M.Dancer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 As for every other station on cable. Pick only the stations you want and just pay for them. Back in the 80s robert fulford had an column in the Financial Times of Canada about the just approved practice of cable companies adding channels to the line up and of course adding it to your bill. The CRTC is the cab;e company's best friend he argued. Could you imagine, or would you imagine, a print publisher deciding they were going to start a publication about..high culture..and start sending you a monthly magazine and billing you for it? Of course you would refuse to pay....what if refusing to pay meant you would get no mail? That's the barrel that cable has over us schmucks. We get crap we don't want, for the 10 channels we do....and if we decide to tell them to piss off...it rabbit ears time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 If they did it it would probably remove some of the crap stations I tried of paying high prices to have the same show running on 20 different channels at the same time, whats the point of haveing a hundred channels if a quarter of them run the same show from one us network, another show is aired by another quarter of the stations from a different US network. to get the 9 channels I watch and the three the kids watch I have to take 8 diffent packages from the provider. I don't want the rest. I want history, discovery, space, fox news, cnn, Fox network, comedy, cbs, military channel, Family channel, ytv and teletoon If you think local news coverage is the most import thing on then you pay for it, I am happy getting my local news from other medias like the radio and the newspaper. I agree that I pay for a lot of stations that don't interest me but many would consider a lot of the stations you prefer to be crap as well. If only 10% of the population liked the same stations as you, would you be prepared to pay 90% more to get them? It swings both ways my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I agree that I pay for a lot of stations that don't interest me but many would consider a lot of the stations you prefer to be crap as well. If only 10% of the population liked the same stations as you, would you be prepared to pay 90% more to get them? It swings both ways my friend. yes I would be be willing to pay a little more for the stations I watch, not to have all the crap and duplication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Okay a show of hands... ..who would pay 25 cents a month for APTN? ..25 cents a month for the shopping channel? ..25 cents a month for the other shopping channel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 yes I would be be willing to pay a little more for the stations I watch, not to have all the crap and duplication. How much is a little more? After all, if only 10% watch the channels you like, why should the other 90% pay your way so the cable company can get the feed that just supplies what you want? I'm on satellite and I like the duplication just fine, I can watch the same show in five different time zones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Okay a show of hands... ..who would pay 25 cents a month for APTN? ..25 cents a month for the shopping channel? ..25 cents a month for the other shopping channel? Are you sure you are paying extra for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Are you sure you are paying extra for them? yes they since they are in the package, nothing is free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Are you sure you are paying extra for them? You don't have a choice. You pay for bandwidth and the band width they give you is what you get. As far as APTN goes,it gets the majority of it's operating cost through subscriber fees....that is, invooluntary subscriber fees which come directly from the cable subscriber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 You don't have a choice. You pay for bandwidth and the band width they give you is what you get. As far as APTN goes,it gets the majority of it's operating cost through subscriber fees....that is, invooluntary subscriber fees which come directly from the cable subscriber. I suspect that shows like the shopping channel actually pay the cable company. They have no business without them. I wonder how many other cable channels are in the same position. It would be interesting to know what the cable companies pay for each of their feeds but I doubt they are going to tell us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 yes they since they are in the package, nothing is free. Free to who, you or the cable company? That seems to be the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Free to who, you or the cable company? That seems to be the issue here. The cable company colects the money from you, takes their % and passes the rest to the content provider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 The cable company colects the money from you, takes their % and passes the rest to the content provider. Apparently not, only some providers. Isn't that the issue here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Free to who, you or the cable company? That seems to be the issue here. The consumer will pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 The consumer will pay. Pay for what? If the cable company isn't paying for a feed, why should you? Their infrastructure costs are the same regardless of how many channels they carry. I'm not going to say this won't cost me anything but the biggest problem here is lack of competition. Rogers and Shaw call the shots because no one else is allowed into the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Pay for what? If the cable company isn't paying for a feed, why should you? Their infrastructure costs are the same regardless of how many channels they carry. I'm not going to say this won't cost me anything but the biggest problem here is lack of competition. Rogers and Shaw call the shots because no one else is allowed into the market. You obviously don't understand business, the cable companies will pass on the cost to the consumer, it works like that in any business if you increase operating costs the company passes those costs onto the consumer. That is how capitalism works, no matter what raise corporate taxes, ad levelies or regulation, any added cost of business is always passed on to the consumer hence, the consumer will pay, I'm surprised you have never heard that phrase before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 No matter which side wins this debate the cable providers or the networks the consumer loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 You obviously don't understand business, the cable companies will pass on the cost to the consumer, it works like that in any business if you increase operating costs the company passes those costs onto the consumer. That is how capitalism works, no matter what raise corporate taxes, ad levelies or regulation, any added cost of business is always passed on to the consumer hence, the consumer will pay, I'm surprised you have never heard that phrase before. The consumer only pays more than they should if there is no competition. I'm surprised you haven't heard of that. If a company can pass on a cost to maintain profits, it will. If it can't in order to maintain market share, it won't. You assume these companies will have to pass on those costs to maintain profitability. What portion of their costs do they pay for feeds? Any idea? Perhaps it would be good to know before making assumptions. How much do I pay so you can watch the channels you like? The problem is this is a controlled and regulated industry. If one cable company decided on its own to pay for local content without passing on the cost, I wonder how long before the other did the same in order to remain competitive. Trouble is they don't have to because the CRTC makes the rules and whoever has the most clout with the CRTC determines the rules they will write. Don't kid yourself, this is a contest to influence the CRTC, not a free market exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Last time I looked at a cable brochure, it seems to me that all the packages consisted of adding one channel I wanted, combined with a whole bunch I didn't. Somehow they'd arranged everything so that to get the handful of extra-service channels I wanted, I'd have had to buy all of their channel packages. huh. Surely in the new digital age we have the technology to allow consumers to buy the channels they want? I bet that if everything on cable was subscriber choice, local TV channels would get a lot more buyers than a lot of the ridiculous channels in these packages. But if one guy wants to watch Car Crash TV, and somebody wants to watch Crap From The Seventies TV, and somebody wants to watch Garden Snail TV, and somebody wants to watch Celebrity Worship TV, and somebody wants to watch Crimesploitation TV... well, all 5 of those people have to buy all 5 of those channels (and several more of them.) As a result, each one of those bullshit channels has 5 times the subscriber base they actually deserve. Or more likely, almost nobody wants to watch any of those stupid channels, and all 5 of them are coat-tailing on a more popular channel that's been put in that package to boost sales. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 The consumer only pays more than they should if there is no competition. I'm surprised you haven't heard of that. If a company can pass on a cost to maintain profits, it will. If it can't in order to maintain market share, it won't. You assume these companies will have to pass on those costs to maintain profitability. What portion of their costs do they pay for feeds? Any idea? Perhaps it would be good to know before making assumptions. How much do I pay so you can watch the channels you like? The problem is this is a controlled and regulated industry. If one cable company decided on its own to pay for local content without passing on the cost, I wonder how long before the other did the same in order to remain competitive. Trouble is they don't have to because the CRTC makes the rules and whoever has the most clout with the CRTC determines the rules they will write. Don't kid yourself, this is a contest to influence the CRTC, not a free market exercise. You actually think that is the case? I would very much like it to be a free enterprise system, I would gladly pay a little more to have the station I wanted to watch, if their was not enough veiwership they would die. Let the market dictate. I know it is an exercise to influence the CRTC and that is why the consumer will lose, the CRTC doesn't care about the consumer, just social engineering project they are engaged in. \ The problem is the industry is too regulated, let the consumer have the choice, not the moron bureaucrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Wilber is right. If we picked fewer channels, the satellite and cable companies would still have to pay for their entire lineup. We'd end up paying the same (or more) and getting less for it. I hadn't ever thought of that before. We're probably better off leaving it the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 For a guy who says he hasn't watched TV since Barney Miller went off the air, you seem to have a strong opinion on the subject... I never really liked Barney Miller. The last TV show I liked well enough to actually try and make sure I didn't miss it was West Wing. That doesn't mean I don't keep at least somewhat of an eye on what's being shown. And very little of it attracts me. You don't see local news as being of any value? I do. It's about the only thing I regularly watch. I'm pointing out that nothing else on "local" TV is local. Most of their shows are American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Really sick of seeing and hearing all the commercials about the cable/satellite tv tax the CRTC has imposed. They're all so self-righteous and deceptive, and treat us all like morons they can easily manipulate into supporting their side. As I understand it, the government imposed a tax on the cable/satellite companies some years back, but then it expired. The cable/satellite companies have continued to charge us, however, and pocketed the money. Now the crtc has imposed another tax, with money to go to local television operators. Now from where I sit, both sides are crooks and screwing us over. The TV stations have lived on a model of selling advertising to pay for their services. That model has not changed. None plans to stop selling ads. But now they've managed to convince the government to steal some more money from us by saying the cable companies ought to pay for carrying their channels. But all the cable companies are doing is helping people get better reception of an existing channel. I mean, it doesn't cost the TV stations anything, and, in fact gets them more viewers. Of course, now that we're going all digital - again by government mandate - you won't be able to get any of them without cable/satellite. By what right do they claim the cable companies ought to be paying for carrying their stations? Suppose the cable companies said "Fine, we won't carry you any more". That would pretty much wipe out any station now, right? Does that mean the cable companies ought to be able to charge the TV networks for carrying their shows? Of course, the government again insists cable/satellite carry these stations. The Cable/Satellite people. They snivel about the new tax, while still charging us the old one, and claiming it's for "infrastructure improvements" or somesuch. Lying bastards. They have promised to pass along every cent of the new tax (and probably more, knowing them). And if this tax is temporary, as the CRTC says, will they ever stop charging us? For my money, instead of contacting the CRTC we should be calling our local MPs and giving them an earful for increasing our taxes to help increase the profits for these people. Wasn't getting rid of all this regulation one of Harper's pledges? You're on a roll of late. Is it the new forum? Is it because it looks so much better, your posts have improved? Have you lost your biting sarcasm and replaced it with hard edge discussion on issues? Seriously, I didn't know the background on this until you pointed it out. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 You're on a roll of late. Is it the new forum? Is it because it looks so much better, your posts have improved? Have you lost your biting sarcasm and replaced it with hard edge discussion on issues? Seriously, I didn't know the background on this until you pointed it out. Thanks. It seems there are indeed a few citizens already wise to the reality of the game. The is a very clear picture being painted for any who care to actually see what is on the canvas. The wealth transfer continues as more taxes are being paid to governments and more debt is accumulated by governments. As citizens watch their disposable income decrease they see their consuming power compromised. Little bit by little bit the numbers stack up against the citizens, higher taxes and decreased services is where they are headed and they know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 This boils down to another intellectual property fight. Do television stations deserve to be compensated when others make money from using their product? On one hand we have the TV stations saying they won't be able to survive if they are not and on the other hand we have the cable companies saying that to compensate them would amount to some kind of tax. I fail to see how it could be a tax if the revenue is not going to government but I digress. Neither has provided a detailed accounting to back up their claims, we are just supposed to take their word for it. I agree that it will probably end up costing us more but will it be because they have to, or just because they can. My money goes on the later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I'd love to be able to pay for content that I want and only the content I want. If I can choose a package of 20 channels and pay a fee, then sweet. The technology is there to provide this service. And from the cable end, it is super easy to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.