| reply to linicx
Re: Interesting news. I don't understand, it seems the channels providers were asking for a compensation/fee to be given to them from service providers for having the channels in their lineup.
Why would the service providers not be happy?
Now if i understand this correctly, Rogers/Bell/etc don't pay for certain channels but they charge the client a premium to have have them and the studio/network gets squat?
There must be something im missing here |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| The entire system is extremely complicated, and doesn't really involve us at all. However, they will use us (the consumer) to get their points across and to help "make the other guy pay".
Since the distributors are also the carriers as well as the producers, the entire argument is rather silly. |
|
| reply to OverrRyde
said by OverrRyde:Now if i understand this correctly, Rogers/Bell/etc don't pay for certain channels but they charge the client a premium to have have them and the studio/network gets squat?
There must be something im missing here
The channels in question are the channels they broadcast over the air.
When you look at where cable is coming from, it originally was just a way to get the analog signals to your home more cleanly than you could with rabbit ears. You were paying for the run of cable. Then came Pay TV.
Remember, the programming is *paid for* by the advertising we are forced to watch. If they charged Bell/Rogers, then they would just pass the buck on to us anyway, and we'd be double billed for the content.
Now, if they required Rogers to either pay or pass the signal on as-is without the terrible recompression they do, I'd be for that. |
|
|
|
