Comments on: Don’t Tax My TV! http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/ Miscellaneous things that I find interesting Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:32:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Doug Rourke http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20905 Doug Rourke Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:56:12 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20905 I think the cable companies and the broadcasting companies need to sit down and address their financial issues a practical business like and common sense approach! I have no sympathy for Shaw Communications after reading that five Shaw top executives were included in the the 2008 top 55 companies in Calgary with the highest annual compensation packages. Shaw compensated the 5 executives $43,621,965.00 for 2008! This tells me that that the cable companies are charging the customers excessive amounts for cable service, which a large portion of the executive compensation could be directed to the local broadcasting companies and the share holders! I think the cable companies and the broadcasting companies need to sit down and address their financial issues a practical business like and common sense approach!
I have no sympathy for Shaw Communications after reading that five Shaw top executives were included in the the 2008 top 55 companies in Calgary with the highest annual compensation packages. Shaw compensated the 5 executives $43,621,965.00 for 2008!
This tells me that that the cable companies are charging the customers excessive amounts for cable service, which a large portion of the executive compensation could be directed to the local broadcasting companies and the share holders!

]]> By: David R Mills http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20842 David R Mills Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:49:03 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20842 Hi, I'm X military, in receipt of a pension, and if I were to take another government job, some news reporter from some "local TV station" would be there all over my a's for double dipping. Well people, the "local TV station" want to do just that. They get good money for the 18 minutes per hour of commercials that we have to endure. Now just who do you think carries all those commercials to the viewing public, well at least 99.9% of that public; It's the cable and Sat companies. If local TV wants money for their programming, then they should cough-up money to the cable & Sat companies for carrying their commercials. WHY should they double dip? Maybe the cable & Sat companies could start blanking-out commercials; That works for me. Or, maybe drop some locals, then see how long they last with a loss of 99.9% of their viewing public. Hi,
I’m X military, in receipt of a pension, and if I were to take another government job, some news reporter from some “local TV station” would be there all over my a’s for double dipping.
Well people, the “local TV station” want to do just that. They get good money for the 18 minutes per hour of commercials that we have to endure.
Now just who do you think carries all those commercials to the viewing public, well at least 99.9% of that public; It’s the cable and Sat companies.
If local TV wants money for their programming, then they should cough-up money to the cable & Sat companies for carrying their commercials. WHY should they double dip?
Maybe the cable & Sat companies could start blanking-out commercials; That works for me. Or, maybe drop some locals, then see how long they last with a loss of 99.9% of their viewing public.

]]> By: apeman http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20382 apeman Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:08:21 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20382 GPMatt - I agree, we should drop the over ride laws and make the Canadian Broadcasters put Canadian Content besides news into their schedules. That would be fair! Actually, if they were forced to drop US programming, I would cancel cable and just watch Hulu :) It gives me better video quality than Global and CTV do in HD. GPMatt – I agree, we should drop the over ride laws and make the Canadian Broadcasters put Canadian Content besides news into their schedules. That would be fair!

Actually, if they were forced to drop US programming, I would cancel cable and just watch Hulu :) It gives me better video quality than Global and CTV do in HD.

]]> By: GPMatt http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20381 GPMatt Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:57:46 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20381 I don't have a problem with the local stations selling their product to the cable companies, but in return, I think we should have the right to turn down those channels, or just pick the ones that I want. If the local stations really want to talk about being fair though, I think we should open the market up to competition. Right now, they seem to get most of their viewers by rebroadcasting shows from US networks. Why not get rid of the override laws and let Canadian broadcasters stand on their own. I don’t have a problem with the local stations selling their product to the cable companies, but in return, I think we should have the right to turn down those channels, or just pick the ones that I want. If the local stations really want to talk about being fair though, I think we should open the market up to competition. Right now, they seem to get most of their viewers by rebroadcasting shows from US networks. Why not get rid of the override laws and let Canadian broadcasters stand on their own.

]]> By: global_mike http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20313 global_mike Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:03:46 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20313 Hey there – it’s ‘Global_Mike’ from the Local TV Matters campaign (http://localtvmatters.ca/). Thanks for your interest in the issue. I read your blog and it seems like you’ve gotten a lot of your info from Shaw’s ‘Don’t Tax My TV’ website - http://tinyurl.com/yew3u3d. It won’t surprise you to learn that we disagree with most of what’s on there. In fact, we would say some of their statements are misleading. The bottom line is that we currently give our product to cable and satellite companies for free. They, in turn, charge customers for our product each and every month – and they don’t pass any of the revenue on to local stations. We can no longer afford to give our product away for free. The vast majority of other channels on the dial (including the US cable channels like CNN and SpikeTV) show both commercials and get paid for their product by cable and satellite companies. We think this is unfair. Specifically on a couple of your points though – the $6.00 scare tactic by Shaw. This is untrue. What we are asking for is the ability to negotiate a fair value for our signals from cable. We are not asking for a fixed amount. Even if you argue that they should be allowed to pass on whatever we negotiate (despite the fact that they already charge for our product, so it would effectively be double-charging for our product), how can they possibly arrive at a price before we’ve even negotiated? Don’t fall for this scare tactic. Only monopolies, such as cable, could play these games with their customers. On the Local Programming Improvement Fund – the CRTC specifically told the cable companies that they should absorb the charge (check out Line 357 - http://tinyurl.com/y8bze93). Cable companies like Shaw, of course didn’t, and blamed the CRTC for the fee instead. At the end of the day, they are not looking out for the consumer - they are looking out for their bottom line. And for them to feign outrage at any increase to cable bills is laughable when you consider that your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living in the past five years. Thanks again, Global_Mike Hey there – it’s ‘Global_Mike’ from the Local TV Matters campaign (http://localtvmatters.ca/). Thanks for your interest in the issue. I read your blog and it seems like you’ve gotten a lot of your info from Shaw’s ‘Don’t Tax My TV’ website – http://tinyurl.com/yew3u3d. It won’t surprise you to learn that we disagree with most of what’s on there. In fact, we would say some of their statements are misleading. The bottom line is that we currently give our product to cable and satellite companies for free. They, in turn, charge customers for our product each and every month – and they don’t pass any of the revenue on to local stations. We can no longer afford to give our product away for free. The vast majority of other channels on the dial (including the US cable channels like CNN and SpikeTV) show both commercials and get paid for their product by cable and satellite companies. We think this is unfair.

