BC's First & Only All News Channel is the channel BELL & TELUS don't want you to see

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=bigoranget;60930]

Can you prove that is the case?

Read the CRTC's VI rules. Shaw is not allowed to deny their competitors access to BC1. They want BC1 on as many providers as possible, they make more money with carriage fees and advertising revenue on several providers than they do keeping the channel exclusive to Shaw, as long as Shaw is the only provider carrying it Shaw cable will highlight the fact to their advantage but Shaw Media wants it on all providers.

I don't see any reason why Telus Optik, Novous and Eastlink would not carry Global BC N1.

Telus Optik is notorious for not adding channels at launch date.

Chances are Shaw hasn't negotiated a contract with other providers yet. Look at Nat Geo WILD; most systems didn't pick it up until a few months after it launched.

Shaw was not keeping Nat Geo Wild exclusive.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;60932]

Assuming that you have finite number of viewers in the market, they're ether going to continue to watch the eight hours of news on the conventional Global BC station or switch over cable channel.

Sigh. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter though, keep thinking the way you do.

FYI, you still have to pay $100 with or without a rental receiver. It applies to anyone who has a Bell TV Service. Not to mention if you bought the receiver outright you probably shelled out $500 for a HD PVR box that only works with Bell, and you're probably going to have to shell out another $200-400 (before tax) for a Shaw HD PVR if you want to own the receiver instead of rent.

Please show me some evidence that every Bell subscriber must give them $100 dollars if they cancel their service.

Your giving the impression that there will be a mass exorcise of Bell TV subscribers over one channel. That's pretty clear definition of over-exaggerating if I say so myself.

There are several good reasons to switch from Bell/Telus to Shaw, access to BC1 is just another reason

I gave you the cancellation fees in my last post. Plus going over the fact that if you owned a Bell Receiver your still at a financial loss because you paid for a box that will be useless now, and your going to end up spending upwards to $270 for a new system, not including if you need more than one receiver. All because of one channel.

You gave me your theories. Again, people should find out for themselves whether or not switching to Shaw is in their best interest financially. You are simply not qualified to say whether or not they will be at a financial loss switching to Shaw. If they end up paying less with Shaw each month they wont be at a financial loss even if they have to pay a cancellation fee. Also If you bundle Shaw cable with phone and internet (something you can't do with Bell in BC) you get a 3 month discount on all services in most packages, even if you don't bundle Shaw cable/internet/phone together (although I don't see why you wouldn't) Shaw's cable only packages are still cheaper than Bell's.

[bigoranget]

Telus Optik is notorious for not adding channels at launch date.

As opposed to Shaw's stellar record at adding non Shaw/Corus owned stations on launch date :)

[TVViewer]

As opposed to Shaw's stellar record at adding non Shaw/Corus owned stations on launch date :)

Of the last 5 major new channels to launch these past few years, Telus Optik had zero of them at launch date. Shaw had 4 out of 5 (the exception being FX Canada) at launch.

[TVViewer]

What channels are you referring to? MSNBC is the only channel that isn't carried on Bell in SD.

I know Telus doesn't carry SUN News Network. I'm not sure about the others but just saying they don't carry all those channels you listed. Shaw has more English/Canadian news channels than any other provider.

[SportsFan]

Shaw has more English/Canadian news channels than any other provider.

This is not correct. I pointed this out earlier, but you seem to have missed it.

[bigoranget]

Of the last 5 major new channels to launch these past few years, Telus Optik had zero of them at launch date. Shaw had 4 out of 5 (the exception being FX Canada) at launch.

What are you talking about? Shaw never had TSN2 and Rogers Sportsnet One from day one. They also didn't have Disney XD and Shaw Direct still doesn't have this channel. I'm sure you are counting ABC Spark and Nat Geo Wild (both which have common ownership with Shaw). What other channels are you talking about? List them.

Also Bell has all the news channels that Shaw carries so they obviously do not have more English Canadian news channels. What you are saying is incorrect.

[bigoranget]

Also I forgot about Hollywood Suite. Shaw/Shaw Direct again the only major providers not carrying it. So that's another 4 channels. Speaking of Hollywood Suite, I wonder why Shaw doesn't carry it; could it be because it competes with Movie Central/Encore Avenue? Hmmmmm

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=bigoranget;60954]

What are you talking about? Shaw never had TSN2 and Rogers Sportsnet One from day one. They also didn't have Disney XD and Shaw Direct still doesn't have this channel. I'm sure you are counting ABC Spark and Nat Geo Wild (both which have common ownership with Shaw). What other channels are you talking about? List them.

