Television networks like HBO get paid for their signal. But conventional television channels that carry your local news station provide their signal to cable providers for free. Given the ability of American networks to receive payment for their feed, Canadian conventional television is beginning to feel the stress of trying to stay competitive while remaining financially successful. This weighs heavy on the financial relationship between the cable providers and the networks.

The networks are threatening to pull their signal from cable providers unless payment is received. But cable providers don't have a budget for the financing of conventional television, which means the new expense is going to fall to the consumer. And the estimated hike of $10/cable subscriber is a fee that cable providers are not eager to install. As such, the mutual disagreement between the networks and providers has risen to the point that a public hearing has begun. Presiding for the hearing is the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Its hope is to counsel an agreement between the two parties, or at the very least rule on whether or not cable subscribers be charged a 'fee for carriage' as a means to finance conventional television.

In preparation for the hearing, cable companies chose to launch a very defensive attack on conventional television. Banding together under the umbrella slogan, "stopthetvtax", cable companies created a scapegoat. Konrad Von Finckenstein, the Chairman of CRTC had this to say to the President of CTVglobemedia: "The [cable providers] make a strong case [that the deal] doesn't suffice because you are effectively not running your business efficiently, you haven't adapted to the times, and that this regime is perfectly fine with efficient operators and you're not an efficient operator. [But] you clearly make a different suggestion. You suggest no, that we have a structural change here - we have a paradigm change." (Konrad Von Finckenstein, Chairman, CRTC)

So what about this paradigm change? In a basic cable package, wouldn't it seem logical that out of all the programming received, the major conventional networks were given the largest payouts? Consider the consumer perspective. A consumer, Harry, turns on the television. What's he likely going to check first? The History Channel, or the local news?

Probably the local news - a program on a network that over time has also come to include the most highly rated American productions, as well as anything geographically relevant to Harry.

So Harry watches the news. He then gets hungry and goes out for a bite to eat. Harry goes to the local steakhouse. And the restaurant tells Harry, "Our steak and potatoes are free. However, the mushrooms, bread and water all cost $50." Harry says, "I'll gladly pay for the steak and potatoes, but let's get real. Bread and water? Bread and water should be free."

Now, imagine Harry in a parallel universe. Harry's been going to the local steakhouse for the last 30 years, and he's been getting free steak and potatoes. When he's feeling thrifty he orders a glass of water. Then all of a sudden, the farmer that is providing the restaurant with steak says, "Look. I'm going out of business. I'm going to have to start charging you for the beef or I'm going to go bankrupt." And at the end of the night under a dim light, the restaurant administration - the lot of them - all look around the room shifty eyed. And then the manager has an idea.

"Hey!" he says, "Let's get all of our customers to protest against the farmer. Let's call the farmer's request for money, a steak tax!" The manager has good foresight; he realizes that the restaurant needs the beef, And he recognizes that the restaurant can't afford the beef. But the reality is, no matter what the manager does, at the end of the day, the farmer needs to be compensated. Otherwise, neither he, nor the restaurant will survive. As a result, he is forced to charge the consumer.

Von Finckenstein vents: "I am very frustrated with this confrontational view between you [the broadcasting corporations] and the BDUs. You are in a symbiotic relationship. You need each other. They need your programming. You need their distribution. Yet, here we have seen, for the past five months, a public battle as never before about this, and the only solution I can see is that at the end of the day the consumer has to pay more. Surely there should be other ways..." (Konrad Von Finckenstein, Chairman, CRTC) Well, perhaps Konrad. Perhaps there are other ways. The internet comes to mind.