Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

How often do you watch the Weather Network?

  • Daily

    Votes: 26 15.5%
  • Frequently

    Votes: 31 18.5%
  • Infrequently

    Votes: 44 26.2%
  • Never

    Votes: 67 39.9%
41 - 60 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
I think people are flipping out over nothing.
hope you're joking you call 260 000 000 $ nothing ???
when environement canada can do the job (and should)

AmowAgou pointed it right what about OTA ppl ???
it just doesn't join everyone as a service like that should

i think we shold not paying a private company for a service the government is capable of doing
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
From the notice

The Commission, by majority decision, approves the application by Pelmorex Communications Inc. (Pelmorex) for a mandatory distribution order under section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act requiring all direct-to-home satellite distribution undertakings as well as all Class 1 broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) to distribute The Weather Network and MétéoMédia on the digital basic service. The mandatory distribution order will be effective 1 September 2010 and expire 31 August 2015.
The CRTC could have easily said, "With the option of timely weather information on the internet, radio, and newsprint, the commission believes a mandatory decision order is not in the best interests of consumers in these tough economic times"

The result would have been Canadian Cable and Satellite tv subscribers would not have to pay $260 million in additional taxes for a service most don't use. No one is saying get rid of the Weather Network, simply have the users who use it, pay for it.

The $12 million emergency service is a red herring.

I seriously believe that a government mandated tax of a quarter of a billion dollars is hardly nothing. IMO, the notion that billions of taxes here and there is no big deal is a very disturbing one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Hugh, it's not really appropriate to call this new fee a tax since the recipient of the money isn't a government agency, but a private corporation. We'll have to find a better word for what it really is.

Extortion? Nah. You can easily avoid the fee by canceling your cable subscription.

Come one people! Let's find a more appropriate term for this! Any suggestions? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
My point being hugh, this is not NEW money. If anything has been lost, it's the ability of the BDUs to remove this channel from basic and save you this money. It's already being paid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Exactly how can they supply local emergency alerts when they can't supply a detailed local forecast through a satellite provider?
We only have one true local station here (CBC) and it's not carried by Star Choice.
So just how are these alerts supposed to be effective in other areas of the country that don't have local stations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
why not have a coordinated system run by the national weather agency, like the USA?
hope you're joking you call 260 000 000 $ nothing ???
when environement canada can do the job (and should)
Disclaimers...

  1. I am an employee of Environment Canada
  2. I am NOT an authorized spokesperson for Environment Canada
You may be thinking of Weatheradio. See the webpage http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/msb/weatheradio/index_e.cfm and especially the FAQ at http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/msb/weatheradio/faq_e.cfm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
805 Posts
How about we list the things the CRTC doesn't know about:

- TWN is not Canada's source for weather
- TWN is not supposed to handle any «warnings»
- It's quicker to get the forecast on the Internet
- OTA is not just for techies
- CRTC's role is not to replace or complement the taxman

All jokes aside, we need to remove channels from the basic package, not add any more. I wonder how many people at the CRTC have ever used anything else than cable (real or on a stick).

-gmd
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter · #49 ·
My point being hugh, this is not NEW money. If anything has been lost, it's the ability of the BDUs to remove this channel from basic and save you this money. It's already being paid.
TravisC,

I disagree. Did the government of Canada collect money in the past? Yes, but IMO, that is irrelevant.

The government was asked to decide whether TWN should get $260 million of "new" tax revenue over the next five years. The government said yes. That's "new" money in my mind because without that decision, there would have been no money.

it's not really appropriate to call this new fee a tax since the recipient of the money isn't a government agency
Francois,

I disagree. Who receives the money the money doesn't define the fact that it is a tax. A tax is any fee levied by the government on a product, income, or activity. Call it a levy, a user fee, a charge or whatever but it is a tax.

As I have said before, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Isn't this "new" 23¢/mth/subscriber the same 23¢/mth/subscriber Pelmorex has been enjoying for years? I read the decision meant, in exchange for mandatory basic digital carriage, they got to keep their current fee on promise of spending new capital launching the emergency service.

That's sort of "free" isn't it? Do more, get paid the same?
Correct. BDU subscribers won't be paying more, per se. The issue here, for Pelmorex, is the fear that the big BDUs (e.g. Shaw) will either drop them or push them into a low-penetrated digital theme pack where they become "remaindered". So what this decision does is give Pelmorex a guaranteed subscriber base for its business plan over the years to come. Essentially, it gets to carry its analog business plan into the digital age - a very nice guarantee indeed.

Having said that, it is also true that the size of that guarantee is WAY out of proportion with the costs of the alerting system. Also, comments regarding Pelmorex's prior proposal to do this at a $0.20 rate for TWN are correct. So there apprears to be some "found money".

It is also true, as others say, that there is a proper process for such work. In fact, the industry had done a lot of work on the alerting system design and Public Safety was basically ready to issue an RFP. There are a number of interested bidders out there. From the taxpayer's point of view, the public, competitive RFP process is the right way to go.

There are also unrersolved issues out there as to who will be liable to whom in the event the alert messages are incorrect and someone suffers harm as a result. Pelmorex's proposal left some key aspects of that issue up in the air. Really, that's where you want to be able to look directly to government as a guarantor.

The CRTC's decision actually puts the Pelmorex solution in place as a temporary measure until Public Safety gets its own thing done. However, once in . . .

Also note that BDU participation in the Pelmorex alerting service is voluntary. Not all BDUs will go there. Some would question whether that makes any sense in the context of a national public emergency alerting system.

