Cash Cow
@videotron.ca
1 edit | The Cash Cow shows up at Shaw. No license to broadcast...
»www.p2pnet.net/story/30573
Video:
Shaw security stops the Shaw Cable Cash Cow from showing itself.
Shaw security sez:
"Shut that down. You guys aren’t licensed to broadcast here. We have to have that video tape erased!”
No license to broadcast?
Must have the video erased?
Umm, no. |
|
tom25
@shawcable.net
| I don't blame Shaw. If some lowlifes were trying to get more money for nothing from me, I'd be pretty upset with them too. I can't comprehend how the networks (CBC, CTV, etc) are allowed to get away with the blatant lies they have been feeding the Canadian public. It's sickening. |
|
yeeaahh
@videotron.ca
 from:
Lesaonar 
| That's right. Poor Shaw having to push this fee on the customer when the CRTC said it's them who should pay.
Poor, poor Shaw.
Explain this to the guy in the previous topic who just got his 3rd billing increase since the summer.
Poor, poor Shaw. |
|
tom25
@shawcable.net
| There were two price increases this year for internet ($3 total for highspeed), and one increase as well as one decrease for cable this year. Internet speeds were also increased 50% for all high speed customers. I have had Shaw for the last 10 years, and just recently switched to their phone service as well and their prices are as good (if not better) than the competition and the service is miles better. |
|
Mustafa
join:2006-10-04
| said by tom25 :
I have had Shaw for the last 10 years, and just recently switched to their phone service as well and their prices are as good (if not better) than the competition and the service is miles better.
What competition? You can count the number of ISP's in this country with one hand (not resellers) and have fingers left over!
This is why we are sliding compared to other countries in speed and accesses to bb. The only people who disagree with this is analysts who get there paychecks from the ISP's.
I'm sure the Shaw fanboy's will all start to chime in now. |
|
whatmustafa
@shawcable.net
from:
Lesaonar
| you seem to be blending or confusing two issues here.
1. isp competition. only a complete moron would think that there is any kind of real competition in canada. we agree there.
2. the television issue. the crtc madates that all carriers( cable/sat/telco ect) MUST CARRY cbc, ctv, global. they MUST ALSO carry said channels in "prime channel location". Now these channels want to be paid for this signal AND keep their must carry status and channel location. ( i could be wrong, but i believe this was a negoitaed deal way back when between crtc / broadcasters / distributors)
These broadcasters should be getting paid for their programming, and we as consumers should have the choice on whether or not we want them.
The issue is not with the distributors but with the networks and the crtc, and we as consumers.
on a side note, the only local content from these channels is the news( aprox 3 hrs day, and maybe some local special max another 6 - 12 hrs / year ).
My advice to you, mr. mustafa is to make your voice heard to the crtc by writing, attending their public forums and whatever else can legally be done(just be sure to be clear to them, they ignore rants).
if you side with the broadcasters let them know via their website, cancel your tv subscription.
if you side with the distributors, buy their stock and collect dividens. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to Cash Cow
As far as I'm concerned, Shaw should kick all the local channels off the dial and make them pay channels. You want your local stations - pay the extra that Global, CBC, CTV, etc., are demanding for them.
The local stations will soon find out that they aren't needed half as much as they think they are. I can easily go weeks without turning on local TV, so if it lowers my cable bill any to have the channels removed, move them off.
And while we're at it - how about killing that abomination known as simulcasting. If I choose to watch an American station I should be entitled to watch the American commercials. There is nothing more I hate to be watching a show on a U.S. station, only to have the Canadian channel finally flip over a minute or two later and take me back or - worse - jump me ahead a minute or two. Likewise at the end of a show.
Drifting off topic I'll admit, but then Cash Cow felt the need to come here and do a little self-promotion on behalf of local stations in the first place. |
|
joshb
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Calgary, AB
clubs:
 ·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Shaw
 ·Primus Talkbroadband
 ·GoDaddy Hosting
| said by ErikRP :The local stations will soon find out that they aren't needed half as much as they think they are. I can easily go weeks without turning on local TV, so if it lowers my cable bill any to have the channels removed, move them off. I think they already know that fact... And I think that is part of why they are trying pull what they are right now...
For me personally I go months at time with out even looking at the local channels... As to whether or not I would can them though if I had the option to remove from my package... That is another issue all together.... Most likely yes... With how easy you can get local information from the internet and on mobile devices...
The fact is I think a lot of old school companies are a bit scared right now... And it has a lot to do with some of what we are seeing... Shaw is one of them.... Look at the packages ie internet... They could offer a lot more bang for the buck but if they did that they might have customer cancel there TV service... Which what they are scared of.... This whole new media Vs old media has just got out of control...
