Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| [ TV] CRTC Supports "fee for carriage"
»www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/reg/···174.html |
|
F Bell
@videotron.ca
| yeah yeah and Bell wanted consumers to pay bell for a satellite dish and box. We all know Bell would work in fee's someway and somehow in addition to this. Or they would milk tax payer money. Cry me a river...
I'd rather pay CBC or CTV directly than pay bell a cent.
Also in relation to this:
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4102/125/
The CRTC has released a decision that sets the requires for the over-the-air transition from analog to digital. The Commission has ruled that conventional broadcasters are expected to convert to digital transmitters in all major markets, which it defines as "the Commission determines that major markets shall include the national capital and all provincial and territorial capital cities, as well as markets either served by multiple originating stations (including CBC stations) or with populations greater than 300,000." The policy excludes Kelowna, Abbotsford, Sudbury, Kingston, and Thunder Bay (among many others). The complete list of mandatory markets includes:
British Columbia: Vancouver, Victoria
Alberta: Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge
Saskatchewan: Regina, Saskatoon
Manitoba: Winnipeg
Ontario: Toronto*, London, Windsor, Kitchener
Quebec: Montréal, Québec, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Rivière-du-Loup, Saguenay
New Brunswick: Saint John, Moncton, Fredericton
Nova Scotia: Halifax
Prince Edward Island: Charlottetown
Newfoundland and Labrador: St. John’s
Yukon: Whitehorse
Northwest Territories: Yellowknife
Nunavut: Iqaluit
National Capital Region (Ottawa-Gatineau)
*Barrie and Hamilton are included in the Toronto market since their stations compete in the Toronto market. |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON | it looks like my cable bill is going to go up about $1.20.  |
|
money saver
@videotron.ca
| 1.20/month versus $100+ equpiment/install plus whatever else Bell would have invented/imagined to scam you with.
Your 1.20 increase for this (if that) is a money saver.
Be happy  |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
 ·Shaw
| reply to Sempronius
I'll write my cable provider a nice letter after I cancel my cable TV. It ( the programming) is worth shit for the most part, but an increase to pay CTV et al? Sorry, I'm not that stupid.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to money saver
said by money saver :1.20/month versus $100+ equpiment/install plus whatever else Bell would have invented/imagined to scam you with. Your 1.20 increase for this (if that) is a money saver. Be happy i am not following you here...how would i have had to pay Bell (well, in my case, Rogers, as i will NEVER subscribe to a Bell service again) $100 for some equipment that i don't need?
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Sempronius
I'm not entirely sure I understand what's going on. I read the BCE post and I'm reading some comments, but there seems to be a lot of predisposed bias that's making it difficult to understand the nature of the issue.
Can someone break it down in a basic explanation? Do carriers have a choice to charge these fees or not, and not carry the local stations? |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny | No, they don't. All the major markets (cities) have to charge the fee. |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to urbanriot
i agree...i don't fully understand it either...i am going to try and flag down sbrook and/or travisc to explain it for us.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
Thane_Bitter
join:2005-01-20
London, ON | reply to Sempronius
Pay more; get less - as far as I know this has been Canada's slogan since we went Metric.
I found the 7 to 14 hours of local programming to be a farce, does that include commercial time? |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Fee for carriage.
The local TV stations want cable operators/TV distributors/satellite companies etc. to pay them to carry their channels.
Of course, what that really means is that they want the general public to pay for their services in another way other than advertising. And what's worse is that this will give the cable companies et al. the opportunity to skim a little more from us by charging us a markup on the fee for carriage they'll pay the TV stations.
It comes down to the apparent problem that advertisers are going away from TV as a good way to advertise their wares, so the local TV stations can't raise enough revenues that way. This is why so many stations do infomercials overnight! During prime time, so much is networked so enough of the network's advertising is from big advertisers and not enough gets distributed to the smaller stations.
It's a bunch of BS really. Instead of solving the advertising problems, they went to the CRTC with this Fee for Carriage thing as an alternate way to get more revenue.
Of course we're already being duped this way with specialty channels now ... we pay for the channel with more cable fees and pay Fee for Carriage (on things like TLC, Discovery etc) and then we see the ads. So this 2 source revenue generator already exists. The precedent is set ... so locals wanted in on the action ... and with the "Save Local TV" campaigns and presenting it that way, instead of telling the truth and saying that the marketing of advertising isn't working for them and fixing that, they petitioned the CRTC to scam us.
The CRTC bought it. Of course the CRTC bought it like so many other things brought to them lately and they're doing it in the name of competition. (Leveling the playing field with the cable channels) |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | Thanks, that helped. Do the television providers have a choice to carry these local stations, or are they forced to pass on this 'tax' and carry the station? |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
·Shaw
| reply to Sempronius
A question I am yet again forced to ask is: why are we being forced to pay for network upgrades, which are assets that are tax write-offs? We're getting it up the chute twice.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to urbanriot
Yes, they are forced to carry local channels for cable especially.
It's not really even a "tax" ... it's a charge invented by the local TV station and agreed to by the TV station and cable operator. Since the money collected doesn't go to any kind of gov't agency it's not a tax. It's kind of like the damnable system access fee. They charge it because they can. The CRTC gave them the ability to charge the Cable operator ... the cable operator will collect it from us. |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Sempronius
ah man...now that i know what it is, it really sucks...i kind of wished i didn't know anymore...you know, "ignorance is bliss". 
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to Its a Secret
Network upgrades are not a part of this issue.
This is solely about fees for programming created by local stations, and fees to local stations because their cable operator carries them TO subscribers.
Of course, the fact that cable ensures that advertisers get their message to MORE subscribers doesn't seem to face this stupid error in judgement. |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
·Shaw
1 edit | said by sbrook  :Network upgrades are not a part of this issue. Agreed, but this is part of how it was framed: quote:
The CRTC has released a decision that sets the requires for the over-the-air transition from analog to digital.
How would you view that statement? But of course, this is a blanket coverage fee increase I would say, but without the debate or backlash from the mainstream consumer.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous |
|
mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON
| That statement makes no grammatical sense.
Has CRTC finally laid the groundwork for the migration of analog OTA to digital OTA by August 2011? Is that what that means?
In any event, the fee-for-carriage is yet another reason for me to cancel my Rogers cable service. Everything I watch is pretty much OTA which I am able to receive quite readily in this area. YMMV of course.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Sempronius
from what i am seeing in here (albeit a limited number of responses), this seems to hurt the carriers the most...people are saying "I am going to cut back on my packages!", "I am going to cut my cable/satellite service and go OTA"...the recipients of the fee have nothing to lose and everything gain...the carriers have everything to lose and nothing to gain...i can see why they were against it.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
Jazdi
join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON
| reply to Sempronius
The problem with the local stations charging cable companies for carriage is that they already give away their product for free over the air. Why should they be able to sell something that they're already giving away for free? If anything, the local TV stations should be paying the cable companies for distributing their product for them! |
|
