Skip navigation

Shaw wins three CTV stations – for $1 each

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Feuding between Canada's major television networks and its big cable companies reaches a new level ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: I think the problem with TV broadcasting in Canada is that too many stations are chasing too few dollars. And whether they are funded through cable fees or advertising, guess where the money ultimately comes from?
  2. I B from Canada writes: I'd be happy paying per channel fees but I think it would spell the end of local stations.

    $2.50 per channel which includes network and service maintenance fees from the cable provider and my bill would go down substantially.

    I only follow about 6-7 channels anyway.

    I B
  3. Knuckles Muldoon from Etobicoke, Canada writes: Hey, what hapened to my $2 bid for CKNX in Wingham? I grew up not to far from there and was hoping to return the station to serve the local people instead of the crap on there now.
  4. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: If the claims and reporting on the issue are accurate we have a situation that can be compared to me selling Ford vehicles to customers in competition with Ford but without me having to pay any money to Ford for their vehicles. Good business but I doubt Ford would sit still for it very long and neither should the networks. If the cable companies can't afford to pay for the product then they should not have access to it.
  5. Green Gene from Federal Bluesville, Canada writes:

    'Bonuses for executives would be 'significantly' reduced.'

    That pretty well explains the problem with the corporate model: the ship is sinking and stations are being closed, but the executives who steered the corporate vessel have to take a hit on their bonuses!! Sounds more like the entitlements that some politicians feel entitled to than the lean, mean capitalism machine that we were pumped about in the 'competitive 1980's'. Canwest Global closed at $.26 yesterday, down from $4.26 a year ago, that's almost 95% market cap lost in a year, and bonuses (paid for out of the salaries that Shaw will be paying most likely). CTVglobemedia is owned by a group that includes the billionaire Thomson family's private Woodbridge Co., Torstar Corp. the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and BCE Inc. As a privately held entity we aren't privy to CTVglobemedia's performance but, if the complaints of the CTV's Ivan Fecan are to be taken at face value, we can assume the performance hasn't been good.
  6. Eric Jordan from Victoria, Canada writes: I buy and sell advertising for a living. I don't see television advertising as good value. It would seem other people who buy advertising feel the same. If TV stations who are all in the business of selling advertising can not compete in the marketplace of people like me who buy advertising, I say let them go broke. Why should tax dollars from profitable companies be used to support outdated and ineffective business models. Let the employees work for companies who have a business model that works. Work is available. PIN needs sales people as clients want to buy our advertising service. It all comes down to VALUE.
  7. Donald Wilson from Canada writes: I don't understand why some CRTC and Cable operators think they shouldn't pay for the product they sell to customers ? Why should anyone produce a product / show and give it away - unless your the CBC and the taxpayer has footed the bill . But all other producers have expenses including payrolls - they have to be paid for production or quickly go out of business .
  8. J R from Canada writes: Mr Fecan is sounding more and more like a petulant spoiled brat. His attitude and comments are not helping his case for Fee for Carriage.
  9. J R from Canada writes: Donald Wilson

    They aren't giving it away it's called commercial television it is sold to advertisers that is their source of revenue. Cable companies are providing a service especially in urban areas of delivering a clean, interference and ghost free signal. Having said that nobody is forcing anyone to buy cable so if I decide to get my signal over the air it's free. If I get it from the cable company I am paying for their service to deliver a clear signal. In fact the cable companies are doing the OTA broadcasters a favour in providing a clean signal on a preferred channel number and in addition doing simultaneous substitution for the OTA broadcasters to increase their audience and hence ad revenue. That being the case the cable companies probably have justification in asking the OTA's broadcasters for a cut of the ad revenue for the service they are providing.
  10. Bill Davidson from Oshawa, Canada writes: I don't think local stations should get money from cable, but if the CRTC rules in their favour then the stations should no longer be a must carry and cable should set them up as a separate theme which can be subscribed to if people want to pay for it.
  11. Talk Sudbury from Sudbury, Canada writes: CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL OR CEASE TO EXIST!

    Why must tax payers continue to found the shifts in a FREE MARKET?

    Is this the NEW modern way of big business? We're too big to fail so taxpayers must bail?

    BULL! CTV has been systematically cutting local programming for years. And making a sizable profit doing it! Problem is when you cut local coverage you tend to LOSE local viewers. Dah!

    People will seek out alternatives, even poor ones if local broadcasters are not proving them with the information they need.

    Ultimately, the market and consumer are evolving away from local largely due to the Internet. Local media including newspapers have been too slow to evolve and as a result local users have created their own local communities online without the need for a local news outlet or large broadcaster.

    Lose the viewers, lose the advertising revenue. Pretty simple stuff. This includes CTV's absolutely pathetic online offerings. Tiny little windows and terrible audio vs their US counterparts full HD offerings.

