[ShintoMale]

Lemmy wrote:

ShintoMale wrote:

CTV, Global and A are all amerophiles buyingamerican programs and reality trash why should any canadian support them. CTV recently bought dr oz show and the vampire diaries. cable companies like rogers have community based channels which carry local programming unlike the networks which dump canadian content CBC should not be in this campaign because they get millions of dollars in government subsidies which makes them a PUBLIC BROADCASTER.
Also CPAC was created by cable companies with rogers owning 41.4%

You are seriously a plant. You've been hired by the cable/satellite industry to blog your bullshit here. There's no question about it. How many other forums are you working right now? I'd neg-rep you again if I could.

do you have any proof of me being hired by the cable/satelite industry?

if the cable industry don't care about local programming explain why they created CPAC which is in both english and french? Why they have local community channels (rogers have rogers tv) how can anybody support A, global and ctv when they refuse to carry canadian content and local programs? they have no money for local tv but they have money buy the new dr oz show and the trashy vampire diaries show

[BeaverFever]

Quote:

if the cable industry don't care about local programming explain why they created CPAC which is in both english and french? Why they have local community channels (rogers have rogers tv)

I believe that is CRTC required.

Quote:

How can anybody support A, global and ctv when they refuse to carry canadian content and local programs? they have no money for local tv but they have money buy the new dr oz show and the trashy vampire diaries show.

They can and do carry canadian content, again under crtc requirements. Also, not sure about your claim that they have "no" money for local tv, just no NEW money, so they say. I guess they would also argue that their network programming drives some significant protion of the local networks ratings and ad revenue, directly or indirectly. I cant comment on how fair the network contribs to local stations are though.

[Yogi]

Lemmy wrote:

ShintoMale wrote:

CTV, Global and A are all amerophiles buyingamerican programs and reality trash why should any canadian support them. CTV recently bought dr oz show and the vampire diaries. cable companies like rogers have community based channels which carry local programming unlike the networks which dump canadian content CBC should not be in this campaign because they get millions of dollars in government subsidies which makes them a PUBLIC BROADCASTER.
Also CPAC was created by cable companies with rogers owning 41.4%

You are seriously a plant. You've been hired by the cable/satellite industry to blog your bullshit here. There's no question about it. How many other forums are you working right now? I'd neg-rep you again if I could.

^^^

Must be, cuz nobody could be that dense! Could they???

[tritium]

Why don't Canadians just boycott the companies for a few months in protest.

Cancel their services. I mean seriously, when was the last time their was anything good on TV anyhow, that wasn't a re-run or a US knock off.

Even my DirecTV is starting to get boring and I subscribe to everything.

Rabbit ears and Blue Ray is looking like the way to go...

[Lemmy]

ShintoMale wrote:

do you have any proof of me being hired by the cable/satelite industry?

Yes. That proof can found by scrolling back and re-reading the shit you've posted on this thread.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShintoMale wrote:

Reality: Most cable companies make their profits from combining television with other businesses like internet and local phones on a single network. Cable alone would not break even. Satellite, taking BellTV as typical, has only made a profit – a tiny 1% return on investment – once in the last 12 years. Big television broadcasters, by comparison, have never lost money. They own both local conventional stations and pay and specialty services. Together, they posted operating profits of almost 400 million dollars last year.

Just last week, Canwest CEO Leonard Asper said “our television business alone generates hundreds of millions of dollars in operating profits, so we have a successful business,” adding that “advertising markets are going to come back, the businesses that are underlying Canwest in Canada are significantly profitable, so when we come out of this with a lot less debt, if any debt at all, we’ll be a stronger company.”

Broadcasters don’t need a bailout.

There is so much wrong with that post it ain't funny. Cable providers have been providng JUST cable for years before the other offerings came out, ie; phone and internet. Roger's and Shaw wouldn't have bothered staying in business for all the years previous when they only had cable if they weren't making massive profits from it. And if talking about BellTV only making a tiny profit, THAT's because MOST people find satellite to be unreliable.
As for American programming, I'll repeat a previous post. A&E, TLC, SpikeTV, PeachtreeTV, BET, TCM, and TVTropolis to name a few, are US stations, or stations with predominantly American programming that cable happily includes in their packages and charges us for. Your argument about local TV and American programming is not gonna wash.

[herbie]

Quote:

THAT's because MOST people find satellite to be unreliable.

That's funny. Someone stood up in a town hall meet and complained the over-the-air transmission here was unreliable because it went off when the power lines were down.
Satellites didn't.
He was the same guy that told the previous meeting basic satellite tv service was only $10 a year.

