Do I understand this issue correctly? Cable is taking local TV signals for free and want to charge their cable subscribers a fee for the free local TV signal?
Local TV vs Cable
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
Do I understand this issue correctly? Cable is taking local TV signals for free and want to charge their cable subscribers a fee for the free local TV signal?
Every time I try to figure this one out, it drives me to drink.
Do I understand this issue correctly? Cable is taking local TV signals for free and want to charge their cable subscribers a fee for the free local TV signal?
The way I see it is that the tv broadcasters are being rather hypocritical in this matter. Without out the cable and satellite subscribers they would have no viewers to watch their programming. With their current advertising based model, they can't be too upset over it.
If you look at the major Canadian broadcasters, with the exception of local news content, they are just rebroadcasting American TV content to begin with. Local news can be had via other means for most people (CP24, newspaper, internet, etc). They also need to keep in mind that they need the cable and satellite companies more than they need the local broadcasters.
I think the whole issue is that in this day and age of specialty channels, that conventional television is the problem.
Cheers
. You ok with Coors Light?So, the local TV guys are not the lily white good guys that they claim to be?
I actually get a lot of local news on radio 680NEWS.
canada-man
Well-known member
So, the local TV guys are not the lily white good guys that they claim to be?
I think you've hit the issue on the head. The broadcasters are saying they need the money to keep local tv stations alive. I think of local tv stations have a problem then it's because not enough people are watching.....so shut it down, it's not there is a lack of choices to get your information.
So the 50 year old business model has changed; it doesn't mean the broadcasters have to charge the cable companies (who will pass the costs down to us) so that they can keep unprofitable stations open.
The concern I have is that the local stations are all based in small town Harper-land so Toronto subscribers will be subsidizing small town news that even they don't watch.
That's my rant.
Other than a couple of Canadian programs like sports and Flashpoint, American programming is the only thing making money for the broadcasters, ie. you get 4 million viewers of House, compared to a big budget CBC program that delivers a million viewers.
By the way, regardless of how sound my arguments are in the above two posts, I still hate Rogers and Bell. They're self-serving bastards, but in this case I think it's the broadcasters who want to stick it us. We can blame the CRTC as well who create artificial costs structures by forcing them to spend on Canadian programming and content.
But I think we have to keep these issues compartmentalized, otherwise it gets too confusing.
Think about it this way: A charity is giving away free food, hopefully to poor people.
Someone pulls up in a pickup truck, and says fill me up. He then resells the food at a local store.
How fair is that?
The problem with local news, especially in small markets (outside of Vancouver/Montreal/Toronto), is that it doesn't make any money. Even Canadian programming, outside of Hockey Night in Canada, doesn't make any money. This is a big problem for a local TV station.
Rogers and Bell then sell the free broadcast signal to their cable customers. If the local TV station was making money, then this seems marginally "fair". If the local TV station is operating essentially as a subsidized charity, then the practice is unfair.
The key problem: Local content/news/programming is a charity.
Someone pulls up in a pickup truck, and says fill me up. He then resells the food at a local store.
How fair is that?
The problem with local news, especially in small markets (outside of Vancouver/Montreal/Toronto), is that it doesn't make any money. Even Canadian programming, outside of Hockey Night in Canada, doesn't make any money. This is a big problem for a local TV station.
Rogers and Bell then sell the free broadcast signal to their cable customers. If the local TV station was making money, then this seems marginally "fair". If the local TV station is operating essentially as a subsidized charity, then the practice is unfair.
The key problem: Local content/news/programming is a charity.
Last edited:
The Facts
- brought to us by Canada's Broadcasters
http://localtvmatters.ca/the-facts/
Why have Canada’s broadcasters launched the Local TV Matters campaign?
Canada’s major television broadcasters are uniting to stand up for Canadian viewers and to protect local television now and into the future. The campaign is a response to the thousands of viewers who are telling us how much they care about local television in their communities. We encourage everyone who supports local television to join our campaign and be heard.
Why are we facing a crisis in local television?
