

Now that we've managed a few of the trees, we're finally able to start looking at the forest. It's not good. The ACTRA strike was a (necessary) symptom of a larger disease. The CRTC has announced the creation of a "task force" which will re-evaluate the Canadian Television Fund. Who is on this task force? The very broadcasters who want it to end. And, to be clear, the very broadcasters who started the fund.

I could turn this into a very long blog post, but will end here and prepare for the next several posts. In the meantime, I'd like to refer back to the very first post I put up on this blog and remind you of "net neutrality".

How does "net neutrality" figure into the debate? Control of the internet is being decided in real time. What was the major sticking point for the ACTRA strike? The internet. Where do producers want to put their content? The internet. Where do the major Hollywood studios want to distribute their product? The internet. Where is video content going? You get the point.

If it's important for the boys at "the top"; why shouldn't it be important for us?

Viacom, Joost strike content licensing deal

2007-02-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

Viacom pulls its content off of YouTube and gives it to Joost. Why? Because YouTube and Google are dragging their heels in paying producers of content their share of advertising revenue.

"It's unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience, which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows. We have received a DMCA takedown request from Viacom, and we will comply with their request," said YouTube's statement.

James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research said, "On YouTube, if you watch a clip from The Colbert Report, you know he's going to say something funny tomorrow and you might then go watch it tomorrow on Comedy Central. You don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip. And I think Viacom knows that. They just want to be compensated for it. I don't think they are against it; they just want to make sure they have a cut".

An Army of "Think Tanks"

First of all; let's ask ourselves how an analyst can weigh in on programming matters like this. There are "think-tanks" out there dealing with new media issues. The notion that the landscape of new media is "yet to be discovered", is a red herring. There are a ton of very intelligent people working on new business models for the new world of broadband broadcasting. Bill Gates has said that the impact will be made palpable in the next five years. Bill Gates is very smart and often gets it right. Let's agree on this point for context.

Viacom has a catalogue of material that it can exploit in a new medium where there is great demand for content. For an analyst to say "you don't satisfy your urge by watching a two-minute clip" makes me question his analytic skills. The internet is *all* about satisfying your "two-minute urges". The internet is the internet. Television is television. The internet is not a proxy for the TV. It is the internet. Advertising space is space that is sold independently and its distribution is vast and far-reaching on the internet without being highly regulated.

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave

The Devil in the Detail

2007-02-20T14:01:00.000-08:00

So Shaw says that he'll resume payments as if this was all part of the master plan.

"We have had no attention from anyone on this issue. We say this is a terrible waste of a Canadian asset and that's why we took the action that we did." He also urged producers to create more television programming that appeals to Canadian viewers. "It's a challenge to the industry to be successful," Shaw said. "You can't be successful if you don't produce anything that Canadians want to watch." - Feb 2oth., Heritage Commons Committee appearance

And what, pray tell, is it that Canadians want to watch? I guess we'll have to wait for Shaw's Task Force to tell us.

What's missing from the conversation...

2007-02-14T09:35:00.000-08:00

If we're lucky, there may come a time when we stop getting distracted from the real issue.

Everyone wants to tell their story.

Peladeau will pay into the fund. Government wins the day, right? Does that stop the constant mergers and aquisitions? Does it keep Rupert Murdoch more than two degrees separated from shaping Canadian culture?

Who's idea was the Canadian Television Fund in the first place?! The Broadcasters.

Who among us would be willing to pitch: "The Keith Mahar Story"? Not likely...eh?

Forget telling stories that are important to producers and actors; start thinking about stories that are important to the broadcasters.

No wonder we're all fleeing to the web.

The Quebecor Fund

2007-02-13T19:01:00.000-08:00

The "new Canadian Television Fund"

Now this is Canadian drama...eh? Government subsidies in jeopardy! Corporate broadcaster announces a "new programming fund". No sex scandals in our country, just vigorous policy debate. Doesn't it make the nipples tingle?

Who will win? Heritage Canada or Quebecor? Ooooh, the anticipation...it's like the final episode of Canadian Idol with Bev Oda and Pierre Karl Peladeau making it to the final two. Will the at-home viewing audience vote for the heritage minister or the broadcast tycoon? Who will win the hearts and minds of those glued to the tv with phone in hand just waiting for the phone-lines to open....

Of course, it's not that exciting, but when you consider that Pierre Karl Peladeau has announced a new $109-million fund for Canadian programming in light of his departure from the Canadian Television Fund, it does capture a bit of attention.

Bev Oda finally got enough fire in her to write a letter asking that Shaw and Videotron continue their monthly payments to the CTF, and didn't comment on the announcement by Videotron of the new $109-million fund.

However, it doesn't appear that Peladeau is reconsidering his plan.