[ShintoMale]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

ShintoMale wrote:

Reality: Most cable companies make their profits from combining television with other businesses like internet and local phones on a single network. Cable alone would not break even. Satellite, taking BellTV as typical, has only made a profit – a tiny 1% return on investment – once in the last 12 years. Big television broadcasters, by comparison, have never lost money. They own both local conventional stations and pay and specialty services. Together, they posted operating profits of almost 400 million dollars last year.

Just last week, Canwest CEO Leonard Asper said “our television business alone generates hundreds of millions of dollars in operating profits, so we have a successful business,” adding that “advertising markets are going to come back, the businesses that are underlying Canwest in Canada are significantly profitable, so when we come out of this with a lot less debt, if any debt at all, we’ll be a stronger company.”

Broadcasters don’t need a bailout.

There is so much wrong with that post it ain't funny. Cable providers have been providng JUST cable for years before the other offerings came out, ie; phone and internet. Roger's and Shaw wouldn't have bothered staying in business for all the years previous when they only had cable if they weren't making massive profits from it. And if talking about BellTV only making a tiny profit, THAT's because MOST people find satellite to be unreliable.
As for American programming, I'll repeat a previous post. A&E, TLC, SpikeTV, PeachtreeTV, BET, TCM, and TVTropolis to name a few, are US stations, or stations with predominantly American programming that cable happily includes in their packages and charges us for. Your argument about local TV and American programming is not gonna wash.

the american channels are not the ones crying to the CRTC for bailouts

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShintoMale wrote:

the american channels are not the ones crying to the CRTC for bailouts

I guess you don't understand irony. YOUR argument is that local TV pays for American "garbage" shows, to which I might add, cable/sat then charges us to watch them. And yet cable/sat charges for garbage American CHANNELS.


And herbie, I know many people that had cable, switched to satellite, then switched BACK to cable cuz they got tired of having no TV everytime it rained hard, snowed, or it was just windy. I was one of them.

[ShintoMale]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

ShintoMale wrote:

the american channels are not the ones crying to the CRTC for bailouts

I guess you don't understand irony. YOUR argument is that local TV pays for American "garbage" shows, to which I might add, cable/sat then charges us to watch them. And yet cable/sat charges for garbage American CHANNELS.


And herbie, I know many people that had cable, switched to satellite, then switched BACK to cable cuz they got tired of having no TV everytime it rained hard, snowed, or it was just windy. I was one of them.

cable/sat PAY for the American channels and they also pay to carry Canadian channels

[Yogi]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

ShintoMale wrote:

the american channels are not the ones crying to the CRTC for bailouts

I guess you don't understand irony. YOUR argument is that local TV pays for American "garbage" shows, to which I might add, cable/sat then charges us to watch them. And yet cable/sat charges for garbage American CHANNELS.


And herbie, I know many people that had cable, switched to satellite, then switched BACK to cable cuz they got tired of having no TV everytime it rained hard, snowed, or it was just windy. I was one of them.

I dunno about that, Animal. When I lived in the city I had cable. It was 'down' several times. For the last 3 years that I have lived in the country, I've been on satellite and never had an outage. Both my cable and satellite were/are provided by Shaw. The only choice I have out here is take it or leavwe it!

[Alta_redneck]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

And herbie, I know many people that had cable, switched to satellite, then switched BACK to cable cuz they got tired of having no TV everytime it rained hard, snowed, or it was just windy. I was one of them.

And how many of them are sitting there on a clear day, no wind, with only 65% or 70%
signal strength? Mine is at 90-92% and lose it 2 or 3 times a summer for 5 minutes. I've never lost it in winter but then again we don't get the heavy wet snow like you do. A good installation makes all the difference, in a the world of Sat. TV.

[Patish]

You couldn't change the situation with cable/sat providers. If you need that amount of channels - pay money and take it. If don't, free sat TV would be the best choice.

[SprCForr]

Yogi wrote:

For the last 3 years that I have lived in the country, I've been on satellite and never had an outage.

Me too. Our local cable company was the absolute worst.

[raydan]

SprCForr wrote:

Yogi wrote:

For the last 3 years that I have lived in the country, I've been on satellite and never had an outage.

Me too. Our local cable company was the absolute worst.

And I've been on cable (TV and Internet) for the past 7 years with 1 short down time (maybe 2 but I don't remember).
The worst reception I ever had in my life was with a microwave signal.