Sign In
Register
Help
Start a new topic
Add Reply
Trying to look around and find some serious material about this, all I can find is basically propaganda. Anybody have any serious idea?
What's the real deal with this TV tax the commercials don't shut up about?
Rate Topic:
MultiQuote #2 
Ultimate GuardianFlash 
- `~~ The Guardian Of The Night ~~`
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,007
- Joined: 21-December 07
Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:04 PM
what's the deal with save local tv. Is local tv such as global, ctv, citytv, joytv, all going to be canceled? I hope not.
#3
Goat Boy©
- Ruler of The Trolls
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18,281
- Joined: 07-May 08
Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:08 PM
Looks like a decent article. Don't know where to stand on this.....A lot of the local stations are garbage, but a lot of American TV is garbage as well. Altogether too much garbage in general.
http://money.ca.msn....mentid=22167760
http://money.ca.msn....mentid=22167760
Quote
As the mother of a pre-teen daughter, I've got a bone to pick with the Canadian television industry: How is it possible for an entire sector to display more turbulent, over-wrought, emotional behavior than a 12-year old girl?
The only things they're missing are the up-talk, the Jonas Brothers t-shirts and a Hello Kitty tote bag. Mood swing, much?
Maybe it's their addiction to broadcasting reality shows, maybe it's just that technology has suddenly enabled a long-buried desire to be centre stage. But the drama they're indulging in — at their peril — is everywhere but on the tv screen these days.
So here's the 411: The broadcasters, who used to fight all the time, have now become frenemies. They've formed an awesome clique that's, like, totally ragging the cable companies that carry and distribute their programming. They say the cable companies like Rogers and Shaw and Videotron should pay them something for the programs they've been getting for free. The cable companies are LOLing that and have become BFFs to push back. They say they'll pass that new cost on to consumers directly. OMG!
The official name for this whole issue is fee-for-carriage, although the two sides have tried to put Lip Smacker on it and put it into a more consumer-friendly package. The broadcasters call it a "Save Local Television" campaign (because they can't afford to support local tv stations unless they get more cash). The cable folks say it's a "TV tax." And they're throwing down on each other all over Twitter and Facebook.They've been fighting about it for years: This fall, the federal regulator, the CRTC, is going to hear them squabble over who started the fight for the third time. Every single time this happens, it costs the broadcasters (who say they're pretty much broke) and the cable companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and lobbying bills. This time around, that tab includes the price of aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns as well. And it costs taxpayers in terms of the time and effort of the CRTC staff.
So what does all the drama mean for Canadian television viewers? If the broadcasters win and get paid by the cable companies for their programming, the cost would be about $10 a month on your cable bill.
The cable companies are ticked because that extra charge could end up alienating their customers — who've made them one of the most consistently profitable industries in Canada. In 2008, cable companies earned revenues of more than $10 billion and a profit margin (before interest and taxes) of 25.3 per cent. Broadcasters claim that Alberta-based cable giant, Shaw, made more money last year than the oil and gas business in that province.
Broadcasters, on the other hand, not so much.
They're victims of a familiar corporate eating disorder: bingeing. They filled up on acquisitions and debt when credit was easy and private equity was plentiful — especially Canwest — and now they are being forced to purge. Slumping advertising revenues haven't hurt and neither has the fragmentation that they themselves have introduced to the market.
So what's likely to happen at the end of all this diss and counter-diss? Chances are excellent that both sides are going to lose and, believe it or not, consumers may actually win as a result. That's because politicians understand one fundamental thing in all this: You don't mess with a Canadian's cable television service.
Especially in an economic downturn, you don't add to the cost of an essential service and you don't jeopardize a source of relatively inexpensive, relatively universal diversion. People may not be able to afford sports tickets or even movies, but television service is pretty close to an entitlement for a lot of voters.
The cable companies may well regret that they've opened the consumer front in this cat fight. Given their revenues and their profit margins, they are exceptionally vulnerable to losing while winning — especially given the political overcast to the issue.
