Here is my view.
The CRTC should have the backbone to protect the Canadian airwaves by not allowing ANY US networks into Canada. Do you realize that this is what happens South of our border? Here's something interesting...while attempting to watch a TV program over the internet from Fox Broadcasting website, here's the message I received -
"Thank you for your interest in FOX.
This episode is currently only available to viewers living in the United States."
Why the heck is the internet being protected while our airwaves are not? Broadcasters have the rights to the Canadian airwaves...they are licensed and regulated by the CRTC while the US networks are not. Can you imagine if we only allow a US style of Broadcasting with only Canadian broadcasters allowed? What would the cable and satellite providers provide? SQUAT. Of course the Broadcasters are ENTITLED to a portion of revenue from those that air their signals. How would you feel if you paid millions for the rights to televise a TV show like Survivor and have potential viewers tune into Fox West and watch it 2 hours earlier? Is that fair? I wish the carriers would stop misleading the public about a ruling allowing the Broadcasters to collect a fee for carriage being sold as a TV tax. Its the carriers that determine how much is charged to the consumer. In my opinion, block all non-Canadian signals into Canada and have all the broadcasters pull their signals off the carriers.

Ad revenues are seriously jeopardized due to the massive distribution of broadcaster's non-local affiliates. More than half of viewers in my area watch their TV shows on stations that are not local to the area - and local ad insertion is not taking place (direct-to-home). Both cable and broadcasters derive significant value from each other - cable should pay the broadcasters for signals, broadcasters should be relieved of their over-the-air distribution, and both cableco's and direct-to-home satellite should be compensated by a fund that all parties contribute to in order to enhance ad insertion technology and to provide a regulated basic local service to replace over-the-air.

I came here to see what is being said but as always there is more than one side to a story. I believe this is what is the center of this issue

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/tv13.htm

From what I can research, this is an increase to an already existing fund. There are regulations on how the money should be used.

I think the fee-for-carriage tax is OK.
It is not fair that local stations earn money ONLY from advertizing,
while cable and sattelite companies have subscription income plus their own advertizing income.
Besides, in USA, the law requires cable companies to broadcast all local stations for free (clear QAM).
Here in Canada, I can only see a few music radio stations broadasted by the cable providers.

I receive all my television viewing off the air and have not watched "cable tv" in at least 40 years. I am also a ham radio operator of 30 years and am familiar with many of the rules and regulations that the CRTC has imposed over the years.

One which many people are not aware of is one generally known as the "must carry rule". Cable companies are required by CRTC law to carry Canadian stations that are receivable in their area. They have no choice in the matter. That's why my local station is carried even though I can receive it off the air with no antenna. You may notice that many cable companies put their "local programming" or some other filler on the cable channel the local station uses as the tv station signal causes too much interference.

When Canadian content regulations were put into effect, they were required to carry at least one Canadian station for every American one they wanted to carry. So stations from all over the country were put on to cover that.

That is also part of the reason why you get some Canadian niche program channels (that few of us would usually watch) mixed in with channel packages. They are required to carry them and charge you for them even if you don't want it. It may only cost 50 cents on your bill, but it adds up when multiplied by several million. (Personally, I feel that any Canadian niche station should be allowed to go under if there is not enough viewers to support it.)

What michael41 mentioned about inserting Canadian commercials over American advertising is also true and they are required by law to do so.

As for the percentage of households using cable, that number seems about right. The figures come from surveys done by Stats Canada and other survey companies.

As for what heras1976 mentioned about the stations paying the cable companies to carry their signal, that possibility was hotly debated during the initial "must carry" ruling as the cable companies had to expand their carrying capabilities to abide by the rules.

"Cable and satellite viewers are being asked to pay for something that has always been available for free over the air."

Cable and satellite viewers ARE PAYING for something that has always been available for free over the air. We are paying the cable and satellite companies; however, the cable and satellite providers keep 100% of those profits! Normally we would call this stealing.

