|
|
|
- Thread starter Chinese Jamaican Bloke
- Start date
cacruden
Senior Member
kettal
Banned
Obviously it won't affect me personally.
I hear the nonsense advertisements on the radio about "TV tax" and I feel sorry for anybody who doesn't realize this is merely a campaign by the cable companies trying to protect their profit margins.
I hear the nonsense advertisements on the radio about "TV tax" and I feel sorry for anybody who doesn't realize this is merely a campaign by the cable companies trying to protect their profit margins.
AGTO
Banned
I feel sorry for those like you who don't realise that this is a cash grab by the broadcasters who already get paid, plus have unlimited use of our radio spectrum.
kettal
Banned
How is it any worse than YTV or TSN charging for redistribution? Don't these companies already make money in advertising? They've been imposing a "tv tax" for decades now...
How can broadcast channels truly compete with cable channels who get two streams of income instead of one?
How can broadcast channels truly compete with cable channels who get two streams of income instead of one?
cacruden
Senior Member
These channels are not required to be carried as part of basic cable. If the networks want to be optional - let they proceed that way - and everyone watching basic cable will just have American Network stations and CBC.
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
Getting rid of cable entirely remains among the best decisions I have ever made.
bleeepbluuup
Active Member
Seriously. You can get better quality HD signal over the air than through the cable sometimes. And what isn't broadcast you can likely stream over the internet.
JasonParis
Moderator
Agreed. Terrestrial and specialty channels do very different things and are licensed very differently. Terrestrial channels are still considered to be using "public" airspace and therefore have a far wider host of requirements placed on them that specialty channels do not. For instance, they must provide news and information programming and be prepared to broadcast emergency preparedness measures during such periods. Making terrestrials optional on cable/satellite would not only make a mockery of our Canadian broadcasting system, but could also have much wider health/safety implications too.
Well there's nonsense on both sides, let's be clear about that, but I'm of the opinion that the broadcasters will eventually get paid for their signals to be re-broadcast (even though it may not happen this round). It's the norm in other parts of the world and they can make a case (if not completely sound) that the revenue model of local television has changed over the last few years. Moreover, we pay US broadcasters already to re-broadcast their signals, so why are we putting roadblocks in the way of our own?
Nope, they wouldn't get CBC then. Although, they'd get CBC Newsworld.
AGTO
Banned
We pay for specialty channels supplied by the US and Canada. Also, according to CRTC bylaws in Canada, cable companies are required to carry local signlas, free of charge, if they can be received at their headend location.
Should broadcasters be allowed to charge for reception of their OTA signal?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Have you given up entirely on television. I'm giving serious thought to upgrading to a HD television and getting a HD antenna, and chucking "paid for TV" out the door. My friend in the Beach(es) has this and gets 20 or more channels, including most US networks, plus CBC, CTV, etc.
JasonParis
Moderator
Cable and satellite providers have also been paying US terrestrial stations a fee for rebroadcasting their signals for a number of years now.
No. It's the public's airwaves and it would be near impossible to do so anyway. However, over-the-air broadcasters are still a huge draw for cable and satellite providers and garner ratings that most cable channels rarely attain. Many Canadians subscribe to cable/satellite to receive their broadcast stations easily and so they won't have to bother with antennaes/rabbit ears, etc. This will become a bigger issue with the digital transition in Canada as many small-market broadcast stations may simply cease to broadcast over-the-air and will essentially become cable channels. Regardless, my main point is that the cable/satellite industry benefits greatly by having the over-the-air stations on their roster and the notion of paying for this benefit is completely in-line with the way it works in the rest of the world.
AGTO
Banned
They've been paying for stations denoted as "superstations", such as TBS in Atlanta. These "superstations" use a different business model than local broadcasters.
Actually, with DTV, it would be very easy to charge OTA viewers...in fact, it's already built into the system.
Actually, no, they're not. PPV, superstations and specialty channels are what draw customers to cable and sattelite.
Why would they give up their very valuable broadcast license, in the hope that some cable company might carry them?
I disagree with you. The CRTC forced cable companies to carry signals they didn't want to, on their most valuable tier. Cable companies would be happy to get rid of locals.....just put up an antenna if you want them.
cacruden
Senior Member
^ Superstations are not part of a prior agreement - which relates to stations within 100ish miles of the border. They have to get them mostly from satellite - just like cable channels.
AGTO
Banned
They're not part of any agreement, the only "agreement" in place was forced on them by the CRTC and involves local broadcasters. Superstations have nothing to do with "100 miles to the boarder" either....how far do you think Atlanta is from here?
Some of you seem to think that cable supplied TV is a right, it's not.
Cable companies are private and for profit....just like broadcasters.