Shaw vs. “Local TV”
Ian | 30 October, 2009 | 00:20I’m really not sure who’s side I’m on in this battle:
On one side, CTV, Global, CBC, and other Canadian Networks claiming “Local TV Matters.” This despite their closing of countless local TV stations, and continued underfunding of local TV.
On the other side, carriers including Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw with their new “Stop the TV Tax” campaign, even though Shaw and most cable providers face no local competition in every market they provide television in.
I do have to say this, both side’s commercials are slick and feel like an election campaign – only much better than any Canadian political party has released recently.
Personally, I’m on peasant visions (Vancouver peasant vision includes 3 HDTV channels, and 4 analog channels), so I don’t really care about whether or not Shaw will pass the fee the broadcasters onto consumers or not (and you know they will because they can).
I think it’s a lie to call a carrier fee between businesses a “TV Tax” and a “Bailout” since these funds don’t go through the government, but the terminology is likely to resonate with people.
xtra.ca has a good article on the debate, but I really don’t know that much, but feel free to fill me in if you can. Maybe I don’t support either side because they’re both bloated corporate giants that don’t face enough real competition to force them to actually provide good service.
Oh and apparently you only have 3 days to get your opinions in to your MP (less by the time you read this), as giant clocks on both websites will tell you. Perhaps I’ll support the Stop the Tax campaign because it arbitrarily gives you 8 more hours than the Local TV Matters kids.
Subscribe to posts
The issue I have with the carrier fee is that I’ve never viewed myself as paying for the local TV channels. When I’ve had cable or Telus TV I had it so that I could watch channels other than the local TV channels I could get for free.
Why should I be paying for something that I can get for free?
Don’t get me wrong, I hate Shaw and Telus, but the thing is they’re forced to carry local TV stations. Cable companies carrying local TV channels increases the viewership area, and the potential number of viewers for local TV stations. The fact that cable companies carry these channels benefits them in that it provides for a greater opportunity for them to earn advertising revenue.
I am completely against paying for something that I can get for free.
I find the whole slinging of misinformation by both sides repulsive……..Shaw is telling us in a less than direct way that if they have to pay for the right to show local channels through their system then they are gonna pass the cost onto us……they call it a “TAX”. The comment above about us having to pay for some thing we already get for free…….I don’t think we get it for free …..the local TV channels are getting their funding from advertisers that charge us for the products they flogg to us……so in effect, if we have to pay Shaw, Bell, Telus ….or whoever, we will in effect be paying for local channels twice. The thing I would like confirmed …..is…..does Shaw pay CNN, ESPN….etc etc for the right to show their shows?………until we get the straight poop……..I afraid the best Media player is gonna get their way.