The debate, the confusing-ass commercials, the numbers, the CBC:  Canada’s TV industry's public squabble over money.

A debate between Canada’s TV networks and cable/satellite companies  that’s taken up an obscene amount of ad-space recently and left  viewers wading through waves of confusion is set to come to a head this month.

Both campaigns emerged over the past few months and target young and working-class Canadians who care about preserving culture and community. But whether you feel that “Local TV Matters” or we should “Stop the TV Tax,” you’re probably going to get screwed either way on an issue that has nothing directly to do with either.

Here are all the gory deets:

In one corner: Local TV Matters

The Networks: CTVglobemedia, Canwest, CBC, et al.

Supposedly still hurting from the recession, these media companies cried "no fair!" this summer because cable and satellite companies pick Canadian stations out of the air for free. So they proposed charging cable providers a fee, and threatened to cut local stations – essentially holding smaller, community stations hostage – if their demands weren't met.

In the other corner: Stop the TV Tax

The Providers: Rogers, Shaw, Bell, Telus, et al.

Responded with a succinct, “how about no?” They vow to pass on any additional costs incurred to you, the consumer.

And behind the score cards: The CRTC, the Harper Government and Heritage Canada.

They couldn’t care less either way but need to appear equally pro-free market and pro-people so they opened up the phone lines to your input last month. The CRTC has been tallying support for both sides in preparation for a hearing this month, at which both sides will make their case.

For one of the most uniquely convoluted ad campaigns in recent memory, it’s actually surprisingly simple: it's all about money. The confusion lies in a huge number of contradictions being thrown out there by both sides.

Canwest spokesperson John Douglas is great for that: “Ten years ago prime time TV was profitable enough to offset the cost of local TV,” he told me, in justification for his company's proposed fee. But now it's harder to do that because “Rogers and Shaw are bringing in US TV shows,” and less people are watching prime time on Canadian networks.

But doesn't Canwest air American television too?

In the same breath: “We’re not going to apologize for buying American programs because that’s how you remain competitive, that’s what Canadians want.”

And here's another: “. . . the economic downturn has had a catastrophic impact on us, we lost $60-million and 800 employees,” says CBC’s Jeff Keay. Which is true, well documented and – I dare say – downright valid.

Canwest, CBC's ally in the fight, disagrees. “It’s a myth that this was caused by the recession,” said Douglas. “We’ve gone to the CRTC twice at the height of the last economic boom, saying we were struggling to maintain our local stations.”

They've been merciful enough to let an army of young Canadians singing, dancing and dressed as cows talk for them in commercials.

But it's the same message: convince people this is a cultural issue rather than one of cold hard cashola.

Roger's operating profit is only up 15 per cent – which equates to just over $3 billion.

CTV announced a 30 per cent audience growth this year over last, lead by those tuning into The Daily Show, Dr. Oz and Jay Leno.

The Canadian networks know how much the providers are paying for American cable feeds because the information is public domain. But also because they’re buying a lot of the same rights for shows like House, Lie to Me, Lost, and basically anything that isn’t Canada's Next Top Model or Little Mosque on the Prairie.

Networks, as the Stop the TV Tax rightfully points out, are doing brisk business. 

Which isn’t to say that the providers are in any way innocent. They're basically hiding their unwillingness to participate in the most basic functions of commerce, paying for services rendered. 

They are labelling the proposed fee as a tax to attract public support, and to distance themselves as the one actually charging it.  

“From our standpoint, we say if it’s being imposed by the government, it’s a tax," argues Rogers vice chairman Philip Lind. "So why would the consumer want to pay it?” 

Lind then confirmed any fees assessed will be paid by subscribers.

“We don’t buy that as a threat,” says the CBC, though. “The cable companies shouldn’t (legally) be able to pass on fees to the consumer.”

But the public's general lack of interest in this clusterfuck is represented in the numbers.

At the beginning of the month CTVglobemedia VP Paul Sparkes announced support from 130,000 Canadians coast to coast who poured out their, “clear and unequivocal support for (broadcaster’s) position.”

For the public record, 130,000 votes isn’t overwhelming or unequivocal; it’s a band’s Myspace friend-count, or the population of Barrie.

The obvious alternative to upping the charges is that the private networks suck it up and cut salaries, or the cable companies eat the cost of additional broadcast fees. A combination of the two would be completely reasonable.

Both of those, while pleasant, will likely only come to fruition in a world where Big Macs burn calories and lap dances are complimentary.

The CRTC hearing is scheduled for Nov. 16, which will launch a recommendation process involving the Harper government and Heritage Canada that will extend at least into December, probably much, much further.