    But all that being said. It's time for all media in Canada, local and large alike to pull their collective thumbs out of the behinds and start thinking creatively and acting strategically instead pf crying to legislators to maintain their market positions.
  12. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'd be interested in knowing how much of our fees actually go into operating costs of the Cable companies --- and what percentage (perhaps 75%) go into executive compenstation (yes, that old chestnut). and then how much goes toward dividends of shareholders (who should be the prime beneficiaries (usually about 5%)).
  13. Disgusted Canadian from Canada writes: I'd dare say, when one watches TV, at least 15 minutes of every 1/2 hour is assinine, often embarrasing often shameful, bottom of the barrel, often animations what they call advertising, how pathetic and low do these advertisers have to grovel before something clicks and tells them that most if not all garbage is extreemly annoying. to add insult to injury, you switch channels and guess what, the crapp that you just switched from, is there too. The Newfoundland and Labrador ad, Gray power insurance, direct buy, the chip programme, premier bathtubs, etc, etc and on and on and the maddening part is that all of the above crap is on hundreds of times a day so don't wonder why people get dam mad. You know something else folks, the consumer that patronizes these advertisments, gets to pay the inflated price for what they are selling, to pay for the advertising, BOYCOTT THEM, BOYCOTT THEM. Advertising is a multi billion dollar industry and the consumers must pay for this crap. Tell your MP to order the CRTC to force the advertisers to put all advertising on the ticker c/w the discription of their product, phone number and or email adress, only then will we have peace. In the meantime, I'll always boycott crapp.
  14. Sean O'Reilly from Canada writes: All this means to me is that my already bloated cable bill is probably going up.

    It would be so nice to have the freedom to pay for what you actually want, and not have to have so many useless channels...
  15. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Sean O'Really: consumers do have power and we should insist on the business model you propose. Having said that, I would gladly pay a few dollars a month to the local public broadcaster here because I understand they are supporting a whole industry here. I don't watch that channel all the time, but I do want it to exist.
  16. Gronck the realist from Canada writes: This whole hearing is a joke as it is not exploring new ideas in a period of change. they are trying to fix a system which is broken and can't be fixed. New ideas are required. As a consumer I'd like to see CBC TV shut down; that would stop a drain on the public purse and the advertising revenue would go elsewhere. I am also fed up with the cable bill - as mentioned by others, I only want a few channels and want to pick which ones I want. it would be very interesting if the cable companies' pay for view channels had up to date movies in HD at a reasonable cost also.

    Canadians are being ripped off by the CBC and the cable companies and the CRTC just ensures that nothing changes for the consumer
  17. Urban Slim from Canada writes: 'The networks say they shouldn't be forced to give their signal away for free to the cable and satellite carriers.'

    The networks are completely misrepresenting the issue and it's going to bite them in the rear.
  18. AG Bear from Canada writes: People are forgetting an important part of the argument here:

    Without cable distribution, TV stations and networks would not be able to claim their large viewership and charge the advertising rates that they charge. In other words, if Shaw and Rogers stopped carrying the 'free' feeds, the revenues for the stations and networks would fizzle out all together. It's been a symbiotic relationship up until now. The networks should shut up.
  19. david graham from halifax, Canada writes: got rid of my cable bill years ago, cannot remember when the television was last turned on, perhaps the last olympics? learn how to use a web proxy....all the best tv, on demand, without regional restrictions. that being said, there is nothing on regular canadian channels/cable channels worth watching, it could not possibly be because the market has changed and both the television network providers and the cable companies have dropped the ball for good, could it?
  20. F Arseneault from Canada writes: JR Shaw has hisw own personal Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604 in a brand new 'Shaw' hangar at Calgary's west hangar complex at the airport. At current $18m US used, I think we get a pretty good idea how profitable Shaw cable is...
  21. D K from Canaduh, Canada writes: The endgame has begun. The cable companies which are also into broadcasting, are looking for a fire sale on broadcast stations. By not giving the broadcasters a fee for their signals, they are going to be swallowed up by the cable guys. This results in more media concentration in fewer hands with fewer points of view.
  22. Common Sense from Canada writes: In the long haul, PVR / TIVO sales will continue to grow. The ability of the viewer to fast forward thru commercials HAS to change the business model; advertising revenues have to shrink.

    Access to programming via the Internet also draws away viewers. It will not help directly, other than the advertising on the websites (check out CTV's online programming - tons of advertising).

    There is a lot of good stuff and a lot of junk on the tube. Because of rising prices, and the fact that the 42' LCD/plasma is no longer a novelty, viewers will begin cutting off their cable and rely more on other avenues (FTA, rabbit ears, DVD's, downloaded content, etc.). Probably makes more sense to just simply buy or download what you want - no commercials, watch what you want, when you want, as often as you want, and entire seasons if you want.

    Rogers / Shaw will make money elsewhere (wireless, media, etc.). TV stations on the other hand will have to redefine their business model. It ain't gonna last.
  23. Winni Miss from Mississauga, Canada writes: I believe that Shaw will make money with these stations. Large conglomerates like BellGlobeMedia are inefficient, mired in policies and practices that must be applied uniformly to all of its businesses, whereas smaller companies are more frugal and practical in the way they manage. For example, CBC sends tons of people, trucks and equipment to cover a sporting event, CTV somehat less, and local TV substantially less (Rogers, Shaw) - yet the consumer gets the same product. It is for similar reasons that GM is failing.
  24. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    Globe editors, is there any chance that you can write a headline that actually corresponds to facts of the article?

    Seriously, 'wins'? How exactly is an offer to purchase winning?

    By that logic, when I pay my mortgage I'm winning my own home.

    .
  25. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: CTV blustered to prove a point about the unviability of local stations, claiming they'd sell them for $1 and Shaw stepped up and scooped them. I fully expect CTV to end up with egg on their face when those stations turn profit in the hands of competent managers.