The CRTC may put the smack down on the broadcasters, but they may also decide that the time has come to regulate cable fees. That might be popular with consumers and, therefore, with politicians. Furthermore, deregulation doesn't have quite the same cachet as before now that the chips are down and government has waded into the national economy in a big way. So it's not the biggie it might have been several years ago.
And it's not like Canadians aren't ready to change the channel. Word.
The only things they're missing are the up-talk, the Jonas Brothers t-shirts and a Hello Kitty tote bag. Mood swing, much?
Maybe it's their addiction to broadcasting reality shows, maybe it's just that technology has suddenly enabled a long-buried desire to be centre stage. But the drama they're indulging in — at their peril — is everywhere but on the tv screen these days.
So here's the 411: The broadcasters, who used to fight all the time, have now become frenemies. They've formed an awesome clique that's, like, totally ragging the cable companies that carry and distribute their programming. They say the cable companies like Rogers and Shaw and Videotron should pay them something for the programs they've been getting for free. The cable companies are LOLing that and have become BFFs to push back. They say they'll pass that new cost on to consumers directly. OMG!
The official name for this whole issue is fee-for-carriage, although the two sides have tried to put Lip Smacker on it and put it into a more consumer-friendly package. The broadcasters call it a "Save Local Television" campaign (because they can't afford to support local tv stations unless they get more cash). The cable folks say it's a "TV tax." And they're throwing down on each other all over Twitter and Facebook.They've been fighting about it for years: This fall, the federal regulator, the CRTC, is going to hear them squabble over who started the fight for the third time. Every single time this happens, it costs the broadcasters (who say they're pretty much broke) and the cable companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and lobbying bills. This time around, that tab includes the price of aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns as well. And it costs taxpayers in terms of the time and effort of the CRTC staff.
So what does all the drama mean for Canadian television viewers? If the broadcasters win and get paid by the cable companies for their programming, the cost would be about $10 a month on your cable bill.
The cable companies are ticked because that extra charge could end up alienating their customers — who've made them one of the most consistently profitable industries in Canada. In 2008, cable companies earned revenues of more than $10 billion and a profit margin (before interest and taxes) of 25.3 per cent. Broadcasters claim that Alberta-based cable giant, Shaw, made more money last year than the oil and gas business in that province.
Broadcasters, on the other hand, not so much.
They're victims of a familiar corporate eating disorder: bingeing. They filled up on acquisitions and debt when credit was easy and private equity was plentiful — especially Canwest — and now they are being forced to purge. Slumping advertising revenues haven't hurt and neither has the fragmentation that they themselves have introduced to the market.
So what's likely to happen at the end of all this diss and counter-diss? Chances are excellent that both sides are going to lose and, believe it or not, consumers may actually win as a result. That's because politicians understand one fundamental thing in all this: You don't mess with a Canadian's cable television service.
Especially in an economic downturn, you don't add to the cost of an essential service and you don't jeopardize a source of relatively inexpensive, relatively universal diversion. People may not be able to afford sports tickets or even movies, but television service is pretty close to an entitlement for a lot of voters.
The cable companies may well regret that they've opened the consumer front in this cat fight. Given their revenues and their profit margins, they are exceptionally vulnerable to losing while winning — especially given the political overcast to the issue.
The CRTC may put the smack down on the broadcasters, but they may also decide that the time has come to regulate cable fees. That might be popular with consumers and, therefore, with politicians. Furthermore, deregulation doesn't have quite the same cachet as before now that the chips are down and government has waded into the national economy in a big way. So it's not the biggie it might have been several years ago.
And it's not like Canadians aren't ready to change the channel. Word.
#4
razzmatazz
- Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 528
- Joined: 09-September 09
Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:21 PM
Here's the real deal: Big corporations aren't happy with the millions in revenue that they are generating, so they are trying to generate even more millions. The more the millions, the better.
