The local tv tax - Canada - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums

Dr Dog · 11-15-2009, 03:33 PM

Well guys what side are you on

Do we need to pay for the big networks lack of ability to draw advertising dollars?

KharmaGirl · 11-15-2009, 03:56 PM

I watch my local news every night. I have since I was a kid, eating dinner with my parents. I love being informed about what's going on in my city. There were two local news channels in my city. A big Onario city. Now there is only one. I also watch the national news and stay informed about my Country, but I don't want that to be my only option. I want to, I need to be able to know what's going on in my city. Rogers et al is already taking our money and they are supposed to be giving some to the local channels. They haven't been. Now, the local channels are fighting back. Don't buy into Rogers et al crap. They are not hurting for money and they are trying to fool everyone.Educate yourselves.

Strike99 · 11-15-2009, 04:19 PM

Id have to say I'm on the side of the local channels... it seems to be that people are already paying for those local channels... they just dont pass it off to the local channels...
I agree with KharmaGirl on this one... don't buy into their crap... they have enough money..... I am sure their cellphone divisions would be able to cover it easily...

Local stations seems to give a smaller perspective to larger decisions made which will be affecting individuals...which i believe to be a benefit... Because not every one is going to understand/make a comprehensible decision.... To know whats going on in the smaller communities of Canada and to bring things into the 'lime light' that national news probably would not be recognized as news... I for one would like to see them stick around... just my 2 cents

good topic to bring up...

11-16-2009, 11:08 AM

time to cancel my cable if the tax is enforced.....tv is becoming obsolete anyways.

KharmaGirl · 11-16-2009, 04:05 PM

Yeah..........Rogers doesn't have to charge us....if they had paid up in the first place, like they were supposed to, they wouldn't be forced into doing do now. They don't have to charge us for their unwillingness. If Rogers really cared about the communities they are involved in and cared about their customers they wouldn't be passing the buck to us. They can afford the tax without us paying it. They are just greedy and don't want to pay their fair share. Yet, they use the programming the smaller stations produce. Not very fair.

Dr Dog · 11-16-2009, 04:26 PM

did you know

1. These tv broadcasters get preferential placement on the dial as part of their current agreement. The cable and Sat companies are forced to put the major networks on teh lower channels that every tv set can receive

2. These big tv stations still made a profit, just not as much as years previous...angry shareholders is all the problem is

KharmaGirl · 11-16-2009, 04:36 PM

What big tv stations? Local isn't big....Their broadcasts go to the city they are in only. Preferential treatment? No, they are called "basic" channels. That means even if you don't have cable you will get these channels. Cable is broadcasting them and not paying for the right to do so. Using em for free. Now that they are being asked to pay their share, they are trying to pass it on to us, instead of just paying for the services they use. I'm not happy about paying, but I watch my local news every day and want the choice to be able to do so still, so if Rogers gives me no choice.....I'll have to. As I said, one station in my area has already shut down local broadcasting. So have other across the country.

Dr Dog · 11-16-2009, 04:47 PM

Why does cable have to pay its share, they should actually be paid for the commercials airing their infastructure. Not just the networks/broadcasters. If anything, I think these broadcasters do ok on their own. They seem to always have enough money to buy the rights to every show out there now

Not to sound rude, and i appreciate your concerns, but the media is changing, goin to be more online based.. I dont like the idea of paying one last stab from the grave. I do not find it any different than if the countries newspapers said to the government that they need a tax too to keep afloat. You either sink or swim

dont get too caught up in cable sat broadcasts, they are changing too

This whole petition before the CRTC is ridiculous and it is all about which corporations have better lawyers

KharmaGirl · 11-16-2009, 04:57 PM

The commercial base for a local channel(local companies) vs the channels Rogers can pull from are completly different. Rogers should pay, or at least I shouldn't have to pay, if I can unhook my cable and still get those channels. Rogers should pay for using those channels for free. You're getting confused. It isn't the local channels buying the big programs. It is whomever the parent company is. If the parent company starts to lose money, which programming would you cut first? The "big" tv show that pulls major advertisers or the little local station that can only pull local advertisers? Since a couple local stations have already gone, the question has been answered. I really don't want to turn on my tv one day and have my only options for programming be major tv shows and Canada-wide only news. Some people don't watch news and won't care, but alot of people do. Sure I like my Canada-wide news, but I want the option of knowing what's going on directly outside my front door as well. You're right, it is more media biased. If I go to my local news paper site, I have to pay and sign up to know what's going on my city. Newpapers sales are down and they too have to make money somehow....I'd rather turn on my tv, which I'm already paying for and watch the news and opposed to spending more money.

