AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved

from the witness-the-firepower-of-this-fully-armed-and-operational-battle-station dept

Over the years, we've noted how AT&T has a nasty habit of lying to sell the public, press and regulators on the company's neverending attempts to grow larger. Whether it's promising broadband expansions that never arrive, or using astroturf to try and argue anti-consumer mergers are good for toddlers, AT&T's lobbyists, lawyers, and policy tendrils work tirelessly to argue that up is down, black is white, and any skepticism of its claims are unfounded hysteria. As we saw with the blocked T-Mobile merger, this sort of behavior doesn't work quite as well as it used to.

Enter AT&T's latest $85 billion planned acquisition of Time Warner. Consumer advocates worry AT&T could use its size and leverage to make content more expensive, while the usage caps and zero rating give AT&T's own upcoming streaming video service an unfair market advantage. Wall Street hasn't exactly been bullish on the idea either, noting how AT&T's $69 billion acquisition of DirecTV, followed by its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner is not only a giant risk on the eve of the cord cutting revolution, but it saddles AT&T with an absolute mountain of debt that will potentially damage the company's credit rating.

But AT&T being AT&T, the telco is already busy trying to claim the merger will create all manner of amazing consumer benefits. One of the top early claims is that buying a massive media empire will somehow speed up AT&T's fifth-generation (5G) wireless deployments:

"Stephenson this week tried to claim that the $85 billion acquisition of a broadcaster will somehow speed up the company's deployment of fifth generation (5G) wireless broadband. "We would probably have a desire to move faster on 5G, certainly not slower," Stephenson claimed on the company's earnings call this week. AT&T CFO John Stevens agreed, claiming that the massive deal "brings us a lot more financial flexibility... or revenue enhancements and growth that will allow us to fund 5G."

Except that 5G is an evolutionary step up for wireless, one AT&T was unquestioningly-dedicated to before this merger was even announced. AT&T doesn't really have a choice in working toward 5G, which doesn't even have an official standard yet -- and likely won't see any meaningful commercial deployment until 2020. As for "financial flexibility," buying a massive media empire, saddling yourself with debt, having your credit downgraded and potentially hamstringing your ability to participate in current spectrum auctions -- doesn't magically make your wireless network appear more quickly.

AT&T also appears to be trying to convince the press, public and regulators that the deal is somehow making it possible for AT&T to launch its new "DirecTV Now" streaming service, which is expected to launch this Friday. AT&T executives have been claiming repeatedly that the service's $35 per month price point is somehow thanks to a merger that technically doesn't even exist yet:

"AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson today defended his company's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, saying that critics who claim the merger will raise prices are "uninformed." As proof, he said the AT&T-owned DirecTV will soon launch a $35-per-month streaming service called DirecTV Now.

"I'm not surprised [by the criticism]. They're uninformed comments," Stephenson said in response to a question from Wall Street Journal editor Rebecca Blumenstein at the newspaper's WSJDLive Conference. "Anybody who characterizes this as a means to raise prices is ignoring the basic premise of what we're trying to do here, again a $35 product we bring into the market."

Right, except this new streaming service was actually first announced eight months ago. And the licensing contracts supporting this $35 price point (which you know won't be anywhere near $35 once AT&T saddles it with fees and caveats) were already in place long before the merger was even announced. While AT&T is surely going to get better rates for content now that it owns the cow, there's absolutely no historical evidence to suggest that savings will be passed on directly to the consumer. If anything, consumers could pay more as AT&T uses its broadband mono/duopoly power to try and hamstring streaming alternatives.

This is just AT&T getting warmed up. Over the next few months, media outlets will be hammered with op-eds from lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, policy wonks, "consultants" and think tankers (all with undisclosed financial ties to AT&T) happily claiming that this new merger will cure cancer, protect toddlers, and keep the nation's puppies warm and happy. And while it's understandable that ISPs want to get into content and ads as broadband growth slows, the $150 billion spent on DirecTV and Time Warner could have brought fiber optic connections to American homes several times over.

Filed Under: 5g, broadband, content, lies, merger, wireless
Companies: at&t, directv, time warner

EU Commission Releases Plans To More Directly Regulate Internet, Pretending It's Not Regulating The Internet

from the this-is-an-issue dept

Well, this isn't a surprise. After all, we warned you that it was likely to happen, and we helped get together folks to warn the EU Commission that this was a bad idea, but the EU Commission has always seemed dead set on a plan that they believe will hold back big successful American internet firms, while fostering support for European ones. This week they made their first move by releasing details of some of their plans. This is all part of the "Digital Single Market" plan, which, in theory, makes a ton of sense. The idea is to knock down geographical regulatory barriers on the internet, such as geoblocking. And the first part of the EU's plan is right in line with that idea and makes perfect sense. It talks about getting rid of geoblocking and also making cross-border delivery of packages easier and less expensive -- basically making e-commerce work better. That's all good.

