Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 442
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    1,697
    If they would air the World Hockey Championships, that would count as Canadian content, right?

    I was just using the Indy 500 because it was brought up, but while we are on it there are some Canadian produced events that they should show. The World Junior and Men's (and maybe even Women's) Hockey Championship finals. As well as the World Curling Championship finals, and Brier/Scotties finals. I know that they need big events on TSN, but these are huge events that should be available to everybody.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    I get what your saying, but if you look at things from a money making standpoint, CTV makes more money by airing events like those on TSN, and then airing hit american programming on CTV.

  3. #23
    Why don't Global and CTV just shut down their networks and relaunch them as specialty services? This is basically what they want anyway with this fee they are asking for- specialty channels get revenue from fees as well as advertising so in essence that is what they would become if this fee is approved, a defacto specialty service. They can launch a general interest service, with comedies & dramas from US nets, local news and other programming. How about a regional service like Sportsnet, each area would have its own feed so that you recieve only your local news and not the same newscast across the country.

    Why continue to operate a money losing conventional television network, they are for-profit entities so this solution makes perfect sense to me. Very few people watch OTA anyways (according to info posted on here) so it's not like very many would miss CTV or Global.

    Of course category 2 digital channels do not have must carry so it will be interesting to see how many providers pick up the channels?! ;)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    Why don't Global and CTV just shut down their networks and relaunch them as specialty services? This is basically what they want anyway with this fee they are asking for- specialty channels get revenue from fees as well as advertising so in essence that is what they would become if this fee is approved, a defacto specialty service. They can launch a general interest service, with comedies & dramas from US nets, local news and other programming. How about a regional service like Sportsnet, each area would have its own feed so that you recieve only your local news and not the same newscast across the country.

    Why continue to operate a money losing conventional television network, they are for-profit entities so this solution makes perfect sense to me. Very few people watch OTA anyways (according to info posted on here) so it's not like very many would miss CTV or Global.

    Of course category 2 digital channels do not have must carry so it will be interesting to see how many providers pick up the channels?! ;)
    Why do all that? Why not just give them fee for carriage? Conventional stations wont be money losing if they have fee for carriage. I really don't understand what your saying here.

    Is the point your trying to make is so they lose their must carry status? Because they have already said they are fine with not being must carry, as long as their exclusive program rights are protected.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    Why don't Global and CTV just shut down their networks and relaunch them as specialty services? This is basically what they want anyway with this fee they are asking for- specialty channels get revenue from fees as well as advertising so in essence that is what they would become if this fee is approved, a defacto specialty service. They can launch a general interest service, with comedies & dramas from US nets, local news and other programming. How about a regional service like Sportsnet, each area would have its own feed so that you recieve only your local news and not the same newscast across the country.

    Why continue to operate a money losing conventional television network, they are for-profit entities so this solution makes perfect sense to me. Very few people watch OTA anyways (according to info posted on here) so it's not like very many would miss CTV or Global.

    Of course category 2 digital channels do not have must carry so it will be interesting to see how many providers pick up the channels?! ;)
    Not gonna happen, the CRTC is not going to let all of the CTV and Global stations shut down and become speciality channels. They could broadcast infomercials 24/7 and the CRTC would not let them become speciality channels.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta!!
    Posts
    317
    So are we pro-losing jobs or aren't we then?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Anyone who calls for shut downs of local stations, getting rid of simsubbing, or coming up with ideas which would forsure hurt the broadcasters profts, is pro-losing jobs, because that's exactly what will happen if fee for carriage doesn't come.

  8. #28
    Anyone who calls for shut downs of local stations, getting rid of simsubbing, or coming up with ideas which would forsure hurt the broadcasters profts, is pro-losing jobs, because that's exactly what will happen if fee for carriage doesn't come.
    Jobs are going to be lost anyway, you are dealing with huge conglomerates here who's only concern is their bottom line. They don't care about the workers, just maximizing profits. Look at other industries, layoffs upon layoffs, plant closures- its the same old, same old with these behemoths. You care about jobs, then think small, small businesses are the only ones who care about jobs because the depend on the workers they have to produce the product or service the offer.