    Thank goodness CTV is not a public company -- at least only the proprieters are losing a fortune in this slow collapse.
  26. Anyone but Ignatieff; Rae and LeBlanc. or Duceppe for the new Liberal Leader. from Canada writes: It's hard to see how anyone could lose money running a TV station. All it takes is decent programing. CTV does not appear to have that. Local golf, hobbies, fishing, bowling, curling, junior hockey, gardening, cooking etc. and other local activities are completely missing on the canadian TV.
  27. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: If the claims and reporting on the issue are accurate we have a situation that can be compared to me selling Ford vehicles to customers in competition with Ford but without me having to pay any money to Ford for their vehicles. Good business but I doubt Ford would sit still for it very long and neither should the networks. If the cable companies can't afford to pay for the product then they should not have access to it.

    ==================

    That's not right. Being carried on cable is a BENEFIT to broadcasters because it increases their audience-reach and thus their advertising price.

    For them to demand to be PAID to receive this BENEFIT is insulting to our intelligence.
  28. Richard O'Connell from Melbourne beach, United States writes: I have Satellite TV and the only reason I have it is to get The NHL Centre Ice Package. Right now I can receive about 15 digital over the air channels for free and when the U.S. goes all digital on June 12th that number will at the least double. Let us face the facts Satellite and Cable Companies are out to give us the least and charge us the most. Why the extra fee charged by these companies to receive various HD Channels, just another way to pick our pockets.
  29. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: I think Eric Jordan @7:30 is telling us some sound facts. Adverstisers are not getting value from TV ads. Between ad-skipping technology and the trusty mute button no-one watches them. In desperation the broadcasters keep adding more ad time which only drives the audience away.
  30. Mr. Blue Canoe from Waterloo, Canada writes: CTV and the other networks are not 'forced' to be on cable as they so complain, so why should cable companies be 'forced' to pay.

    Looking at their content, Canadian network broadcasters are really American broadcasters in Canadian clothing. The CBC is hardly recognizable.
  31. Kevin Sutton from Toronto, Canada writes: The networks' position is ridiculous. Regardless of whether their problems are business model related, or recessionary or whatever; the fact is that houses within broadcast range get their signal free already. That's the business model. People don't pay for cable to get broadcast networks. If the companies want money from the Cable companies they should reorganize their business model to sell their programming to the cable companies like the other channels. (Or however that's done)
  32. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: The networks say they shouldn't be forced to give their signal away for free to the cable and satellite carriers.

    Then don't. No-one forces broadcasters to be carried on these services as far as I know.
  33. LLoyd Atkinson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Shaw and Rogers say giving the conventional broadcasters what they want would add up to $10 a month to cable bills. All this in a unique system where Canadians have to take what they don't want (all the CRTC must carry sweethearts) in order to get what they want. Ivan Fecan, Leonard Asper and their pals have already gobbled up many of the can't lose specialty channels. In the land of simultaneous substitution, they come off as spoliled brats. Maybe it is time for a voter revolt if the CRTC and the Harper cabinet are rolled over by the cries for further pampering.Canadian consumers have just about had enough.
  34. Remain Nameless from Canada writes: Don't forget, Jim Shaw Jr.,, that you must pay an additional 10% of the value of the purchase to a 'benefits package'.
  35. Will Farnaby from writes: Rot quickly, CTV...
  36. Mr Canoehead from Canada writes: It's just TV. Contributes nothing to society except to placate the masses to ensure civil order.

    If they don't know how to run a company, then they should continue to sell to someone who clearly does.
  37. an individual from Canada writes: I'll take CHCH for $5, hey even $500! Mr. Asper doesn't know what a gem he has there.
  38. Shakin' My Head from Milton, Canada writes: despite it all.... I am glad that Wingham will get another chance to stay afloat to serve mid-western Ontario. I am sure there is similar supporters in Windsor and Brandon thinking the same way... but, small market TV (not to mention, big market regional and national TV) is under a type of pressure that it may not be able to ever fully recover from..
  39. Skip Thorstein from Canada writes: Companies like CTV offer so little to Canadians. I don't see why they think we should care if they go. Our 'Canadian cultural mandate' can be served by smaller enterprises--which will probably end up being low or no-profit. And our American entertainment can be served up through the gazillion choices that American media offers us. Frankly, I don't see the big deal if one guy at CTV loses his job putting the tape of Desperate Housewives in the tape machine and pushing play.
  40. Norm Jom from Petawawa, Canada writes: Posters are right that say networks are getting a service from cable and satellite providers that distribute their signal, they shouldn't be paid to have their signal transmitted.

    If anything the networks have shot themselves in the foot. Most of them own and operate cable stations which directly compete with their network signal. They do get compensated for their cable channels and you notice they don't bother mentioning that. They also have saturated the cable channel market with far too many channels all basically carrying the same programming very little original at all.

    The networks should be streamlining their cable offerings dumping many of the wasteful cable channels and their profits from network broadcasts advertising would probably be more profitable.

    As for me, I dumped cable and satellite years ago, if I can't get it on rabbit ears I don't watch. Though I do have an FTA dish and get the free feeds that are available. The solution is not to charge cable providers for the network broadcasts, it's a recipe for disaster IMHO.
  41. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    Shaw didn't 'win' anything

    Shaw offered to purchase these three stations for a buck apiece and CTVglobemedia Inc. CEO Ivan Fecan accepted the offer.

    Ivan Fecan: 'I think it's great'

    Shaw CEO Jim Shaw: 'There's lots of bright people around in Canada, and because [the networks] can't figure it out is not our issue.'

