22 replies to this topic

[admin]

On September 10th, 2010 BCE announced that they were acquiring 100% of CTV. CTV produces CTV Newsnet, which would be a direct competitor of SunTV News. Bell Canada Enterprises has decided not to carry SunTV News.

BCE’s acquisition of CTV was initially approved by the Competition Bureau but is on probation for one year. This was their statement at the time…

Quote

At this time, the Commissioner of Competition does not intend to make an application to the Competition Tribunal under section 92 of the Competition Act in respect of the Proposed Transaction. It is important to note, however, that section 97 of the Act provides a one-year period following completion of the Proposed Transaction during which the Commissioner may bring the matter before the Tribunal. For the reasons summarized below, the Bureau will closely monitor the activities of the parties and regulatory developments in the broadcasting industry to determine whether it is appropriate to take such action prior to the expiry of that one-year period.

Section 92 of the Competition Act:

Quote

92. (1) Where, on application by the Commissioner, the Tribunal finds that a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially

I’m not aware of any plausible action that could lesson competition more than a distribution channel purchasing a product and then refusing to distribute competitors (Microsoft springs to mind).

How do I know that Bell Canada won’t be carrying SunTV? Because their sales representatives told me so when I called them.

I’m thinking the Competition Bureau may have something to say about this decision unless, like Elections Canada, they are comprised of Liberal wankers.

[Toronto Centre]

admin, on 31 March 2011 - 02:33 AM, said:

Section 92 of the Competition Act:

If the statute is to be believed on the face of it, I would be of the opinion that competition has not been prevented, since one could order up from another satellite carrier.

[admin]

Be impartial, on 31 March 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

If the statute is to be believed on the face of it, I would be of the opinion that competition has not been prevented, since one could order up from another satellite carrier.

Of course you would be of that opinion - because you are a liberal. I'm noticing a trend in your answers.

When Shaw purchased Corus and other programming assets a couple months ago, CTV raised concerns that Shaw may decide not to air competing programming. CTV raised those concerns with the Competition Bureau. Now Bell Canada is doing the exact same thing with CTV that CTV itself just objected to.

[Bluelikeme]

I just talked to Shaw, so far no sign of it but they've had a lot of request. She told me the more request, the more likely they will be to look at it, so keep calling...

I guess I don't understand how they can all refuse to carry it...

[Toronto Centre]

admin, on 31 March 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

When Shaw purchased Corus and other programming assets a couple months ago,

Don't you mean when Shaw bought Canwest?

Shaw has controlled Corus for more than a decade. JR Shaw started Corus and spun it off as an independant when Corus went public in 1999.

Quote

CTV raised concerns that Shaw may decide not to air competing programming. CTV raised those concerns with the Competition Bureau. Now Bell Canada is doing the exact same thing with CTV that CTV itself just objected to.

Of course they did. Prudent business sense. Try and get the competition stymied for any reason is a good move.

And this pruchase will have to undergo the vetting process in the same way that Shaw/Canwest had to.

I am more worried about the neutrality of such a purchase and hope that neither starts limiting product via internet lines.

[jayme2011]

I don't like cable and dish companys owning most of the channels when its all said and done something like 60% of the channels will be under the control of bell/rogers.

[Toronto Centre]

jayme2011, on 31 March 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

I don't like cable and dish companys owning most of the channels when its all said and done something like 60% of the channels will be under the control of bell/rogers.

I too wish there was more owners but the costs associated in bringing the feed to your screen and the costs of acquiring the shows is so prohibitive that I dont think our wish will come true Jayme.

[jayme2011]

Be impartial, on 31 March 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

I too wish there was more owners but the costs associated in bringing the feed to your screen and the costs of acquiring the shows is so prohibitive that I dont think our wish will come true Jayme.

I don't think its a matter of cost it has more to do with how our system is set up we need more of a free market let american channels such as usa/tnt come in.

[admin]

jayme2011, on 31 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

I don't think its a matter of cost it has more to do with how our system is set up we need more of a free market let american channels such as usa/tnt come in.

Free market? Free speech?

That would interfere with liberal thought control - not gonna happen

Television is dying anyway. We just need to be vigilant that the CRTC doesn't start regulating the internet (any more than it currently does).

[Toronto Centre]

jayme2011, on 31 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

I don't think its a matter of cost it has more to do with how our system is set up we need more of a free market let american channels such as usa/tnt come in.

There can only be one land line in the case of Rogers/Shaw and TNT USA are not distributors as far as I know. SO they would have to either lease the lines (too much) or get subscription rates out of Rogers/Shaw.

Of course there is satellite choices including grey boxes if one is so inclined.

I have cable at my house and satellite at my weekend home. Both of them carrying (Chose I guess) much the same product. Stupid money frankly for the amount of time I watch at the weekend home, which is practically nil.

[admin]

Toronto Centre, on 31 March 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

There can only be one land line in the case of Rogers/Shaw and TNT USA are not distributors as far as I know. SO they would have to either lease the lines (too much) or get subscription rates out of Rogers/Shaw.