#6
razzmatazz
- Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 528
- Joined: 09-September 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:42 AM
Yvr Man, on 03 November 2009 - 12:50 AM, said:
While they are it ,
regulate the Cable companies and Cell phone service providers plus the retail arm of the oil companies ,
Had enough with these groups gouging the public !!!
regulate the Cable companies and Cell phone service providers plus the retail arm of the oil companies ,
Had enough with these groups gouging the public !!!
Regulation is un-capitalistic, and hampers the ability of a large corporation to generate billions in profits.
Of course, the capitalist business owners claim that in a "free society" the people will choose the provider, and as such the business will regulate itself.
This, in theory, could work. But it has proven to not work. In good times, big business wants all the freedoms to do whatever they want. When times shift, and they are not losing money, but not making quite the profits that they desire, they cry for government intervention. They basically want the average joe to pay for their huge bonuses that they can spread around amongst themselves.
This is exactly what is happening in this case.
#7
Nat
- ~Cosmic~
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,007
- Joined: 28-November 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:46 AM
They both want my money the TV station have always been funded by ads, they now want the cable companies to give them money too. That in the long run will trickle down to you and me paying for it.
This post has been edited by Nat: 03 November 2009 - 06:46 AM
#8
PRDave
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 26-October 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:45 AM
Cable companies have had to pay American Networks since the early nineties for the right to re-broadcast thier signals for profit. They just pumped up your bill to cover the costs.
Canadian channels want the same treatment. And rightly so in my opinion.
However, it is time broadcasters look to other ways to get thier signal out there.
With the advent of HDTV digital broadcasting, this is a real option.
As well as the Internet. I use TVUPlayer (TV signal on the net) to watch TV when I am not near a cable outlet.
It seems BC'ers are not too bright, not realizing broadcasters should be offering other means to get thier signals out.
We shouldn't railroaded into excessive Cable Rates.
TV should be FREE. Just like Radio. Period.
Canadian channels want the same treatment. And rightly so in my opinion.
However, it is time broadcasters look to other ways to get thier signal out there.
With the advent of HDTV digital broadcasting, this is a real option.
As well as the Internet. I use TVUPlayer (TV signal on the net) to watch TV when I am not near a cable outlet.
It seems BC'ers are not too bright, not realizing broadcasters should be offering other means to get thier signals out.
We shouldn't railroaded into excessive Cable Rates.
TV should be FREE. Just like Radio. Period.
#11
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:02 AM
To put it simply - as i understand it:
1. The cable companies charge you in your monthly fee to watch the local tv channels
2. None of that goes to the local tv companies. I.e. you're paying for it, but they dont get to see any of it.
3. Local tv companies are struggling to stay afloat and want a piece of the pie. Afterall, surely if the cable companies are charging you to recieve local tv, then the local tv stations should see that money?
4. The cable companies are claiming that if they have to give the local tv stations (which they're charging you for) extra money (from the money you're paying them) then they'll have to raise their prices - They're calling this a TV Tax (as if a monthly fee of $60 + isnt already a tax)... This is called a scare tactic to get out of paying them.
5. However on the other side of the coin the local tv companies want the extra money to buy more US shows rather than making more local programming... So they're not in the right either.
My own personal take on it.. I think we need local tv programming - local news TENDS to be unbiased (at least in comparision to crp like fox news), and focused on local issues. We also need more locally made shows.. We dont need more american tv shows (how many channels REALLY need to show f-ing family guy anyhow? Flicking thru the channels it's ALWAYS on at least 1 station at any one point in time.
BUT the cable companies are trying bully boy tactics of threatening to increase prices if this rule comes in - the reality is they dont need to raise prices, they just will anyway as it gives them an excuse (while playing the "well it's not our fault - we didnt want to - blame the government they're the ones that introduced this 'tax' " card..). And judging by this thread - it's working.
1. The cable companies charge you in your monthly fee to watch the local tv channels
2. None of that goes to the local tv companies. I.e. you're paying for it, but they dont get to see any of it.
3. Local tv companies are struggling to stay afloat and want a piece of the pie. Afterall, surely if the cable companies are charging you to recieve local tv, then the local tv stations should see that money?
