Posted by RadioActive on October 23, 2009, 2:12 pm
65.95.157.40

Rarely acknowledged in the U.S., but the showbiz bible has picked up the story, with comparisons to the situation down south. Their take at the link below.

Link: Variety: Carriage battle brewing in Canada

Posted by Mike Cleaver on October 23, 2009, 4:49 pm, in reply to "Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
76.10.186.26

Re: Objecting to the word "tax" in this debate. While the "fee for carriage" amount would (if approved) not be collected by the government, it would have to be approved and enforced by a government agency, the CRTC. That makes it a "tax" in my book.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by Scott M. on October 23, 2009, 4:57 pm, in reply to "Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
74.56.158.196

Hmm... I thought Variety would have done a bit of fact checking on this quote: We've always believed it was unfair the system didn't allow us to negotiate fees with distributors who get our signals for free, but pay for U.S. channels and other services Of course BDUs don't pay for US over-the-air channels right now, just as they don't pay for Canadian OTA channels. They do pay for US specialty channels, just as they do for Canadian specialty channels.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by Scott M. on October 23, 2009, 5:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
74.56.158.196

For me, a tax is two things: a) Mandated by the government b) Proceeds go to the government In this case, "tax" fails point b. Personally, I think this is much worse than a tax... it's forcing consumers to pay for stupid moves by the likes of Canwest and CTV who have been in a bidding race for US series for years. Or, if you believe the "Local TV Matters" folks, it would force the Cable Companies to take some of their profits and give them to more poorly run (but still profitable) companies. Crazy. But not a tax. And by calling it that, they've opened themselves up to an attack on that side.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by StevieB on October 23, 2009, 6:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
67.55.3.30

Whatever it is called, Canadian TV consumers shouldn't have to bear the costs of mismanagement of the Networks. If the BDU's must carry them, then the Networks have an advantage, that's all they're entitled to...IMO.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by nevermind on October 23, 2009, 6:59 pm, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
66.135.115.100

Mike: Gotta disagree with ya on that one...taxes go to improve public service or cut the deficit..(ehealth and adscam excepted)...this doe is going to line the pockets of rich corporations... It sad but taxes are more hated by the masses than fees that go to fatcats...sure some communications guru told the cable cos to call it a tax to get the public even more riled up

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by PW on October 24, 2009, 2:45 am, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
70.50.64.93

Whatever you call it you must call it an enormous RIP-OFF. Remember when Fecan was bidding wildly for stupid things. Like how he rushed in a bought the Hockey Night in Canada Theme for way over it actual value. Idiot things like that and the Aspers running around buying up everything in site - is what have the "networks" short of money. If the CRTC approves this BS from the networks it will be a day when we all get to know that the CRTC no longer cares about the citizens of Canada. If that happens then the CRTC will have completely forgotten their mandate.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by nevermind on October 24, 2009, 9:41 am, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
66.135.115.100

you're right PW....i can't believe how anyone other than tv exec can swallow this shit...the big tv cos made money for years....then they broke the model when the started up a gazillion speciality channels and flooded the market...(hmm sounds like GM witht their many duplicate brands and models except of course the specialty chanels are great money makers for the tv cos)...and overpying for stuff like you said... But I have a free enterprise solution...give folks the choice whether they want to pay for local...just like they have with the movie networks...so those who want to watch Ken and Christine run through the streets of Shwa with the Oylmpic flame can pony up the dough..the rest of us can buy a couple of lattes with it... But I ll bet ya the good free market type boys and girls running the nets wouldn't go with that... Imagine if the brethern in the newspaper industry said everyone who read anything would be forced to subscribe to the local rag...don't think it would fly...