"The Canadian Television Fund had been unable to figure out what the technology revolution is all about and it's making the situation very tough down the road to make sure that we will get some good Canadian content," Péladeau said, adding that Vidéotron wants to produce more Canadian content, not less. - CBC.ca Feb. 13/07

Would that be the Entertainment Tonight Canada type of Canadian content, or the Canadian Idol kind?

Working Class Actors?

2007-02-13T12:49:00.000-08:00

We Shall Overcome

Actra Maritimes announced today that they will be joining the strike. And, as actors through and through (our "camera-whore" tendencies notwithstanding...meant with due affection), we sought out the very cameras that did not seek us out. That's right...the press didn't really show up for their part of the "press conference". Where were they? Covering Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean's address to the Provincial Legislature. Granted, it was an historic event for the province, but which is more relevant; a pseudo-royal figurehead addressing a roomful of capitalists or a unionized labour-force striking for the first time in its history in response to an industry wracked with turmoil? Hmm...arguments could be made for both sides, but let's stick with the tagline.

Are actors really "working class"?

Yes. It's hard to believe that an actor can be working class, what with the catered lunches and the pretty headshots printed by the hundreds, but actors are about as working class as you can get. Until they actually start working as actors, that is.

It's completely understandable that a producer (who only sees an actor "on the job"), could become embittered by seeing a "day-player" chowing down on a "substantial" snack after a luxurious twelve-hour turnaround, only to spend the day fraternizing with the cast and crew (that should be working) between naps in the trailer. I can see how a producer may get in the frame of mind to cut some costs. Reduce overhead...that kind of thing. But that's "on the day".

What about the rest of the year?

As an independent producer, I budget for the time that I spend developing projects and factor that number into my overall costs. I try to make a reasonable return on the investment of my time, knowing full-well that my producing "fee" will be the very first budget item to be "taken out of the equation" by a funding agency or a broadcaster (for development, that is...no-one works for free in production). I'm poorly paid, I'll admit it. More people have made money from my projects than I have (I've made nothing, yet I've paid thousands). Sad reality...boo hoo...I'll go stand in line with the other independent producers.

Fact is: in order to retain the rights to my "brainchild" of a project, I need to pay everyone what they expect to be paid as professionals. I don't quibble with my sound editor. He quotes his price, if I can't do it and he can't do it; we don't do it. I don't call him names or berate him publicly or chide him for not giving me my way because it would be unprofessional to do so.

So, how are actors working class?

As an actor, I've become a far better bartender than I had ever hoped to be. I've served dignitaries, I've served celebrities and I've served grease-monkeys. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they are all the same when it comes to an open-bar or whether they're the ones picking up the tab. They work hard and feel "entitled" to your service. That's not a glorious life in art; that's working-class.

I know actors who are more practiced at customer service than they are with their "art"; actors who make more money through carpentry and drywalling than from the commercials that supposedly "pay the bills" between "real" auditions. I've seen actors spend more money on acting classes than they have made that year as "talent". I've watched colleagues spend years paying "dues" not only in theory, but actual financial dues just to "belong" to the industry. These people work multiple jobs in other industries (industries that are actually in a position to give them paying jobs), only to fund the habit of auditioning with the money that they make. For the average Canadian actor (not the ones you see on TV regularly), landing a gig or two does not exactly become a "cash windfall", rather, it may just cover the costs incurred due to the lifestyle of just "being an actor".

Are artists "working class"? You bet we are.

Producers have "rights" too...don't they?

2007-02-12T16:04:00.000-08:00

It Pays To Belong

The heart of any issue comes down to "rights"; who has them and at what price can they be paid/sold for.

For the musician it's "copyright" to the song that he/she has written. For the actor it's the "right" to have their work be compensated in the form of a base wage and a "royalty" for it's commercial exploitation in various "markets". For the auto-worker it's the "right" to be paid a fair wage for his/her time in the creation of each vehicle valued against the "market price" and overall "profitability" of the product. For the producer it's the responsibility to secure the "rights" of everyone involved in the project and be able to provide documentation that a) the "rights" have been secured and, b) the "rights" have been paid for.

It's a real f%@*in' headache!

But a lucrative headache if you know what you're doing.

The CFTPA has its own "rights" collecting body: the Canadian Retransmission Collective.

“A hundred million dollars… and counting! Film and television producers increasingly recognize just how valuable – and essential –retransmission royalties really are.”
- Guy Mayson, President & CEO, Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA)

Producers collect these very lucrative royalties as the "rights holder" to a project. That means that they have paid everyone out in advance. Organizations such as SOCAN for the rights to a particular song to create a mood. Or the DGC for hiring a director whose vision gave the piece it's shape. Or the WGC for the writer that provided the script. They're even protected against an over-zealous caterer who may feel that they gave the producer some "advice" on set that ended up in the final cut through "E&O insurance". The point is: everyone gets paid the wage that they agree to work for. If a producer feels that the license fee offered by the broadcaster isn't worth the cost of doing business, the producer is within their "rights" not to sell.