But it's the second part that is concerning, and that's where they start talking about updating "audiovisual rights" and the regulation of "online platforms." The audiovisual rights stuff is getting most of the press attention, because of silly rules like requiring video platforms to promote more European-created content.

Currently, European TV broadcasters invest around 20% of their revenues in original content and on-demand providers less than 1%. The Commission wants TV broadcasters to continue to dedicate at least half of viewing time to European works and will oblige on-demand providers to ensure at least 20% share of European content in their catalogues.

This is a silly protectionist measure that we've seen in various countries for TV for ages and it's a joke. If you want more people viewing European content have them make better content. Forcing content on people because it's "from Europe" isn't going to make anyone want to watch it if it sucks. It will also, of course, make life more difficult for new entrants who will have to make sure that enough of their content meets this arbitrary standard.

But the much more concerning stuff involves the regulation of the internet. Now, yes, the EU Commission basically tries to bend over backwards to say that this isn't about creating new regulations for the internet. And also to claim that they're not changing the "intermediary liability" regime as laid out in the E-Commerce Directive that is a decent, if unfortunately weaker, version of US intermediary liability protections, saying that platforms aren't responsible for actions of their users. But... there's a big "but" after those claims, and it basically undermines those claims. You can read the following and see them swearing no new regulations and no changes, but the four bullet points and the details buried in them suggest something entirely different:

Today's Communication on platforms does not propose a new general law on online platforms, nor does it suggest to change the liability regime set by the e-Commerce Directive.

The aim is to make sure that platforms can be created, scale up and grow in the European Union. To reach this goal we need a functioning Digital Single Market where online platforms (both startups and established market operators) are not hampered by heavy regulation.

Online platforms are already subject to EU legislation such as consumer and data protection rules, and competition law. New initiatives will only be taken to tackle any specific problems identified and only if it is established that better enforcement of existing rules is not sufficient to address these.

In our approach to online platforms, we will be guided by the following principles:

• a level-playing field for comparable digital services
• responsible behaviour of online platforms to protect core values,
• transparency and fairness for maintaining user trust and safeguarding innovation,
• open and non-discriminatory markets in a data-driven economy.

Let's go one by one. First the "level playing field." This is a popular line, but it's kind of meaningless. What does it even mean? Some companies are going to be more successful than others, or use different business models or strategies. And those, by their very nature, create a different kind of playing field. We should be worried when the government is arguing for tilting the playing field one way or the other. For example, in earlier discussions about this, there were arguments that YouTube's model was unfair, but Spotify's model was fine. Why should the government favor one over the other?

Also, within the details, they make it clear that, despite what was said above, this is about extending new censorship regulations to platforms. "Data protection" regulations include things like "the right to be forgotten." Recognize that when reading this:

In the new e-Privacy Directive the Commission will consider, for example, extending data protection obligations currently applicable only to telecoms companies to platforms.

The next one is the big concern, because it's so... broad: "Ensuring that online platforms behave responsibly." What does that mean? Who determines what's "responsible?" Because you have the RIAA and MPAA insisting that "responsible" means vast censorship of platforms to block anything that might even remotely be infringing. Or you have the FBI insisting that "responsible" means keeping log files for a really long time and not encrypting stuff (or encrypting it with holes in it). There's a lot of wiggle room within "behaving responsibly" that should be a cause for concern.

And, indeed, it looks like the EU Commission is buying the MPAA/RIAA's view of what "behaving responsibly" means:

In the third quarter of 2016, the Commission will propose a copyright reform package aiming to achieve a fairer allocation of value generated by the online distribution of copyright-protected content by online platforms providing access to such content.

This is a fairly loud dog whistle to the RIAA. In the past few months the RIAA has been going on and on about what they're ridiculously calling the "value gap" in online platforms. In short that "value gap" is that internet companies are making lots of money... while record labels are not. To them, that's because of some sort of unfairness in the law. To most everyone else it's because the markets have shifted, and the record labels failed to adapt. And, really, if we're talking about unfair markets and "fair allocation of value" why didn't anyone complain through the 70s, 80s and 90s when the laws were so tilted that the labels basically got all of the "allocation of value" while the actual artists got stiffed?