Although support from our viewers is strong, local television has been struggling financially for more than a decade, and now we have reached a critical point. Advertising revenues for local stations have decreased and the traditional model of free local television is unsustainable. As it currently stands, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the programming we provide. We are simply asking for what is fair – that cable and satellite companies pay broadcasters for the service that we provide and that the viewers are already charged for.
What is “Negotiation for Value”?
Negotiation for Value (“NFV”) is a term used to describe a free market negotiation between cable and satellite companies and local television stations to establish the appropriate compensation to be paid by the cable or satellite company for the distribution of the local television station’s signal. At present, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the signals we provide. This is not the same as “fee-for-carriage”, which is a term used to describe a regulated rate to be set by the CRTC for the distribution of local television signals.
Why are Canada’s television broadcasters concerned about the future of local television?
Viewers are telling us that they are strong supporters of their local television stations and we are committed to protecting and preserving local television in communities across Canada. But without a new business model, the future of local television is at risk. Now is the time for all Canadians who are passionate about their local stations to stand up and be heard.
Why don’t cable and satellite providers already pay for local television signals?
Since the inception of cable and satellite service, local television signals have been accessible to cable and satellite companies free of charge. Yet over the last five years, your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) will be deciding the future of local television this Fall. One of the campaign’s concerns is that cable and satellite providers continue to charge viewers for our service, yet they pay nothing to local television stations. However, Canadian cable companies pay U.S. cable channels in excess of $300 million a year for their services, and these cable channels are not required to produce any Canadian content. We are standing up to change this system because we believe local stations deserve fairness so viewers can continue to enjoy local television programming now and in the years ahead.
more at http://localtvmatters.ca/the-facts/
- brought to us by Canada's Broadcasters
http://localtvmatters.ca/the-facts/
Why have Canada’s broadcasters launched the Local TV Matters campaign?
Canada’s major television broadcasters are uniting to stand up for Canadian viewers and to protect local television now and into the future. The campaign is a response to the thousands of viewers who are telling us how much they care about local television in their communities. We encourage everyone who supports local television to join our campaign and be heard.
Why are we facing a crisis in local television?
Although support from our viewers is strong, local television has been struggling financially for more than a decade, and now we have reached a critical point. Advertising revenues for local stations have decreased and the traditional model of free local television is unsustainable. As it currently stands, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the programming we provide. We are simply asking for what is fair – that cable and satellite companies pay broadcasters for the service that we provide and that the viewers are already charged for.
What is “Negotiation for Value”?
Negotiation for Value (“NFV”) is a term used to describe a free market negotiation between cable and satellite companies and local television stations to establish the appropriate compensation to be paid by the cable or satellite company for the distribution of the local television station’s signal. At present, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the signals we provide. This is not the same as “fee-for-carriage”, which is a term used to describe a regulated rate to be set by the CRTC for the distribution of local television signals.
Why are Canada’s television broadcasters concerned about the future of local television?
Viewers are telling us that they are strong supporters of their local television stations and we are committed to protecting and preserving local television in communities across Canada. But without a new business model, the future of local television is at risk. Now is the time for all Canadians who are passionate about their local stations to stand up and be heard.
Why don’t cable and satellite providers already pay for local television signals?
Since the inception of cable and satellite service, local television signals have been accessible to cable and satellite companies free of charge. Yet over the last five years, your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) will be deciding the future of local television this Fall. One of the campaign’s concerns is that cable and satellite providers continue to charge viewers for our service, yet they pay nothing to local television stations. However, Canadian cable companies pay U.S. cable channels in excess of $300 million a year for their services, and these cable channels are not required to produce any Canadian content. We are standing up to change this system because we believe local stations deserve fairness so viewers can continue to enjoy local television programming now and in the years ahead.
more at http://localtvmatters.ca/the-facts/
Do I understand this issue correctly? Cable is taking local TV signals for free and want to charge their cable subscribers a fee for the free local TV signal?
http://localtvmatters.ca/
I am not sure how much can be done if we stand up against them.
Similar threads