ACTRA STRIKE DEVASTATES PRODUCTION IN CANADA?

Dean Ferris, Fox Entertainment Group exec. VP, labor relations (meaning: he's the one that negotiates labour disputes with unions on behalf of Fox - on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, no less), has said on behalf of the CFTPA's American counterpart:

"We're up here in an effort to create employment, and we refuse to fight ACTRA on these proposals. If they don't want us to bring work to Canada, we'll go home. No fight, no problem."

If it's "no problem", then how can we be devastating the industry? If the American producers are up here to "create employment", then how does the responsibility for a faltering industry fall upon those actors who do not create work?

Producer/Actor?

There are Actor/Producers aplenty (think: George Clooney, Drew Barrymore, Paul Gross , Don McKellar), but how many Producer/Actors are there? Point being; do you think there's any correlation at all between actors desiring to produce and producers *not* desiring to act? It may be that the economics of producing hold a better return on investment with more creative control in the long run.

Perhaps it's a bit flippant to speculate at this early date, but suffice it to say, Canadian actors should look at this round of negotiation as an introduction to the costs of doing business from a production standpoint since they may be producing their own projects in the near future. This isn't necessarily a negative outcome, but an outcome that is entirely possible given the radical shift in the industry from "subsidized" production to "market friendly" production.

There are worse things than artist-driven projects, and producer-driven projects will always leave us sitting in the backseat. Maybe this year will bring about a real change for the acting world in Canada and who knows....maybe we'll be able to get a piece of the "hundred million dollars and counting" when we start creating our "Syriana's".

We Are The Machine

2007-02-08T08:22:00.000-08:00

Web 2.0

This is an interesting take on the internet as we know it. I wish Marshall McLuhan was still alive.

How we got hosed...I mean "soaked" Pt. 1

2007-02-07T14:08:00.000-08:00

The Canadian Television Fund...illegal?

Antonia Zerbisias has brought to light some great info should you be interested to see how corrupt the system has gotten. Keith Mahar has been taking on a huge battle and we would do well to support him in getting his message out there. The following is an excerpt from Mahar's letter to PM Paul Martin regarding CRTC corruption:

CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer addressed the fact the CCTA proposal would allow the cable television industry to overcharge basic cable subscribers in order to subsidize other business ventures that had nothing to do with broadcasting, and that subscribers would probably not even notice this happening. The CRTC Chairman, however, did not object to the industry's unorthodox proposal. He did, however, object that the $100 million amount to be diverted to the Canadian production companies under the industry plan was inadequate in his opinion.

"First we saw $100 million and then we found out very quickly it was over five years. It was only up to $100 million. We learned yesterday it's voluntary. I appreciate that your company made a firm commitment. ...
Still, we haven't got money on the table, numbers on the table that we can count on. I don't think you would ever sign a business deal in which the other guy had to give you $100 million but on a voluntary basis.

"You are asking us to soak -- well, let's say to invite the Canadian subscribers to come up with quite a lot of money for your industry to build an infrastructure which would be used no doubt to defend Canadian programming, but also down the road five years a whole lot of other services that have nothing to do with what normal people call television what with home shopping, banking, and things in which the industry will make some honest money, and good for them. But we should know what we are asking these people to pay for.

"It seems to me the quid pro quo is not as firm as the demand you are making upon the subscriber. Your industry wants the subscribers commitment to the industry to be absolutely firm and to come right off their cable bill. They probably won't even notice it. But the industry's commitment to the subscriber and to Canada and to the creative community, which will be the immediate beneficiary, is very shaky.

"We have to take that into account. If there is anything you can do within the industry to firm up that commitment, that major quid pro quo which I say in the name of my colleagues, we find extremely promising. It's a new door that you have opened. We think it is a very useful and exciting path for the industry to consider. But if we are going to really consider this range of proposals you are putting forward, that among other things would have to be firmed up very considerably." [emphasis added]

*Transcript of CRTC public hearing, CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer, 4 March 1993, p. 1153-54

The climate change of Canadian production

2007-02-06T14:29:00.000-08:00

R.I.P. "Producer/Writer"

I just spent the past two days at the NSFDC "Business Issues 2007" meeting (was it a seminar, or a conference?), where I learned more about the business of television in two days as a producer than I did in 12 years as an actor.

