Shaw vs CTV/CBC .....bailout? Who to believe

[DiploDocus]

[pitz]

CBC = a bunch of crybaby civil servants whining that they can't suck at the taxpayers' tit as much as they used to. Still lots of fat to cut there.

CTV = part of the Bell Canada empire. Of course they're going to wage as much of a war as they can against the cable TV operators.

Shaw/Telus/Bell/Rogers = not particularly profitable entities. Probably deserve to make more money.

Global = bankrupt.

Media industries are collapsing because of an over-reliance on advertising as a revenue source, in an economy where consumer spending is collapsing. These people (as well as Internet companies) need a more sustainable funding model so they can provide better content.

[DiploDocus]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this

I keep seeing these attack ads from both sides on TV of trust us, tell your congress

[pitz]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this

"We" need to come up with a sustainable funding model for media and content industries that everyone takes for granted.

Expecting advertisers to pay the entire bill isn't reasonable.

[BornRuff]

Media industries are collapsing because of an over-reliance on advertising as a revenue source, in an economy where consumer spending is collapsing. These people (as well as Internet companies) need a more sustainable funding model so they can provide better content.

The whole point of TV is advertising. Lower consumer spending is only a temporary thing.

[pitz]

The whole point of TV is advertising. Lower consumer spending is only a temporary thing.

Temporary? Hardly.

And TV can exist without advertising. There just needs to be other ways to pay for it. The advertising business model worked when consumer spending was high, and a disproportionate amount of the economy.

If we go into an economy where most of the spending is business spending, ie: on plant and machinery (to create stuff for export, or to rehabilitate infrastructure), then what? How does a consumer-oriented TV channel make money on non-consumer ads?

[mself084]

so how are "We" citizens involved in all this

I keep seeing these attack ads from both sides on TV of trust us, tell your congress

TV Networks want cable regulated. They want more money from companies like Rogers to continue showing "Local TV" (note the quotation marks!).

Cable companies don't want to pay an extra fee when they are already forced to carry the local stations. If they are forced to, expect your cable bill to go up about $10/month (they call this the "tv tax").

[Pete Jones]

CTV = part of the Bell Canada empire. Of course they're going to wage as much of a war as they can against the cable TV operators.

Actually, Bell only own 15% of CTVGlobemedia which is the parent company of CTV, The Globe and Mail, and other media assetts.

BellTV is actually on the side of the cable companies. They are opposing the whole scheme of fee for carriage.

It should be pointed out that BDU (cable/satellite) penetration in Canada is over 90%. One could argue that it is _because_ of them that over the air TV stations have the audience they do.

BDUs do, in fact, get the local TV signals and don't have to pay for them.

However, in return, they have to provide the following:

• They must provide the equipment to receive the signals
• They must put local stations on "preferred" spots on the dial
• They must substitute programming upon request (simsub)

Without any compensation from the TV stations.

Sound to me like a "one hand washes the other" situation.

So, basically, the television networks want to charge the cable/satellite companies for providing over 90% of their viewers for them.

Personally, if I have to pay for my local channels, fine. I just want the ability to buy all my channels "a la carte" so I get to choose exactly what I want to pay for.

--Pete

[mself084]

Actually, Bell only own 15% of CTVGlobemedia which is the parent company of CTV, The Globe and Mail, and other media assetts.

BellTV is actually on the side of the cable companies. They are opposing the whole scheme of fee for carriage.

It should be pointed out that BDU (cable/satellite) penetration in Canada is over 90%. One could argue that it is _because_ of them that over the air TV stations have the audience they do.

BDUs do, in fact, get the local TV signals and don't have to pay for them.

However, in return, they have to provide the following:

• They must provide the equipment to receive the signals
• They must put local stations on "preferred" spots on the dial
• They must substitute programming upon request (simsub)

Without any compensation from the TV stations.

Sound to me like a "one hand washes the other" situation.

So, basically, the television networks want to charge the cable/satellite companies for providing over 90% of their viewers for them.

Personally, if I have to pay for my local channels, fine. I just want the ability to buy all my channels "a la carte" so I get to choose exactly what I want to pay for.

--Pete

Great post! Definitely in agreement here... especially with picking and choosing channels.

I like local tv, but there is so little of it now that i don't see how stations like A Channel in Ottawa can tell me the station is local. They do a 4 hour morning show 5 days a week and that's it...the rest is American stuff. If they do get money from cable companies/us, will they bring back the local programming that CTV axed, or even pledge to keep the little bit they offer now?

[BornRuff]

Temporary? Hardly.

And TV can exist without advertising. There just needs to be other ways to pay for it. The advertising business model worked when consumer spending was high, and a disproportionate amount of the economy.

If we go into an economy where most of the spending is business spending, ie: on plant and machinery (to create stuff for export, or to rehabilitate infrastructure), then what? How does a consumer-oriented TV channel make money on non-consumer ads?

Increases in business spending would only be temporary without consumer spending to actually buy the things they are making.

[Takami]

You believe in a corporation?

[williamsauga]

pfffffffffffftt......whats a TV?


I stopped watching TV back in 98 when there is something better called theInternet.

but since i moved up north now...........so i guess i will have to adjust my calendar 10 yrs backwards.....sighhh....

[pitz]

Increases in business spending would only be temporary without consumer spending to actually buy the things they are making.

Worldwide, sure. But what if our production gets built for export to China? Or what if production from our factories is used to rehabilitate worn out infrastructure. That doesn't translate into increased consumer demand. That just means that bridges aren't falling down, and Chinese exports and foreign oil continues to wash a'shore.

[Qbit]

If only the broadcasters hadn't spent $150 million buying Olympic rights?

If they want money from cable and sat subs maybe it's time to revoke their licenses to broadcast over the air.

[Pete Jones]

If only the broadcasters hadn't spent $150 million buying Olympic rights?

Don't worry. CTV and Rogers will earn much more than that from the Olys. Not only that, but as a friend of mine in the industry explained to me once, this is a great opportunity for broadcasters to spend money on capital improvements to their facilities and create some nifty tax write-offs.

If they want money from cable and sat subs maybe it's time to revoke their licenses to broadcast over the air.

Now this leads to another point. A lot of the broadcasters are crying about having to upgrade their transmission equipment for the 2011 switch to digital. The CRTC has mandated that only a small number of major markets actually need to switch -- the rest can just fade away.

Consider the fact that over 90% of the population get their TV via cable and satellite. Maybe it's time that we seriously re-thought the whole concept of terrestrial broadcasting.

One company is trying to do it.

http://www.freehdcanada.com/

Considering the cost of a decent OTA antenna, especially if you don't already have a HD receiver, this might actually be quite viable.

My point is, the existing broadcast model is broken. We need some people thinking out of the box to fix it.

--Pete