And, of course, despite the EU Commission initially saying that there would be no impact on the intermediary liability protections in the E-Commerce Directive, they pretty quickly walk that back in the details:

In relation to the liability regime of online intermediaries established by the e-Commerce Directive, the Commission will assess:

• the need for guidance on the liability of online platforms when putting in place voluntary measures to fight illegal content online [starting in the second half of 2016], and
• the need for a formal notice-and-action procedures [after taking due account of the updated audiovisual media and copyright frameworks].

Got that? So now the government will be pushing for "voluntary measures" to take down content. But since it's the government looking into it, it's not so voluntary, is it? And then a "notice and action procedure" which means "notice and takedown." In the US, obviously, we have that for copyright, which has created a massive censorship regime, but we don't have such a setup for other kinds of content. The EU, generally, does have a sort of notice-and-takedown for things like defamation, and it looks like that may expand.

Oh, and then the ever amorphous censorship of "hate speech," which no one ever seems to define clearly:

In addition to revised audiovisual media rules, the Commission will further encourage coordinated EU-wide self-regulatory efforts by online platforms in tackling illegal content online. The Commission is currently discussing with IT companies on a code of conduct on combatting hate speech online.

Sure, I dislike hate speech as much as the next guy, but attempts to suppress hate speech tend to lead to straight up government censorship or as a way to attack speech governments don't like.

Next up, we've got: "Fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness." Yup, there's that "fairness" again. Obviously, fostering trust and transparency are actually things I'm very, very supportive of. But I'm not clear on what the government needs to be doing here, when there are often good ways for the market to do that itself. Companies that are more transparent generate more trust by themselves. And many new platforms rely on public trust to actually provide any value. So, sure, I don't want fake reviews online either, but isn't that something that platforms can handle by themselves?

The Commission will encourage industry to step up voluntary efforts, which it will help in framing, to prevent trust-diminishing practices (in particular, but not limited to, tackling fake or misleading online reviews) and monitor the implementation of the self-regulatory principles agreed on comparison websites and apps.

So, while we applaud the idea of doing away with geoblocking, as well as the general principles of fairness, trust and transparency, it's extremely frightening to think about what the government has to do in this arena at all, since almost all of the suggested ideas are wide open to abuse in the form of just attacking platforms the government or legacy industries don't like, rather than focusing on what actually creates the most value for the public.

Filed Under: content, copyright, eu, fairness, intermediary liability, internet, openness, platforms, regulations, transparency

Dish Agrees To Cripple Its Ad-Skipping DVR To Settle Fox Lawsuit

from the negotiating-away-innovation dept

For years now, broadcasters have waged legal war on Dish network for giving consumers what they want: namely a DVR that automatically skips advertisements users weren't watching anyway. Fox, CBS and NBC Universal all sued Dish back in 2012, claiming that the ad-skipping technology embedded in its "Hopper" DVR violated copyright. Most of the lawsuits were packed with hilariously baseless claims, like Fox ignoring the Betamax case to breathlessly insist that merely recording the entire prime time lineup was making "bootleg" copies of Fox's broadcasts.

Disney and CBS' lawsuits were settled in 2014, with Dish agreeing to hamstring Hopper's skipping functionality in exchange for not only an end to legal hostilities, but access to streaming video rights for its Sling TV service. Fox however continued to push its luck in the courts with decidedly mixed results; losing on many of the copyright claims, but winning on a few contractual issues. For example, the courts agreed that Hopper's ability to download recorded content to mobile phones violated contract restrictions against the copying of programming for use outside the home.

With the arrival of 2016, however, comes word that Dish and Fox have finally ended their protracted legal battle. According to the companies' statement, Dish has, as it did with CBS and Disney, agreed to further cripple its DVR's ad-skipping functionality:

"Fox Networks Group and Dish Network L.L.C. have reached an agreement resulting in the dismissal of all pending litigation between the two companies, including disputes over Slingbox technology and the AutoHop, PrimeTime Anytime and Transfers features,” Dish said in the statement. "As part of the settlement, Dish’s AutoHop commercial-skipping functionality will not be available for owned and affiliated Fox stations until seven days after a program first airs.”

Though it's not indicated by the companies' announcement, the settlement likely also involves some broader access to Fox content for use in Dish's Sling TV service, so the deal's probably not a total evolutionary wash. Still, the end result is one of the most popular and innovative DVRs on the market being crippled just to make legacy broadcast executives feel more comfortable as their empires face earth-shaking disruption on every front.