The event, moderated by Paul Kimball, was a fascinating discussion on "Maximizing Revenue for your Production Company" that began with Michael Donovan (who was compelling, if not jaundiced, in his stream-of-consciousness take on the industry which was decidedly unencouraging to the "little guy"...perhaps to save us a lifetime of heartbreak), and ended with Stephen Comeau telling us "how easy" it is to promote your wares on YouTube and MySpace (seriously...that's what we call in the acting world - "phoning it in" - no disrespect to the NSFDC intended; they put on a great forum for discussion, but we didn't need two full days of focused discussion to culminate in a "pep talk" of how YouTube and MySpace are "free" and "easy" ways to promote "your property").

What I found most stunning, and ultimately disappointing, was the utter lack of mention for the state of the Canadian Televison Fund under the current circumstances of Shaw Communications and Videotron withdrawing their funding from this fundamental source of financing for all Canadian independent producers. It wasn't until the last moment of the last day when the moderator asked, "any last comments?", that one producer piped up to ask Claude Galipeau of his opinion of the actions by Shaw & Videotron. Galipeau gave an answer befitting a broadcaster (that is ulitmately owned by an American investment bank - and of course, it's shareholders), without burning any bridges within either the private or public sphere, and erred on the side of saying "it's scary for all of us", knowing full-well that his publicly traded company owns a controlling interest in the CSI: Franchise. (Translation: Alliance Atlantis doesn't rely on CTF funding the same way that independent producers do - they have access to capital when the proverbial "shit hits the fan")

How can it be, that "industry experts" (it truly was an impressive gathering of knowledgeable speakers), get flown all the way to Halifax on the taxpayers dime and not one of the discussions were focused on (arguably) the most important issue facing the industry today? How can we even begin to discuss "maximizing revenues" when the funding is "dead" and "gone"? How is it even possible to get a room full of producers to *NOT* talk about the ramifications of the death of the CTF? Why was the CTF not considered a "business issue" in a forum titled, "Business Issues 2007"?

This fund provides 20-30% of an independent producers budget. To be clear, it's not that producers or the presenters didn't have opinions on the matter (some could be overheard in corners during the coffee-breaks), but it wasn't a talking point on the agenda. Apart from Claude Galipeau giving a small (and welcomed), rant on the topic the only other utterance on the subject was Michael Donovan suggesting that we should "be thinking about it morning, noon and night". (uh...we do...why didn't we talk about it?)

The age of "Producer/Market Analyst"

Producers aren't being asked to find good stories anymore; they're being asked to find "their target audiences". Those audiences that we can figure out how to monetize and ultimately seduce advertisers with which to coax the dollars out of. Capiche?

As wonderful as it was to be sitting in a room with people facing the same problems and looking for the same answers, it struck me that we were learning to speak the language of advertisers instead of learning to speak with our own voices. Perhaps I'm slow in coming around to this understanding, while the rest of the producers in the country are miles ahead. I'm young(er), I'll admit that.

Financial Risk Transfer

At the end of the day, all financial risks have to be accounted for by the producer. Who will watch this? Who will pay for advertising around this? Who owns the rights? Who pays the copyright holder? Who has to be paid more and who can be talked into taking less? Who pays for the E&O insurance?

Maybe this all feeds into the CFTPA's resentment of ACTRA since the actor gets an "upfront fee" as opposed to a "backend profit". (translation: the actor is guaranteed payment for a day's work while the producer who has spent years developing the project has no guarantee of payment and all of the responsibility for the finances)

It was truly fascinating to watch Stephen Comeau lecture the room on the new and exciting ways to capitalize on internet-based models for promoting and distributing content throughout the world of new media and still maintain that actors are unreasonable for expecting to negotiate a fair payment structure within this new framework. It's like an Industrialist saying to a labourer, "I've just discovered a way to make a cheaper product and reach a wider consumer base...in light of this, you're getting a pay cut." Sure, the CFTPA's position is that the new media landscape is still too new and unknown, but they are certainly aware of the possibilities on the horizon and are doing *everything* within their power to exploit those possibilities (read: advertising revenue).

There's something happening here, but you don't know what it is.

Hello Highspeed Internet, Goodbye Canadian Television

2007-02-06T03:51:00.000-08:00

Not that "I" told you so: "They're" telling us "it is so"

Videotron (who has pulled their funding from the CTF), has announced that they will be introducing a new ultra High-speed internet to its client base that is 400% faster than current service. CBC states, "Videotron said the higher speeds could transform its offerings, especially with the explosion of online video." (emphasis added)

Is media consolidation really happening in Canada?

Yes Virginia, days prior to the announcement of the new ultra High-speed internet service from Videotron, Rogers announced an "on-line content deal" with Videotron's parent company Quebecor (who boasts having former PM Mulroney on its executive staff). The deal bundles, "content from 11 magazines on the Internet, in a deal that will create a major online presence by combining stories from some of the country's best-known magazine websites". Hmmm...what else could they possibly bundle on-line?