The vast majority of the public does not care that Shaw/Corus own some of the channels, all they care about is if they can watch the channel, and Shaw has added more channels at launch than Telus. It's pretty amazing how different the views are from the few people who post here vs the vast majority of the public. The public just wants to watch the channels they want, the people who subscribe to another provider who want BC1 don't care how many channels Shaw carries, they just want to watch BC1 on their provider. They don't care about who owns what and the vast majority would be totally against the CRTC's 3:1 requirement if they knew that it was prohibiting Shaw Direct from adding BC1 due to capacity, in fact, most wouldn't be for the 3:1 rule anyway, the average viewer just wants to watch the channels they want and could care less about BDU's adding a certain number of channels they don't own.

Also Bell has all the news channels that Shaw carries so they obviously do not have more English Canadian news channels. What you are saying is incorrect.

Bell doesn't have BC1, Shaw does. BC1 is Canadian based and in English.

[bigoranget]

Here is a list of what I has launched in the last 5 years

TSN2 (August 28, 2008) - Carried about a month after launch
Sportsnet One (August 14, 2010) - Carried about a month after launch
Cartoon Network (July 4, 2012) - Neither Shaw or Shaw Direct carry this.
Disney XD (June 1, 2011) - Carried later in the fall on Shaw. Still nto available on Shaw Direct

ABC Spark (March 23, 2012) - Carried at launch.
Nat Geo Wild (May 7, 2012) - Carried at launch.
FX Canada (Oct 31, 2011) - Added abouot a year after launch
Sony Movie Channel (Nov 23, 2011) - Not carried by Shaw/ShawDirect
AXN Movies (Nov 23, 2011) - Not carried by Shaw/ShawDirect
MGM Channel (Nov 23, 2011) - Not carried by Shaw/ShawDirect
Warner Films (Nov 23, 2011) - Not carried by Shaw/ShawDirect

[bigoranget]

Bell doesn't have BC1, Shaw does. BC1 is Canadian based and in English.

I knew you would say BC1. Bell carries CP24 so the channel count is still even. Also as others have stated. I doubt anyone is going to switch providers over an all-day news channel. Most BC residents will have access to Globals popular newscasts at the important times even once BC1 launches.

I like how you didn't dwell on the Hollywood Suite/Movie Central conflict of interest.

[SportsFan]

Rogers has more English Canadian news channels than Shaw.

Bell doesn't have BC1, Shaw does. BC1 is Canadian based and in English.

No one has BC1 until tomorrow, but when they launch, I'll take your word for it that Shaw Direct will have more than Bell. Does Shaw Cable carry CP24?

[bigoranget]

Shaw Direct wont' be carrying BC1 until G1 launches.

[InMontreal]

Read the CRTC's VI rules. Shaw is not allowed to deny their competitors access to BC1.

That's the grey area.

The CRTC rule only says that vertically integrated companies cannot keep their channels exclusive, but it doesn't say that they NEED to launch on at least one competitor BDU before launching. More providers = more subscriber money is common sense, and off course the parent company's distributor will carry the new channel at any cost, but eventho it hasn't even air a single minute of their final product, is asking a high price from their competitors. Until Shaw Media agrees to decrease the price of their new channel and each a deal with its competitors, the channel will remain exclusive for its first few months. Within those first few months, the new channel will set itself a value that competitors will agree to pay.

If a specialty channel is distributed on many providers at launch, that does not benefit the parent company's distributor. The hype of the new channel and the cross-channel advertising on Global BC will prompt customers to call their service provider and request the channel or make them dump their current provider and subscribe to Shaw.

There.

[TVViewer]

Shaw Direct wont' be carrying BC1 until G1 launches.

Only because of the CRTC's anti-consumer 3:1 requirement (which a few people here may like but the vast majority of the public would not support and probably disagree with if they knew it was prohibiting Shaw Direct from carrying the channels they want like BC1)

This post was for British Columbians who want to watch BC1 but subscribe to another provider, yet most of the replies are from people who don't live in BC and don't want to watch BC1 posting unrelated criticisms against the one provider who has agreed to carry BC's first and only all news channel. There has not been one single argument or excuse that a normal BC viewer who wants to watch BC1 would find acceptable. None of your complaints justify why BC1 is not available on these providers.

