News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Chinese Jamaican Bloke said:
CTV the leader in the save local tv campaign recently bought Dr Oz, Vampire Diaries and the remake of V. while simultaneously crying for more money for "local tv"
CTV Hypocrisy Television
Click to expand...
I see your point, but you do realize that the TV model in this country is that popular US fare bankrolls what tends to be not-as-popular Canadian fare, right? If broadcasters (including CBC) can't purchase lucrative US programming, they would be relying far heavier on you to finance Canadian programming (possibly through an even larger "TV tax").
 
^ Well if they laid a fiber "last mile" (which would be connected up to companies offering services via companies doing aggregation (feeds all local connections to 151 front communications hub - for a fee) - where the private companies collect the fees from the subscriber for the common line - as well as services that they offer on that line.... then it would open up the whole system to a variety of local content. Not for profits, colleges, schools, etc. could setup "tv stations" which are fed through public infrastructure (colleges, hospitals - government data backbone) through to an aggregation point and to your local address for minimal cost (cost the company doing aggregation from the public point to the last mile connection point) - and then there would be no special need for the CTVs of the world :p
 
Well, unfortunately I only can get Canadian stations because of the orientation of my condo. I had a DB8 like antenna and a small Terk antenna (glorified directional rabbit ears) that I got with a computer tuner. I though the large DB8 antenna would get stations that I could not on my Terk - the Terk antenna was better :p
 
From Friends of Canadian Broadcasting...

First, the facts:
  • Cable TV distributors pay nothing to conventional broadcasters like CTV, Global and CBC for the national and local programs they provide. Yet, the cable companies earn substantial revenues distributing these programs.
  • Public opinion research confirms that Canadians care about local news on television more than any other kind of programming.
  • Changes in the advertising market have taken all the profit out of local television. In smaller cities TV stations are closing down, and more closures are likely.
  • The most recent CRTC data show that Canada's private conventional over-the-air television networks made a profit before interest and taxes of only 0.4% in the broadcasting year ending August 31, 2008.
  • And that was before the onset of the recession. CanWest is now in bankruptcy protection, CTV has lost more than $100 million in the past year and CBC, as you know, is short $171 million.
  • Local news is expensive for the broadcasters because it requires staff, cameras, and facilities in each city, rather than a national feed from a single location.
  • Meanwhile, CRTC data reveal that the big cable monopolies, Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and Cogeco had a combined profit before interest and taxes of 32% in 2008: that's almost $2 billion – much larger, for example, than the CBC's budget.
  • All that money is travelling from the pockets of cable subscribers right out of the Canadian broadcasting system into the hands of cable shareholders.
  • So we have a crisis in local television at a time when the cable monopolists are laughing all the way to the bank.
  • CTV, Global, CBC as well as other local TV broadcasters have told the CRTC that they can no longer afford to provide their local signals to the cable monopolies without compensation.
  • Cable refuses to pay, and says that if the CRTC forces them to do so, they will pass on their payments along with a mark-up to their customers.
  • The CRTC has the power under the Broadcasting Act to force the cable monopolies to pay the local broadcasters for their signals and to regulate cable's basic rates so that they are not able to pass on these costs to the customers.
The question is: "Does the CRTC have the gumption to do this?"
Click to expand...
 
Cable TV distributors pay nothing to conventional broadcasters like CTV, Global and CBC for the national and local programs they provide. Yet, the cable companies earn substantial revenues distributing these programs.
Click to expand...

Where are the financial reports from these "common carriers" that show the revenue generated by carrying the free, OTA signals from local broadcasters?
 
If Canadian cable and/or satellite providers pay nothing to over the air networks they should start doing so, plain and simple. Its only fair because they make a great deal of money by delivering their signals.
 
Brandon716 said:
If Canadian cable and/or satellite providers pay nothing to over the air networks they should start doing so, plain and simple. Its only fair because they make a great deal of money by delivering their signals.
Click to expand...

Capitalism isn't always fair.

Should ISP's pay websites for their content?
 
Brandon716 said:
If Canadian cable and/or satellite providers pay nothing to over the air networks they should start doing so, plain and simple. Its only fair because they make a great deal of money by delivering their signals.
Click to expand...

Should they be forced to sell those signals? In Canada you cannot subscribe to any channels until you have subscribed to basic cable which mandates the carriage of local stations? To me that is double dipping, and quite honestly if there is a "TV tax" that money should go to the CBC/TVO (even I rarely watch it).
 
Canadians should be able to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. If a subscriber opts to receive the major Canadian networks (and many will), then the cable company should pay the network.

The last thing the Cable and Satellite companies want to do is offer a la carte pricing, though, because then they wouldn't be able to charge people who don't give a crap about car racing and golf for channels explicitly devoted to those subjects.
 
I turned off cable around 3 months ago - have not missed it yet.....

I am currently packing up my english TV to take with me (around 15 metres of DVDs TV shows from 60's 70's 80's and 90's).
 
AGTO said:
Capitalism isn't always fair.

Should ISP's pay websites for their content?
Click to expand...

I work in the cable industry (again here in Buffalo where I just moved, worked for a different company a few years back) and here in the US our providers pay their carriers fees for the broadcast, its not the same as web content in any way. I agree with this because it helps local TV be funded. I'm not making the argument that just because its done in the US it should be done in Canada, but I support local Canadian broadcasts as there is less ad revenue for Canadian stations to exist. They need a stronger financial platform to compete in. Maybe CTV could afford more Canadian content if they got fees from the cable providers. Whistler and Degrassi aren't enough...

The CBC would be a beneficiary of the providers paying a fee. All Canadian broadcasters would benefit and it'd usually draw more viewers in, and hence more demand for cable, satellite, and over-the-air viewers. Its a win-win situation as these cable and satellite operators can afford the fees.

Another reason why its wise is because all non-broadcast cable channels and premium channels require fees/subscription payments from the cable provider for them to carry their content. Why should cable only networks get a fee plus ad revenue when the broadcasters only get to run in ad revenue and in the CBC's case public funding? Seems like every network should get fees for contacts: cable or broadcast.

And what does this have to do with capitalism being fair? Capitalism is always unfair, and that's a known. Kind of irrelevant to the conversation, wouldn't you say? This isn't a discussion about an entire economic system, its about broadcast fees.
 
Last edited:
Brandon716 said:
Another reason why its wise is because all non-broadcast cable channels and premium channels require fees/subscription payments from the cable provider for them to carry their content. Why should cable only networks get a fee plus ad revenue when the broadcasters only get to run in ad revenue and in the CBC's case public funding? Seems like every network should get fees for contacts: cable or broadcast.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of the other channels are niche channels - limited by the CRTC to that niche (CBC Newsworld was forced to remove some content from their schedule because it did not fit the CRTC definition of "news"). These stations (except in rare cases) are optional. It is a completely different regulatory model that they fit into. As I said before I am fine with them if they want to change the model that they fit into - and drop their broadcast - and move to cable as an optional superstation - but I am not fine with being forced to pay for something (prerequisite to subscribing to other stations) that I don't want. There is very little local content on these stations. If it is a dying model - then let it die... it is not as though they don't own other assets - they can afford it :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top