By: Dave

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:11:05 +0000

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.

]]>

By: Denny

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:59 +0000

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.

]]>

Comments on: Shaw vs. “Local TV”

By: Dave

By: Denny