Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: SUN News

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    But that only works for local stations on local cable companies. What about the satellite systems? It's not realistic or fair to force them and their customers to carry and pay for every single redundant Canadian over-the-air station. And if they can drop all but one or two affiliates of each network, I presume they would, and therefore every other OTA station in Canada could find itself in the same boat as CKX.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    But that only works for local stations on local cable companies. What about the satellite systems? It's not realistic or fair to force them and their customers to carry and pay for every single redundant Canadian over-the-air station. And if they can drop all but one or two affiliates of each network, I presume they would, and therefore every other OTA station in Canada could find itself in the same boat as CKX.
    It is NOT just for cable companies, re-read the the CRTC decision, they don't have separate rules for satellite providers.

    I agree that it is not fair to force customers to pay for every OTA station, just because satellite companies will be required to carry every station doesn't mean that customers will be required to subscribe to every local station, they can make a set of different packages for each province, ect..

    Don't you think the broadcasters and the CRTC thought of this? This rule is in place to stop what you just said would likely happen.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 07-28-2010 at 11:59 AM.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    I'll add that part of what I meant when I typed that it will not be realistic to force the satellite systems to carry every redundant Canadian network station is also a technical issue. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm guessing it may not be technically feasible for them to carry every station they presently carry in SD (standard definition) in HD, and I think it's safe to assume most or all remaining SD OTA and specialty channels will want to be seen in HD within the next 2 or 3 years.

    And if the satellite systems do get to choose which OTA stations they carry, I'd guess they would rather pick up a unique one like CHCH over yet another local affiliate of a broadcast network carrying largely the same programming already on other stations.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 07-28-2010 at 06:43 PM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Anyways, here is a interview with the man behind the curtain of SunTV News, Mr. Kory Teneycke. HERE


    I'm not going to post the whole article here, but here is a excerpt of what he recommend to a high school student during the 2010 Manning Networking Conference i thought it was....creepy.:(

    Quote Originally Posted by The Globe and Mail
    He also signalled that he's prepared to use his editorial powers to target some of the bête noires of the Canadian right. “If you have a teacher or examples of teachers who are trying to jam lefty philosophy down your throat, please send me an e-mail,” Mr. Teneycke told a high-school student at the March conference. “I'd love to make them famous.”
    Ok, I understand they want a "Conservative" viewpoint. But denying that his network is going to be Fox News style channel but at the same time he seem to be gearing up for a witch hunt of left-wing teachers/professors is kind of contraction to the first argument.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Anyways, here is a interview with the man behind the curtain of SunTV News, Mr. Kory Teneycke. HERE


    I'm not going to post the whole article here, but here is a excerpt of what he recommend to a high school student during the 2010 Manning Networking Conference i thought it was....creepy.:(
    Man I smell some awesome youtube material coming from this channel. Sucks that we still don't have a Canadian Daily Show to make fun of these douchebags. Rick Mercer is pretty meh.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    On the subject of "category 1", is this article correct in stating that all news and sports channels will lose their "must carry" status anyway in September 2011, just over a year from now?

    There's going to have to be a lot of things decided over the next few months regarding the new rules of what channels (specialty and over-the-air) the BDUs must carry or may drop if they decide are not worth what the broadcasters demand, and then in turn how much choice we the consumers are given over the packages and/or individual channels we can choose to receive and pay for. A large part of Bell TV's basic service is dozens of redundant Canadian broadcast network stations from across the country. I don't see how Bell TV could realistically be forced to continue carrying all of them and require every customer to pay for all of them, as it would make their basic rate much higher than a cable company that had only its local channels.

    But if over-the-air channels can be dropped by BDUs, what incentive is there for the broadcasters to stay in the OTA business? We've already had the Brandon station CKX disappear because it wasn't on the satellite systems, and I could see Bell and Shaw Direct dropping all but one eastern and western affiliate of each network if they had to pay for every individual station. Or, If consumers are given the "a la carte" option to refuse any fee-receiving channel, then presumably a lot of the small market local stations and less popular specialty channels may not survive.