    Jim Shaw will show the amateurs at CTV what good management is all about.

    Ivan Fecon had better hope and pray that Jim Shaw doesn't make these three stations profitable or else he may be looking for another job.

    Or maybe he'll run back to the government for a taxpayer funded handout.

    This will be fun to watch.
  42. Yvonne Wackernagel from Auto industry, Canada writes: If bonuses are paid on success, then why are the bonuses just reduced instead of eliminated when the stations are sold for $1 each?
  43. G N from Canada writes: I miss the local cheesy television news. It was the only thing that was local. CTV in their bid to be everywhere stripped all these stations of what made them relevant providing us with news and shows from one source. The same thing is happening to newspapers. Get back to quality and away from one size fits all.
  44. James Hinnecke from Canada writes: I don't have a lot of sympathy for either ctv or global. They spend hundreds of millions for american drivel and then cry the blues when they can't sell advertising. Then they expect the crtc to help them out by charging viewers for the dubious privilege of broadcasting that stuff.

    Howzabout a little less 'dancing with the stars' and 'celebrity apprentice' and a little more homegrown news/public affairs/sports content? Howzabout using some of the programming dollars to encourage some more homegrown programs like 'Corner Gas'?
  45. Jeff Michaels from Toronto, Canada writes: Wingham...the hotbed of Canadian media LOL
  46. charles crouch from Canada writes: For quite some time now I have been of the opinion that TV today is doomed to failure and all because of the inroads commercial advertising has had on this media. In their greed they have taken over the industry and as a result are in effect 'killing the goose that laid the golden egg.'

    Do they really think that we are entertained or even informed by their technique of repeatedly hammering home their commercial messages contained within such inane plots ? You only have to look at the present automobile manufacturing collapse to see how ineffective this TV advertising has turned out to be. Surely we never intended for our acquisition of expensive HDTV sets together with the outlandish monthly service fees, to say nothing of the ancillary electronic equipment, to be transformed into torture techniques that absolutely ruin any semblance of nurturing the entertainment or edification of the TV viewers.

    I have often wonder about the deleterious effect that these continuous annoying interruptions could have on the human mind. And if that alone wasn't adverse enough, think also of the fact that these advertising companies by their revenues from the producers of these products ultimately increase the cost to the consumer of most of the merchandise we buy. This avaricious feeding on the consumer has to stop before that 'goose' is finally laid to rest. RIP.
  47. Butler Bear from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: I'd put my money on Jim Shaw. He owns a station in Kenora, Ontario and it apparently is doing just fine.
  48. hangin right from Van, Canada writes: a $1 eh?
  49. marlene stobbart from High River, Canada writes: Jim Shaw is a very astute businessman whose company, since the mid 60's, has become exceedingly profitable. Back in the days of rabbit ears when TV was free to the consumer working at the local CTV television station was a great experience. The local stations with their programming was excellent and geared to the community and surround but, today, we don't have enough. Hence, I believe, we have lost our sense of continuity within the community and know more about the world and less about where we actually live.
    Shaw, now the local tv provider's monthly billing cost rose in the past 30 years from $8/month to the sky is the limit depending on the channels chosen. The basic package still cost five times what it had and, frankly, leaves a lot to be desired. The server providers charge X amount to Shaw to carry their shows. The option for Shaw is to choose and frankly, they have dropped excellent shows. Yet consumers prices keep increasing. I believe you will see the day people will just use the tv for their dvd's, etc and utilize their computers for additional news, etc. it would perhaps be better to go back to basics of what used to be.
  50. Chinook Arch from Out of the Box, Canada writes: There is a new technology called 'Red Ray' which has 4 times the resolution than HD/BlueRay. The company also has a compression codec(application) speed that would allow a movie to be downloaded from high speed internet in minutes (ZDnet)
    .....................................................................If this is true, then both cable and broadcast channels will be in trouble and this tempest is a teapot story will be irrelevant.
  51. R. Canuck from Canada writes: James Hinnicke...don't feel sorry for CTV or Global? ....how will you feel if push comes to shove and the private broadcasters who pay for rights to all your favorite shows...Idol, CSI, Survivor and many more deny cable the right to show them in Canada. They have paid hundreds of millions for those rights and cable competes against their signal for nada. All this drivel about how carriage benefits private broadcasters. They had all the viewers before cable got here. Cable didn't do them any great service by carrying them. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the cable guys through screwing their customers 'us' have all the money and don't want to share a cent. Now they are the bullies on the block and want to throw their weight around. Stand up for your local stations or lose them.
  52. M Poland from Canada writes: Bully for Jim Shaw in calling the bluff[s] of the big boys. Shaw gives excellent service and choice for our money, and, for those carping above, nobody forces you to watch drivel. We have plenty of excellent choices for our dollar available right on our television.
  53. R. Canuck from Canada writes: M Polland...what pray tell is Mr. Shaw going to run on his new stations. He pays for the rights to nothing. This is just a farce. Cable operators are pirates they offer very little for the money they pull out of markets. Satellite even less. If the CRTC had handled this properly from the start and initiated fee for carriage like the FCC has in the US and forced the satellite systems to carry local stations we would have a healthy industry.
  54. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: R. Canuck ... writes: James ....how will you feel if push comes to shove and the private broadcasters who pay for rights to all your favorite shows... They have paid hundreds of millions for those rights and cable competes against their signal for nada.

