Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 215
  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Cable rates were regulated before, BDU's are already regulated by the CRTC anyways. It wont be hard to regulate cable rates again.

    The question is; do the CRTC want to spend their budget on keeping track of BDUs?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    I still don't have answers to my questions.

    If small BDUs serving a small area with 20 000 customers or less where there's a CTV, /A\, Global, "V" station with an OTA antenna serving that community, how will they survive if they get 0$ while their Toronto or Montreal sister station makes millions from value-for-signal ?
    Actually I did answer your question. I will answer it again.

    It's only small independent BDU's serving small areas that wont have to pay, they only have re-broadcasters in those areas anyway. Not getting value for signal for 20,000 subscribers is not going to make or break a station.

    Once again, the broadcasters can't seem to win with you, whatever they do you bash them. First you bash them by saying that small BDU's will have to pay more, when you find out they wont, you bash them for not forcing small BDU's to pay.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    The question is; do the CRTC want to spend their budget on keeping track of BDUs?
    Oh come on, they already keep track of what the BDU's and broadcasters do. That's their job. BDU's are regulated, their cable rates may no longer be, but the CRTC is still watching over them anyways. Your just making excuses now.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Oh come on, they already keep track of what the BDU's and broadcasters do. That's their job. BDU's are regulated, their cable rates may no longer be, but the CRTC is still watching over them anyways. Your just making excuses now.

    I want to know something, and answer me truthfully. Do you think that maybe they won't be able to regulate cable? No matter how much the people cry for it?

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I want to know something, and answer me truthfully. Do you think that maybe they won't be able to regulate cable? No matter how much the people cry for it?
    Is there a small chance they wont do it? Yes, but I don't believe they wont be able to regulate them. They regulated cable rates before, and since BDU's (along with broadcasters) are regulated by the CRTC, the CRTC can do what it wants. Both the broadcasters and the BDU's are forced to do whatever the CRTC says, if the CRTC wants to regulate cable rates again, they can do it, there is nothing stopping them.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 10-20-2009 at 09:16 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Is there a small chance they wont? Yes, but I don't believe they wont be able to regulate them. They regulated cable rates before, and since BDU's (along with broadcasters) are regulated by the CRTC, the CRTC can do what it wants. Both the broadcasters and the BDU's are forced to do whatever the CRTC says, if the CRTC wants to regulate cable rates again, they can do it, there is nothing stopping them.
    But we know they won't go back being regulated without someone heading to court or lawsuit over it.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    But we know they won't go back being regulated without someone heading to court or lawsuit over it.
    They can go right ahead. The facts are that the BDU's are regulated by the CRTC. The CRTC tells them what to do, they have regulated cable rates before and can do it again. We need to remember that BDU's and broadcasters may be private companies, but they are both regulated by the CRTC, if the CRTC tells them to do something, they have to do it.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,840
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Actually I did answer your question. I will answer it again.

    It's only small independent BDU's serving small areas that wont have to pay, they only have re-broadcasters in those areas anyway. Not getting value for signal for 20,000 subscribers is not going to make or break a station.
    So, basically you're basically telling me that markets with less than 20,000 of population get a re-broadcaster from a bigger station. Am I right?

    If that's the case:
    - CJBN-TV (CTV affiliate) in Kenora (2006 population 15,177) should shut down.
    - CITL-TV (CTV affiliate) in Lloydminster (population 24,028) should shut down.
    - Jim Pattison's CHAT-TV (Citytv) in Medecine Hat will not be authorized to negociate value-for-signal because Citytv belongs to Rogers, and therefor you couldn't care less if it goes dark.

    Nice going!

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Once again, the broadcasters can't seem to win with you, whatever they do you bash them. First you bash them by saying that small BDU's will have to pay more, when you find out they wont, you bash them for not forcing small BDU's to pay.
    You said that already. Heard it the first time. You keep repeating yourself.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    They can go right ahead. The facts are that the BDU's are regulated by the CRTC. The CRTC tells them what to do, they have regulated cable rates before and can do it again. We need to remember that BDU's and broadcasters may be private companies, but they are both regulated by the CRTC, if the CRTC tells them to do something, they have to do it.

    So, thats what lobby groups are for. Hammer at the government to hammer at the CRTC.

    The difference now and 2002 when cable was deregulated was there is a new CRTC board this time around. Just hammer the government for a new board that leans towards the ones who contribute to the party in power.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    So, basically you're basically telling me that markets with less than 20,000 of population get a re-broadcaster from a bigger station. Am I right?

    If that's the case:
    - CJBN-TV (CTV affiliate) in Kenora (2006 population 15,177) should shut down.
    - CITL-TV (CTV affiliate) in Lloydminster (population 24,028) should shut down.
    - Jim Pattison's CHAT-TV (Citytv) in Medecine Hat will not be authorized to negociate value-for-signal because Citytv belongs to Rogers, and therefor you couldn't care less if it goes dark.

    Nice going!


    You said that already. Heard it the first time. You keep repeating yourself.
    Nope you are wrong.

    CJBN-TV Kenora is owned by Shaw, Shaw is the cable provider in that area. There is not point in Shaw paying itself. It wouldn't get value for signal in the first place.

    Shaw is also the cable provider in Lloydminster. Shaw will still have to pay value for signal. And just because CHAT-TV is a Citytv affiliate doesn't mean it can't ask for value for signal.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 10-20-2009 at 09:47 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So, thats what lobby groups are for. Hammer at the government to hammer at the CRTC.