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by Bob Rice on October 24, 2009, 10:05 am, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
76.67.254.199

I agree with nevermind. Let me decide who I want to pay to see. When its free the nets can hope for a larger audience and lure sponsors with the added exposure. If we decide that we don't want to pay for amatures reading the news and would rather watch the US commercials during a show.. so be it. Get rid of the can/am commecial insertions and slopping programming and let's get back to 'may the best man win'.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by James Christman on October 24, 2009, 10:12 am, in reply to "Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
67.215.141.96 | Message modified by user evilfrogs October 24, 2009, 10:13 am

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't CTV talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue? Isn't there still a business relationship between CTVGlobemedia and Bell TV (the former Bell ExpressVu)? According to Wikipedia CTVglobemedia is 15 per cent owned by BELL - So they win no matter how this plays out.

Posted by mike marshall on October 25, 2009, 4:17 am, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
207.96.151.85 | Message modified by user jazzman October 25, 2009, 4:24 am

I agree with nevermind, too, and his "free enterprise solution...give folks the choice whether they want to pay for local...just like they have with the movie networks...so those who want to watch Ken and Christine run through the streets of Shwa with the Oylmpic flame can pony up the dough..the rest of us can buy a couple of lattes with it..." It's not the first time somebody's suggested giving the cable/satco customers a choice, which is only fair, but it occurred to me that I've never really thought about how that would be physically accomplished. In other words, where the "Local TV" stations who insist on fee for carriage would be slotted in the tier hierarchy, to enable opting out. So far, the "Local TV" stations expect to be able to draw from the LPIF millions, keep simultaneous substitution, get MANDATORY coverage on all basic cable tiers AND be given fee for carriage. These are people living in their own little cockamanie cocoons. That's preposterous. The real question is what are they prepared to give up for fee for carriage; so far, we haven't heard any suggestions from their camp. How 'bout the OTAs who pass on FFC get to keep simsub and their mandatory slots on the basic tiers and those who don't get kicked upstairs, above what are now the full analog package channels. Put them all in the same theme pack, let THEM choose a price for that package, which makes it 'opt in,' rather than 'opt out,' for the people who choose to pay for it. They can keep their simsub (never thought I'd say that) but take the chance on losing some eyes and ears for their local and national news packages that are really the only Cancon the CTV and Global are offering right now. Then, we'll see if all this posturing is about "Local TV" or money.

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )

Posted by RadioActive on October 25, 2009, 12:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Variety Article On Canada "Local TV" Vs. Cable Battle"
65.95.143.3 | Message modified by user RadioActive October 25, 2009, 12:42 pm

There is only one place where you can actually "choose" what you want to watch "a la carte" but for most of us it's unaffordable, not possible because of space or living conditions or simply too much trouble. But for a lucky few, at least, it's an option. It's called 4DTV and it involves one of those big 10' satellite dishes that seem so passe these days. For those in the States it's easy but in Canada you need a U.S. address. In essence nearly all the cable channels (including the pays like HBO, Starz and Showtime) have their signals compressed on a number of satellites and you tune into the bird that has the programming you want. While all program providers have some form of "packages," this system is the only one I know of that allows you to pick and choose exactly what channels you want to pay for and watch without buying ANYTHING else. So if all you wanted was ESPN, Discovery and HBO for some reason, that's all you'd shell out for. In most cases, you can buy by the year, half a year, 3 months or 30 days. In some instances, you have to buy up to 10 channels, but considering what's available and the prices, that's not much. Even better, if you find one provider who sells a channel cheaper, you can it from them and get your other stations from different services, creating true competition. (You remember competition? - something Cdn. cable effectively lacks.) The owners who run the cable channels will tell you that this model would force most of their channels off the air, since they'd no longer be able to pay for them. But isn't that the way the marketplace is supposed to work? If you're not popular enough, you're gone or in the case of a commodity, they stop making the product. Why should cable be any different? In any event, the a la carte model does exist, although only in this method and only south of the border. I know someone in the city with a large dish who took this grey market route and he loves getting exactly what he paid for - and nothing else. Sample Price List In U.S. Funds

 Post a response(you need a username and password E-mail moderator )