    ================

    HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!

    R. Canuck is a paid shill for one of the broadcasters. His or her argument is ridiculous.

    First, cable quite readily provides all those treasured American shows on -- get this, it's a shocker -- AMERICAN CHANNELS already. The Canadian broadcasters add ZERO value by duplicating them. The only reason they duplicate them is that the CRTC stupidly allows them to swap in their Canadian ads over the U.S. channel during commercials. CTV and Global pay the big buck for those shows ONLY to get this unearned commercial revenue.

    Second, if the broadcasters aren't satisfied with the BENEFIT they obtain by being carried on cable, no-one is forcing them to be there.
  55. Hee Hoo Sai from Canada writes: There isn't a dollars worth of entertaiment in the lot.
  56. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: R. Canuck from Canada writes: M Polland...what pray tell is Mr. Shaw going to run on his new stations. He pays for the rights to nothing.

    =================

    LOL! You're so deep in the CanWest/CTV futility mindset you can't even imagine any other way to generate content than 'buying the rights'.
  57. Urban Slim from Canada writes: R. Canuck from Canada...your intellectual dishonesty is astounding
  58. Toast And coffee from Canada writes: The television business is in transition. Not that long ago but before the internet and the proliferation of specialty chanels, the networks were happy to provide the cable co's their produst free of charge. More viewers/ advertsing exposure. It simply is not the case anymore. Advertising dollars are being diverted from mainstream TV and the networks cannot command the rates required to remain in business.

    The logical change has to be to require the cable companies to pay for the feed. Alternatively we will simply have fewer Canadian networks or none.

    The status quo is not an option.
  59. Butler Bear from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: R Canuck: What will Jim Shaw run on his new stations? Well he might run local newscasts & other programming. He does it on Shaw Cable.

    You work for a big media player, that's clear. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
  60. J. K. GALBRAITH from Canada writes: Whether Shaw can make the stations profitable or not, does not matter. Shaw can afford to run them unprofitably for a few years and it will still be cheaper than having to pay the networks fees for carrying their signals. In buying the stations, he takes a lot of the sting out of the current talks about the closing or local television stations. Shaw is gambling that as the economy improves and having no initial capital investment, he can at least make them break even in a few years. This is a great tactical move by Shaw in an attempt to save the company lots of additional costs by paying the networks fees for their signals. For today, the score is Shaw 1 and CTV 0. Three years from now the score may have changed.
  61. R. Canuck from Canada writes: Urban Slim ... intellectual dishonesty is astounding

    I grew up watching local tv...CBC and then CTV. We don't have global in our area. I am prepared to pay to keep them, including Global. What is dishonet about that...

    Another Vicious kick in the whatever...your lack of understanding of how things work in the real world is staggering. Do you get a lot of stuff for free? If we want things we have to pay for them. If you don't want network tv good for you, but some of us like to watch Canadian Television....
  62. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: Toast And coffee from Canada writes: The television business is in transition. Not that long ago but before the internet and the proliferation of specialty chanels, the networks were happy to provide the cable co's their produst free of charge. More viewers/ advertsing exposure. It simply is not the case anymore. Advertising dollars are being diverted from mainstream TV and the networks cannot command the rates required to remain in business.

    The logical change has to be to require the cable companies to pay for the feed.

    =================

    No, that's not even close to 'logical'. None of the changes in the industry have changed the basic fact that broadcasters BENEFIT from being carried on cable and it's simply stupid to pay someone to TAKE a benefit. What the broadcasters are asking for is offensive to good sense, market principles, and consumer interests.
  63. Ray James from Winnipeg, Canada writes: To paraphrase a campaign slogan: 'It's the NEWS, stupid.'

    Envision a Canada where your only source of local television news is courtesy CBC (and your tax dollars).

    Yeah. Scary, isn't it.
  64. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: R. Canuck from Canada writes: ... Another Vicious kick in the whatever...your lack of understanding of how things work in the real world is staggering. Do you get a lot of stuff for free? If we want things we have to pay for them. If you don't want network tv good for you, but some of us like to watch Canadian Television....

    ==============

    Your pathetic attempts to mislead and dismiss reality are getting more and more transparent.

    On your theory of having to pay for things you want, why shouldn't broadcasters PAY for the privilege of being carried on cable?
  65. Ray James from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: R. Canuck from Canada writes:

    ...why shouldn't broadcasters PAY for the privilege of being carried on cable?
    ==============

    Why should broadcasters continue to give away valuable content to cable companies? By your argument, the specialty stations should be paying the cable operators as well. The cable business was built on the backs of the broadcasters. It's time to level the playing field.
  66. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: Ray James from Winnipeg, Canada writes: ... Why should broadcasters continue to give away valuable content to cable companies?

    =======================

    The reason broadcasters put their signal on cable is because it increases their audience and therefore their advertising revenue.