4. The cable companies are claiming that if they have to give the local tv stations (which they're charging you for) extra money (from the money you're paying them) then they'll have to raise their prices - They're calling this a TV Tax (as if a monthly fee of $60 + isnt already a tax)... This is called a scare tactic to get out of paying them.
5. However on the other side of the coin the local tv companies want the extra money to buy more US shows rather than making more local programming... So they're not in the right either.
My own personal take on it.. I think we need local tv programming - local news TENDS to be unbiased (at least in comparision to crp like fox news), and focused on local issues. We also need more locally made shows.. We dont need more american tv shows (how many channels REALLY need to show f-ing family guy anyhow? Flicking thru the channels it's ALWAYS on at least 1 station at any one point in time.
BUT the cable companies are trying bully boy tactics of threatening to increase prices if this rule comes in - the reality is they dont need to raise prices, they just will anyway as it gives them an excuse (while playing the "well it's not our fault - we didnt want to - blame the government they're the ones that introduced this 'tax' " card..). And judging by this thread - it's working.
This post has been edited by smelly: 03 November 2009 - 09:05 AM
#12
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:04 AM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 09:02 AM, said:
We already buy a bundle for CBC why pay more and then Can-West will want us to donate to their failing newspapers too. 
Thats the issue.. you're ALREADY paying for the local tv channels in your cable package.. its just the local channels dont get to see any of that money...
#13
Nat
- ~Cosmic~
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,007
- Joined: 28-November 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:08 AM
smelly, on 03 November 2009 - 09:04 AM, said:
Thats the issue.. you're ALREADY paying for the local tv channels in your cable package.. its just the local channels dont get to see any of that money...
They get their money from advertising if they want more from me then get rid of some advertising. I refuse to watch there channels live was the shows are interrupted too much.
#14
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:25 AM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 09:08 AM, said:
They get their money from advertising if they want more from me then get rid of some advertising. I refuse to watch there channels live was the shows are interrupted too much.
Erm.. you're not getting me here are you.
You.. Are.. ALREADY... Paying.. For .. Local.. TV.. In .. Your.. Cable.. Package...
It's the cable companies who decide not to give that money to the local tv channels.. And it's the cable companies who are asking for more money from YOU.. The local tv companies just want some of the money which you're already paying for.
It's like if you pay me $10 a month for me to pay RealWoman .. But i decide not to pay RW and keep the money myself. Then RW says "hang on a minute - Nat is paying you $10 a month to give to me".. So I turn around and so - okay, if you want to see that money - then Nat will have to start paying me $20.
The cable companies are in the wrong here.. But that said - i dont like how the local tv companies are planning on spending the money either...
#15
perrysaturn
- Advanced Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 773
- Joined: 05-October 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:41 AM
smelly, on 03 November 2009 - 09:25 AM, said:
Erm.. you're not getting me here are you.
You.. Are.. ALREADY... Paying.. For .. Local.. TV.. In .. Your.. Cable.. Package...
It's the cable companies who decide not to give that money to the local tv channels.. And it's the cable companies who are asking for more money from YOU.. The local tv companies just want some of the money which you're already paying for.
It's like if you pay me $10 a month for me to pay RealWoman .. But i decide not to pay RW and keep the money myself. Then RW says "hang on a minute - Nat is paying you $10 a month to give to me".. So I turn around and so - okay, if you want to see that money - then Nat will have to start paying me $20.
The cable companies are in the wrong here.. But that said - i dont like how the local tv companies are planning on spending the money either...
You.. Are.. ALREADY... Paying.. For .. Local.. TV.. In .. Your.. Cable.. Package...
It's the cable companies who decide not to give that money to the local tv channels.. And it's the cable companies who are asking for more money from YOU.. The local tv companies just want some of the money which you're already paying for.