    You're getting a few things confused here. Yes, as of September 2011, news networks with Cat. 1 licenses will loose their mandatory carry status. That's why Sun News is applying for a Temp Cat 1 license only to give them a fair playing field with the already established news networks that have had this Cat 1 privliage for many years.

    This law change doesn't include local stations. Local OTA stations are not news channels, they are local service channels. The current law states that cable companies must carry all local channels in the area. Sat BDUs are different. Their rules state that they must carry 1 channel, per network, per province. This is why, for example, in Saskatchewan, Bell carries Global Saskatoon and CTV Regina. That way they have the two main networks, one serving Regina, the other serving Saskatoon. This law is not set to change.

  7. #47
    A great discussion on Sun News on CFRA in Ottawa:

    http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/lb_jul_29_2010.mp3

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    You're the one needlessly confusing things. Please read carefully. I was not talking about the present rules. I know what those are. What I was talking about was how those existing rules may have to be changed to apply after August 2011, because other relevant rules will change, likely including over-the-air channels being able to receive fees from BDUs as the recent CRTC decision suggested, if the court agrees that it's okay. And the CRTC had already decided that the mandatory packaging of specialty channels will also end on that date. Understand?

    If BDUs and broadcasters must negotiate fees to agree on carriage of channels (OTA or specialty), presumably some BDUs may therefore not carry some channels, and therefore a "must carry" status would presumably no longer apply, except for local OTA channels that elect to continue receiving free BDU carriage. And so far, with the exception Quebecor(Videotron), I have not heard any BDUs make any statements regarding if they are considering any changes to the way they require customers to receive certain specialty channels in packages.
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 07-31-2010 at 10:14 AM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,140
    Quote Originally Posted by SUN_Guy View Post
    Sat BDUs are different. Their rules state that they must carry 1 channel, per network, per province. This is why, for example, in Saskatchewan, Bell carries Global Saskatoon and CTV Regina.
    How is that true? Bell only just added Global Montreal, which is Global's only station in Quebec, several months ago. And Shaw Direct doesn't carry Global's Maritime station. I think you may be referring to the rule that states satellite carriers must carry one station, per province regarding CBC and Radio-Canada. I think that's the rule anyway. That's why Shaw Direct had to add CBC Regina after they removed it.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    You're the one needlessly confusing things. Please read carefully. I was not talking about the present rules. I know what those are. What I was talking about was how those existing rules may have to be changed to apply after August 2011, because other relevant rules will change, likely including over-the-air channels being able to receive fees from BDUs as the recent CRTC decision suggested, if the court agrees that it's okay. And the CRTC had already decided that the mandatory packaging of specialty channels will also end on that date. Understand?

    If BDUs and broadcasters must negotiate fees to agree on carriage of channels (OTA or specialty), presumably some BDUs may therefore not carry some channels, and therefore a "must carry" status would presumably no longer apply, except for local OTA channels that elect to continue receiving free BDU carriage. And so far, with the exception Quebecor(Videotron), I have not heard any BDUs make any statements regarding if they are considering any changes to the way they require customers to receive certain specialty channels in packages.
    Your post only mentioned 2011 when you were referring to the News channels so I didn't realize you were still talking about 2011 when you mentioned the OTAs.

    Right now there's been no word on dropping the mandatory carriage for OTAs. I can see why that wouldn't be fair to BDUs because they'll have to negotiate a fee without being able to have the option of pulling the station if things aren't going well.

    At the same time, to give the BDUs that type of power wouldn't be fair the the viewers as we would loose our stations because the two sides aren't co-operating.

    It seems the CRTC may have a few more issues to deal with between now and then to even the playing field once their decision is approved by the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    How is that true? Bell only just added Global Montreal, which is Global's only station in Quebec, several months ago. And Shaw Direct doesn't carry Global's Maritime station. I think you may be referring to the rule that states satellite carriers must carry one station, per province regarding CBC and Radio-Canada. I think that's the rule anyway. That's why Shaw Direct had to add CBC Regina after they removed it.
    Bad choice of words. Right now the rule is per Region. Soon to be per Province according to this:
    http://www.mediacastermagazine.com/i...aid=1000364731 (In the Introduction)

    Apparently everything from Ontario east is considered one region (I think it's because of the large majority of French in Quebec making English stations a minority) which is why Global Montreal wasn't available until recently because they had Global Ontario.

