Sorry, but you and the article posted are way off base here. What stats can reported was that "Private television broadcasters were less profitable in 2008 than in 2007, their profit before interests and taxes falling to $691.0 million from $763.6 million. Specialty and pay channels accounted for more than 99.0% of these profits.
Sure there is - if they're legally required to support a conventional station for each cash cow specialty channel they own as their own way of "giving back" to the system which allowed them to make these increased profits year after year.And while many companies own specialty channels as well as conventional, if you can't make money on conventional, there is no reason to keep it in business.
Sorry but those revenue and profits numbers are straight from StatsCan. Anyway you tumble it, private tv broadcasters earned $691 million last year.Sorry, but you and the article posted are way off base here.
Sure there is - legally requiring them to do so. Gay marriage wasn't legal in Canada until they made it legal as an example. People will be allowed to do, or forced to do, what the law dictates.
Yes - either required to run a station for every specialty station they own that's operating beyond a certain profit margin (as determined by a third party) or to contribute that money to a fund that'd allocate the money to stations that choose to operate as non-profit community stations (like what CHCH was looking at becoming before the Channel Zero buyout)..There are already companies that own specialty stations and not conventional stations. Would this new supposed law force Corus (who only run specialty stations and are owned by Shaw) to set up a conventional network?
Les Moonves has said he's been told that it may be advisable for CBS to become a specialty channel and that he wouldn't dismisss the idea - that's a big stretch from considering it (unless you've got a source that he's actually considering the idea).The CBS network in the States is already considering turning itself into a specialty station so that it is not 100% reliant on advertising revenues.
P2P is a non-sequester to this discussion since there is no profit in any way for it as people are simply taking the broadcasts so there's no alternative profit model there.If consumers can skip commercials with PVR's or P2P downloads, advertisers pull their money and conventional television goes away.
Agreed. Unless you're CTV where you get revenue from customers on cable because they're forced to sub to your channels although never watch it because it's part of a must carry package. Or your CTV again because get to rake on money hand over fist by being allowed to own and make a massive amount of the cable channels while giving nothing back to Canada and forcing consumers to pay for their OTA stations.Nothing comes for free.
But unfortunately, the CRTC can legally compel Canadians to take perhaps a billion dollars a year out of their pockets (between LIPF, CTF and the cost of simulcasting) to keep you afloat.
Corus entertainment has 3 conventional television stations that I know of. (CKWS, CHEX, Channel 12 Durham).brink0949 said:Would this new supposed law force Corus (who only run specialty stations and are owned by Shaw) to set up a conventional network? I don't think so.
There is, to a degree. My requirement would be that first run US network and syndicated programming can only air on broadcast stations first. Specialty channels can only air it after a Canadian broadcaster has.
No, but it would comply them to pay into a fund that supports conventional broadcast stations.There are already companies that own specialty stations and not conventional stations. Would this new supposed law force Corus (who only run specialty stations and are owned by Shaw) to set up a conventional network? I don't think so.
My understanding was that, in that scheme, they still would be a "free" OTA network/station, but would specialize their programming lineup to a certain genre.As I stated earlier, this is not a problem exclusive to Canada. The CBS network in the States is already considering turning itself into a specialty station so that it is not 100% reliant on advertising revenues.
If you change "P2P" to legal sites such as Hulu or iTunes, there is a point, to the degree the station sees little to none of the revenue from those viewings..P2P is a non-sequester to this discussion since there is no profit in any way for it as people are simply taking the broadcasts so there's no alternative profit model there.
Cable DVRs are beside the point. Users will still be skipping advertisers on both specialty and broadcast programming.Regarding PVRing - most consumers don't own PVR's. Also most PVR's are sold by cable companies to be used with their service so that doesn't apply to OTA.
According to the article, CTV and Canwest made 20% profit on their specialty channel operations. That doesn't make Rogers and Shaw look so fat. Also, consider that Rogers and Shaw are making huge, ongoing capital investments to increase network capacity, develop new technology and provide new services. The bulk of CTV and Global expenditures are for foreign programming while investing relatively little in the way of Canadian programming and new technical services. If Shaw and Rogers were run the way CTV and Canwest runs their networks, 90% of Canada would not have access to digital TV or high speed internet.fat cats like Rogers and Shaw (who screw us on internet rates as well as tv) made profit margins in excess of 30%.
It's no conspiracy theory. It's well known that Canwest's problems are due to its high debt. CTV is not far behind due to their badly conceived acquisition of Chum that left them with the A stations. If you don't know how leveraged buyouts work, I suggest you look into it.That's some conspiracy theory ScaryBob.