Specifically on a couple of your points though – the $6.00 scare tactic by Shaw. This is untrue. What we are asking for is the ability to negotiate a fair value for our signals from cable. We are not asking for a fixed amount. Even if you argue that they should be allowed to pass on whatever we negotiate (despite the fact that they already charge for our product, so it would effectively be double-charging for our product), how can they possibly arrive at a price before we’ve even negotiated? Don’t fall for this scare tactic. Only monopolies, such as cable, could play these games with their customers.

On the Local Programming Improvement Fund – the CRTC specifically told the cable companies that they should absorb the charge (check out Line 357 – http://tinyurl.com/y8bze93). Cable companies like Shaw, of course didn’t, and blamed the CRTC for the fee instead.

At the end of the day, they are not looking out for the consumer – they are looking out for their bottom line. And for them to feign outrage at any increase to cable bills is laughable when you consider that your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living in the past five years.

Thanks again,

Global_Mike

]]> By: Global_Mike http://www.apeman.org/2009/09/29/259/comment-page-1/#comment-20310 Global_Mike Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:54:30 +0000 http://www.apeman.org/?p=259#comment-20310 Hey there – it’s ‘Global_Mike’ from the Local TV Matters campaign. Thanks for your interest in the issue. I read your blog and it seems like you’ve gotten a lot of your info from Shaw’s ‘Don’t Tax My TV’ website. It won’t surprise you to learn that we disagree with most of what’s on there. In fact, we would say some of their statements are misleading. The bottom line is that we currently give our product to cable and satellite companies for free. They, in turn, charge customers for our product each and every month – and they don’t pass any of the revenue on to local stations. We can no longer afford to give our product away for free. The vast majority of other channels on the dial (including the US cable channels like CNN and SpikeTV) show both commercials and get paid for their product by cable and satellite companies. We think this is unfair. Specifically on a couple of your points though – the $6.00 scare tactic by Shaw. This is untrue. What we are asking for is the ability to negotiate a fair value for our signals from cable. We are not asking for a fixed amount. Even if you argue that they should be allowed to pass on whatever we negotiate (despite the fact that they already charge for our product, so it would effectively be double-charging for our product), how can they possibly arrive at a price before we’ve even negotiated? Don’t fall for this scare tactic. Only monopolies, such as cable, could play these games with their customers. On the Local Programming Improvement Fund – the CRTC specifically told the cable companies that they should absorb the charge (check out Line 357 - link won't work here!). Cable companies like Shaw, of course didn’t, and blamed the CRTC for the fee instead. At the end of the day, they are not looking out for the consumer - they are looking out for their bottom line. And for them to feign outrage at any increase to cable bills is laughable when you consider that your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living in the past five years. Thanks again, Global_Mike Hey there – it’s ‘Global_Mike’ from the Local TV Matters campaign. Thanks for your interest in the issue. I read your blog and it seems like you’ve gotten a lot of your info from Shaw’s ‘Don’t Tax My TV’ website. It won’t surprise you to learn that we disagree with most of what’s on there. In fact, we would say some of their statements are misleading. The bottom line is that we currently give our product to cable and satellite companies for free. They, in turn, charge customers for our product each and every month – and they don’t pass any of the revenue on to local stations. We can no longer afford to give our product away for free. The vast majority of other channels on the dial (including the US cable channels like CNN and SpikeTV) show both commercials and get paid for their product by cable and satellite companies. We think this is unfair.

Specifically on a couple of your points though – the $6.00 scare tactic by Shaw. This is untrue. What we are asking for is the ability to negotiate a fair value for our signals from cable. We are not asking for a fixed amount. Even if you argue that they should be allowed to pass on whatever we negotiate (despite the fact that they already charge for our product, so it would effectively be double-charging for our product), how can they possibly arrive at a price before we’ve even negotiated? Don’t fall for this scare tactic. Only monopolies, such as cable, could play these games with their customers.

On the Local Programming Improvement Fund – the CRTC specifically told the cable companies that they should absorb the charge (check out Line 357 – link won’t work here!). Cable companies like Shaw, of course didn’t, and blamed the CRTC for the fee instead.

At the end of the day, they are not looking out for the consumer – they are looking out for their bottom line. And for them to feign outrage at any increase to cable bills is laughable when you consider that your basic cable bill has gone up more than four times the cost of living in the past five years.

Thanks again,

Global_Mike

]]>