dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
755
share rss forum feed


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico

Yule this Shaw!

For years cable outfits like Rogers and Shaw took OTA broadcasts and redistributed them over their cable systems and (shock) paid ZERO to the broadcasters. Shaw only became a "broadcaster" with real TV stations (commercial as opposed to their profiteering idea of community television) very recently and did so of its own choice.

Shaw wants their cake and eat it too, and your cake and the other guys cake and so on.

The fact that they have decided to charge PPV fees to users that wish to watch a burning yule log on Dec 25 when it costs them next to nothing to broadcast it only highlights how greedy they are.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?


CanadianLuvr

@teksavvy.com
said by fifty nine:

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?

Are you kidding me? Last time I checked Comcast was not losing any money. You will just have to see that the way we get our entertainment is changing, and the old dinosaur model of broadcast TV is going to be extinct soon.


Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
reply to fifty nine

Nasty Americans horning in......

In a word think The National Film Board of Canada. Their budget is somewhere around 80 million a year and they promote the Canadian film industary. But as long as there are those nasty American companies horning in on some of the FBC's revenue streams it isn't fair. One of those revenue streams in a iTunes App from which you can play Canadian movies. Netflix is a big compeditor to this online service, and Google will make it worse. do you notice Apple iTV is not mentioned. This is why in past years people along the border have rented post office box's in the states as a billing address for there Dish Network and Direct TV systems so they can get those shows blocked in the Great White North.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption


Tima

@shawcable.net
reply to fifty nine

Re: Yule this Shaw!

It does not cost them 1-2 dollars per gig,yet they think it is fair for an overage rate.... And trying to justify it is nothing more then an insult to peoples intelligence.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to CanadianLuvr
said by CanadianLuvr :

said by fifty nine:

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?

Are you kidding me? Last time I checked Comcast was not losing any money. You will just have to see that the way we get our entertainment is changing, and the old dinosaur model of broadcast TV is going to be extinct soon.

Nobody said that they are losing money. In fact they are profitable precisely because they price their product appropriately.

As for the "dinosaur model of broadcast TV" going extinct? Hardly. A few cord cutters does not make a revolution. In fact despite the depressed housing market, cable companies are doing quite well.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to Tima
said by Tima :

It does not cost them 1-2 dollars per gig,yet they think it is fair for an overage rate.... And trying to justify it is nothing more then an insult to peoples intelligence.

Then speak with your feet. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you pay.


CanadianLuvr

@teksavvy.com
reply to fifty nine
Those few cord cutters as you put it are what is scaring the pants off of cable companies and why they are resorting to desperate measures like this article.

They know that if the trend keeps up, broadcast TV will be a thing of the past in 10-20 years and we will be using an HBO app on our Google TV to get a program, rather than paying 80 bucks a month for a bunch of channels we don't want.

backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
reply to fifty nine
Where is he going to go? There are 2 choices in Canada and both charge the same.

Inbred Jed9

join:2008-11-28
Peoria, AZ
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

said by Tima :

It does not cost them 1-2 dollars per gig,yet they think it is fair for an overage rate.... And trying to justify it is nothing more then an insult to peoples intelligence.

Then speak with your feet. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you pay.

Or take a lesson from Shaw and go running to the government for advantageous rule-making. Right?


Thane_Bitter
Inquire within
Premium
join:2005-01-20
Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

So are you implying that it costs nothing to run a cable network?

No. I said that it cost them nothing for the content, their equipment and operation costs are paid by those that wish to pay for cable/sat services.

Recently there has been an Astroturf movement dubbed "save local TV". What it boils down to is that private for profit companies are demanding more public money to provide content they have already stopped producing. There are no local TV stations in Canada, each one is wholly owned and operated by one of a handful of media companies (tel/cable). A decade ago the "local" TV station actually produced local shows, programs, and most importantly news (@6, 12 6, 11), today they have a two news broadcasts (6 & 11) which is mostly spiced together network content rehash mixed with some local filler (mostly sports and weather). Frankly the quality is absurdly low (somewhere between a Dog & Pony show or a kindergarten school play) but the only reason it has not been cut is they are required to do this as per regulations. Apparently doing the least is too much, they now expect consumers and the government to give them more money, if they don’t get it they demand that the lowest standard be lowered further.

While you guys have the looming Comcast NBC merger looming, up here the cable and communications companies have already done the same thing. Bell Canada (traditional phone, wireless services) owns stations, a network, and offers Sat and Internet TV along with phone/mobile/Internet services. Rogers (traditional a cable co) owns two networks, several stations (including radio) and offers cable TV/internet/phone services. Shaw also a cable co owns TV stations a network, and offers phone, cable & sat TV products. Cogoco had TV stations but sold them off, and offers cable internet/TV/ phone services. Telus (traditional phone co) has no stations or network but does offer phone/mobile/internet services.

Three companies are the entire TV system in Canada.

The hitch is they are all geographically based so at best you have a choice of one, sometimes two (in large markets) but rarely more then that. More to that is within each area the level of equipment varies so one has even fewer options and because of the total lack of reasonable competition the sky is the limit in how much these companies charge.

Spam spam, or spam which do you choose?

zaco

join:2010-09-27
reply to Thane_Bitter
WELL SAID! this is the best argument in this topic as for now lol, like c'mon! BELL/ROGERS/SHAW used all the TV broadcasters for years and they are still using them without paying them anything.. and when someone came to the market and offered people a cheap solution!! all these big sharks started talking about fairness and about the Canadian businesses hahaha

So if Shaw does believe in fairness and also the CRTC or the other providers.. then why won't they remove the caps and remove the UBB? is that fair? lol the UBB and the caps will destroy all the small isps that depends on unlimited deals...but ofcourse SHAW and the CRTC do not give a shit about them.. it is always about the biggest LOSERS (SHAW/ROGERS/BELL)..