    Getting back to the broadcasting industry, local stations should be locally owned. Whether that means smaller, independent companies or even employee-owned operations, the decisions should be made locally not by a clown in a suit in a head office hundreds of miles away. There is a local station in the US (can't remember the name) that is owned and run by the employees. It has the second most popular, most viewed newscast in the entire country. This shows that you don't need a conglomerate to successfully run a local station. If fact the opposite is true, conglomerates run them into the ground because they don't operate them on a station by station basis but instead group them into one big unit. Look at CTV, they have unified their newscasts instead of each station having its own, locally branded newscast. If you care about jobs then advocate for local ownership, time to break up CTV & Global and move to a US style model where stations are owned by independents and operate as affiliates instead of being owned and operated by the network itself.

  9. #29
    If NBC, CBS and ABC could buy out every affiliate in the US, they could. The only thing keeping them from doing so is ownership restrictions set by the FCC.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Not to mention that the american networks have O&O stations in the biggest markets. And although networks don't own all their stations, there are compaines that own a bunch of stations, There are very few broadcast companies that own only one station, most of them own a bunch. It's pretty much the same thing as a network owning a bunch of stations.

    TVJunkie, I love how you are now bringing up how good local american stations are doing, well a big part of that is because local american stations get fee for carriage. You say you want a U.S. model, well fee for carriage is part of that.

    Being owned by a network is not such a bad thing, these CTV and Global stations get access to national news and local newscasts from other owned stations. If some of these stations that CTV and Canwest currently own were independent, they would have been forced to shut down long ago, CTV and Canwest run a bunch of money losing stations, and the fact that they are losing money has nothing to do with the fact that they are owned by a network, It's the network keeping them alive.

  11. #31
    [TVJunkie, I love how you are now bringing up how good local american stations are doing, well a big part of that is because local american stations get fee for carriage. You say you want a U.S. model, well fee for carriage is part of that.
    Do American BDU's pass on the fee for carriage to consumers like Canadian ones are planning to do if these fees are approved?! As has been mentioned and repeated ad nauseum the key point of contention (for me anyway) is the fact they plan to pass this fee on to consumers. People already pay a considerable amount for these stations (via the stupid basic package) and don't want to pay anymore. Its not our fault that the BDU's get these stations for free and don't get anything in return for them. Why don't they withold the signal from Rogers, Bell, etc.?! If you are not receiving compensation for your station then why are they still sending the signal to the cable and satellite providers?! Find a way to ensure consumers will not continue to be gouged by BDU's and not have this fee added to this bill and you have my vote for some kind of fee for carriage.

    Being owned by a network is not such a bad thing, these CTV and Global stations get access to national news and local newscasts from other owned stations
    It is a bad thing because they are operated like a National network instead of Local stations which is what they are. Each station should have local operations and decision making should be local not centralized from a head office somewhere. The people running the station are the ones that know the market it operates in best and they should be the ones making the decisions on how best to operate the station.

    As for the things you mentioned like national news, I see no reason why a private affiliate would not have access to them and in fact they do. CBC affiliates have access to the National, the station doesn't need to be O&O by the CBC in order to have this programming. Why do they need to own the stations, why not just get out of that business and focus on the content side instead?!

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    Do American BDU's pass on the fee for carriage to consumers like Canadian ones are planning to do if these fees are approved?! As has been mentioned and repeated ad nauseum the key point of contention (for me anyway) is the fact they plan to pass this fee on to consumers. People already pay a considerable amount for these stations (via the stupid basic package) and don't want to pay anymore. Its not our fault that the BDU's get these stations for free and don't get anything in return for them. Why don't they withold the signal from Rogers, Bell, etc.?! If you are not receiving compensation for your station then why are they still sending the signal to the cable and satellite providers?! Find a way to ensure consumers will not continue to be gouged by BDU's and not have this fee added to this bill and you have my vote for some kind of fee for carriage.

    It is a bad thing because they are operated like a National network instead of Local stations which is what they are. Each station should have local operations and decision making should be local not centralized from a head office somewhere. The people running the station are the ones that know the market it operates in best and they should be the ones making the decisions on how best to operate the station.

    As for the things you mentioned like national news, I see no reason why a private affiliate would not have access to them and in fact they do. CBC affiliates have access to the National, the station doesn't need to be O&O by the CBC in order to have this programming. Why do they need to own the stations, why not just get out of that business and focus on the content side instead?!
    I don't want the fees passed onto us either, but it's NOT the broadcasters fault, why are you bashing the broadcasters for wanting what's fair? How many anti BDU posts have you made? 1? I know that this is a message forum and that it doesn't make a difference, but why continue to bash the broadcasters and not the BDU's?