    CBC Regina is the only CBC station in the Saskatchewan region, there is no Saskatoon station, and that's why Shaw Direct had to bring it back.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto area
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by SUN_Guy View Post
    ...Right now there's been no word on dropping the mandatory carriage for OTAs. I can see why that wouldn't be fair to BDUs because they'll have to negotiate a fee without being able to have the option of pulling the station if things aren't going well.

    At the same time, to give the BDUs that type of power wouldn't be fair the the viewers as we would loose our stations because the two sides aren't co-operating...
    Unfortunately for us (the consumers in Canada), I'd guess that the most likely arrangement will end up involving mandatory carriage of OTA stations remaining the same as it is now, while simply increasing our basic cable bills. There will probably be some relatively standardized set amount imposed if they can't negotiate a carriage agreement on their own. The excuse would be that it avoids all the confusion of the U.S. type of situation with black outs and channels possibly being dropped. And it would encourage continued or even increased OTA broadcasting, since their signals reaching more people would mean more mandatory carriage on more cable systems, and therefore more guaranteed money rolling in every month for both the BDUs and the broadcasters. Any other type of set up would actually discourage them from broadcasting a freely available OTA signal. It stinks that in order to get any of the other channels we want, which is why we get cable in the first place, we're probably going to be forced to also pay for all the ones we can get for nothing with an antenna. But the CRTC has already demonstrated their attitude is "too bad, we're going to make you pay more and there's nothing you can do about it."
    Last edited by Donovan's Monkey; 08-07-2010 at 02:01 PM.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Donovan's Monkey View Post
    It stinks that in order to get any of the other channels we want, which is why we get cable in the first place, we're probably going to be forced to also pay for all the ones we can get for nothing with an antenna. But the CRTC has already demonstrated their attitude is "too bad, we're going to make you pay more and there's nothing you can do about it."
    You have to keep in mind the whole time shifting issue though. OTA stations in the West were loosing money when viewers were receiving the station 2 or 3 hours earlier from the east. This cost the cable companies nothing to offer, yet would charge it to their customers as a package.

    What about the $30 or so a month for basic cable. I know maintaining the service and laying down cables and stuff is costly, but nowhere near that bad. Cable companies are making record profits during a recession. The CRTC may be implementing these new rules, but the cable companies, who can easily afford them, are the ones being too greedy to give up their huge revenue source and are passing it to the consumer.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    871
    ^
    You make it sound like it's the channels on the side of the customer? If that's the case why haven't they been requesting new repeater approvals so viewers wouldn't need cable to watch OTA stations? I live 2 hrs away from SunTV HQ yet can't pull in the dtv signal and even the analog is fuzzyy as heak.

    The truth is both sides (the nets and BDUs) are playing the customer quite nicely in regards to basic.

  14. #54
    Looks like Sun News may get a mandatory carriage without a CAT 1 license

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-629.htm

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,140
    Quote Originally Posted by SUN_Guy View Post
    Looks like Sun News may get a mandatory carriage without a CAT 1 license

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-629.htm
    Yeah, there's no chance in hell they are going to give Sun News mandatory carriage on digital basic. It's just another news channel with some opinion in primetime. The analog news channnels won't even be mandatory to even carry after August 2011, except for CBC News Network in French markets and RDI in English markets which they will still be mandatory on basic digital. So if that's what Sun News is putting their hopes on, then they will surely be disappointed. Not to mention, during their whole PR campaign, they were totting all along how they were not looking to be part of the mandatory basic package because that would be against their conservative beliefs and that everyone should pick individually for their channels, instead, they just wanted to be mandated to simply carry the channel and consumers choose to subscribe if they wanted. How silly will they look if they then go after a mandatory basic carriage licence.

    In conclusion, it's not going to happen!

 

 

Posting Permissions

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