Regards
Joshb
--
R.I.P Mom We miss you. |
|
KnowUBetter
join:2009-07-28
| reply to whatmustafa
said by whatmustafa :
2. the television issue. the crtc madates that all carriers( cable/sat/telco ect) MUST CARRY cbc, ctv, global. they MUST ALSO carry said channels in "prime channel location". Now these channels want to be paid for this signal AND keep their must carry status and channel location. ( i could be wrong, but i believe this was a negoitaed deal way back when between crtc / broadcasters / distributors)
These broadcasters should be getting paid for their programming, and we as consumers should have the choice on whether or not we want them.
This is exactly how I feel!!! At least I'm not alone....I'm so happy*****sob |
|
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Cash Cow
I also agree on the Canadian Networks. They want us to pay them, to simulcast. Whats the worse thing that would happen with out the Canadian Networks? We'd watch the same shows on the US channels without simsubs?
They're whole business is buying 3rd party content, slapping their own commercials on it and reairing it. Why should we have to pay for that? Why should Shaw?
Of course shaw is going to raise the bill to compensate.. their a business aimed at making a profit. They're not going to let the CRC reduce that profit. I just don't think it should be mandatory to pay for those channels. The only thing that I find remotely useful is local news. Usually global local news. but nothing else they air is original content. |
|
Cash Cow
@videotron.ca
| reply to ErikRP
said by ErikRP :but then Cash Cow felt the need to come here and do a little self-promotion on behalf of local stations in the first place. 1. I "self-promoted" nothing. I am not afill'd with anything posted here what-so-ever.
2. Is it only TV here that we are talking about? Could it be other services as well? Where does it say TV only? Maybe you can point it out in the video because I missed it.
3. Meanwhile, poor, poor, Shaw "has to" increase you costs again (poor them), even when the CRTC says they should be paying and not the customer (did you read the CRTC ruling?).
4. I'd like to see the Cash Cow show up at the door of every dominant supplier in Canada, since we are all being milked by the whole lot of them and not just by Shaw. But Shaw was the example here (poor , poor Shaw).
We have to have that video tape erased. No one must know! Plead poverty! heh... Got Milk? |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| said by Cash Cow :said by ErikRP :but then Cash Cow felt the need to come here and do a little self-promotion on behalf of local stations in the first place. 1. I "self-promoted" nothing. I am not afill'd with anything posted here what-so-ever. By "self-promotion" I meant promotion for your cause. Even if you are not behind it, you obviously support it, given your "Cash Cow @ videotron.ca" nickname.
said by Cash Cow :
2. Is it only TV here that we are talking about? Could it be other services as well? Where does it say TV only? Maybe you can point it out in the video because I missed it. Sorry - I don't know what you're talking about. Could you make a bit more sense please? If you're responding to something I wrote, please be specific as to what your point is. If you're arguing about something someone else wrote or did, do likewise.
said by Cash Cow :
3. Meanwhile, poor, poor, Shaw "has to" increase you costs again (poor them), even when the CRTC says they should be paying and not the customer (did you read the CRTC ruling?). Exactly why should the Cable companies be forced to eat the cost that TV stations impose? If copper or fiber costs go up, are the cable companies supposed to eat that cost, too? Or is it only because the divine, anachronistic institution known as the CRTC decided to side with TV stations?
As a Shaw customer as much as I don't like paying it, I don't see why Shaw as a business should be forced to pay this cost without passing on the cost to customers.
What I see is the TV networks wanting money from the cable companies but not wanting to lose the PR war by having the money actually come from consumers. Networks want the money, but they don't want to be seen to be picking consumers' pockets, even though one way or another the money will be coming from consumers.
said by Cash Cow :
4. I'd like to see the Cash Cow show up at the door of every dominant supplier in Canada, since we are all being milked by the whole lot of them and not just by Shaw. But Shaw was the example here (poor , poor Shaw).
We have to have that video tape erased. No one must know! Plead poverty! heh... Got Milk? And more promotion of your cause...
What I'd like to see is every local station moved to somewhere off their prime location on the dial. For all I care Shaw could stop carrying them entirely. If I need local news there is a little startup called the internet that is doing a great job at getting news to me when I want it, not just at 5, 6 and 11. Other than local news, local stations are 95% simulcasting American shows which I can easily get from the original American networks.
The remaining 5% of half-decent programming from all networks could - and should - be packaged and sold on a single station. That one station alone might be worth paying for. Otherwise, to use this inane "cow" metaphor, the networks must have mad cow disease to think that most Canadians support them. |
|
stolen
join:2004-04-12
Calgary, AB
| I also find it interesting that the networks are saying that they will not upgrade the smaller markets to digital when the digital conversion comes in 2011.