    This is what amazes me, there are tons and tons of posts from people complaining about how horrible the networks are, but very few posts from anyone about how bad the BDU's are for 1. Making us pay for something thats free, and 2. saying that if they are forced to pay fee for carriage they will make our bills higher. I even posted in the CTV forum a thread on how CTV thinks it's a good idea to regulate cable rates, and yet people still bashed the broadcasters, some even defended the BDU's.

    Currently the broadcasters are not allowed to withhold their signal from BDU's. Although its true some of them provide a direct feed, if they didn't the BDU's would be able to pick it up over the air and sell it.

    Now as for local stations, just because they are owned by a network doesn't mean the network makes ALL the decisions. The network has input, but local decisions are still made.

    You completely ignore what I said about how being owned by a network is keeping these stations alive.

    Why do networks own stations? Well first it gives them control over the primetime schedule, One big problem that happens in the U.S. is that local stations will pre-empt some network programs, that doesn't happen if it's an O&O station.

  13. #33
    I don't want the fees passed onto us either, but it's NOT the broadcasters fault, why are you bashing the broadcasters for wanting what's fair? How many anti BDU posts have you made? 1? I know that this is a message forum and that it doesn't make a difference, but why continue to bash the broadcasters and not the BDU's?
    To me they are one and the same, aside from Canwest all other broadcasters own both television channels and cable or satellite companies. Here ya go:

    Rogers: Rogers Cable / OMNI TV, Citytv

    Shaw: Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct / Corus Entertainment (specialty channels), local stations

    Quebecor: Videotron Cable / TVA, specialty channels

    Bell: Bell TV / CTV & A, specialty channels via minority share in CTVglobemedia

    See what convergence does, 3 companies pretty much control everything in Canada- distribution and content. I see no distinction between the two so my complaints apply to both. Canwest is the exception but I am sure if they had the chance (perhaps under different ownership) they probably would get in on the game and buy a cable company or launch an IPTV service. Time to break this up and not allow cable/satellite providers (or vice versa) to own broadcasting companies.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    To me they are one and the same, aside from Canwest all other broadcasters own both television channels and cable or satellite companies. Here ya go:

    Rogers: Rogers Cable / OMNI TV, Citytv

    Shaw: Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct / Corus Entertainment (specialty channels), local stations

    Quebecor: Videotron Cable / TVA, specialty channels

    Bell: Bell TV / CTV & A, specialty channels via minority share in CTVglobemedia

    See what convergence does, 3 companies pretty much control everything in Canada- distribution and content. I see no distinction between the two so my complaints apply to both. Canwest is the exception but I am sure if they had the chance (perhaps under different ownership) they probably would get in on the game and buy a cable company or launch an IPTV service. Time to break this up and not allow cable/satellite providers (or vice versa) to own broadcasting companies.
    I agree with you on that, but considering it's Canwest and CTV that are asking for the fees (by the way Bell's share in CTV is about 15%) you can't just put them together.

    It's Bell, Rogers, and Shaw vs CTV and Canwest. If Citytv was asking for fee for carriage then I could see your point, but surprise surprise even though Citytv is losing money, it doesn't think fee for carriage is the answer.

    Bell, Rogers, and Shaw are making billions from selling CTV and Canwest's content. How is that fair?

  15. #35
    Bell, Rogers, and Shaw are making billions from selling CTV and Canwest's content. How is that fair?
    Tell it to the CRTC, they make the rules not me. I don't like it anymore than you do but I see no way of fighting it, the only thing "I" can do is not subscribe and give them my money.

    As far as I am concerned they are both to blame- broadcasters don't create enough original programming and air the same shows across all the channels they own. Their specialty channels do not have enough quality programming to fill an entire schedule so you end up with repeats throughout. BDU's on the other hand charge an arm and a leg for their service and offer what they want and how they want it (in terms of packaging), consumers come out on the losing end in both cases.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Ok.

    Back on topic, CTV is going all out to save local tv.

    Promos have been made and will be running across all CTV and 'A' stations throughout the week promoting the savelocal.ctv.ca website. 2,280 people have signed the petition saying they think CTV and 'A' should get fee for carriage without TV promos, I can't wait to see how many will sign it now that they will have TV promos running for it.

    CTV Ottawa will be having an open house to save local TV.


    You Are Invited to CTV Ottawa's Open House to Save Local Television!