    The difference now and 2002 when cable was deregulated was there is a new CRTC board this time around. Just hammer the government for a new board that leans towards the ones who contribute to the party in power.
    Oh come on, your just making up more excuses. The Government doesn't want our cable rates to go up, they have made that very clear. MP's don't want their local stations to shut down. They will fully support cable rates being regulated.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Oh come on, your just making up more excuses. The Government doesn't want our cable rates to go up, they have made that very clear. MP's don't want their local stations to shut down. They will fully support cable rates being regulated.

    Look i know you live in a world where everything is perfect. But make no mistake, those MPs want money for their party and ridings, and most broadcasters such as the Rogers family have been paying the current party in power for awhile, so i bet anything they'll be calling in their favours.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Look i know you live in a world where everything is perfect. But make no mistake, those MPs want money for their party and ridings, and most broadcasters such as the Rogers family have been paying the current party in power for awhile, so i bet anything they'll be calling in their favours.
    So why are a bunch of MP's supporting local TV stations and not Rogers? go to www.savelocal.ctv.ca and you will see a huge list of MP's who supported Fee for Carriage. MP's love their local stations, they don't want to lose them, and they don't want to be the ones to blame for our cable rates going up, if anything we will see MP's calling for cable rates to be regulated.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    So why are a bunch of MP's supporting local TV stations and not Rogers? go to www.savelocal.ctv.ca and you will see a huge list of MP's who supported Fee for Carriage. MP's love their local stations, they don't want to lose them, and they don't want to be the ones to blame for our cable rates going up, if anything we will see MP's calling for cable rates to be regulated.
    Maybe their taking a risk, maybe its all a show and the decision will be dull down on re-regulating BDUs.


    But for MP's i don't see a list from the link you provide.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,840
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Nope you are wrong.

    CJBN-TV Kenora is owned by Shaw, Shaw is the cable provider in that area. There is not point in Shaw paying itself. It wouldn't get value for signal in the first place.

    Shaw is also the cable provider in Lloydminster. Shaw will still have to pay value for signal. And just because CHAT-TV is a Citytv affiliate doesn't mean it can't ask for value for signal.
    So, basically...

    If I live in a city of 15,000 souls and my provider is either Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Telus or Bell, tough luck, they will have to pay the local stations but I can opt out from receiving them.
    If I live in a city of 2 million souls and I subscribe to an alternate independant cable provider (think co-op), they don't get to pay the local stations and all stations will keep their must-carry status, delivered to me for free.

    Am I correct?

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    So, basically...

    If I live in a city of 15,000 souls and my provider is either Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Telus or Bell, tough luck, they will have to pay the local stations but I can opt out from receiving them.
    If I live in a city of 2 million souls and I subscribe to an alternate independant cable provider (think co-op), they don't get to pay the local stations and all stations will keep their must-carry status, delivered to me for free.

    Am I correct?
    Nobody said anything about you being able to not subscribe to the local stations.

    I believe the Conservatives have stated they are against local television. The Liberals and the NDP are for local television.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Maybe their taking a risk, maybe its all a show and the decision will be dull down on re-regulating BDUs.


    But for MP's i don't see a list from the link you provide.
    Sorry it seems that was removed, and to be fair this was for supporting Fee for Carriage in the Spring, not value for signal this fall.

    Many MP's did come out to Support local stations this Spring. You can find a bunch of promos at the www.savelocal.ctv.ca website

    CTV British Columbia Thanks MP's
    CTV Calgary Thanks MP's
    CTV Edmonton Thanks MP's
    CTV Winnipeg Thanks MP's
    CTV Ottawa Thanks MP's #1
    CTV Ottawa Thanks MP's #2
    CTV Toronto Thanks MP's
    CTV Southwestern Ontario Thanks MP's
    CTV Montreal Thanks MP's
    CTV Saskatchwean Thanks MP's
    CTV Atlantic & /A\ Atlantic Thank MP's
    /A\ Vancouver Island Thanks MP's
    /A\ Ottawa Thanks MP's
    /A\ Windsor Thanks MP's
    /A\ Barrie Thanks MP's
    /A\ London Thanks MP's
    Last edited by TVViewer; 10-20-2009 at 10:44 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,092
    I believe the Conservatives have stated they are against local television.
    Do you have any proof of that?! Let's say for argument sake they are against local TV, how is this value for signal going to be approved then- you do know that they are currently the governing party?! I think that is why they forced the CRTC to call another hearing in December, they are going to make their own decision on this, overruling the CRTC. That means the Commission's say no longer matters and this whole campaign is fruitless as the government will be making the final decision on this matter NOT the CRTC. Interesting times ahead!

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    So, basically...

    If I live in a city of 15,000 souls and my provider is either Rogers, Shaw, Cogeco, Telus or Bell, tough luck, they will have to pay the local stations but I can opt out from receiving them.
    If I live in a city of 2 million souls and I subscribe to an alternate independant cable provider (think co-op), they don't get to pay the local stations and all stations will keep their must-carry status, delivered to me for free.

    Am I correct?
    No your wrong again. Only independent BDU's serving less than 20,000 subscribers wont have to pay, if you serve more you have to pay for what you take!
    Last edited by TVViewer; 10-20-2009 at 10:26 PM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,840
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    No your wrong again. Only independent BDU's serving less than 20,000 subscribers wont have to pay, if you serve more you have to pay for what you take!
    I'm wrong?

    Aaaah, yeah, I forgot to provide you the definition of a co-op cable provider...
    Basically, a co-op can serve a village of less than 2000 souls or serve a few buildings in a selected area, in any big or small city.

    So, let me rephrase this: If I'm in the big city of 3 millions of souls and subscribe to a start-up cable provider in a limited territory area and they have 5000 customers, they (or I) will not pay a penny for local stations, and I will get them for free?

 

 

Posting Permissions

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