In its controversial $1.4-billion bid to acquire CHUM Ltd., Bell Globemedia/CTV says it just wants what chief competitor CanWest Global already has.

If the CRTC and the Competition Bureau allow BGM to swallow CHUM, the strengthened media company would, after fulfilling its promise to divest itself of CHUM’s A-Channel stations and Access Alberta, own multiple stations in Victoria/Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto/Barrie.

BGM points out that it only seeks a level playing field with CanWest, which already has two stations – Global and CH – in the Ontario, B.C., and Quebec markets. But if it seems that critics are complaining more vociferously about BGM’s proposed expansion, it is in part because CTV has, despite this disadvantage, succeeded so handily in becoming the country’s number one network, and an even greater degree of BGM dominance is feared.

So, BGM argues, should it not be allowed to operate in a manner comparable to Global? Should it be punished for too much success?

CTV has also taken flack – in this column and elsewhere – for buying more U.S. programming than it can possibly program, in an effort to keep Global’s hands off. While BGM CEO Ivan Fecan has acknowledged the ‘take-away’ strategy, he has also called it CTV’s ‘bench strength,’ meaning that if one program goes down – and most American pickups do in their first season – the net has another potential hit on deck. BGM also insists that the U.S. distribs it deals with package numerous wild-card shows along with each promising hit, leaving CTV with an overloaded slate.

BGM assures that it wouldn’t flood its CHUM stations with these Hollywood holdovers. The whole point of getting the rival broadcaster, it says, is also getting the younger, hipper, more ethnically diverse demographic that watches it, and why mess with that?

And what of the fear that the competitive field for private, English-Canadian over-the-air broadcasters would shrink down to only BGM and CanWest? Well, BGM reminds that somebody has to buy those A-Channels and Access Alberta, the leading candidates being Quebec-based Astral, Quebecor and Cogeco, each hungry for its share of the English-Canadian over-the-air market. Astral, in fact, also put in a bid for CHUM.

But the truth of the matter is that all but one of the A-Channels is in Ontario (the other being in Victoria/Vancouver). These acquisitions might represent the start of a foothold in English Canada, but not enough to make the buyer a true competitor to bgm and CanWest for the foreseeable future.

So, what will the regulators say about all this?

Back in 1999, the CRTC spelled out its policy favoring ownership of only one over-the-air station in one language per market, to ensure competition and a diversity of media voices. But it has since granted a number of exceptions to the likes of CanWest and CHUM, if, for example, it deems that there are already enough alternative voices in a given market.

And it’s so far, so good between BGM and the CRTC. On July 21, the commission granted the thumbs up for the ownership restructuring of BGM, as BCE sold most of its stake to Torstar Corporation, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and Woodbridge Company, which boosted its ownership to 40% from 31.5%. BCE holds on to 20%.

The regulator’s go-ahead was not a happy development for watchdogs of media concentration, as Torstar owns the Toronto Star, and Bell Globemedia owns The Globe and Mail and CTV. Additionally, the OTPP is a 27.4% owner of the Osprey Media Income Fund, which, through subsidiary Osprey Media Group, publishes nearly 60 newspapers in Canada, including The Kingston Whig-Standard and the St. Catharines Standard.

The production community is not thrilled with the CRTC ruling either, as the commission agreed with BGM that the restructuring was a ‘change’ of control in the company, rather than a ‘transfer’ in ownership. As a result, BGM is spared having to shell out a hefty benefits package, as per CRTC requirements, which would have seen it foot the bill for $130-million worth of additional TV production.

But the commission is not deaf to concerns about media concentration, and will apparently use the case of the CHUM takeover to open up a broader discussion on media ownership.

But what will be most telling is how the regulators rule on the CHUM deal specifically. The conundrum here is that the CRTC has been so gracious in granting exceptions to its professed one-market/one-station philosophy that now it seems only fair to do likewise on behalf of BGM. But if it does, it will have contributed to the further erosion of media diversity and competition that it purports to protect.