CRTC tax could mean $100 million hike in cable/sat tv rates - Page 29 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

JamesK · 2010-03-20, 03:22 PM

Quote:

whether OTA broadcasters should get paid

If they get paid, they should be paid by all viewers, not just BDU subscribers.

billhome · 2010-03-20, 05:32 PM

I think the entire problem here is the CRTC. They should just get out of the way, remove all subsidies & corporate welfare (such as free use of spectrum by the broadcasters and LPIF), and let everyone compete for my money on merit. As it is now, we have a situation where broadcasters are operating like businesses but yet are also like charities, which muddies the water. For those who want "free OTA", you already have the CBC which you are funding through your taxes.

s40 · 2010-03-20, 11:15 PM

Another point is the BDU's have to have the ability to sim sub so that channels you pay for are substituted by the locals so that they can get the advertising revenues. They don't pay the bdu's for that service, yet they gain revenue by having extra viewers who would probably have chosen the out of town or American feed. If you get these OTA then you have free unsubstituted choice.

s40 · 2010-03-22, 12:37 AM

I also think that the real problem is that the Canadian Networks are competing as in out bidding each other for American shows, they bid to a level they can't really afford and then hope some one else makes up the short fall. If they get more money they will bid higher for those programs and again your and my money goes South.

TechieFreak · 2010-03-22, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billhome

I think the entire problem here is the CRTC. They should just get out of the way, remove all subsidies & corporate welfare (such as free use of spectrum by the broadcasters and LPIF), and let everyone compete for my money on merit. As it is now, we have a situation where broadcasters are operating like businesses but yet are also like charities, which muddies the water. For those who want "free OTA", you already have the CBC which you are funding through your taxes.

I know this is going a bit off topic about fees, but the discussion seems to leading away from fees paid from cable companies to TV carriers, to OTA versus cable/satelite.

A little bit of history/re-focus is in order here....

Long before TV came to be, when there was only radio, it was very chaotic, anybody with enough money to buy and set up radio stations did so, and there was much interference when these "broadcasters" grabbed whatever channel they wanted to broadcast on. The government of the day deemed that the "airwaves" belonged to the people, and began regulating the airwaves. Thus creating a whole new industry, but also standardized radio transmissions and reception. When TV came to be, they regulated just as they did with radio. Which is why you don't have radio and TV stations interfering with each other. The main source of revenue for both radio and TV is commercials. Businesses would pay the broadcasters for the airtime that is used to broadcast shows (This program is brought to you by...)

This is why with the current setup, we don't pay for OTA TV transmission, just like when we to listen to AM-FM radio. The price we consumers pay, is that we are forced to listen to the commercials as well. This situation has served everybody well for the last 60 odd years.

Now the cable/sat companies and TV stations are battling each other for what the TV companies falsely consider a very large piece of pie (we want some of your revenue).

This battle is being played out in the public, and we the people are hearing everybody's "spin" on why it should be their way. And now, the media (news?) are helping push their "bosses" agenda (TV companies), causing discussions like, if I have to pay more for my cable, then OTA viewers have to pay too. Remember...we are ALL paying anyway, by watching/listening to commercials!

If somehow, they can manage to have some way of making OTA viewers/listeners pay (as they once did in the UK), TV companies would gladly try to do it. However, I believe this system failed in the UK as technology surpassed their own system of "monitoring" who was watching TV without a license. If someone in this forum knows more about UK TV licensing, please feel free to chime in.

Is this really the way we want to have our TV viewing managed in the future? I for one, will have a problem paying to watch TV (I am an OTA user), and still have to endure TV commercials. Just as I would also have a problem paying to use my radio and still hear commercials there too (hello XM-Sirius).

Jase88 · 2010-03-22, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesK

If they get paid, they should be paid by all viewers, not just BDU subscribers.

I would gladly pay for the OTA stations I receive. In fact, I already send money to WNED PBS Buffalo. However, the mechanism to collect fees on behalf of OTA viewers doesn't exist in Canada. And the cost of implementing such a program would likely be cost prohibitive for the 10% of viewers who apparently use OTA.

classicsat · 2010-03-22, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesK

If they get paid, they should be paid by all viewers, not just BDU subscribers.

The stations aren't directly being paid by viewers, they are being paid by the BDUs for privelege of carriage on their system.

Jase88 · 2010-03-22, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicsat

The stations aren't directly being paid by viewers, they are being paid by the BDUs for privelege of carriage on their system.

The point being that in the end, customers are paying. The LPIF is being passed onto consumers. And thus the argument that OTA viewers should pay as do BDU customers.

Wayne · 2010-03-22, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s40

I also think that the real problem is that the Canadian Networks are competing as in out bidding each other for American shows, they bid to a level they can't really afford and then hope some one else makes up the short fall. If they get more money they will bid higher for those programs and again your and my money goes South.

How does it benefit Canadians when they bid for these US shows? Almost all Canadians can get these shows from US networks via BDUs or US OTA stations. The only folks that see a benefit are those that only have access to Canadian OTA from commercial networks such as CTV and Global - and the other folks that benefit are those that work for CTV and Global.

Would most Canadians really even care if CTV and Global went off the air today? I doubt it - sure there would be less local news but is it worth keeping these networks alive for local news?