It's like if you pay me $10 a month for me to pay RealWoman .. But i decide not to pay RW and keep the money myself. Then RW says "hang on a minute - Nat is paying you $10 a month to give to me".. So I turn around and so - okay, if you want to see that money - then Nat will have to start paying me $20.
The cable companies are in the wrong here.. But that said - i dont like how the local tv companies are planning on spending the money either...
good way of putting it +1
#17
Nat
- ~Cosmic~
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,007
- Joined: 28-November 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:21 AM
smelly, on 03 November 2009 - 09:25 AM, said:
Erm.. you're not getting me here are you.
You.. Are.. ALREADY... Paying.. For .. Local.. TV.. In .. Your.. Cable.. Package...
It's the cable companies who decide not to give that money to the local tv channels.. And it's the cable companies who are asking for more money from YOU.. The local tv companies just want some of the money which you're already paying for.
It's like if you pay me $10 a month for me to pay RealWoman .. But i decide not to pay RW and keep the money myself. Then RW says "hang on a minute - Nat is paying you $10 a month to give to me".. So I turn around and so - okay, if you want to see that money - then Nat will have to start paying me $20.
The cable companies are in the wrong here.. But that said - i dont like how the local tv companies are planning on spending the money either...
You.. Are.. ALREADY... Paying.. For .. Local.. TV.. In .. Your.. Cable.. Package...
It's the cable companies who decide not to give that money to the local tv channels.. And it's the cable companies who are asking for more money from YOU.. The local tv companies just want some of the money which you're already paying for.
It's like if you pay me $10 a month for me to pay RealWoman .. But i decide not to pay RW and keep the money myself. Then RW says "hang on a minute - Nat is paying you $10 a month to give to me".. So I turn around and so - okay, if you want to see that money - then Nat will have to start paying me $20.
The cable companies are in the wrong here.. But that said - i dont like how the local tv companies are planning on spending the money either...
I understand all that but the cable company is giving me a service rather than having an anntena on my roof the TV station is getting its money the same as always from advertising and if the cable company has to pay then they will pass that cost to me. Do you really think they wouldn't.
#18
Riel
- Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 359
- Joined: 22-April 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:00 AM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 11:21 AM, said:
I understand all that but the cable company is giving me a service rather than having an anntena on my roof the TV station is getting its money the same as always from advertising and if the cable company has to pay then they will pass that cost to me. Do you really think they wouldn't.
That depends on how smart the consumers are. If the consumers see through the cable companies ploy and refuse to pay more for the same, switching to other options, then the cable companies will get scared and cut their profits rather than lose business. Unfortunately, the number of people that A) understand the issue and B) are willing to do something about it probably won't make much of a dent in the market. The easiest option is for consumers to request federal regulation from the CRTC that will cap cable company profits. I guess the cable companies are betting that consumers either won't care or won't work up enough of a lobby to make that happen.
#20
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:12 PM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:
I understand all that but the cable company is giving me a service rather than having an anntena on my roof the TV station is getting its money the same as always from advertising and if the cable company has to pay then they will pass that cost to me. Do you really think they wouldn't.
You obviously dont get it.
How else to explain this in words a simpleton would get?
I dunno.. Look, I'll try to explain again...
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING THE CABLE GUYS MONEY FOR THOSE STATIONS.. ITS JUST THOSE STATIONS DONT SEE THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE PAYING!
The cable companies are CLAIMING they'd need to pass the charges onto the consumer, but that's just not true - if they do - it'll just be a cash grab for them.
I'm obviously failing to explain this simple enough for you - anyone else want a go? I suggest trying only words of 1 syllable.
#21
Nat
- ~Cosmic~
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,007
- Joined: 28-November 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:21 PM
You're the simpleton if you don't already know these channels are FREE over the air waves nobody pays for them. I can get them for FREE with only an anntena I pay Shaw for better reception than an anntena especially since it rains so much here! I also pay Shaw for Cable network channels that do have a cost but these channels do not!
http://labbyroad.ca/...ts-are-on-fire/
http://labbyroad.ca/...ts-are-on-fire/
This post has been edited by Nat: 03 November 2009 - 01:36 PM
#22
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:32 PM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 01:21 PM, said:
You're the simpleton if you don't already know these channels are FREE over the air waves nobody pays for them.