And isn't the station already carried by all BDUs? Bell, Shaw Direct, Cogeco and Rogers certainly include it in the least expensive package you can buy.
Again, correct. It's also worth pointing out that mandatory distribution of TWN applies only to DTH and Class 1 cable BDUs. That means all of the smaller systems -- which, after the upcoming small systems exemption order takes effect, should be all systems that serve 20,000 or fewer subscribers -- will not be obligated to distribute TWN in digital.

And the alerts don't appear on TWN exclusively, this is a system to overlay a warning on all channels, isn't it?
Possibly correct - this would work either as a crawl on all channels or, perhaps more likely, as a "forced Channel tuning" to an emergency broadcast channel. In a number of ways, the latter option is easier for BDUs and broadcasters to deal with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,602 Posts
Sorry hugh, I am not on the same wavelength as you. This $260m refers to money that TWN will be getting as their $0.23 wholesale fee from BDUs, correct? The only way this is truly new money is if we assume that BDUs would simply have removed TWN at some point. I think the majority of BDUs do see some value in the service and would not have removed it any time soon.

People on this forum may use the Internet for their weather, but hey, this is an Internet forum so it's safe to assume many here are Internet-savvy. Lots of old folks out there don't know how to use it and turn to the channel for weather.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
TravisC,

I disagree. Did the government of Canada collect money in the past? Yes, but IMO, that is irrelevant.

The government was asked to decide whether TWN should get $260 million of "new" tax revenue over the next five years. The government said yes. That's "new" money in my mind because without that decision, there would have been no money.
I agree with TravisC on this. Pelmorex will not get a penny of revenue tomorrow that it does not have today. This all goes back to the nastiness a few years ago when Shaw repackaged TWN to a less penetrated tier. Ever since then, Pelmorex has been trying to get a mandatory carriage order to prevent the same thing from happening again. The "new money", to the extent there is any, is in the revenues that Pelmorex will not lose as a result of repackaging by BDUs as the less stringent digital carriage rules come fully into force.

There is no new "tax".
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
310 Posts
Sorry hugh, I am not on the same wavelength as you. This $260m refers to money that TWN will be getting as their $0.23 wholesale fee from BDUs, correct? The only way this is truly new money is if we assume that BDUs would simply have removed TWN at some point. I think the majority of BDUs do see some value in the service and would not have removed it any time soon.

People on this forum may use the Internet for their weather, but hey, this is an Internet forum so it's safe to assume many here are Internet-savvy. Lots of old folks out there don't know how to use it and turn to the channel for weather.
I agree with you on the fact this is a techno-junkie/nerd website that severely distorts the view on how many people watch TWN for weather updates and forecasts.

The poll is completely useless for that fact alone.

Seems there's a lot of sensationalism in some of the claims about how much it's going to "cost" people. My cable bill will not be affected whatsoever from this decision so I don't really understand the scare tactics in this thread.

What I got out of the whole story is that the industry in general was dragging their feet on the whole issue and the CRTC made a interim decision to use TWN for alerts.

Big deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,533 Posts
I wonder if this could be a step towards The Weather Network appearing Over the Air?
Regardless of what channel is used, it must be available OTA. Or do they intend that only cable & sat subscribers are entitled to emergency broadcasts? In reading the news about the U.S. analog cut off, I've noticed there's a lot of concern about portable TVs, as they are often needed in emergency situations. It's hard to be portable, if you're tied to a cable. Now if they'd picked the CBC, then they'd cover cable/sat and OTA across the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Regardless of what channel is used, it must be available OTA. Or do they intend that only cable & sat subscribers are entitled to emergency broadcasts?
I think that Pelmorex will provide infrastructure to carry warnings from various agencies to TV networks and BDUs. The TV stations and BDUs will in turn slap the warnings over top of their signals... including OTA signals. The only reason the weather channel gets involved is that Pelmorex claims they need it rammed down people's throats in order to provide them with "financial stability" so that they'll be around for the next 5 years. It's like leaseing a car from GM, and they ask you to please also give them 50 billion to guarantee their financial stability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
a weather crawl/ticker at the bottom of your screen could work nicely, and i think that's the best way to implement it. I just hope they don't accidentally send the wrong warning to the wrong transponder (such as Halifax getting warnings about storms in Regina).

And just so you guys know, Comcast has The Weather Channel (TWN's american brother) on basic cable in Detroit and elsewhere. it's on most (if not all) basic cable packages in america.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,257 Posts
People on this forum may use the Internet for their weather, but hey, this is an Internet forum so it's safe to assume many here are Internet-savvy. Lots of old folks out there don't know how to use it and turn to the channel for weather.
Good point. It is kind of like doing a telephone survey to see how many people own a telephone. :) Well, not quite, but close.

On the survey I had to put Infrequently. I don't have cable or satellite so I never watch it at home, but whenever I visit my in-laws, they almost always have TWN on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,257 Posts
Would be better to pay CBC for using the service and help them out a bit, you know since they are a publicly funded company unlike Pelmorex. I don't understand the CRTC's motives...
I do. The CRTC reports to the Conservative Government and the Conservatives hate the CBC and love big business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I would watch The Weather Network more often if it was not to focused on one area of the country. *Cough*Ontario*Cough* Not that I have anything against Ontario, I just think if the West is forced to help pay for this, the focus should be more broad.

I don't know how many times they have skipped over Sask/MB during weather events.
Yes, they do indeed concentrate on Ontario. When they get to Western Canada, it goes from Regina to Calgary to Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Vancouver...yet when they do Ontario, it's Kenora, Timmins, and every little town!
 
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Top