Regarding the UK OTA fees - the situation in Canada is very different than the UK for a couple of reasons. First off, a very large majority of Canadians use BDUs rather than OTA. Secondly, many (most?) Canadians who use OTA can get US stations and the most desirable programming on Canadian stations comes from these US stations. Therefore there is very little to be gained by paying for Canadian commercial networks - CBC is a bit different since they don't rebroadcast US shows.

Lindsay649 · 2010-03-22, 10:58 AM

We all like to complain but in the end we shut up and pay. This time my reaction is to wait and see what is proposed and then reduce our television service cost by 50 percent.

JamesK · 2010-03-22, 11:01 AM

One point that seems to be ignored here is the cause of the broadcasters financial position. According to what I've read, the crunch is essentially 2008-2009 or when the financial markets collapsed. Does this mean this is a temporary situation that will soon revert to normal? If so, then that money the broadcasters want is nothing better than a cash grab at the expense of the BDUs and subscribers. Also, some bad decisions by the broadcasters, partitcularly Global, contributed to the current problems. Why are BDU customers expected to pay for those bad decisions?

travisc · 2010-03-22, 03:45 PM

James, I think there are two problems here. Yes, the recession has no doubt had a temporary negative effect on the networks. But I think the real problem here is that the business model is broken due to forces beyond the networks' control (hey, look, it's free video on the Internet!) and they don't know how to fix it other than try to squeeze money out of a currently successful business model.

JamesK · 2010-03-22, 03:59 PM

^^^^
Wouldn't market forces be more gradual? As I read it, there was a very steep drop in 2008, which continued into 2009. I don't recall mention of previous years.

travisc · 2010-03-22, 08:23 PM

Yes, I agree, the underlying market forces are more gradual, it's the recession that was the killer the last couple years. The channels themselves have said things have been getting worse for years, however, and I don't see a way that it'll get better for them.

Francois Caron · 2010-03-22, 08:36 PM

Maybe we're simply overdue for a culling of television channels, both cable and OTA. We've arrived at a point where there are simply way more television channels than the market can bear, especially during a recession. If we were to lose, say, 25% of our Canadian television channels, that would mean the remaining 75% would have a much better chance of surviving, and possibly thriving.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2010-03-20, 05:32 PM	#422
billhome Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 248	I think the entire problem here is the CRTC. They should just get out of the way, remove all subsidies & corporate welfare (such as free use of spectrum by the broadcasters and LPIF), and let everyone compete for my money on merit. As it is now, we have a situation where broadcasters are operating like businesses but yet are also like charities, which muddies the water. For those who want "free OTA", you already have the CBC which you are funding through your taxes.

2010-03-20, 11:15 PM	#423
s40 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Coquitlam, BC Posts: 270	Another point is the BDU's have to have the ability to sim sub so that channels you pay for are substituted by the locals so that they can get the advertising revenues. They don't pay the bdu's for that service, yet they gain revenue by having extra viewers who would probably have chosen the out of town or American feed. If you get these OTA then you have free unsubstituted choice.

2010-03-22, 12:37 AM	#424
s40 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Coquitlam, BC Posts: 270	I also think that the real problem is that the Canadian Networks are competing as in out bidding each other for American shows, they bid to a level they can't really afford and then hope some one else makes up the short fall. If they get more money they will bid higher for those programs and again your and my money goes South.

2010-03-22, 10:58 AM	#430
Lindsay649 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Woodstock, Ontario Posts: 1,058	We all like to complain but in the end we shut up and pay. This time my reaction is to wait and see what is proposed and then reduce our television service cost by 50 percent.

2010-03-22, 11:01 AM	#431
JamesK Veteran Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mississauga Posts: 5,043	One point that seems to be ignored here is the cause of the broadcasters financial position. According to what I've read, the crunch is essentially 2008-2009 or when the financial markets collapsed. Does this mean this is a temporary situation that will soon revert to normal? If so, then that money the broadcasters want is nothing better than a cash grab at the expense of the BDUs and subscribers. Also, some bad decisions by the broadcasters, partitcularly Global, contributed to the current problems. Why are BDU customers expected to pay for those bad decisions?

2010-03-22, 03:45 PM	#432
travisc Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Uxbridge, ON Posts: 3,588	James, I think there are two problems here. Yes, the recession has no doubt had a temporary negative effect on the networks. But I think the real problem here is that the business model is broken due to forces beyond the networks' control (hey, look, it's free video on the Internet!) and they don't know how to fix it other than try to squeeze money out of a currently successful business model.

2010-03-22, 03:59 PM	#433
JamesK Veteran Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mississauga Posts: 5,043	^^^^ Wouldn't market forces be more gradual? As I read it, there was a very steep drop in 2008, which continued into 2009. I don't recall mention of previous years.

2010-03-22, 08:23 PM	#434
travisc Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Uxbridge, ON Posts: 3,588	Yes, I agree, the underlying market forces are more gradual, it's the recession that was the killer the last couple years. The channels themselves have said things have been getting worse for years, however, and I don't see a way that it'll get better for them.

2010-03-22, 08:36 PM	#435
Francois Caron Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,368	Maybe we're simply overdue for a culling of television channels, both cable and OTA. We've arrived at a point where there are simply way more television channels than the market can bear, especially during a recession. If we were to lose, say, 25% of our Canadian television channels, that would mean the remaining 75% would have a much better chance of surviving, and possibly thriving.