Yes I know they're free over the air...
But the cable companies charge you to have these stations on their networks.
... Oh brother - i give up.
#23
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:39 PM
Nat, on 03 November 2009 - 01:21 PM, said:
And unbelievably the link you gave me said the EXACT same thing as i've been trying to explain to you...
Quote:
If the cable companies get their way, they get to continue to charge us for content that they don’t pay a penny for; content that you can get for free by using a TV antenna instead of subscribing to cable.
#24
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:45 PM
.. And if you're considering cancelling your cable.. then it's in your interest to support the local tv stations - which you'll continue to get for free, but will now have more funding from the cable companies
#25
Eugene T.S. Wong
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 30-March 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:48 PM
smelly, on 03 November 2009 - 02:32 PM, said:
... Oh brother - i give up.
You should give up. He's just not going to get it.
He's right in that they'll just pass on an extra increase without regulation, but who says that we need regulation? Why doesn't the government force the cable companies to offer a-la-carte? I believe that if each station got equal money for each subscription, and if a-la-carte was forced, then we'd see a much more level playing field. Local stations will see less revenues than many specialty networks, but would see much more than they are seeing now. The government should be careful about forcing stations to broadcast for free.
No matter what, cable companies should be forced to pay for it, if they charge for it.
Honestly, I think that local stations need special protection in the same way that museums need special protection. Most museums are not for profit, but provide a very legitimate cultural service to the community.
#26
Ultimate GuardianFlash
- `~~ The Guardian Of The Night ~~`
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,007
- Joined: 21-December 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:53 PM
maybe they should just shut down boring sports channels such as TSN and the Score. Whenever they talk about sports on the news it's washroom break.
This post has been edited by Ultimate GuardianFlash: 03 November 2009 - 06:54 PM
#27
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:05 PM
Ultimate GuardianFlash, on 03 November 2009 - 06:53 PM, said:
maybe they should just shut down boring sports channels such as TSN and the Score. Whenever they talk about sports on the news it's washroom break.
LOL!
Maybe i was wrong about you? Okay your forgiven.. you're now in the smelly fan club - you can sit between Real Woman and Shinta Chan.
#28
Goat Boy©
- Ruler of The Trolls
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18,281
- Joined: 07-May 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:34 PM
smelly, on 03 November 2009 - 01:12 PM, said:
You obviously dont get it.
How else to explain this in words a simpleton would get?
I dunno.. Look, I'll try to explain again...
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING THE CABLE GUYS MONEY FOR THOSE STATIONS.. ITS JUST THOSE STATIONS DONT SEE THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE PAYING!
The cable companies are CLAIMING they'd need to pass the charges onto the consumer, but that's just not true - if they do - it'll just be a cash grab for them.
I'm obviously failing to explain this simple enough for you - anyone else want a go? I suggest trying only words of 1 syllable.
How else to explain this in words a simpleton would get?
I dunno.. Look, I'll try to explain again...
YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING THE CABLE GUYS MONEY FOR THOSE STATIONS.. ITS JUST THOSE STATIONS DONT SEE THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE PAYING!
The cable companies are CLAIMING they'd need to pass the charges onto the consumer, but that's just not true - if they do - it'll just be a cash grab for them.
I'm obviously failing to explain this simple enough for you - anyone else want a go? I suggest trying only words of 1 syllable.
I absolutely flat out refuse to believe that local television is being carried on the large cable companies without fee. In fact I'd venture that impossible.
I think what you should have said is, "Nat hands smelly $20 to give to Realwoman, but he only pays $10 and keeps $10 for his transaction profit."