I guess it makes sense to pull out of the Canadian Television Fund when you believe that television "ain't where it's at" for your advertising bucks anymore.

You say Goodbye, I say Hello

Where's the CTF money going?

2007-01-31T13:23:00.000-08:00

In all fairness to Jim Shaw and Pierre Karl Peladeau (of Shaw and Videotron, respectively), accountability is a fair thing to expect from a fund made up of private and public tax money. I know that the little bit of money that comes from my small income tax return will never amount to the $74 million per year that those guys carve off of their revenues for the money that gets divided among how many independent producers after the "Crown", under the auspices of the CBC, takes their 37% cut.

I share the private sector's beef with the "ceeb" because, truly, the CBC sucks at programming. Big time.

Not that I don't love Peter Mansbridge or enjoy waking up to Heather Hiscox every morning. I won't even hold Jian Ghomeshi responsible for the rash that I get every time I hear is voice (I do however, hold George Stromboulopolous guilty as charged for agreeing to be the face of The Hour), but it truly falls in the laps of those few people at the CBC who make the "decisions" that piss of people like Jim Shaw and Pierre Karl Peladeau. Why shouldn't the private contributors be able to have a hand in influencing the programming that their $$,$$$,$$$ are paying for? Maybe Shaw or Peladeau have some people working for them who know how to make a CBC show that's a) Canadian and, b) entertaining....nah, they'd just program something that the 1st AD on Survivor: The Outback produced in Studio City. But anyway...

The CBC does not know what it means to be Canadian...

...because they keep showing stories about anything *BUT* what is happening in Canada (note: they do however love spinning yarns about what has happened in the past). Why? Because they are a Broadcaster themselves. Why should broadcasters (i.e. - anyone paying into the TV fund) be paying "tax" to another broadcaster?

None of the posts about the CTF in this blog should be construed as praise for the fund, but rather, as an alarm bell for how money gets taken out of Canada by large corporations who could give a s@*t about anything other than shareholder confidence and a "bottom line". It's harsh, I know, I apologize - I do. It's a Catch 22, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario when discussing out loud - the funding process for production in this country that producers and actors depend on.

We haven't even begun to talk about the audience.

Canadian Art. Canadian Stories. Canadian Canadiana.....let's just start telling stories that we each care about and stop waiting for the government sanctioned broadcaster to tell us that "it's here!".

The following video is an example of Canadian taxpayer funding gone terribly wrong:

Statement following the meeting with the principal funders of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)

2007-01-31T09:34:00.000-08:00

OTTAWA, January 30, 2007

By the Honourable Beverley J. Oda
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women

Recognizing the importance of the situation last week, I called this meeting and also announced Canada's New Government's contribution to the CTF of $200M for two years. This announcement was made to demonstrate the Government's commitment to Canadian content and the Canadian broadcasting system. It was made to provide some stability to the production of quality Canadian programming.

Our Government is committed to our Canadian production industry and to a strong broadcasting system.

I am pleased to have met with the principal funders of the CTF today. It was an insightful meeting.

I understood that there have been concerns with the CTF for many years, and that those concerns of the private sector contributors have not been fully satisfied.

Today's meeting allowed me to have a fuller explanation of the concerns of some funders from the private sector, and the reasons why their positions are being taken.

As they wrote in their letters that I received, they expressed their concerns regarding the governance of the CTF and the CBC/SRC's envelope. However, they also strongly pointed out that they believe that the broadcasting system's new realities are not being recognized by the current structure of the CTF.

I am looking forward to meet with the Chair of the CTF to pass on to him their concerns and the discussions of today's meeting.

They All Laughed At Christopher Columbus

2007-01-31T06:40:00.000-08:00

When He Said The World Was Round.

And they thought Bill Gates was nuts when he predicted that there would be a computer in every household. Now the Microsoft Chairman is claiming that the Internet is set to revolutionize television within five years, due to an explosion of online video content and the merging of PCs and TV sets.

The interesting part of this statement (to me at least), is that it was made during the 2007 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting (this year's meeting was ironically titled, "The Shifting Power Equation") which draws top political and business figures throughout the world to discuss relevant economic issues. It's further evidence that the broadcasting of TV quality programming on the internet is of economic interest to a wider audience than just actors and producers.

Goodbye Canadian TV Fund?

2007-01-31T06:02:00.000-08:00

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.

Quoted from today's Globe & Mail:

"Behind closed doors, the four companies (Shaw, Videotron, Bell ExpressVu & Rogers), raised concerns over how the fund is structured, who is eligible to receive money and whether the dollars are producing enough worthwhile programs -- a criticism raised by Shaw."

"Where The Dogs Of Society Howl".

What the "F" do phones have to do with actors?

2007-01-30T13:46:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's post, I made reference to the fact that broadcasters are getting into the telephone industry.