[InMontreal]

Only because of the CRTC's anti-consumer 3:1 requirement (which a few people here may like but the vast majority of the public would not support and probably disagree with if they knew it was prohibiting Shaw Direct from carrying the channels they want like BC1)

OMG, you're full of it.
The 3:1 requirement is not anti-customer, it's anti-vertically-integrated rule, pro-consumer.

If Shaw Direct want to add their own BC1 channel, they have to add 3 channels that belongs to competition so that the consumer will not end up buying Shaw for Shaw channels, Bell TV for Bell channels, and so on...

How selfish are you ?

[bigoranget]

No one is trying to justify anything. You make it seem like Shaw is the perfect corporate company that can do no wrong. They have the worst HD channel line-up of any provider, they are missing lots of popular sports packages, they carry the least amount of category B channels and they charge some of the highest prices of any provider in Canada. You keep bringing up how the 3:1 rule negatively effects Shaw; well it's their choice to not carry certain category B channel and therefore making it difficult to carry their own channels. As mentioned time and time again, Shaw is the only provider that seems to have an issue with Category B channels. Companies like Cogeco and Eastlink carry almost every English category B channel and they have no vested interest in any broadcast property. They see value in having these channels in their line-up as does company like Rogers and Videotron. Why is it that Shaw has such an issue with it?

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;60963]

The CRTC rule only says that vertically integrated companies cannot keep their channels exclusive,

Exactly, they can't deny access to their competitors.

but it doesn't say that they NEED to launch on at least one competitor BDU before launching.

I never said they did, that would be ridiculous and just like 3:1 yet another rule the vast majority of the public would disagree with.

More providers = more subscriber money is common sense, and off course the parent company's distributor will carry the new channel at any cost, but eventho it hasn't even air a single minute of their final product, is asking a high price from their competitors. Until Shaw Media agrees to decrease the price of their new channel and each a deal with its competitors, the channel will remain exclusive for its first few months. Within those first few months, the new channel will set itself a value that competitors will agree to pay

This is just your speculation. Just because Shaw is the first provider to carry Global News BC1 doesn't mean that it's only because they own it and are paying a huge price. Shaw made a deal to carry the SUN News specialty channel by launch. If Canwest was launching Global News BC1 it's likely Shaw would be the first provider to carry it as well (in fact due to Shaw's dominance in the market it's unlikely Canwest would have it launched until it received carriage on Shaw). As I previously stated Telus is horrible when it comes to having channels by launch date, There is no evidence that Shaw is just carrying Global News BC1 (and again I can't stress enough how popular Global BC's news programming is in the Vancouver market) because they own it and willing to pay an unfair price, but there is evidence that Telus has a horrible track record of carrying popular channels when they launch.

If a specialty channel is distributed on many providers at launch, that does not benefit the parent company's distributor. The hype of the new channel and the cross-channel advertising on Global BC will prompt customers to call their service provider and request the channel or make them dump their current provider and subscribe to Shaw.

It does benefit Shaw cable to be the exclusive home of Global News BC1, but that doesn't offset the revenue the channel will make from being available on all providers. They are not helping Shaw cable at the expense of Shaw Media, but since they currently don't have agreements made with other providers it simply makes sense to highlight the fact that BC1 is exclusive to Shaw.

[bigoranget]

Telus has a horrible track record of carrying popular channels when they launch.

And again, I will point out, so does Shaw.

[TVViewer]

OMG, you're full of it.
The 3:1 requirement is not anti-customer, it's anti-vertically-integrated rule, pro-consumer.

If Shaw Direct want to add their own BC1 channel, they have to add 3 channels that belongs to competition so that the consumer will not end up buying Shaw for Shaw channels, Bell TV for Bell channels, and so on...

How selfish are you ?

I'm full of it? Only a small minority share your views. It's NOT pro-consumer when companies which have capacity restraints can't carry channels their customers want because they have to carry 3 channels their customers don't want. People only care about the channels they want, they only care if BDU's carry channels they want, they don't care if BDU's carry a certain number of channels they don't own. I can guarantee you that if you told any Shaw Direct subscriber who wants to watch BC1 the reason they can't view the channel is because they have to add 3 more channels just to carry it they would agree with me that the 3:1 rule is dumb and anti-consumer. They don't have the same delusional theory you have that every provider will only carry the channels they own if there were no 3:1 channel requirements.