The "Big" networks are only seeking a portion of the revenue that cable companies such as Rogers charges consumers. Because of the nature of such cable companies, they would rather charge an additional fee to the consumer than reduce profits. Cable companies aren't opposing a tax, they are opposing legislation that would hold them accountable for what they are stealing. Local networks and the CRTS are not seeking a "TV Tax", the cable and satellite companies are.

Were it not for cable and satellite distribution, the networks would have 10% of the audience they currently enjoy, 10% of the advertising revenue, and zero chance of survival.

If anything, they should be paying the distributors for carriage, not the other way around.

I just wanted to clear up one error in Facebook767095626's post...signal providers do not inject ads over local advertisers on local signals. They are only allowed to do this on certain American specialty netowrks (A&E, Spike, Peachtree, etc). The ads you might see on your local stations are actually bought and paid for by the signal provider. And let's not forget, cable providers are required by CRTC to simulcast substitute the Canadian signal over the American signal if the same program is airing at the same time, thus giving the advertisers more penitration, giving the advertisers more than what they paid for.

I use over-the-air to receive superior quality HD programming for free (read: better picture quality than HD cable). What I can't watch over-the-air, I have cable. I'm against the tax because BDUs (who profit billions) refuse to allow the tax to eat into their profits, and are trying to make a case that it's the big bad networks pushing this agenda. While BDUs don't owe Canadian networks a living, nor are they responsible for how the networks have mismanaged their finances (by arguably buying too much American programming). Where's the statistic saying that American programming is what we want to watch (ratings)? What about the stat to show that if it wasn't for Canadian networks buying American programming we probably wouldn't watch much TV, and wouldn't need a BDU subscription in the first place.

Let's face it, the BDUs and Networks have a symbiotic relationship. Customers want entertainment that looks good on their HDTVs, but the BDUs unwillingness to eat the tax as a cost of doing business in 2009 and beyond is likely to force families to reconsider their entertainment budgets, and consider canceling their subscription altogether and turn to digital over-the-air.

Let's not forget the genesis of cable companies; they started by distribution of analog OTA signals so that people too far from the broadcast tower could have reception. As a BDU subscriber you pay for a delivery service of an otherwise free product. Then they added value by providing specialty channels that weren't available OTA. At first it was the networks that paid the BDU for this extra audience, but as demand for specialty channels skyrocketed, a power shift occurred that saw the networks charging the BDUs a fee for carriage (after-all, if it wasn't for their channel being made available, the BDU wouldn't have as many new/existing customers).

Back to network TV. Tell me why something that has historically been free, and is now available in HD, shouldn't get the same respect that specialty channels receive? Especially now in the world of HD, where BDUs charge their customers a premium for popular HD channels. Do BDUs not realize that the cost to upgrade from camera to broadcast tower to HD doesn’t come cheap? BDUs are in strong opposition to the tax because they couldn't stand the thought that the networks might actually use the money to upgrade their broadcast towers to powerful digital transmitters. A few ads of "free HD" in the mainstream Canadian media, and then suddenly antenna isn't a bad word anymore. Thoughts of static and snow and interference a thing of the analog past, digital OTA could take a bite out of BDU subscriptions.

How do they determine that less than 10% of Canadians use OTA? Take the population and subtract the number BDU subscriptions? Gee, I can't see how that would be inaccurate. I use OTA, and I have cable, so by that metric my OTA viewing has been ignored, even if OTA is my primary reception method.

The networks DO deserve to be paid for their signals and they do so through advertising. The problem exists when the cable and satellite distributors inject their own advertising streams into the signal which gets to the consumer. So there is an advertiser who doesn't get what they've paid for. In addition, the signals are chosen from areas not intended for distribution in another market. Why don't you simply tell the networks to close all but one station and have repeaters distribute the signal for that 10% of over-the-air users?

So what if the networks made $400 million last year? That goes to shareholders, just as all of your profits are distributed. If the outstanding share value is worth $500 million, it means they lost $100 million. Don't confuse the public with insignificant figures which have no bearing on the end result.

If you want to talk about service fees, what about the providers who also are in the cell phone arena and charge the non-governmental system access fee? You're right that taxes rarely go away -- they're just turned into fees and you're guilty of it moreso than the networks!