"What does high-speed internet mean to an ACTRA member?
...It means that phone companies are going on-line (i.e. - VoiP). It means that the companies that will be contracting actors are ultimately producing content for subsidiaries of parent companies who will be exploiting that content far beyond the "Tuesday night at 8pm" timeslot."

The Globe and Mail ran an article today titled, "Cable Firms Seen Pushing Into Phone Market" saying:

"The cable giants, including Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw Communications Inc. will roll out phone service across their entire territory during the year, reaching more clients...the push into the phone market is also helping other cable businesses...It's bolstering demand for basic and digital cable and Internet service, and letting cable operators raise rates"

While this news may not exactly set your hair on fire, what it describes is an environment in which players like Shaw (which has pulled its funding to the CTF), are not only able to influence the creation of content (via: the funding of independent production), but also able to control the distribution of content by being a sole provider of cable, internet and high definition video programming (not to mention your phone service - land and wireless - where you can also receive their programming via mobile cell phone content).

"Video on Demand" takes on a whole new meaning.

One-stop shopping.

The problem with one-stop shopping is that it usually has one person deciding what gets sold behind the doors.

Why fight to work?

2007-01-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

"Let's Call The Whole Thing Off"

Let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that ACTRA and the CFTPA work it all out over the next week. Maybe they call each other at the same time, you know, and have one of those awkward chuckles and say at the same time, "Oh, I was just about to call you...no, you go first", and they both agree to resolve their differences and the memberships of both associations are reasonably satisfied with a new collective agreement with the new media issue going to a joint committee for the next year. Highly improbable, but let's just....say.

Where's The Work?

I don't know about you, but the strike hasn't really changed my life as an actor. I'm getting about the same amount of auditions and therefore the same amount of work (read: zero. Granted, I no longer live in Toronto, but I do live in Halifax. Anecdotal evidence tells me that my fellow ACTRA members are having a similar experience to mine).

To be clear, I support ACTRA and the decision to strike against Producers who continue to believe that they are the employers and we are their employees. As mentioned in previous posts, the entire industry is being renegotiated from the top down, so why shouldn't ACTRA be guarding our wage minimums? (note: where there are new channels of distribution; there are new channels of revenue...capiche?) AND, I certainly don't hold ACTRA responsible for the "drought" of production in Canada. BUT...

Seriously, where's the work?

The strike shows no signs of ending in the near future, what with the CFTPA taking ACTRA to court and challenging, not only the legality of the strike, but ACTRA's legality as a trade union.

How long can it last? Who knows? There aren't any press releases or bulletins being released saying "there's a light at the end of the tunnel". Some producers who feel "extorted" by ACTRA have stock-piled work in anticipation of the strike (which would somewhat undermine the "extortion theory" since they stock-piled in advance under the old rules, knowing full-well what was "blowing in the wind"...). Others could begin outsourcing the work to circumnavigate ACTRA's jurisdiction. So, while we have producers storing their proverbial "nuts" for this "winter of our discontent," having assured their own productivity - and therefore - cash flow; ACTRA members may find themselves in the future with a new collective agreement in an industry that looks wildly different than the one that was covered by the last IPA.

The "new" industry looks a whole lot different than the old one.

The topic of "the new industry" will be the focus of this entire blog site. But, it begs the question; how do we know what the 'new' industry will look like? Answer: by looking at what the producers and broadcasters are fighting for.

What are they fighting for? Well...they don't really fight per se, as it's "unbecoming" of a CEO to "pitch a fit" in public, but don't kid yourself; when Jim Shaw or Karl Peladeau pull tens of millions of dollars out of something like the Canadian Television Fund, they know exactly what kind of statement they're making. Sure, they "say" that they'll be pouring the money back into Canadian productions, but what does that mean exactly?

While a Videotron or a Shaw may pay lip service to investing in Canadian production, they may only mean; productions that are considered "Canadian" under the CanCon rules which are laid out by the CRTC, which is currently becoming even more "market friendly" and receiving an extreme makeover. (note: Jim Shaw is "fine" with the appointment of the new CRTC chief...does this mean that Shaw feels that the head of the CRTC will be "on his side" when they start negotiating the pull-out of funds with Heritage Minister Bev Oda?)

Where are they spending their money right now?

In order to understand what the industry will look like "post-strike", we need to understand that what is happening in "real-time" (read: while we're looking the other way - and by this I mean, the membership, not the executive of ACTRA), is that the industry is undergoing another phase of deregulation. It comes in phases. They can't deregulate an entire industry at once, this is but a "phase", albeit a massive phase which will definately go down in the history books.

The broadcasters are dumping their money into investment in telecom and broadband infrastructure. (meaning: high-speed internet) Why? Because broadcasters, by and large, are also telecommunications companies, or "wholly-owned" subsidiaries of telecom companies or about to become wholly-owned subsidiaries of telecom companies.