With the exception of Comcast NBC Universal (which, not coincidentally, directly competes with Dish as a cable provider), all of the original 2012 lawsuits have now been put to bed -- but at the cost of innovation and customer satisfaction.

Filed Under: ad skipping, commercial skipping, content, copyright, dvr, hopper
Companies: dish, fox

Facebook Declares BBC Article About French Political Polls 'Unsafe'

from the dave,-i-can't-let-you-post-that... dept

Lots of people have reasonable concerns about platforms like Facebook which not only provide an avenue for free expression -- but which also have the power to suddenly decide it won't allow certain forms of expression. Admittedly, there's always a line to be drawn somewhere. People are happy that Facebook tries to keep out spam and scams, but it's still worrying when it seems to want to filter out perfectly legitimate news stories. On Sunday, Nadim Kobeissi tweeted that Facebook wouldn't allow the sharing of a BBC article on the latest political polling in France.

Facebook, you're going full Orwell. Never go full Orwell. pic.twitter.com/wsBpQNhMqE

— Nadim Kobeïssi (@kaepora) December 6, 2015

I wasn't sure I believed it so I tried to post that link to my own Facebook page and got a similar message: Now it's possible that there's a concern over rogue dangerous ads on the BBC site -- though for many people the BBC displays no ads at all. It's also possible that Facebook's algorithms interpret news about the National Front party (which is politely described as "far right," but might more accurately be described as nationalist-to-racist) as somehow dangerous. But, just the fact that Facebook is magically determining that a news story is somehow "unsafe" without giving me any details to understand why or how is tremendously concerning.

And, again, this comes just after we've seen American politicians calling for Facebook and others to magically determine how to block "bad" content that might inspire terrorists. And, it comes just as Google's Eric Schmidt argued that these kinds of filters should be more common. Yet, examples like this show just how problematic the idea of these kinds of filters can be.

The more pressure put on companies like Facebook to do that kind of proactive filtering, the more likely that perfectly legitimate information and news stories like the BBC story here get blocked. And that should be seen as immensely problematic if you believe in free expression and the ability to share ideas freely.

Filed Under: content, filters, free speech
Companies: bbc, facebook

Advertising Is Content: The Threat To Streaming Sports Posed By A Tiny Advertisement Inventory

from the jingle-this dept

I've talked about the coming and evolving world of wider streaming in professional and major college sports for quite a while now. Even measuring only the past few years, streaming of sporting events has seen immense progress, from the leagues themselves getting on board and expanding options, to broadcast partners opening up their product online, to forward-looking team owners recognizing that the future is in streaming. Wide-spread streaming sports is going to happen, due to all of the above and the fact that cord-cutting is simply not going to go away.

Which isn't to say there aren't barriers to hurdle as progress is made. Today, I want to talk about one of them: the horrifically small advertising inventory too many sports streams have. Ads that become annoying due to repetition isn't a new concept. There is even a TV Tropes page for it. But what for television is repeated ads as a mild annoyance due to poor scheduling or the notion that repetition makes ads more effective is something entirely different for the current crop of online stream ads. What we're dealing with today is repetition of the same ads or ads for the same products/services over and over and over again, in break after break, often times repeated within breaks, all because the inventory is too low.

Contrary to what you might think, this isn't a small problem. Not every person needs to use the bathroom at every commercial break. For sporting events in particular, this becomes a greater issue because the natural breaks in game action often times mean that commercial breaks will occasionally occur in near proximity to one another. Repeated ads in this case over the course of an entire event aren't just annoying, they're absolutely jarring to the viewer.

An anecdote: most of my NFL viewing occurs in my kitchen, typically using one of the streaming services, while I cook my family's Sunday dinner. It's a tradition in my house that I do dinners on Sunday. Having the NFL Foxsports.com stream on my tablet in the kitchen made my wife angrily leave the room entirely and refuse to come back. I'm not exaggerating. There was a particular commercial featuring a certain quarterback saying random things in the sing-song of a particular company's jingle that, over the course of roughly fifteen minutes, was played no less than ten times. It made her hate the stream, the advertiser, and probably me for having it on in the first place. Whatever advertising is hoping to achieve, the broadcaster cannot accept it causing viewers to literally leave the room in annoyance.

Television doesn't have this problem currently, because the ad inventory is much higher. If you see an ad repeated two or three times during a single game, it's no big deal. I'd guess that I saw three or four total ads on Fox's stream something like thirty times each during the course of one game. That can't go on. It makes the streaming product less valuable and less desirable. If advertising is content, and it is, then that content must never cause us to turn away and hide from it.

