Poor Leonard Asper. We don't envy him. It must be so confusing to have to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

To investors, the CanWest chief has one story: Global TV has got its swagger back (well, sort of). CTV may still rule the ratings, but a few Global programs, like House and the action series NCIS, were cracking the list of the top shows before the L.A. writers went on strike. As the numbers improve, Mr. Asper hopes, CanWest will be ringing the cash register. “Are you going to get 50 per cent [profit] margins on Canadian conventional TV? No, but certainly crossing 10 [per cent] and heading for 20 is a very realistic goal,” he told analysts last fall.

But – psst – please don't spread the news to the CRTC. For the broadcast regulator, Mr. Asper has a different story. The conventional, over-the-airwaves TV industry is in real trouble. The Internet is pulling Facebook-addicted teens away from the habit of mindlessly watching lame Survivor episodes. Avaricious producers in Hollywood demand ever-higher fees for the rights to their shows. Digital signals from U.S. border stations are a threat. It's no exaggeration to say the old broadcasters are in “crisis,” according to a joint submission to the CRTC by CanWest and CTVglobemedia (which owns CTV and this newspaper).

So, which is it: A business with fat profit margins, as Mr. Asper likes to tell the investment community, or one that's dying? It's neither, but for the next few months Mr. Asper and some other broadcasters would rather you believe the gloom. That's because they'd like a chunk of your cable bill, and the only way they're going to get it is by pleading poverty.

If this sounds familiar, that's because it's an old refrain from the conventional broadcasters. They made this pitch in 2006. Right now, cable providers pick up and retransmit signals for free from CTV, Global, the CBC and other over-the-air channels. In return for this, the cable guys are required to give them a premium spot on the dial (i.e., channel 8, not 128) and to “simulcast” – to run the Canadian ads on House, for example, regardless of whether the viewer's dial is set to Global or Fox.

This is the quid pro quo that has governed the Canadian television set for decades. Because of the “crisis,” though, it's no longer good enough. The broadcasters want new fees from the cable and satellite companies. The specialty channels get these. The most popular ones, like TSN, might draw $1 or more per month, per subscriber; niche channels like the Red-Headed Virgo Left-handers' Network get a few cents.

Only 10 months ago, the CRTC rejected the idea of letting the over-the-air channels in on the cable-fee gravy train. The commission said the conventional guys hadn't proved their finances were bad enough to justify it – plus, the extra fees could drive up customers' bills to the point where they dropped some specialty channels (or cut their cable entirely).

The broadcasters won't take no for an answer. You want proof, they say? We'll give you proof. The Global-CTV brief paints a picture of networks in dire straits: “The downturn … is not a cyclical phenomenon … it has taken place in the midst of an economic boom … an ‘advertising only' [TV] revenue model is simply not sustainable in the near term …” And so it goes, for 55 pages, not counting the paid-for consultants' studies and polls to back up their case. But does it fit the facts?

Without question, over-the-air TV isn't the business it used to be. Five years ago, private conventional broadcasters made $378-million in profit, excluding depreciation, interest and taxes. Last year it was half that – $189-million. Yet revenue is still growing (albeit at a glacial pace) and while the margins are thinner, there's no hint of red ink. The real culprit for falling profits is a price war for the best U.S. shows – programming costs were 21 per cent, or $246-million, higher last year than in 2003. Administrative costs also chewed up an extra $40-million, even though the number of employees hasn't changed much. All those severance packages to discarded CanWest and CHUM executives must really add up.

No wonder making the cable and satellite companies pay more is so appealing. Global and CTV want 50 to 70 cents a month for every subscriber, which they say would add up to a little more than $200-million a year for private TV – a revenue increase of nearly 10 per cent. In smaller cities, where CTV and CBC might be the only local stations, the difference would be hardly noticeable; in places like Toronto or Calgary or Ottawa, the impact on customers' bills would be several dollars a month.

And what industry wouldn't want a government agency to give it a 10-per-cent revenue increase by decree? Since the broadcasters aren't promising to plow the money into more programming, the money would fall straight to the bottom line. Add $200-million to last year's conventional TV income statement, and suddenly you've rolled back the clock to an era of high profits and EBITDA margins in high teens.

Music companies, newspapers, magazine publishers – all facing the same threats from the Internet and rising costs – should be so lucky. But they can't turn to a regulator and cry poor. Why should consumers pay for a bailout for conventional TV? It doesn't need one.