    If they don't like having their signal on cable, they don't have to put it on cable.
  67. Zarko Budisavljevic from Canada writes: If my viewing habits are so valuable to broadcasters who monetize audience size to dollars from advertisiers (and cable companies who generate revenue via PPV), why is it that cable is not FREE so that more viewers could be achieved???? Yes, speaking strictly as a consumer, I should be paying ZERO!!, simply because the price of my viewership is my willingness to be counted and sold as a potential purchaser of advertised products.
  68. Red Storm Shadow from Vancouver, Canada writes: The cable companies seem to have no clue how close many of us are to cancelling our increasingly expensive & overpriced cable service which provides little value. Each time there is a cable 'rate adjustment' (they won't use the word 'increase' anymore), I end up losing the battle with my spouse over whether to cancel the service. But I will persevere and eradicate cable service from my home eventually.
  69. J S from Canada writes: I remember a time when cable hadn't been introduced and everyone received their tv signals over-the-air. The tv networks sold advertising to pay for the shows and to earn profit. They all made money and everyone was happy. Since then, cable jumped in and charges a fee for delivering a more consistent signal. TV shows also became shorter since the number of advertising minutes per hour increased. Right now you need a microscope to be able to see the credits at the end of a show because there's so much advertising to be done. But, networks can't make a profit?? Hmmm, sounds a little fishy to me. I think Canadian networks need to take a good hard look at themselves and figure out why a cable company is able to manage a small local station profitably and they can't. Perhaps Canadian tv network executives are too out of touch with reality to actually manage a business successfully.
  70. John Gault from Victoria, Canada writes: Good for Shaw. Shaw is a very well run company and will undoubtedly turn a profit on the stations. I only hope they get into the cellular market so they can tune-up Bell and TELUS.
  71. Hillbilly Bob from now living in the city!, Canada writes: I can't BELIEVE that cable companies don't need to pay the broadcast networks to carry their content - that is CRAZY.
  72. Hillbilly Bob from now living in the city!, Canada writes: Red Storm Shadow from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...Each time there is a cable 'rate adjustment' (they won't use the word 'increase' anymore), I end up losing the battle with my spouse over whether to cancel the service. But I will persevere and eradicate cable service from my home eventually.

    ---------------

    Recently I put up an aerial & now receive about 15 digital broadcast stations. Along with that I've got a Windows Media Center computer (one time cost) to record TV & playback at will.

    To go the those over-the-air HD channels we now have basic cable only - and I have the same battle as you, only with the wife AND kids. I too, eventually will win this, and banish cable for my home forever.

    I also bought a fido phone to escape rogers - then rogers bought fido. Sigh, it ain't easy.
  73. Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: Hillbilly Bob from now living in the city!, Canada writes: I can't BELIEVE that cable companies don't need to pay the broadcast networks to carry their content - that is CRAZY.

    =================================

    Being carried on cable is a BENEFIT for the broadcasters because it increases their audience and thus their advertising revenue.

    Broadcasters WANT to be carried on cable.

    If they don't like being carried on cable they don't have to be on cable -- it's their choice.
  74. Hillbilly Bob from now living in the city!, Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility., writes: If they don't like being carried on cable they don't have to be on cable -- it's their choice.

    ----------------------------------------

    Another way to look at it is that the cable companies sell the broadcast networks over their hookup's - but don't have to pay for them. What a business!

    The choice the networks want is to charge the cable companies a fee for carrying them - then it would be the cable companies that have a choice, carry the broadcast network - or don't.

    If I'm mistaken here by all means point it out - not an expert in the field, although I've watched television before.
  75. Urban Slim from Canada writes: Being carried on cable is a BENEFIT for the broadcasters because it increases their audience and thus their advertising revenue.

    Broadcasters WANT to be carried on cable.

    If they don't like being carried on cable they don't have to be on cable -- it's their choice.

    -----

    What he said.

    This was the original model between cable and networks and they ALL benefited for decades.

    It's one thing to argue that times and technologies have changed and a new model needs to be put in place, but it's another to be dishonest and bluster on about being 'forced to give their signal away for free.'

    Incredible.
  76. Winston Smith from Canada writes: $1 is too much.
  77. Machinations ? from Canada writes: Envision a Canada where your only source of local television news is courtesy CBC (and your tax dollars).

    Yeah. Scary, isn't it.

    ----

    Yeah. I'd much rather get my news from Murdoch's News Corp.

    Are you joking? CBC is up there with the Beeb in terms of quality coverage. CanWest and all the other crap? No thanks.
  78. Machinations ? from Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Canadian business leaders to their own credibility
    --

    You argue with all the credibility of someone with a deeply vested interest.

    Let's turn your argument around - Cable providers benefit from broadcaster-produced content as they DON'T PAY FOR IT, and then turn and sell what cost them NOTHING for SOMETHING.

    The cable companies, and you, are being more than a little hypocritical.
  79. Eric Blair from Canada writes: BCE, thea Thomson Family, the Ontario Teacher's Pension and Torstar are the owners of CTV. The Asper family owns Global. Why should Canadian subsidize these individuals/entities. Why not take up a fund for Conrad Black so he can live the life he was accustomed to, once he get out of jail. There are a number of millionaires that could use a could hundred million more to get them over that billionaire hurdle.

    While we are at it, I think it is time to expand the CRTC. I do not know how this Commission operates with only 150 staff members. It reminds me of a company in the 1980s when everyone had a couple of assistants.

    Of more concern if the number of commissions who workered for cable or newpaper companies which are the subject or regulation. There is no one to represent the consumer.
  80. One Who Knows from Canada writes: Machinations ? from Canada writes: 'Let's turn your argument around - Cable providers benefit from broadcaster-produced content as they DON'T PAY FOR IT, and then turn and sell what cost them NOTHING for SOMETHING. The cable companies, and you, are being more than a little hypocritical.'