    When: May 23, 2009 from 10am - 1pm
    • What: CTV Ottawa will open its doors to the public.
      Tour the station and show your support for local television.
    • Where: CTV Ottawa. 1500 Merivale Rd.
    In Ottawa and across Canada, you have made CTV Canada's #1 choice for News. We are local leaders not only in content, but also in our commitment to issues that matter to YOU and to your community. All of this is now in jeopardy.

    Current regulations in Canada allow cable and satellite companies to take CTV programming without paying for it. These companies then charge you, the consumer, for the programming they take for free. Most TV subscribers in Canada believe that part of their basic monthly bill goes to their local TV stations. This simply isn't true.
    The companies that deliver the TV signal to your house are reaping huge profits at the direct expense of local Canadian TV stations. Now, these very local stations face an uncertain future.
    We would like to invite you to CTV Ottawa's Open House at 1500 Merivale Road in Ottawa on May 23, 2009 between 10am and 1pm. This is your opportunity to tour our facilities and meet the professionals who deliver local television to you, both in-front of the cameras and behind the scenes.

    It is your chance to show your support for local television. We are in this together. If we lose our local television stations, we lose as a community. Now is the time to hold cable and satellite companies accountable.

    You can take action right now.

    Visit www.savelocal.ctv.ca to help keep local TV news and programming available in your community.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 05-11-2009 at 11:25 PM.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta!!
    Posts
    317
    Should be interesting to see what happens with this open-house type deal at CTV Ottawa.
    Last edited by SirCalgary; 05-12-2009 at 01:37 AM.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    You care about jobs, then think small, small businesses are the only ones who care about jobs because the depend on the workers they have to produce the product or service the offer.
    This is absurd. TV stations depend on the workers they have to produce the programming they offer, as well. Are you against them because they're bigger than a small business? I don't get your logic here.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,840
    Quote Originally Posted by TVJunkie5 View Post
    It is a bad thing because they are operated like a National network instead of Local stations which is what they are. Each station should have local operations and decision making should be local not centralized from a head office somewhere. The people running the station are the ones that know the market it operates in best and they should be the ones making the decisions on how best to operate the station.
    A good example I can provide is CKRN-TV (SRC), CFEM-TV (TVA) in Rouyn-Noranda, CHOT-TV (TVA) and CFGS-TV (TQS) in Gatineau, and CFVS-TV (TQS) in Val D'Or, all operated by Radio-Nord Communications (now RNC Media). They know their coverage area (Abitibi and Outaouais) and provide local news for all 5 stations in their 2 markets.
    If the SRC and TVA were operated by SRC and TVA, they would say something like "the news is not big enough for mentionning back in Montreal" and would stay home counting their toes. As for TQS, we know what happened and if Abitibi/Outaouais TQS would be controlled by TQS, these newscast would have been the first to be cut and lay off.

    Back to CanWest... oh yeah, Global Quebec is losing money because everything is controlled from Toronto. CanWest doesn't care about viewers, they don't care about community, but they only care about ratings (which is why they simsub) which results in bigger advertisement revenues.

    As for TVViewer, I am happy that my cable provider is making me pay for basic service which includes all local stations for free. I would be frustrated to pay local stations via my cable provider since I can get it for free using rabbit ears.
    The price asked for basic service is plenty enough for them to operate and finance future services, to provide free previews almost every month, to provide content on Video On Demand for free.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Back to CanWest... oh yeah, Global Quebec is losing money because everything is controlled from Toronto. CanWest doesn't care about viewers, they don't care about community, but they only care about ratings (which is why they simsub) which results in bigger advertisement revenues.
    That's absurd. Please research your facts before posting. Which station doesn't care about ratings? Bigger ratings means more money. People, please remember we live in Canada, a capitalist country, not the Soviet Union a communist, socialist country. No simsubbing would be disastrous for the local stations, especially for local owners. Why? Most local owners don't have deep pockets, the only thing that keeps them running is local advertising revenue from simsubbing. Global isn't even controlled from Toronto. Their HQ are in Winnipeg and their master control is in Calgary. They can't make any money due to CRTC restrictions demanding they be a regional station. No local ads can be run on Global Quebec.

    As for TVViewer, I am happy that my cable provider is making me pay for basic service which includes all local stations for free. I would be frustrated to pay local stations via my cable provider since I can get it for free using rabbit ears.
    The price asked for basic service is plenty enough for them to operate and finance future services, to provide free previews almost every month, to provide content on Video On Demand for free.
    So your happy that CFCF is on a sinking ship down to the bottom of the ocean? Would you be happy if CFCF was still owned by its orignal owners and it was still on a sinking ship?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •