All those damned cable and tv tax commercials

[Argus]

This boils down to another intellectual property fight. Do television stations deserve to be compensated when others make money from using their product?

I don't know. To me it smacks of large web sites like Amazon or Ebay or Google demanding ISPs pay them for the privilage of letting their customers have access.

I mean, without the ISPs, just how do Amazon, Ebay and Google think their product is going to get to anyone to buy?

In that sense, they take advantage of the access ISPs provide and hope to make themselves attractive and useful enough to make a profit.

The TV stations/networks are really no different except it's cable/satellite companies giving people access. And of course, we have less choice in what we access due to government restriction.

[jdobbin]

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.

It is possible to do that. However, the cable companies say that without packaging, they would be compelled to sell the channels at anywhere from $10 to $20 per channel as they have mentioned in CRTC hearings. Want only 20 channels and pay maybe $100 to $200. At least that is what they have threatened when called to explain their packaging.

[Argus]

It is possible to do that. However, the cable companies say that without packaging, they would be compelled to sell the channels at anywhere from $10 to $20 per channel as they have mentioned in CRTC hearings. Want only 20 channels and pay maybe $100 to $200. At least that is what they have threatened when called to explain their packaging.

They've been screwing us over since Ted Rogers laid his first cable. Have a look at what you get in the US for about what I'm paying now. The lineup they make available is a hell of a lot better than what i see from any Canadian cable or satellite operator.

1 Channel 1 On Demand ON DEMAND HD ON

2 WPBT-2 (PBS Miami) News & Info

3 WBFS-33 (My Network TV Miami) News & Info

4 WFOR-4 (CBS Miami) News & Info HD ON

5 QVC Help & Services

6 WTVJ-6 (NBC Miami) News & Info

7 WSVN-7 (FOX Miami) News & Info

8 WGEN-Gen TV Multicultural

9 WLTV-23 (Univision Miami) Multicultural

10 WPLG-10 (ABC Miami) News & Info

11 WSFL-39 (CW Network Miami) News & Info

12 Comcast Community Channel Help & Services

13 WSCV-51 (Telemundo Miami) Multicultural

14 C-SPAN News & Info

15 WJAN-41 (America TeVe) Multicultural

16 WPXM-35 (ION Miami) News & Info

17 WLRN-17 (PBS Miami) News & Info

19 WBEC-63 (BECON) News & Info

20 WXEL-42 (PBS West Palm Beach) News & Info

21 WHFT-45 (TBN Miami) News & Info

22 WSBS-22 Mega TV News & Info

23 WAMI-69 (Telefutura Hollywood) Multicultural

25 WGN News & Info

26 HSN Help & Services

27 The Weather Channel News & Info

28 CNN News & Info HD ON

29 CNN Headline News News & Info

30 MSNBC News & Info

31 CNBC News & Info

32 FOX News News & Info

33 Tru TV News & Info HD ON

34 ESPN Sports HD ON

35 ESPN2 Sports

36 Golf Channel Sports HD ON

37 Versus Sports HD ON

38 SunSports Sports

39 FSN Florida Sports

40 Speed Sports HD ON

42 TNT Lifestyle HD ON

43 TBS Children & Family HD ON

44 FX Lifestyle

45 USA Children & Family

47 AMC Movies

48 TV Land Children & Family

49 Jewelry TV

50 Nickelodeon Children & Family HD ON

51 Disney Channel Children & Family

52 Cartoon Network Children & Family HD ON

53 ABC Family Children & Family

54 Animal Planet Children & Family HD ON

55 Discovery Channel Children & Family HD ON

56 TLC News & Info HD ON

57 Travel Channel Lifestyle HD ON

58 E! Lifestyle HD ON

59 Style Lifestyle HD ON

60 Food Network Lifestyle HD ON

61 HGTV Lifestyle HD ON

62 Lifetime Lifestyle

63 Spike Lifestyle

64 A&E Lifestyle HD ON

65 History Children & Family

66 Bravo! Lifestyle

67 Comedy Central Lifestyle HD ON

68 Syfy Lifestyle

69 MTV Music HD ON

70 CMT Music HD ON

71 VH1 Music HD ON

72 BET Music HD ON

75 EWTN/NJT Lifestyle

78 Government Access News & Info

79 Leased Access News & Info

102 ESPNews Sports

103 Discovery Health News & Info HD ON

104 C-SPAN2 News & Info

105 C-SPAN3 News & Info

106 FOX Business News & Info

107 Current TV News & Info

108 FOX Reality Lifestyle

109 National Geographic News & Info HD ON

110 Science Channel News & Info HD ON

111 Investigation Discovery News & Info HD ON

112 Military Channel Lifestyle HD ON

113 Planet Green Lifestyle

114 BBC America Lifestyle HD ON

115 bio. Children & Family HD ON

116 History International Children & Family

117 WE tv Lifestyle

118 Style

119 Lifetime Movie Network Lifestyle

120 SoapNet Lifestyle

121 DIY Network Lifestyle HD ON

122 Fine Living Lifestyle HD ON

123 Oxygen Lifestyle HD ON

128 PBS KIDS Sprout Children & Family HD ON

129 Nicktoons Network Children & Family

130 Discovery Kids Children & Family HD ON

131 Nick Jr. Children & Family HD ON

132 Nick Too Children & Family

133 The N Children & Family

134 Encore Wam Children & Family

135 Disney XD Children & Family

137 Hallmark Channel Movies HD ON

139 MTV Hits Music HD ON

140 MTV2 Music HD ON

141 MTV Tr3s Music

142 MTV Jams Music HD ON

143 VH1 Classic Music

144 VH1 Soul Music

145 CMT Pure Country Music

148 Fuse Music

149 MoviePlex Movies

150 Encore Movies

152 Encore Action Movies

154 Encore Mystery Movies

156 Encore Love Movies

158 Encore Drama Movies

160 Encore Westerns Movies

162 G4 Lifestyle HD ON

163 Logo Lifestyle HD ON

164 IFC Movies

165 Sundance Movies HD ON

166 FEARnet ON DEMAND

167 Encore IndiePlex Movies

168 Encore RetroPlex Movies

169 Turner Classic Movies Movies HD ON

170 Flix Movies

173 TV One Multicultural

177 TV Guide Network Help & Services HD ON

179 GSN Children & Family

180 NFL Network Sports HD ON

182 Fit TV Lifestyle

186 ShopNBC Help & Services

188 Jewelry TV Help & Services

189 Gospel Music Channel Music

201 WPBT V-me News & Info

202 WPBT Create News & Info

209 WPLG - LATV News & Info

216 WTVJ - NBC Weather Plus News & Info

220 WSVN Estrella

224 Azteca America

241 Daystar Lifestyle

243 EWTN Lifestyle

245 Inspirational Life Lifestyle

247 The Word Network Lifestyle

251 Bloomberg TV News & Info HD ON

256 Hallmark Movie Channel

257 Retirement Living TV Lifestyle

277 Comcast Sports Southeast Sports

279 MLB Network Sports

302 HBO Movies HD ON

303 HBO 2 Movies HD ON

304 HBO Signature Movies HD ON

305 HBO Family Movies HD ON

306 HBO Comedy Movies HD ON

307 HBO West Movies HD ON

311 HBO Zone Movies HD ON

312 HBO Latino Movies

320 Cinemax Movies HD ON

321 MoreMAX Movies HD ON

322 Cinemax West Movies

324 ActionMAX Movies HD ON

325 ThrillerMAX Movies HD ON

327 WMAX Movies

328 @MAX Movies

329 5StarMAX Movies

336 Showtime Family Movies HD ON

340 Showtime Movies HD ON

341 Showtime Too Movies HD ON

342 Showtime Showcase Movies HD ON

347 Showtime Extreme Movies HD ON

350 The Movie Channel Movies HD ON

352 The Movie Channel Xtra Movies HD ON

370 Starz Movies HD ON

371 Starz Edge Movies HD ON

372 Starz In Black Movies HD ON

373 Starz Kids & Family Movies HD ON

374 Starz Cinema Movies HD ON

375 Starz Comedy Movies HD ON

401 FSN Florida HD High-Definition TV

402 Sun Sports HD

403 ESPN HD High-Definition TV

404 ESPN2 HD High-Definition TV

405 Golf HD High-Definition TV

406 NFL Network HD High-Definition TV

407 TNT HD High-Definition TV

409 Universal HD High-Definition TV

410 A&E HD High-Definition TV

411 Palladia HD High-Definition TV

412 HD Theater High-Definition TV

413 National Geographic HD High-Definition TV

414 Food Network HD High-Definition TV

415 HGTV HD High-Definition TV

416 HBO HD High-Definition TV

417 Cinemax HD High-Definition TV

418 Showtime HD High-Definition TV

419 Starz HD High-Definition TV

420 USA HD High-Definition TV

421 TBS HD High-Definition TV

422 History HD High-Definition TV

423 CNN HD High-Definition TV

424 Discovery HD High-Definition TV

425 TLC HD High-Definition TV

426 Animal Planet HD High-Definition TV

427 Sci-Fi HD High-Definition TV

428 FOX News HD High-Definition TV

429 AMC HD High-Definition TV

431 WPLG-10 HD (ABC Miami) High-Definition TV

432 WTVJ-6 HD (NBC Miami) High-Definition TV

433 WFOR-4 HD (CBS Miami) High-Definition TV

434 WSVN-7 HD (FOX Miami) High-Definition TV

435 WSFL-39 HD (CW Network Miami) High-Definition TV

436 WBFS-33 HD (My Network TV Miami) High-Definition TV

437 WPXM-35 HD (ION Miami) High-Definition TV

438 WSBS-22 Mega TV HD

440 WPBT-2 HD (PBS Miami) High-Definition TV

444 ABC Family HD High-Definition TV

445 Disney Channel HD High-Definition TV

446 Science Channel HD High-Definition TV

448 Versus HD High-Definition TV

450 Speed HD High-Definition TV

451 FX HD High-Definition TV

478 NBA TV HD

501 - 503 iN DEMAND Pay-Per-View Pay-Per-View

509 iN DEMAND PPV HD High-Definition TV

540 Adult On Demand Pay-Per-View

543 Playboy

544 Playboy Pay-Per-View

545 Fresh! Pay-Per-View

548 Club Jenna Pay-Per-View

549 Penthouse Pay-Per-View

580 Photo Classified News & Info

601 Discovery en Español Multicultural

602 CNN en Español Multicultural

603 FOX Sports en Español Multicultural

604 Disney XD (SAP) Multicultural

605 MTV Tr3s Multicultural

606 History en Español Multicultural

608 CineLatino Multicultural

609 VeneMovies Multicultural

610 Cine Mexicano Multicultural

612 ESPN Deportes Multicultural

615 HTV Musica Multicultural

618 TV Dominicana Multicultural

621 Gran Cine

622 GOL TV Multicultural

626 Sur Peru Multicultural

627 TV Venezuela Multicultural

628 Canal Sur Multicultural

630 TV Colombia Multicultural

631 TV Chile Multicultural

636 mun2 Multicultural

637 EWTN en Español Multicultural

642 WPLG - LATV Multicultural

647 Telefe Multicultural

650 WAPA América Multicultural

651 TVE Internacional Multicultural

682 TV Globo Multicultural

689 CaribeVisión Multicultural

702 - 707 ESPN GamePlan Pay-Per-View

721 TV Games Sports

722 ESPNews Sports

723 FOX College Sports Atlantic Sports

724 FOX College Sports Central Sports

725 FOX College Sports Pacific Sports

726 ESPN Classic Sports

728 FOX Soccer Sports

731 Outdoor Channel Sports HD ON

734 NBA TV Sports HD ON

735 ESPN U Sports

737 Tennis Channel Sports

739 NHL Network Sports

741 Fuel TV Sports

742 Big Ten Network Sports HD ON

743 NFL RedZone Sports

750 - 759 NBA Pay-Per-View Pay-Per-View

760 NBA PPV HD High-Definition TV

771 - 784 MLB/NHL Pay-Per-View Pay-Per-View

785 MLB/NHL PPV HD High-Definition TV

798 - 799 SunSports Pay-Per-View Pay-Per-View

801 Music Choice: Hit List Music

802 Music Choice: R&B and Hip Hop Music HD ON

803 Music Choice: Mix Tape Music HD ON

804 Music Choice: Dance/Electronica Music HD ON

805 Music Choice: Rap Music HD ON

806 Music Choice: Hip Hop Classic Music HD ON

807 Music Choice: Throwback Jamz Music HD ON

808 Music Choice: R&B Classics Music HD ON

809 Music Choice: R&B Soul Music HD ON

810 Music Choice: Gospel Music HD ON

811 Music Choice: Reggae Music HD ON

812 Music Choice: Classic Rock Music HD ON

813 Music Choice: Retro Rock Music HD ON

814 Music Choice: Rock Music HD ON

815 Music Choice: Metal Music HD ON

816 Music Choice: Alternative Music HD ON

817 Music Choice: Classic Alternative Music HD ON

818 Music Choice: Adult Alternative Music HD ON

819 Music Choice: Soft Rock Music HD ON

820 Music Choice: Pop Hits Music HD ON

821 Music Choice: '90s Music HD ON

822 Music Choice: '80s Music HD ON

823 Music Choice: '70s Music HD ON

824 Music Choice: Solid Gold Oldies Music HD ON

825 Music Choice: Party Favorites Music HD ON

826 Music Choice: Stage & Screen Music HD ON

827 Music Choice: Kids Only Music HD ON

828 Music Choice: Toddler Tunes Music HD ON

829 Music Choice: Today's Country Music HD ON

830 Music Choice: True Country Music HD ON

831 Music Choice: Classic Country Music HD ON

832 Music Choice: Contemporary Christian Music HD ON

833 Music Choice: Sounds of the Seasons Music HD ON

834 Music Choice: Soundscapes Music HD ON

835 Music Choice: Smooth Jazz Music HD ON

836 Music Choice: Jazz Music HD ON

837 Music Choice: Blues Music HD ON

838 Music Choice: Singers & Swing Music HD ON

839 Music Choice: Easy Listening Music HD ON

840 Music Choice: Classical Masterpieces Music HD ON

841 Music Choice: Light Classical Music HD ON

842 Music Choice: Music Urbana Music HD ON

843 Music Choice: Pop Latino Music HD ON

844 Music Choice: Tropicales Music HD ON

845 Music Choice: Mexicana Music HD ON

846 Music Choice: Romances Music HD ON

[jdobbin]

They've been screwing us over since Ted Rogers laid his first cable. Have a look at what you get in the US for about what I'm paying now. The lineup they make available is a hell of a lot better than what i see from any Canadian cable or satellite operator.

If you are like a lot of Canadians, you will end up stealing your signal.

I can walk up and down my street and Dish Network and DirectTV dishes. Everyone I know seems to steal the signal. There is no enforcement in the least. I've even the dishes on cop's houses.

I must be the only lunatic still paying for my signal.

As for your list... Yeek! 3 C-Spans?

Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[OddSox]

Um, I don't have cable - and I get my local television just fine, thanks.

Facetiousness aside, the only thing 'local' about TV in recent years is the news, and they really don't do a very good job of that. It wasn't that many years ago that stations ran lots of local 'talent shows' and the like that were actually watched. But were cancelled - usually because they could make more money running network shows with network advertising.

I have to wonder if the local stations adjusted their pricing to the point where local businesses could afford it - maybe they wouldn't have to fill their advertising slots with endless 'support local TV' ads that have no revenue at all. Then again, there aren't a lot of local businesses around any more - Walmart and Home Depot order their advertising from head office.

The one thing that this will all result in is no stations available without cable - and they'll all be happy. I'll miss them, a little bit, but not much.

[Wilber]

I don't know. To me it smacks of large web sites like Amazon or Ebay or Google demanding ISPs pay them for the privilage of letting their customers have access.

I mean, without the ISPs, just how do Amazon, Ebay and Google think their product is going to get to anyone to buy?

In that sense, they take advantage of the access ISPs provide and hope to make themselves attractive and useful enough to make a profit.

The TV stations/networks are really no different except it's cable/satellite companies giving people access. And of course, we have less choice in what we access due to government restriction.

Nor do the ISP's have a business if they have no content to provide. Same goes for cable companies, there is no way they could survive on their own programming alone. How much of it do you watch? I don't know who is in the right here. As I said, neither has given a specific accounting to back up their claims. Hopefully the CRTC will demand one and make it public. After all it is supposed to be acting for us and one of its responsibilities should be to make sure the money we do pay for service is distributed equitably among those who are providing the product.

[Argus]

If you are like a lot of Canadians, you will end up stealing your signal.

I can walk up and down my street and Dish Network and DirectTV dishes. Everyone I know seems to steal the signal. There is no enforcement in the least. I've even the dishes on cop's houses.

I must be the only lunatic still paying for my signal.

As for your list... Yeek! 3 C-Spans?

I was more impressed by the 24 HD movie channels.

Starchoice gives me 1

Edited November 6, 2009 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

It is possible to do that. However, the cable companies say that without packaging, they would be compelled to sell the channels at anywhere from $10 to $20 per channel as they have mentioned in CRTC hearings. Want only 20 channels and pay maybe $100 to $200. At least that is what they have threatened when called to explain their packaging.

I don't there is much reason to believe the cable or telco companies. These guys are pathological liars. It was the cable companies that swore up and down a decade ago that they couldn't open up their cable internet networks to third party resellers, and it turned out to be load of B.S.

The cable companies have spent the last fifteen years doing everything in their power not to give consumers what they want, and because they pretty much have regional monopolies. While guys like Telus and Bell are coming online as competitors, they too are essentially last mile regional monopolies.

[jdobbin]

I don't there is much reason to believe the cable or telco companies. These guys are pathological liars. It was the cable companies that swore up and down a decade ago that they couldn't open up their cable internet networks to third party resellers, and it turned out to be load of B.S.

The cable companies have spent the last fifteen years doing everything in their power not to give consumers what they want, and because they pretty much have regional monopolies. While guys like Telus and Bell are coming online as competitors, they too are essentially last mile regional monopolies.

I have reason to suspect all the media operators. However, in recent days with local broadcasters going under, I am a little more sympathetic about smaller towns and cities losing their stations.

[robert_viera]

I thought this was a refreshing take on the broadcasters vs. distributors fight:

Persichilli: Broadcasters change channel in middle of show

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/731932

Edited November 30, 2009 by robert_viera

[myata]

I'm not a cable subscriber myself, thought I'm regularly tempted by Rogers' people. However every time they come up with a nice incentive to draw us in, I bail out after checking the regular price, which is something around thirty bucks for the same few channels we get off the air for free plus a load of crap we never going to watch anyways. Specialty, good channels are extra (discovery, movies, sci fi, good sports channels, bbc) and those packages run in the region of a hundred bucks, and we simply aren't interested in spending that much on TV.

BTW here's CRTC site for public input on the issue: http://television.askingcanadians.com/welcome

Anyways, I do agree, as somebody already pointed out, that competition, and especially, near monopoly of cable operators on delivery of signal is essential to understanding the issue. In the traditional model of producer / distributor, the two sides (producer of the product and its distributor) negotiate a margin paid to distributor for delivering the product to consumer. This model is not what there's now in the TV distribution industry, and is so only for one reason that earlier on content providers were able to cover significant part of their costs from other sources (advertising, government subsidies). Now that content providers appear to be having a problem with funding for at least part of their operations ("local stations"), they're trying to renegotiate that practice, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. It may end up being revised toward the distribution model, common with many other goods and services. Before I even consider buying in, I'd like to see something like "fair bundling" regulation - allowing consumer to select services they want and pay for them fairly. I think there's something of the kind now with the telecom services, and given the near monopoly of the cable providers, same kind of regulation should apply to their business also.

[robert_viera]

BTW here's CRTC site for public input on the issue: http://television.askingcanadians.com/welcome

The CRTC has already posted thousands of comments from the public here:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/broadcast.htm#a2009614

I've downloaded most of them and read quite a few of them. A large number are simply form letters circulated by the broadcasters' campaign. A lot are people complaining about their cable/satellite bill without any reference to the fee-for-carriage issue.

Anyways, I do agree, as somebody already pointed out, that competition, and especially, near monopoly of cable operators on delivery of signal is essential to understanding the issue. In the traditional model of producer / distributor, the two sides (producer of the product and its distributor) negotiate a margin paid to distributor for delivering the product to consumer. This model is not what there's now in the TV distribution industry, and is so only for one reason that earlier on content providers were able to cover significant part of their costs from other sources (advertising, government subsidies). Now that content providers appear to be having a problem with funding for at least part of their operations ("local stations"), they're trying to renegotiate that practice, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. It may end up being revised toward the distribution model, common with many other goods and services. Before I even consider buying in, I'd like to see something like "fair bundling" regulation - allowing consumer to select services they want and pay for them fairly. I think there's something of the kind now with the telecom services, and given the near monopoly of the cable providers, same kind of regulation should apply to their business also.

Your discussion of the producer/distributor model leaves out one important issue: What is the product or service and who is the customer? Traditionally for over-the-air broadcasters the service has been delivering advertising to viewers and the customer has been the advertiser. The cable companies have been delivering the broadcasters' ads to the cable companies' subscribers for decades but have not asked the broadcasters for a cut of their advertising revenue. Now the broadcasters are asking for a cut of the cable companies' subscriber fees.

[myata]

Your discussion of the producer/distributor model leaves out one important issue: What is the product or service and who is the customer?

The product, as defined in the CRTC request, is TV signal. It is created by content providers, which may or may not have other sources of revenue (advertising, subsidies, ...). Why should it be of any concern to the distributor of the product though? The only legitimate concerns of their should be to obtain (via a negotiation) a sufficient part of subscriber's fee to operate their networks and satisfy shareholders. It's like that pretty much everywhere else. It a manufacturer of a cell phone makes extra cash via selling patents, or add-on apps, it doesn't immediately entitle a distributor of these phones to a cut of these revenues, does it?

BTW nobody said that cable companies could not create their own content (as most already do), and get a cut of ad revenues that way. The question only applies to content created by other providers.

Traditionally for over-the-air broadcasters the service has been delivering advertising to viewers and the customer has been the advertiser. Now the broadcasters are asking for a cut of the cable companies' subscriber fees.

Correct. In that "traditional" model, content providers could discount subscriber revenues, but they are claiming it not to be the case anymore. As producers of the goods, they certainly have a right to their share of the final revenue, the only question is how it's to be negotiated between them and the distributor.

The cable companies have been delivering the broadcasters' ads to the cable companies' subscribers for decades but have not asked the broadcasters for a cut of their advertising revenue.

This is an implicit position of a monopolist. Distributor of product does not have an automatic right for a "cut" of producer's revenues, only for a fair compensation of their work to deliver the product to consumer. In a competitive market, things almost always settle that way, but in a distributor's monopoly, it would be quite different story. I think almost everybody in this picture would benefit from a regulations framework defining fair practices for monopolistic signal distribution, not unlike it was done earlier with telecom service providers.

[robert_viera]

The product, as defined in the CRTC request, is TV signal.

If the signal was the product, how has my local TV station been able to survive for more than 50 years while giving it's signal away for free? The product is access to viewers. The advertisers are the TV stations customers, not the viewers.

It is created by content providers, which may or may not have other sources of revenue (advertising, subsidies, ...). Why should it be of any concern to the distributor of the product though? The only legitimate concerns of their should be to obtain (via a negotiation) a sufficient part of subscriber's fee to operate their networks and satisfy shareholders. It's like that pretty much everywhere else. It a manufacturer of a cell phone makes extra cash via selling patents, or add-on apps, it doesn't immediately entitle a distributor of these phones to a cut of these revenues, does it?

BTW nobody said that cable companies could not create their own content (as most already do), and get a cut of ad revenues that way. The question only applies to content created by other providers.

Would like Internet Service Providers, and ultimately their subscribers, to start paying fees to any web site whose content is distributed over the ISP's lines?

This is an implicit position of a monopolist. Distributor of product does not have an automatic right for a "cut" of producer's revenues, only for a fair compensation of their work to deliver the product to consumer. In a competitive market, things almost always settle that way, but in a distributor's monopoly, it would be quite different story. I think almost everybody in this picture would benefit from a regulations framework defining fair practices for monopolistic signal distribution, not unlike it was done earlier with telecom service providers.

The broadcasters are just as much of a monopoly as the distributors.

[myata]

If the signal was the product, how has my local TV station been able to survive for more than 50 years while giving it's signal away for free?

It's been explained, please take time to read carefully.

The product is access to viewers.

No, which becomes instantly obvious if considering that neither distribution networks, nor advertising would have any use per se, without content provided by "stations". Without that content, nobody will be paying subscription fees, or watching ads, and therefore it's the content, or "signal" that is the primary product that drives this market. Indeed "stations" can make additional revenue from advertising, but it's their business. The business of signal distributors is to operate their networks profitably and fairly, and business model of content provider shouldn't have anything to do with that.

Would like Internet Service Providers, and ultimately their subscribers, to start paying fees to any web site whose content is distributed over the ISP's lines?

Web content providers actually have ways to charge customers directly for content they provide. ISP's fee is to cover the cost of operating the network to carry the signal from provider to consumer. Just as it is with the telephony services and as it should be with cable TV.

The broadcasters are just as much of a monopoly as the distributors.

No, I don't see that in practice, there's usually one cable operator per geographic area (now with the recent advances of telecom technology phone network operators may start delivering TV signals as well - as was mentioned by another poster), while I can count some ten or so stations avalable in my area that all compete for my viewing time.

[robert_viera]

It's been explained, please take time to read carefully.

No. You have not explained. How has my local TV survived for more than 50 years without charging anything for what you claim is it's product?

No, which becomes instantly obvious if considering that neither distribution networks, nor advertising would have any use per se, without content provided by "stations".

Distribution networks and advertising would have no use without viewers. The broadcasters are selling access to viewers.

Without that content, nobody will be paying subscription fees, or watching ads, and therefore it's the content, or "signal" that is the primary product that drives this market. Indeed "stations" can make additional revenue from advertising, but it's their business. The business of signal distributors is to operate their networks profitably and fairly, and business model of content provider shouldn't have anything to do with that.

The business of local over-the-air broadcasters is selling advertising. Advertising is not 'additional revenue', it is their main source of revenue.

Web content providers actually have ways to charge customers directly for content they provide. ISP's fee is to cover the cost of operating the network to carry the signal from provider to consumer. Just as it is with the telephony services and as it should be with cable TV.

Yes. Web content providers do have ways to charge visitors to their web sites, but to do this they have to deny access to all visitors who do not wish to pay. Are local broadcasters prepared to stop broadcasting over-the-air or to scramble their signals?

No, I don't see that in practice, there's usually one cable operator per geographic area (now with the recent advances of telecom technology phone network operators may start delivering TV signals as well - as was mentioned by another poster), while I can count some ten or so stations avalable in my area that all compete for my viewing time.

You conveniently fail to mention satellite distributors. When you talk about monopolies, you have to look at ownership. How many of the "ten or so stations" available in your area are owned by the same few broadcasting conglomerates?

[myata]

No. You have not explained. How has my local TV survived for more than 50 years without charging anything for what you claim is it's product?

It is there, you only have to try better. It was different reality 50 years back, and ad revenue may have been sufficient to run the business without directly charging the consumer. Now the reality has changed, cable has a near monopoly for delivering the signal, and the fair way to fund the creation of content has to be renegotiated. Without it, signal, content, there would be no advertising, nothing to distribute and no business for anybody involved.

Distribution networks and advertising would have no use without viewers. The broadcasters are selling access to viewers.

A lapse of logic? Why would those adverstisers want to pay their hard earned $$ to content providers if they could as easily access those viewers directly? Ad / shopping channel, anybody? Are they missing something? Guess what?

The business of local over-the-air broadcasters is selling advertising. Advertising is not 'additional revenue', it is their main source of revenue.

Wrong again. One cannot "sell advertising" if they first haven't created the content that consumers want to see (and are ready to pay for, in the cable / satellite setting). The core business is creation of content, and it creator of content certainly has the right for a fair share of revenue it generates. The ad revenue is a distraction used by monopolistic distributors, it really has no relevance to the issue. The point is that content provider has a product consumer wants, and an agreement, voluntary or regulated has to be found as to how to deliver it to consumer, compensating content creator, and distributor fairly. The fact that distributor is monopolistic, makes voluntary part less likely, and perhaps, the regulated one - necessary.

Yes. Web content providers do have ways to charge visitors to their web sites, but to do this they have to deny access to all visitors who do not wish to pay.

Good that you know.

Are local broadcasters prepared to stop broadcasting over-the-air or to scramble their signals?

Some do, and whatever works for them, as long as it works. In other places they charge mandatory license fee on TVs. Nothing of it is really relevant here, because at issue is compensation of content provider for signal delivered over distributor's network.

You conveniently fail to mention satellite distributors.

Point taken. More competition could certainly help in the long run, but in the meanwhile, the question of compensation may need to go to regulation.

When you talk about monopolies, you have to look at ownership. How many of the "ten or so stations" available in your area are owned by the same few broadcasting conglomerates?

Wrong yet again, ownership per se has very little to nothing to do with monopoly, competition does though. Even if all ten stations were ultimately owned by the same entity, they'd still all compete for my viewing time which I'll choose only if I like the content they provide. Granted, there would be guards against non-competitive behaviour (price fixing, cross subsidy) that apply to all businesses.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Does this mean my dish fees will go up?

[M.Dancer]

When you talk about monopolies, you have to look at ownership. How many of the "ten or so stations" available in your area are owned by the same few broadcasting conglomerates?

In my area, local stations by channel (as on the rogers cable system)

2-TVO- Ontario Public

3-Global

4-CFMT(Omni 1) Rogers

6- CBC-

7- CITY-Rogers

8- CFTO- CTV

9-CTS - Cross Roads Christian Broadcasting

11- CHCH- Independant

12 - Radio Canada

13 TFO - TVO

14 SUN TV Quebecor

That's 11 channels comprising of 8 unique owners.

By any definition, that is not a monopoly

[myata]

Does this mean my dish fees will go up?

Nobody can tell what will or will not happen, but if "monopoly network owner" regulation is chosen as the way to go it'd only apply to monopolistic distributor (= cable operator) and shouldn't affect their competition (air or satellite or telecom providers) until it can be shown that competition is sufficient to address the monopoly issue.

[robert_viera]

I'm watching the CRTC hearings online from a CPAC feed. The broadcaster union rep's just explained how they're in favour of allowing consumers to choose which channels they subscribe to, but not when it comes to their channels of course, which should be part of the basic package. (Yes. They said this after saying that they're against packages.)

Are any conventional TV stations airing these proceedings?

Edited December 7, 2009 by robert_viera

[robert_viera]

Right now there's a person named Donald Ogden testifying "as an individual". He's portraying himself as a consumer and I haven't heard him mention that he works for CTV.

Oooh! One of the commissioners just outed him!

[myata]

I'm watching the CRTC hearings online from a CPAC feed. The broadcaster union rep's just explained how they're in favour of allowing consumers to choose which channels they subscribe to, but not when it comes to their channels of course, which should be part of the basic package. (Yes. They said this after saying that they're against packages.)

This is wrong. If broadcasters want to be compensated for their content, they cannot insist on imposing it on consumers. That muddles up the affair to the point where it is not clear what is the product - it has to be "the package" then, not individual channels in it, and how would the owners of the package go about settling individual compensations? It would be a regulator's nightmare there should be no need for that. Consumers are free to choose any channels in their package and cost per station is regulated to ensure fairness to content provider, network owner and the consumer.

[robert_viera]

This is wrong. If broadcasters want to be compensated for their content, they cannot insist on imposing it on consumers.

Agreed.

A businessman from Red Deer, Gord Bontje, was just asked a question about the effectiveness of advertising on the local TV station that recently closed. He responded that it wasn't very effective and that was probably the reason why it closed!

That seems to be it for today!

Edited December 7, 2009 by robert_viera