I don't support a tax, it's not fair. I do support my local stations. I find the question a bit, I'm not sure of the word, but just because I support local, doesn't mean I want to pay a tax, ya know?

Hephaestus · 11-16-2009, 06:37 PM

If the buisness model worked - enough that they'd enter into the market to begin with... They should still be able to make a go of it. They've known since their buisness model development the local stations revenue came from advertising; and the cable companies would force us to watch their station/ads if there's an overlap (ie hockey game/ CSI on a local channel - the other channel its played on gives us the local channel).

If we're to pay tax for local programming, then the pre-empting should end (same model as the USA - carriage fees paid by the cable co's); then the local channels will actually have to give us reason to watch their channel...

However if the pre-empting were to end, I think the canadian channels/networks would suffer and die off completely...

View Poll Results: Will you support the tax
Yes charge me 10 more dollars a month	2	9.52%
No, the millions in profit a year is enough	19	90.48%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

11-15-2009, 03:33 PM	#1
Dr Dog Sharks have a week dedicated to me Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: CANNADA Posts: 7,216	The local tv tax Well guys what side are you on Do we need to pay for the big networks lack of ability to draw advertising dollars? __________________ Federally Registered Designated Grower THE BUD HUNTER Medicinal Marijuana Advocate
	Quote

11-15-2009, 03:56 PM	#2
KharmaGirl ~Resident Puck Bunny~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 5,574	I watch my local news every night. I have since I was a kid, eating dinner with my parents. I love being informed about what's going on in my city. There were two local news channels in my city. A big Onario city. Now there is only one. I also watch the national news and stay informed about my Country, but I don't want that to be my only option. I want to, I need to be able to know what's going on in my city. Rogers et al is already taking our money and they are supposed to be giving some to the local channels. They haven't been. Now, the local channels are fighting back. Don't buy into Rogers et al crap. They are not hurting for money and they are trying to fool everyone.Educate yourselves.
	Quote

11-15-2009, 04:19 PM	#3
Strike99 Analrapist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ...With the Barkers and the coloured balloons Posts: 194	Id have to say I'm on the side of the local channels... it seems to be that people are already paying for those local channels... they just dont pass it off to the local channels... I agree with KharmaGirl on this one... don't buy into their crap... they have enough money..... I am sure their cellphone divisions would be able to cover it easily... Local stations seems to give a smaller perspective to larger decisions made which will be affecting individuals...which i believe to be a benefit... Because not every one is going to understand/make a comprehensible decision.... To know whats going on in the smaller communities of Canada and to bring things into the 'lime light' that national news probably would not be recognized as news... I for one would like to see them stick around... just my 2 cents good topic to bring up... __________________ "What, then, do they want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people; not to teach religion; not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply to defend the natural rights of man - to protect person and property - to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak - in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more " - Herbert Spencer
	Quote

11-16-2009, 11:08 AM	#4
bybliz Guest Posts: n/a	time to cancel my cable if the tax is enforced.....tv is becoming obsolete anyways.
	Quote

11-16-2009, 04:05 PM	#5
KharmaGirl ~Resident Puck Bunny~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 5,574	Yeah..........Rogers doesn't have to charge us....if they had paid up in the first place, like they were supposed to, they wouldn't be forced into doing do now. They don't have to charge us for their unwillingness. If Rogers really cared about the communities they are involved in and cared about their customers they wouldn't be passing the buck to us. They can afford the tax without us paying it. They are just greedy and don't want to pay their fair share. Yet, they use the programming the smaller stations produce. Not very fair.
	Quote