    ________________

    Machinations, you ignore the fact that the Canadian networks would be far more adversely affected if they pulled their signals off cable than cable would be. The vast majority of programs Canadians watch on Canadian networks originate in the U.S. and cable would still provide them via feeds from the U.S. Canadians would also still have access to the specialty channels they currently pay for.

    If the networks pulled their signals from cable Canadians would still be able to access Canadian news on TV via the CBC, CBC Newsworld, CTV Newsnet, CP24 etc., which are all specialty channels broadcast on cable, not over the air. Additionally they would continue to have access to other news sources including print, radio and the internet. Would there be much local programming? Not likely, but there isn't much now anyway.

    The networks, however, would only have the viewership of those who chose to access them over-the-air if they pulled their signals from cable. While there may be a movement towards re-adopting OTA TV viewing, currently 90% of Canadians access television through cable or satellite so the potential loss of audience is staggering. Along with that loss of audience would come a substantial plummeting of ad revenues, effectively putting the stations out of business anyway.

    So who exactly needs who more? The networks are in no position to demand payment for what Canadians can already receive for free, and they have no bargaining power with the cable companies who do not need their signals to maintain a successful business model.
  81. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: When I first got cable TV in 1972 it cost $3 per month for 12 channels. Now I pay $63 per month for 60 channels .....and I still only watch 12 channels .....Go figure.
  82. One Who Knows from Canada writes: Zarko Budisavljevic from Canada writes: 'If my viewing habits are so valuable to broadcasters who monetize audience size to dollars from advertisiers (and cable companies who generate revenue via PPV), why is it that cable is not FREE so that more viewers could be achieved???? Yes, speaking strictly as a consumer, I should be paying ZERO!!, simply because the price of my viewership is my willingness to be counted and sold as a potential purchaser of advertised products.'

    _______________________

    Zarko, your cable bill pays for the content delivery system (cable), not the content, which is what the broadcasters provide. Advertising generates revenue for the broadcasters, who provide programming to you for free in exchange for that financial support. If you would rather receive the programming for free disconnect your cable and enjoy the OTA channels you receive.
  83. One Who Knows from Canada writes: LLoyd Atkinson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: 'Maybe it is time for a voter revolt if the CRTC and the Harper cabinet are rolled over by the cries for further pampering.Canadian consumers have just about had enough.'

    _____________________

    And I would bet that you and the vast majority of other posters on this board have done nothing about making sure your voices are heard on this subject by the people who actually matter. Anybody contacted the CRTC directly? Anybody written to their MP? The Heritage Minister? The Prime Minister? Your cable company? The networks? Or have we just spend yet another day whining on the Globe comment boards hoping we'll be heard if we complain here?

    Newsflash: the government and CRTC aren't cruising the internet looking for your feedback. They aren't going to knock on your door and ask for your input. If you want to be heard you need to speak up in the appropriate places. If you don't, no complaining when you get screwed once again by big business, cable or network.
  84. Mr Ottawa from Canada writes: The CRTC is bought and paid for by the cable providers. There only job is to make the cable providers richer, everyone else is expendable.
  85. Systemic Risk from Canada writes: It amazes me that web providers like Hulu arent available in canada - I bet the cable companies have something to do with this. Getting US content free would certainly undermine their business model of having all households pay $50 or more for (near) basic cable. The regulators in Canada are so anti-comsumer I can't even get started. Wireless is worse - I cringe every time I see US ads with unlimited everything for $50 bucks - Rogers wont offer that at any price. Oh well -there are all those 'head office' jobs - an admition they couldn't compete on any level on price. sigh.
  86. Rolloff deBunk from Calgary where the sun always shines, Canada writes: Ya Shaw is a very well run company allright - not! Watch out when Jim decides to pull many millions of dollars out of the company on a whim - beware JR
  87. Doug Bies from North Bay, Canada writes: I wonder if the real reason CTV is crying poor is because they've forked out $90 million for the rights to the 2010 Olympic games.

    Seems like they've gotten themselves into a self-inflicted cash flow problem from where I sit...
  88. Vic Vegas from Gangville, BC, Canada writes: CTV is now and always will be a bad imitation of a network. These three stations serve a combined audience that is so small, and so lacking in sponsor money, that they are meaningless entities. This is a story about a blundering group of cheapskates unloading a corner store to another group of cheapskates. So what? They've never made money on Windsor because they could never sell ads to the wealthy side of the river. Why would anyone pay to advertise to watch their own programming get regurgitated and beamed back into their own country? Even with a zillion cable channels to fill the US carriers seldom touch Canadian sources. And Brandon, Manitoba? A local college radio station and cable-only hockey coverage will suffice.
  89. Mike Woods from Toronto, Canada writes: I now declare myself Canadian TV Czar. Here are the new rules:

    For broadcast networks - you get a small carriage fee to carry your signal WITHIN the range of your transmitter as described to the CRTC in your transmitter licence. See the new rules for cable before you crack the champagne.
    To be carried outside the range of your licenced transmitter, you'll PAY the cable companies a small fee for extending your signal beyond your own technologicaly capabilities.
    No charge for the crystal clear signal, compared to the ghosty, snow picture from an antenna.

