Would You Pay Extra to Support Local TV Stations

CTV and Global have been arguing that they no longer make sufficient revenues because of declining advertising revenues. Would you support paying extra fees on your Cable or Dish TV to help offset their decling revenues. One article I read suggestted adding 50 cents per channel could add an extra $6.00 to the average userscable or dish bill.
Personally I vote NO! If there isn't enough advertising revenue, then there are too many channels.

NO... and they can frick off with this idea as well. If they want to give their free to air brodcast licenses up and then apply for speciality cable channel ones, please have them do that. I dont think the CTV/Global companies quite realize how much the sattelite and cable companies have increased the CTV/Global viewership.

sh1t.. I have a way better idea, lets take CTV/Global off of the sattelites and cable packages... and let me watch the American channels without the local channel taking over the brodcast. Or did CTV/Global forget that was part of the package deal they get for being on Cable for free?

I would like the OPTION of choosing what channels I want to watch. And then I would vote. Yes for CTV and CBC (IF THEY OFFERED HD CHANNELS) and NO for CBWFT.

It seems that every other channel hosted by a cable or satellite company gets paid for their signal AND sell commercials.

I don't see why the mainstream local channels (or national) can't share in that revenue stream.

Choice is the key IMO.

"I don't see why the mainstream local channels (or national) can't share in that revenue stream."

Because they are free to air brodcast and that is the license they hold.

Outsider wrote:Personally I vote NO! If there isn't enough advertising revenue, then there are too many channels.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If you can't compete, why should we bail you out? If you're not a publicly funded broadcaster, that is...

Deank wrote:"I don't see why the mainstream local channels (or national) can't share in that revenue stream."

Because they are free to air brodcast and that is the license they hold.

I don't fricking care. Fair is fair. They may well be fricking free to air but the cable and satellite companies are getting fat fat fat off those free fricking signals.

If there are too many fricking channels put them ALL on the same foothold and let the fricking market decide who fricking stay's and who fricking goes.

Ditto to Dean's comment.

For my liking, there's far too many bail-outs lately. One is too much imo.

They gamble, they lose, we pay??? I don't think so.

I don't see it as a bail out. Take them off the free to air (???) and make them cable/satellite only. Then it would be no more a bail out than HGTV? No?

Well, if they are asking for extra money just for themselves to continue, I'd call it a bail-out no?

their license is free to air brodcast. this gives them much more leeway in what they can brodcast then the speciality channels.
This freedom allows them alot more revenue potential, coupled with the cable companies bringing that free to air brodcast into my home for Free ( not charging CTV anything for allowing them on their cable) and alot clearer then the free to air license they have.. it seems to me that CTV/Global have several steps up on cable channels to begin with.

Put them all on the same footing would mean global/CTV would have to become speciality channels and only be able to brodcast certain things.... seems to me that a bad thing as the only reason anyone watches CTV/Global is because of its diversity.

What about all the duplication of shows....sometimes as many as three running the same program?

Many programs that CTV & Global broadcast actually originate from the USA. The Canadian channels actually over-ride the USA commercials with their own. I ignore the commercials whether they are Canadian or not.
Why should I pay for Canadian channels I would not be watching if it wasn't for the fact the CTV or Global is broadcasting the same program as the USA channel?

sunday night during the Fox's animation domination i would have been seriously pissed if global had butted its nose in. There was a Stewie/Eminem bit during the commercials and if global had stuck its nose in that would have been removed.

if I had a choice on my cable package and I did not choose Global, yet they stuck their nose into my FOX I was paying for, I would sue.

That is why the free market should determine who stays and who goes.

What benefit do Canadian stations have that cable stations don't?

Remember when cable first began? How far would it have progressed without mainstream TV allowing their signals to be carried? Just curious eh?

Seems there is a double standard here...

"What benefit do Canadian stations have that cable stations don't"

The right to brodcast ANYTHING. check the cable listing, other then american channels being rebrodcast here every other channel is a specialty channel thats brodcast scope is defined in a narrow band. Stepping outside that bad results in fines.

Remember when Cable began? How long do you think local channels would have survived if Cable companies were not forced to include them in the line up and not forced to allow the locals to take over the American channels brodcasting the same thing.

