Television, you have a problem. People are turning off their televisions and turning on the internets for entertainment and news content. Under the current system, the networks are bleeding money, jeopardizing their very existence. Today's CRTC decision allows for networks and cable providers to negotiate over what content is included in user cable packages, which the CBC is alleging will raise costs to consumers (people won't pay for what they don't want to watch). I watched CBC Newsworld as this decision was made public, and what I saw was panic.
Scott Reid thinks the decision is fantastic because he calls it a lose-lose for the governing Tories. I fail to see how allowing our national television networks more flexibility in the cable packages they provide, allowing for greater consumer choice represents a lose-lose (for comparison, Scotty also said that the Liberal foreign abortion funding demand is fantastic strategy). I challenge the notion that it will be more expensive for consumers to provide them with greater choice. Given TVs loss of audience to the internets, they can't afford to make it more expensive. They have no choice but to give you greater choice at a lower cost, and if they do otherwise they will cease to exist. This will allow more eyeballs to watch the television programming those eyeballs want to watch. Given that few eyeballs want to pay for the CBC as part of their cable package, their collective fear makes pragmatic sense.
CTV supports the decision, and I would suggest that is in some part to their desire to sell their 24 hour news channel into more cable packages, where CBC Newsworld is mandated to be included in all basic digital cable packages. At first I did not know what to make of this CRTC decision, but when I saw how pissed off Evan Soloman was, I became immediately comfortable that this is what is best for Canadians. Making Canadians buy the Soloman Show is not where Canada needs to be, greater choice is.
This decision still has to pass through the Canadian courts, so the final language of the ruling is not yet known. Whether or not the final ruling allows for greater choice remains to be seen. I will keep my fingers crossed...
If the cable companies plan on charging for "local content", as a subscriber / payer, I should have the right to choose which channels I want to pay for. If I don't want the local stations, I should not be forced to pay for them.
ReplyDeleteWhat is with the CBC in this debate anyway? They already get my forced support through tax dollars, and they think that they should charge us again for their so-called content?
Cable is a mess, we have to pay for TV channels we have no interest in watching. We once tallied the number of channels we actually want, and it's 19,so we pay for 36 extra channels we don't want. Anything that can be done to alleviate the situation is okay with me.
ReplyDeleteI never watch CBC,occasionally view CBC Newsworld,but their news is covered by other networks,so I could live without both.
We get about 55 channels,paid for in three separate packages of about ten each(basic cable covers about 25 channels),in each package there is about one or two channels I want.
It's about time cable was brought into the 21st century, and subscribers pay ONLY for what they want.
DMorris
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteHow about getting rid of the television and use the internet in its place. Now there you can view anything you want without having to be forced to watch CBC or any dreary media which really needs cleaning up.
ReplyDelete