Of course there is satellite choices including grey boxes if one is so inclined.

I have cable at my house and satellite at my weekend home. Both of them carrying (Chose I guess) much the same product. Stupid money frankly for the amount of time I watch at the weekend home, which is practically nil.

So you seem to be advocating a free market approach. Is it safe to assume that you oppose the CRTC, Canadian content laws, the CBC, and the fact that I am forced to subscribe to the CBC and CTV?

[Toronto Centre]

admin, on 31 March 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

So you seem to be advocating a free market approach.

Yes

Quote

Is it safe to assume that you oppose the CRTC, Canadian content laws, the CBC,

Uh oh....

I do not oppose the CRTC as a whole. I am aware of the benefits Canada has had with Can-Con rules in the past. Our music industry has benefitted, but with todays market the CRTC is more about fulfilling licence agreements than content requirements. I find the FCC more over the top than our CRTC.

And now the CBC . Some of what the CBC does I like, some of what they do I dont like at all.

I find it to be far too insular. It is the same people being re-hashed in diferent ways for the shows that are produced. They occasionaly get a hit, Little Mosque for one , Being Erica another. But then on the other side are some shows that are bombs.

Being in the connected age we are now with satellites etc, the need for the CBC has diminshed greatly. It was paramount to have years ago as this vast country had to be connected somehow. It is a long way from Ottawa to Regina , it is a long winter and plenty of the shows produced back then were very popular and watched religiously.

Think Don Messers Jubilee, Friendly Giant ,Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday nights and of course the mainstay, Hockey Night in Canada.

The CBC greatly contributed to the culture of this country.

But I can see the need for it to be reigned in. It is by the grace of a Parliament Appropriation that it exists . Two thirds of its funding comes from that. So I would like to see more balance on the books before the bathwater and the baby are turfed.

The bloat that exists in the CBC and in civil service is astronomical and I would welcome some accounting for that.But our present govt, much like all the rest that preceeded Harper , havent the willies to take it on. There is no left right slant on the abuse of our money.

It is popular, and polls indicate that to get rid of it may be folly. I honestly dont think I would miss it, save for HNIC which I think they do better than anyone else before or since.

Quote

and the fact that I am forced to subscribe to the CBC and CTV?

In fact you are not forced to subscribe to CBC and CTV. No one makes you do that.

That you have to choose it as part of a package is a decision made by the carriers, but you choose to enter that den. Does that part suck? Sure does, as I would like to see a per price for stations but I know we wont have that for some time un til the delivery channels get changed.

And I am a minus 3 ? Woah, how did that happen?

[admin]

Toronto Centre, on 31 March 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

In fact you are not forced to subscribe to CBC and CTV. No one makes you do that.

That you have to choose it as part of a package is a decision made by the carriers

That is not accurate at all...

http://www.insidethe...-carry-license/

CBC and CTV have "must carry" licenses which means if you want cable you MUST get those stations.

[Mr.Canada]

admin, on 01 April 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

That is not accurate at all...

http://www.insidethe...-carry-license/

CBC and CTV have "must carry" licenses which means if you want cable you MUST get those stations.

Hopefully Sun TV News will be able to upgrade their license at some point down the road if it becomes wildly popular. Plus if it becomes wildly popular those not carrying it now will be forced to oe they'll lose customers.

[Toronto Centre]

admin, on 01 April 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

That is not accurate at all...

CBC and CTV have "must carry" licenses which means if you want cable you MUST get those stations.

I understand 'must carry' and am not in agreement with them (they are being wound down though), however , no one forces anyone to buy cable or satellite.

I agree if you want something, you have to take X too and it never makes me happy either.

[CanadianLiberty]

I checked the websites for both shaw and Bell satellite tv and they both list Sun TV in their channel listings. This can't be a mistake can it?

[CanadianLiberty]

Here are links to what I found.

http://www.bell.ca/w...ineup_alpha.pdf
http://www.shaw.ca/u...hannelCount.pdf

Can someone else corroborate this?

... Counting down to the 18th like it's Christmas

[admin]

CanadianLiberty, on 02 April 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

Here are links to what I found.

http://www.bell.ca/w...ineup_alpha.pdf
http://www.shaw.ca/u...hannelCount.pdf

Can someone else corroborate this?

... Counting down to the 18th like it's Christmas

I believe that is the existing Sun TV and not the new Sun TV News

[CanadianLiberty]

admin, on 02 April 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

I believe that is the existing Sun TV and not the new Sun TV News

Thanks.

I found something else via "eye on the hill"...

http://blogs.canoe.c...rk-on-the-dial/

This seems a little odd to me but I guess as long as I can get it, I'm happy. Has anyone heard anything about SK? I haven't heard a sniff from Sasktel but they're usually a little behind.

[prairieguy]

I sure wish we could find out for sure who is going to be carrying Sun TV News. I'm planning to drop my current cable company because I know they won't carry it and will go to whom ever is going to carry it. I guess I'll just have to wait until after the 18th ?

rob