ANYTHING? Hardly. Cable has had loosened standards (read nudity and language) since day one. Heh That was one of its appeals.

Many cable channels today are hard to distinguish from mainstream TV. Showcase for example.

The lines are so fricking blurred it is hard to tell what if any specialty is being catered to. Sure there are some but even the real specialty stations seem to carry anything they want.

There is even one cable channel that carries current TV programs just days after first appearing on mainstream TV.

And none of these cable channels have to invest in local markets for news and other local programming (Kinsman Bingo for one...).

Deank wrote:sunday night during the Fox's animation domination i would have been seriously pissed if global had butted its nose in. There was a Stewie/Eminem bit during the commercials and if global had stuck its nose in that would have been removed.

if I had a choice on my cable package and I did not choose Global, yet they stuck their nose into my FOX I was paying for, I would sue.

Good thing Global was showing the finale of Survivor while animation domination was on.

I think local stations should get money from cable subscription for news and other local programming. Not for rebroadcasts of American TV shows. So not the same deal as the specialty channels get, but more than nothing. Sylvia Kuzyk's make-up has to be paid for somehow!

FlyingRat wrote:I think local stations should get money from cable subscription for news and other local programming. Not for rebroadcasts of American TV shows. So not the same deal as the specialty channels get, but more than nothing.

Agreed!

I've got no need for local stations what so ever. The news is useful to some people...however nothing I can't find online. Usually the local news is hyper sensationalized anyway...."Tonight's top story....some group of idiots wants to tear down the MTS Centre and rebuild the Eaton's building brick by brick to stave off the NHL from returning"..... Yawn.

You mean the Idiots are getting together for one last riunion concert?

"Plus in other news..I'm not wearing any pants......film at eleven!"

Most of the speciality channels are owned by mainstream TV Dean so what are you comparing to on air broadcast for . On Air cannot broadcast what ever they want as there has to be tower for every signal , Cable puts up no money for the broadcasting you watch they pay no royalities . So you see if the main stream go,s under so doe,s cable .

Deank wrote:sunday night during the Fox's animation domination i would have been seriously pissed if global had butted its nose in. There was a Stewie/Eminem bit during the commercials and if global had stuck its nose in that would have been removed.

if I had a choice on my cable package and I did not choose Global, yet they stuck their nose into my FOX I was paying for, I would sue.

Damn...had I known I would've called the local affiliates and made SURE they blocked it.

Stewie AND Eminem in a single broadcast...all the more reason some stations should go under...for airing such garbage.

As far as local stations go...I agree that there should be local content on the air.
Local news, advertising, information...it's what ties a station to a community.
I don't care about the girl who went missing in Toronto (just in the sense it's a Toronto story)...I want to hear about the stories happening here...locally. I want to know what the LOCAL weather is...not a national summary glancing across the prairies.
Getting a few National or International stories is fine...but not usually important to me.

I can get all the news I want off the internet too, and from reliable sources...but when I want local information...I enjoy the local news broadcasts. And not everyone (my mother-in-law) for example has a computer...nor would they be comfortable even using one. It's enough of a stretch teaching her how to use the remote control so she can watch the news.

That said...I voted "NO" above. I've heard CTV's latest "pleas" to help support the local programming...but asking for handouts is the wrong format for getting that done. They need to reevaluate their business model. Determine if they are charging too much for advertising. Or have too many newscasters on staff.

They want to appeal to a "local" market...yet if I want to advertise my business...I have to pay through the nose to get my commercial aired. Local content commercials should receive adjusted costs. And I don't mean that a Tim Horton's pays less...but if a local Tim's is running a specific special that ONLY applies to them...then sure...give them a discount.

Yes but air time is air time and it cost the same less you go on at 3 in the morning slot . You can thank all of the sports leagues as they introduced the policy of pay per slot to TV . The cable companies are being ask to shoulder a cost they do not pay now carriage fees CTV has to pay to broadcast American shows which you enjoy and cable does not , yet it charges for it s service . Sorta like ripping off movies from the Internet .

say.... have the brodcast personalities come forward and said they would be willing to take a 25% pay cut by any chance?

I would be willing to shell out an extra 10 cents per channel per month if I saw that every single employee for the stations was willing to take a 25% pay cut.

Dig into your own pockets before you dig into mine.