What does high-speed internet mean to an ACTRA member?

It means that distribution - and therefore advertising revenue - possibilities have been blown wide open. ACTRA is a union that stands in the way of producers, distributors and broadcasters who are finding new and exciting ways to get their projects into previously difficult territories. Corporations hate unions. Upset union-leaders in turn, upset shareholder confidence.

It means that phone companies are going on-line (i.e. - VoiP). It means that the companies that will be contracting actors are ultimately producing content for subsidiaries of parent companies who will be exploiting that content far beyond the "Tuesday night at 8pm" timeslot.

It means...

Video on Demand is the "new industry".

ACTRA is doing the right thing by drawing a line in the sand when it comes to new media. However, we'd better start figuring out what the entire landscape looks like before we draw all of our "borders". Presumably, that's why ACTRA wants to put the issue to a joint committee to see "how it pans out."

As one ACTRA member to another, let me suggest that this discussion should not be left solely to the boys in the boardroom. Supporting our union with a mandate is of course crucial.

Supporting them with our informed opinions will be critical in the coming year.

"Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss"

The "Barker Channel"

2007-01-29T15:13:00.000-08:00

A "barker channel" is described as "a TV channel that is used almost entirely for promotion and advertising, usually marketing various features of the service carrying the channel."

Made me think of the occupation of a "barker".

Why We Should Care About TV...

2007-01-25T09:53:00.000-08:00

Well...we shouldn't. Sorry...but really, why should we care for TV? Does it care for us? Of course not. Television, as the audience thinks of it is the place to find their favorite shows. Television, as the advertisers think of it (and therefore broadcasters and networks), is the "thing" that happens between commercials. Like it or lump it, that's what it is.

Why should we care about Broadcasters (Shaw Communications & Videotron) pulling their monthly contributions out of the Canadian Television Fund? For the same reason that you should care about 'Net Neutrality'. Why should you care about network neutrality? If you are an actor, producer, writer, journalist, director... if you are a person that makes even a modicum of money in this business, you should care about network neutrality and the consolidation of the broadcast industry in the same fashion that you should care about the reasons behind the majority of produce in your local supermarket bearing the stamp "U.S.A. Grade A" when you're living in the middle of a Canadian agricultural centre.

The internet and the "airwaves" belong to the public. You pay for the service that connects you to that domain (ie. Sympatico for Web & Rogers for TV). The problem is: the general public isn't aware of this and doesn't understand how programming reaches them, probably because that information is far less entertaining than watching people crash and burn on American Idol.

Let's back up a bit.

FADE UP:

Goldman Sachs, under the auspices of CanWest Global has purchased Alliance Atlantis for an estimated $2.3 billion.

Alliance Atlantis is one of the largest distributors of media content in Canada. It is also a broadcaster of 13 "specialty channels". CanWest Global owns newspapers, radio stations and of course, a few very well-known television stations. Goldman Sachs is an investment bank, but not just any investment bank. It's a "primary dealer" which means that it is one of only a few banks allowed to do business directly with the Federal Reserve (the U.S. central bank). I guess if you're gonna ask to be backed for $2.3 billion, you need a few friends in high places (note: current U.S. Sec. of the Treasury had to step down as CEO of Goldman Sachs in June of 2006 to answer the "call" of Pres. Bush). And if you're spending $2.3 billion, you have to have some pretty specific goals on paper to "sell" your plan.

CUT TO:

7 of 13 seats open for new Commissioners on the CRTC

Appointments are made at the Prime Minister's discretion. He's clearly stated his intention to appoint commissioners who are "market friendly". I don't see how they could get "less market friendly" than they already are. I guess it's just a matter of nuance, but it's a big enough "nuance" to be of great importance to the Prime Minister's Office.

CUT TO:

Shaw & Videotron pull out of the Canadian Television Fund.

Not that the funding model for Canadian television isn't flawed (that's why the Auditor General wrote a report calling those flaws to national attention), but the question has now become: is flawed funding better than no funding at all?

Considering that Brian Mulroney is part of the corporate governance of Videotron's parent company, it's reasonable to assume that these CEO's (Jim Shaw & Pierre Karl Peladeau), who signed the letters addressed to the Chairman of the CTF, have received "advice" from reliable sources. If Brian Mulroney needs to know from Stephen Harper whether or not the CTF is still a "good bet" for his company's $14.3 million annual contribution, don't you think he could find that info out "from the horse's mouth"?

CUT TO:

Federal funding of the Canadian Television Fund to be 'reviewed' in 2007

PM Harper has a mandate to re-evaluate whether or not the Federal government should continue to provide half of the funding for the $200+ million Canadian television programming fund. Granted, Heritage Minister Bev Oda (a former Broadcasting exec. and CRTC Commissioner herself), has recently announced that they will continue to contribute for the next two years, but the "review" is still going to happen and may happen sooner than expected.