Filed Under: ads, advertising, content, oversaturation, repeats, sports, streaming

Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

from the dlc-all-that-money dept

We only occasionally talk about video game DLC, or downloadable content, here at Techdirt. When digital distribution became a thing some years back, game makers came up with DLC as a way to achieve several goals: extend the shelf-life of games, make games more saleable through the promise of extra content, and, of course, make more money. I remember when the wave of DLC started and the general negative reaction brought by the gaming public to it. Most concerns centered around game makers charging for features that once were included in the games for the original asking price. Some makers legitimized these concerns through their actions, but others did wonderful things with DLC that gamers would not wish to be without. But, as Hunter S. Thompson once imagined he could see the crest of hippie culture along the Rocky Mountains before its eventual recession, I too can see the crest of DLC greed in our time in the insanity of Train Simulator 2016's laughable DLC offerings.

This all becomes evident as Kotaku's Alex Walker went on a quest to find the most ridiculous DLC costs for games on the market today.

My first thought was the Dynasty Warriors series. They, like many anime brawlers, have an absurd amount of costume and armour packages that are far more expensive than they should be. But then I came across Train Simulator 2016: Steam Edition. It’s US$45, which is fairly standard for niche titles with a hardcore fanbase. Dovetail Games were even generous enough to have a special on the DLC. And then I saw how much DLC there was.

As you can see at the bottom of the image, there are 230 available DLC options for sale. Next to it is an option to see them all. Walker saw them all. The results, and keep in mind that most of these are on sale for nearly half off, are hilariously expensive.

Yes, that's over $3,000 if you were to buy all of the game's DLC when most of it is on sale. None of this is to say, of course, that a game maker can't charge what they like for their game, their DLC, their box art, their communications, their support, or anything else. They most certainly can. But what this should herald for most of us is the ultimate example of DLC done wrong. Whatever costs and effort might go into making a game, the end result shouldn't be the cost of a used car in payment for the full content. There are ways to DLC right and it's not evil to charge for great content, but this kind of thing we see above is so far removed from how games were charged for only a few years ago that it's plainly obvious that something ain't right here.

Filed Under: business models, content, dlc, downloadable content, train simulator, train simulator 2016, video games

Canadians Can't Watch 'The Real' Superbowl Commercials

from the ads-ARE-content dept

After 20 years living in the USA, I'm familiar with the scale of spectacle that is the Super Bowl (Mike, am I allowed to use that word here?) The annual championship brings in an estimated 111.5 million US viewers, according to Nielsen. But it seems our borders are somewhat porous, and the game also was viewed by some 8 million Canadians. The Big Game had "don't touch that dial" benefits, as apparently some 1.6 million Canadians, dazed in a chicken wing and poutine coma, stuck around to watch MasterChef Canada. With that massive US audience, year after year, the price of commercial time for the game broadcast goes up, this year reaching $4.5 million per 30-second spot.

As a result of the high price of the advertising, and the size of the audience, the ads have also become better and better. No sense paying $4.5 million only to bore an audience. And because of the superior quality of advertising during the Super Bowl, the ads themselves have become an important part of the overall TV program, as much as the half-time entertainment, and to some such as myself, more than even the game itself.

As it happens, for the first time in two decades, last year I found myself settling in to watch the game with my Dad in lake country North of Toronto on his fine big screen TV with a Bell ExpressVu satellite TV subscription. And we tuned into the CTV feed of the game. When the first batch of ads started, it was clear to me that they were not the big-budget productions that I was expecting. You see, CTV bought the Canadian rights to the game from the NFL, and of course it has to sell its own ad inventory in order to recoup the investment. So, instead of the blockbuster Budweiser ads that were lighting up my Twitter feed, I was seeing Canadian Tire ads, or some sale on hockey sticks...I don't remember. Many of the ads were clearly NOT premiere showings, nor even remotely well-produced.

"My error," I thought, as I switched over to a US Fox affiliate that was broadcasting the game. And as the next batch of ads came on...poutine and hockey stick ads all over again! Why am I seeing Canadian-specific ads, when the channel I'm tuned to is the US Fox network? The TV package my Dad paid for specifically advertised and listed the ability to watch Fox, but I was most certainly being diverted during commercial breaks. What's the story? Well, it seems it's yet another case of government policy aimed at supporting some media company's business model. Two years ago, the Globe and Mail's Susan Krashinsky described it as follows:

The process is known under CRTC regulation as "simultaneous substitution"...So, whenever a U.S. station is showing the same program as a Canadian channel, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission requires that upon request the cable or satellite provider must switch the American feed over so that the Canadian commercials are visible and the broadcasters’ rights deals are upheld.