#29
Eugene T.S. Wong
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 30-March 09
Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:17 PM
Goat Boy©, on 03 November 2009 - 07:34 PM, said:
I absolutely flat out refuse to believe that local television is being carried on the large cable companies without fee. In fact I'd venture that impossible.
This is Canada, and the TV industry has its roots in government regulation. If I recall correctly, and I can't be bothered to search, local TV stations were historically required to have evening news, Canadian news, and Canadian programming. Sending out the signals for free was the common sense approach at the time, just as sending you fliers and junk mail for free is the way to earn money in newspaper and mail world.
Along came cable. Cable brought the signal out to areas which were too far away from the broadcaster. Those viewers didn't have to pay for the signal for the same reason that local viewers didn't. It just didn't make sense. The cable companies were only providing a service.
Along came pay-TV. They were specialty channels. It made sense for the companies to pay those channels, because they were "add-ons" or extras. More and more, people began to subscribe to cable. More and more, more specialty channels were being offered.
In our current situation, the local stations probably still have government restrictions, whereas the specialty channels don't. Also, I'd venture that it is impossible that the cable companies pay the local stations. After all, if they do, then all they have to do is show the receipts/invoices/accounts/statements/etc.
I think that a-la-carte will be the most elegant solution, because consumers will be able to vote with their $, while cable companies will be allowed to pass the prices on to the consumers. They can continue to offer the same basic package, and I'd just love to see how well that flies.
#31
Berry Sweet
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,335
- Joined: 08-September 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:47 PM
The whole thing just boils down to, everyone wants more money and the people have to pay for it.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
#32
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:10 PM
Berry Sweet, on 03 November 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:
The whole thing just boils down to, everyone wants more money and the people have to pay for it.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
Why pay for cable at all, when at any given time at least 10 of those channels are playing f-ing family guy!
(dont get me wrong, i like family guy.,.. but.. come on!)
#33
ghost
- I'm just a girl in the world...
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,086
- Joined: 30-November 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:17 PM
Right now I'm paying 3 dollars a month for over a hundred channels. I'm also paying 15 a month for my cell phone.
Of course I'm in Korea.
But personally I can't stand companies like Shaw and Rogers that charge these high prices for something that should be a lot cheaper.
I also don't think companies should be allowed to sucker people into long contracts either. Five years for Telus? That's just wrong. They can raise their prices all they want and you can't do a bloody thing about it.
That's just wrong.
Of course I'm in Korea.
But personally I can't stand companies like Shaw and Rogers that charge these high prices for something that should be a lot cheaper.
I also don't think companies should be allowed to sucker people into long contracts either. Five years for Telus? That's just wrong. They can raise their prices all they want and you can't do a bloody thing about it.
That's just wrong.
#34
Ultimate GuardianFlash
- `~~ The Guardian Of The Night ~~`
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,007
- Joined: 21-December 07
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:18 PM
Berry Sweet, on 03 November 2009 - 10:47 PM, said:
The whole thing just boils down to, everyone wants more money and the people have to pay for it.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
I cut back mt cable from Shaw to basic cable...they want $31.95/mo for 28 channels from me...(which I think is bullshit)....so I did it anyways to save money....then a few days later, Telus calls me and I got a 3 year contract of over 100 channels for $6/mo for the first year and $26/mo for the following two years. I couldn't say no.
Why pay more money for 28 channels when I can pay less for 100+?? I even called Shaw 3 times and asked them to lower my bill, they said they couldn't...now they can kiss my ass.
yea you know I'm thinking switching to Telus tv too. We're paying like over $40 a month for channels 1-28, 63-68, and 83-93.
#35
smelly
- Dedicated Contributor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,002
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:31 PM
The problem with living in a condo - is that the cable people are more or less dictated to you by who has their wires in your building...
Hopefully with a bit more competition though things will sort themselves out.
in the meantime i'll go without tv quite happily.
Hopefully with a bit more competition though things will sort themselves out.
in the meantime i'll go without tv quite happily.