CUT TO:

ACTRA strikes and the CFTPA "fiddles while the industry burns"

(Full disclosure: I'm an independent producer and an ACTRA member)

For the first time in ACTRA's 64-year history, it's membership has gone on strike. Let's get one thing straight: actors are on strike . Not teachers, not auto workers, not coal miners or nurses; actors. They're not trying to keep their full-time jobs or even be guaranteed a job; they're trying to guarantee that when there is a job they don't make less than they did in previous years.

The key issue?

Digital distribution, new media and the internet.

Although the CFTPA has decided to take ACTRA to court rather than negotiate, I was able to get an idea from ACTRA of the rates that they are asking for with regards to internet distribution. The residual payments for internet distribution that are being requested by ACTRA are very similar to the percentages that a producer would have to pay for "theatrical distribution". Meaning: in terms of distribution, the internet is not seen as an equivalent to television, and is viewed more on par with film projects which are "on demand" (you can see a film in different theatres at different times and rent/buy the DVD) and do not require a schedule - i.e. "Thursday night at 8pm on Global". Perhaps the additional 25% residual payment (i.e. - 130% buyout for film as opposed to 105% buyout for TV), is not something which the TV producer is accustomed to, but this is an industry which is being renegotiated from the top down.

What we see is an industry that is undergoing massive change. For lack of a better term, it's a feeding frenzy. Google buys Youtube. Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) buys everything he can.

To put it bluntly: the Television Industry is not dying because of a lack of money...there's a shitload of money being spent precisely because everyone at the top (i.e. - broadcasters), believes that there is an even bigger shitload of money to be made. To be made where? On the internet. Broadcasters know this. Distributors know this. Producers know this. ACTRA knows this.

Is it unreasonable in this climate for ACTRA to stand firm and not give away wage standards that it has fought for in previous years? Is it unreasonable for ACTRA to refer the new media issue to a separate committee for a year while we see how things develop?

If the broadcasters and distributors are allowed to negotiate and make money; why can't actors?

We're in for a helluva fight. Not just as actors, but as citizens.

INTERTITLE:

TO BE CONTINUED...

FADE OUT

Broadcast This!

We've Moved!!

Woman gets "forgotten" in holding cell for four days

Bill C-10

Calling a spade a 'spade'.

The "real" crisis with striking Writers...

Gemini's to "shine" with Hollywood Stars

Telefilm funding frozen

Number of films made declines

Writers Guild votes overwhelmingly to authorize a strike

Global laying off 200 across Canada

American TV shows sweep Top 10 in Canada

Shaw "extremely disappointed" he can't bring U.S.A. to CAN

Shaw Communications disappointed with CRTC denial of access to USA Network

It's all about the "brand".

Buy Low/Sell High

Subprime and the Alliance deal take 2

What Price Salvation?

Kim Hume new Director of Policy at ACTRA

Subprime crisis and Alliance takeover

CRTC officials grill Astral over Standard Broadcasting price

Suggest deal worth more than $1.08-billion

"We control all of the West. We're a powerful family."

Kenney for Heritage Minister?

Happy Canadian Television Fund Day!!

The Death of the Internet?

Canadian TV is crap....

Cable cabal

Online repression rising: Amnesty International

CRTC approves more TV ads

Internet radio broadcasters dealt setback

ACTRA ratifies, Toronto gets a new studio and everything is back to normal...

Shaw Says Profit Gains 74 Percent

Phone companies flood CRTC with deregulation filings

Lee Iaccoca tears Dubya a new one...

Apple sells 100 million iPods

Under-reported stories # 2

In Debt We Trust

Independent journalist released from U.S. prison

Basic cable service basically on its way to oblivion

A Red Herring?

Under-reported stories # 1

Trouble in Gootopia

My idea for the *new* Canadian Television Fund

TV gets closer to the computer

War?...What War?

Why broadcasters put a high price on the internet

Antonia, my love!

Finally...we can start looking at the forest

Viacom, Joost strike content licensing deal

The Devil in the Detail

What's missing from the conversation...

The Quebecor Fund

Working Class Actors?

Producers have "rights" too...don't they?

We Are The Machine

How we got hosed...I mean "soaked" Pt. 1

The climate change of Canadian production

Hello Highspeed Internet, Goodbye Canadian Television

Where's the CTF money going?

Statement following the meeting with the principal funders of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)

They All Laughed At Christopher Columbus

Goodbye Canadian TV Fund?

What the "F" do phones have to do with actors?

Why fight to work?

The "Barker Channel"

Why We Should Care About TV...

My idea for the new Canadian Television Fund