Now, in many ways, it's good for Canadians that CTV has re-broadcast rights, because this allows Canadians to receive free over-the-air transmissions of the game if they live within range of a CTV affiliate. But for the vast majority that subscribe to cable or similar services, "simultaneous substitution" or "simsub" actually removes value to the citizen, by reducing the range of programming options. And simsub can be even worse: If the "simultaneous" part is lacking, Canadians can actually miss part of the game itself while waiting for their ads to end.

The CRTC argued that this keeps advertising dollars in Canada and protects Canadian broadcasters' rights. Protectionism, sans even bothering with a euphemism. Subscribers' and citizens' rights be damned. Doubtless that during the Super Bowl broadcast, CTV requested that Bell ExpressVu remove the ads from Fox, and insert the feed from CTV. Let that sink in. Canadians paid for access to view Fox in order to see Fox's programming including Super Bowl ads, but their cable providers were required to take over our screens and run CTV ads. Canadians' eyeballs were sold to CTV without consent. Canadian customers are being treated like a commodity that has been bought and delivered to CTV. Change channels, see the same programming -- the same thing that happens in movies when some evil overlord or revolutionary takes over all the airwaves. No need for CTV to compete in any way for the viewership, just regulate for it.

The issue also brings up a common topic of discussion here at Techdirt, and that is: Where is the line between content and advertising? In 2008, Mike wrote "Advertising is content. You can't think of ads as separate things any more." But Mike also made the point that this is only true when the audience isn't captive, and thanks to the CRTC's compliance, CTV's audience is so captive that switching to a competing channel gets you the same feed. How many Canadians actually care about seeing the ads from the TV channels they paid for? A large number of Canadians offered the CRTC their feedback mostly anti-simsub, although unsurprisingly the entire media industry stood in support of the existing procedures. Shaw Cable submitted the following:

There is no content objective of the Broadcasting Act that would be achieved by providing Canadians with access to U.S. commercials that are widely available on YouTube.

Yes, a major Canadian cable company just suggested Canadians seek TV content from YouTube. Oh, how confusing the world can get when content and ads start to blend.

According to the Toronto Star, "Canadians are more likely to search YouTube for 'Super Bowl commercials' than Americans, according to Google Trends." And the number of Canadian YouTube ad searches don't account for the cable and dish subscribers who aren't aware that they've been diverted, or those who care, but won't be bothered to sit down at their PC for ad binging. In fact, the viewing experience for the commercials, much like the Big Game, is very different on a big screen with a bunch of friends than it is alone on the next day with your 4" smartphone's YouTube app. But in fact, watching the ads on YouTube is what the CRTC recommends.

The valid arguments made by the media companies include the fact that simsub is a big profit earner for them, and that it offers Canadian businesses the ability to advertise to their market directly during a major event. The profits, some $250 million CDN they say, are rolled into supporting and subsidizing the production of Canadian shows and content, stimulating the local entertainment industry. While arguably true, the ends don't justify the means. And there is no rule or guarantee that those $250 million are invested in starving artists. Regardless, the consumers are the ones really paying the bill here. They should have a choice. People that tune in to CTV should see CTV, and those that pay for and tune in to Fox...well, they should see Fox.

So while there will be no cable TV respite for Canadians hoping to see "the real" Super Bowl ads this weekend, as of this week, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The CRTC is suspending the simsub rule for cable operators starting with the Super Bowl of January 2017. Ostensibly this long lag will allow Canadian broadcasters to factor this new ruling into their negotiations for Super Bowl rights. Bell Media has the rights to the Super Bowl in January 2016, and has the option to ask for simsub, or not. Faced with a choice of "make more money or make less," I'd guess Bell opts for simsub. Meanwhile the local affiliates who broadcast RF signals will still be allowed to simsub. And the CRTC is only talking about the Super Bowl here. Other popular broadcasts like prime-time US TV shows or the Oscar Awards will still allow simsub. Too complicated for me, I'll just stay here in California for my Super Bowl fix this weekend... or maybe just sit out in the sun and watch some old NHL hockey reruns with a bag of salt 'n' vinegar chips.

Filed Under: canada, commercials, content, simsub, simultaneous substitution, superbowl