    For cable companies - no more packages. Subscribers pick and pay for ONLY what they want and nothing more. There are no channels cable companies MUST carry. Carriage fees, from the cable companies to broadcasters, and vice versa, are based on the number of actual subscribers...not Nielsen's latest fantasy ratings.
    The practise of simul-casting is ended. Cable companies will no longer be forced to overlay a Canadian channel, and its ads, on top of an American channel if it's showing the same program. The consumer picks and pays for what they want...and get to see it.
    Rate increases by cable companies, like phone companies, must have my approval...failing that, let the CRTC
  90. Dale Laville from Vancouver, Canada writes: Whatever the outcome of the CRTC hearings , the consumer is the one who will be paying more money. The question should be how much?
  91. glop male from US, United States writes: Will Toyota buy GM and Chrysler for a dollar each?
  92. Garibaldi III from TO from Canada writes: Red Storm Shadow from Vancouver, Canada writes: The cable companies seem to have no clue how close many of us are to cancelling our increasingly expensive & overpriced cable service.....
    -----
    Add the Satellite signal providers to the mix and Your statement would be 100% correct......
    I have decided to become a voluntary donor to the northern NY state PBS station..... I have a feeling I will be watching it often very soon!

    Cheers!
  93. l.f. ghawke from lethbridge, Canada writes: after the CRTC finally declares that these television companies should
    be paid for their coverage on the cable companies listing, AT NO EXTRA CHARGE TO EACH AND EVERY CANADIAN CONSUMER, THEY

    SHOULD DECLARE A FEE FOR internet websites that are visited daily
    in Canada. at a three hour daily visit to the Globe and Mail website,

    i would welcome a small fee for the Globe and Mail for their timely,
    informative, substantive, honest, high quality with the premier journalists of North America website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  94. Josh S from Vancouver, Canada writes: The start of the cable takeover of TV:

    So 'very rich charge what they want' cable starts taking over the complete TV industry. At $1 per station they can well afford it.
    Next step is they cut off over the air transmissions in cable areas and charge even more for us to see TV.

    Oh yes, they can also control what we see over their cable internet.
  95. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: l.f. from Lethbridge writes :

    i would welcome a small fee for the Globe and Mail for their timely,
    informative, substantive, honest, high quality with the premier journalists of North America website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted 02/05/09 at 12:59 PM EDT
    ____________________________________________________

    Is this a tongue in cheek or what....
    The Globe and Mail used to have a special logo besides each comment submitted by a paid subscriber (about $15 per month or free if you subscribed to the printed edition).
    I had a PAID SUBSCRIPTION and was happy with it until some shills hijacked my name, more than one time, or some other shills would post non-stop attacking me...

    So I cancelled my PAID SUBSCRIPTION to the Globe and Mail. The only couple of people I remember who had the Insider logo are diane marie, carriere; I remember those two because I've always enjoyed their comments using the google ''Find on this page'' which is very useful especially when some topics attract hundreds of comments.

    As far as tv and internet service is concerned, I'm very happy with my videotron.

    -
  96. Another vicious kick right in the face from execs to stock owners., writes: Dale Laville from Vancouver, Canada writes: Whatever the outcome of the CRTC hearings , the consumer is the one who will be paying more money. The question should be how much?

    ==================

    Zeeeeero.
  97. Another vicious kick right in the face from execs to stock owners., writes: Machinations ? from Canada writes: ... You argue with all the credibility of someone with a deeply vested interest.

    Let's turn your argument around - Cable providers benefit from broadcaster-produced content as they DON'T PAY FOR IT, and then turn and sell what cost them NOTHING for SOMETHING.

    The cable companies, and you, are being more than a little hypocritical.

    ======================

    Deeply vested interest? LOL. Yes! -- I'm a consumer.

    Cabe providers don't benefit from carrying Global or CTV because cable would lose no customers if CTV or Global quit being carried.
    All they do is re-broadcast stuff that's already being carried on cable on US channels.

    Anyway, the ultimate proof is who is being forced to serve who. Cable is require by the CRTC to carry channels, the channels are not forced to be on cable -- yet they choose to be anyway. Thus, it is clearly the broadcaster who benefits from the privilege of being on cable.
  98. Another vicious kick right in the face from execs to stock owners., writes: Hillbilly Bob from now living in the city!, Canada writes: ...
    The choice the networks want is to charge the cable companies a fee for carrying them - then it would be the cable companies that have a choice, carry the broadcast network - or don't.

    If I'm mistaken here by all means point it out - not an expert in the field, although I've watched television before.

    ==============

    You're mistaken. The networks already have every right in the world right now to got the cable guys and 'say pay us or we pull our signal from you'.

    But they don't to it because the answer from the cable guys would be, go ahead, we don't need you.

    That's the market -- free choice: buy what you need; sell what you can. But the market doesn't suit the broadcasters so they want the regulator to FORCE the cable guys to pay for something they don't want. (And ultimately FORCE consumers to pay for it, even though we don't want it either.)
  99. Still Learning at 78 from Canada writes: )ne Dollar--- why the copper in a TV station is worth more than that at the scrapyard.
  100. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: I'm surprised by how little we watch TV in our household. I personally watch almost none. It is just faster and easier to get information over the Internet. Advertisers haven't made good use of the medium because a lot of people still have slow lines. Slow lines are fine for email, getting news, banking and checking out most websites. So it's not a great situation for broadcasters. I would be willing to watch ads added to DVD movies if the advertisers sent me the DVDs for free.
  101. Roop Misir from Canada writes: Does TV and 8-track player have something in common?
  102. little bowpeep from And God gave Canada TV, Canada writes: Shaw paid too much!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top