11-16-2009, 04:26 PM	#6
Dr Dog Sharks have a week dedicated to me Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: CANNADA Posts: 7,216	did you know 1. These tv broadcasters get preferential placement on the dial as part of their current agreement. The cable and Sat companies are forced to put the major networks on teh lower channels that every tv set can receive 2. These big tv stations still made a profit, just not as much as years previous...angry shareholders is all the problem is __________________ Federally Registered Designated Grower THE BUD HUNTER Medicinal Marijuana Advocate
	Quote

11-16-2009, 04:36 PM	#7
KharmaGirl ~Resident Puck Bunny~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 5,574	What big tv stations? Local isn't big....Their broadcasts go to the city they are in only. Preferential treatment? No, they are called "basic" channels. That means even if you don't have cable you will get these channels. Cable is broadcasting them and not paying for the right to do so. Using em for free. Now that they are being asked to pay their share, they are trying to pass it on to us, instead of just paying for the services they use. I'm not happy about paying, but I watch my local news every day and want the choice to be able to do so still, so if Rogers gives me no choice.....I'll have to. As I said, one station in my area has already shut down local broadcasting. So have other across the country.
	Quote

11-16-2009, 04:47 PM	#8
Dr Dog Sharks have a week dedicated to me Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: CANNADA Posts: 7,216	Why does cable have to pay its share, they should actually be paid for the commercials airing their infastructure. Not just the networks/broadcasters. If anything, I think these broadcasters do ok on their own. They seem to always have enough money to buy the rights to every show out there now Not to sound rude, and i appreciate your concerns, but the media is changing, goin to be more online based.. I dont like the idea of paying one last stab from the grave. I do not find it any different than if the countries newspapers said to the government that they need a tax too to keep afloat. You either sink or swim dont get too caught up in cable sat broadcasts, they are changing too This whole petition before the CRTC is ridiculous and it is all about which corporations have better lawyers __________________ Federally Registered Designated Grower THE BUD HUNTER Medicinal Marijuana Advocate
	Quote

11-16-2009, 04:57 PM	#9
KharmaGirl ~Resident Puck Bunny~ Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 5,574	The commercial base for a local channel(local companies) vs the channels Rogers can pull from are completly different. Rogers should pay, or at least I shouldn't have to pay, if I can unhook my cable and still get those channels. Rogers should pay for using those channels for free. You're getting confused. It isn't the local channels buying the big programs. It is whomever the parent company is. If the parent company starts to lose money, which programming would you cut first? The "big" tv show that pulls major advertisers or the little local station that can only pull local advertisers? Since a couple local stations have already gone, the question has been answered. I really don't want to turn on my tv one day and have my only options for programming be major tv shows and Canada-wide only news. Some people don't watch news and won't care, but alot of people do. Sure I like my Canada-wide news, but I want the option of knowing what's going on directly outside my front door as well. You're right, it is more media biased. If I go to my local news paper site, I have to pay and sign up to know what's going on my city. Newpapers sales are down and they too have to make money somehow....I'd rather turn on my tv, which I'm already paying for and watch the news and opposed to spending more money. I don't support a tax, it's not fair. I do support my local stations. I find the question a bit, I'm not sure of the word, but just because I support local, doesn't mean I want to pay a tax, ya know? Last edited by KharmaGirl; 11-16-2009 at 10:39 PM..
	Quote

11-16-2009, 06:37 PM	#10
Hephaestus Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 493	If the buisness model worked - enough that they'd enter into the market to begin with... They should still be able to make a go of it. They've known since their buisness model development the local stations revenue came from advertising; and the cable companies would force us to watch their station/ads if there's an overlap (ie hockey game/ CSI on a local channel - the other channel its played on gives us the local channel). If we're to pay tax for local programming, then the pre-empting should end (same model as the USA - carriage fees paid by the cable co's); then the local channels will actually have to give us reason to watch their channel... However if the pre-empting were to end, I think the canadian channels/networks would suffer and die off completely...
	Quote