»www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/archive/2009/2009-411.pdf
41.
Due to the cost of implementing OTA DTV transmitters, the current economic climate, and high BDU penetration in most markets, most broadcasters have indicated that they do not intend to convert all analog OTA transmitters to digital. As a result, Canadians likely face a hybrid solution, whereby larger markets will continue to be served by digital OTA signals and smaller markets will receive conventional signals via BDUs. Communities that lose some or all of their conventional OTA choices will continue to be served by other means.
That means that if you're in a smaller community, the only way to get local tv will be over cable/satellite. The broadcaster won't have to build a transmitter, essentially leaving the cost of that to the satellite and cable companies. (they become the "transmitter"). The only way you'll be able to receive local channels in these markets is to subscribe to a cable/satellite service.
I wonder if they'll blame cable/satellite for that too?
I do find the "no license to broadcast" quote from the security guard amusing tho.  Sounds like something the security staff came up with. |
|
tom25
@shawcable.net
| reply to Cash Cow
Let's not forget, Shaw also has their own local programming channels completely funded by Shaw itself.
Also, the networks have refused to agree to using any potential TV tax for "local programming" even though they are saying this is what it is for. Basically they are just going to use it to purchase more US programming (which is why they are in this situation to begin with). It's not the cable companies' fault that the networks have mismanaged themselves. |
|
CR123
join:2006-11-04
Vancouver, BC
| reply to ErikRP
said by ErikRP :Exactly why should the Cable companies be forced to eat the cost that TV stations impose? If copper or fiber costs go up, are the cable companies supposed to eat that cost, too? Or is it only because the divine, anachronistic institution known as the CRTC decided to side with TV stations? As a Shaw customer as much as I don't like paying it, I don't see why Shaw as a business should be forced to pay this cost without passing on the cost to customers. Well, it's a balancing act. You could say that cable companies should eat the costs for all business expenses beyond their control, none of them, or some of them...
For example, the BC and Ontario governments assert that the HST will lower costs for businesses to provide services. Does this mean that those businesses will add a 'discount' line item on the bill when/if their costs go down? I doubt that will happen (at Shaw, or at any other company).
For a cable company like Shaw, the increase of the costs of fuel and energy must have made an impact in the last few years. Yet they wouldn't dare add a 'fuel surcharge' to cable bills as a line item.
It's somewhere in between - I don't know if cablecos should be expected to make less profit, and eat higher costs of doing business. The only reason they are making a stink is that they believe they can lobby a reversal in policy to strike the added fees. It's a political thing - they wouldn't do the same for any other increase in the cost of doing business (could you imagine them doing the same thing if Alberta increased their corporate tax rates by 2-3%?).
Gee whiz, I hope they find a compromise or something. Both sides are getting really irritating lately. How about having half or a quarter of the LPIF going to the cableco's community channels to make better community programming? Or maybe forced cooperation in small markets between cableco community TV and small market network stations...
--
- The content of this post is my opinion, and does not reflect the opinions of my employer. - |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| I agree, it's a balancing act on how much of a company's costs they end up passing on to the consumer. Obviously the company that bears all cost increases without passing them off to the consumer will likely be the one with the lowest prices and/or the most customer approval. However its shareholders will not be so happy and will stay away in droves, which will often mean the company goes bankrupt.
So it's a balance as to how much of a cost to pass on to the consumer.
In this case though, it's not so much as an increase of the cost of doing business, this is a line item fee per customer that is easily identifiable and thus easily passed on to the consumer. And obviously there is more than a bit of politics involved. The cable companies have no interest in paying this money to networks, and by passing this fee off on consumers they get more support than they otherwise would have received if consumers weren't hit with the fee.
I resent that the fee ostensibly funds "local stations" but there is absolutely no accountability as to what that money will be used to fund. Why should I pay into a fund to let them produce community programming when at the same time those networks have no problem spending gobs of money to buy American programming? If House, Lost, Survivor, CSI, etc., are taking too much of their budget, then maybe it's time for those networks to review their business model. Maybe we don't need 4 or 5 Canadian networks.
On any given night I can spin the dial from Channels 2-12 and invariably it will land on a Canadian channel broadcasting an American show. And almost without exception at the same time I can find the exact same show on an American station.
And Canadian networks think I'll side with them about receiving extra money... why? |
|
netwerk007
join:2009-08-09 | reply to Cash Cow
HAHAHAHAHHA
Good job guys. |
|
netwerk007
join:2009-08-09
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Shaw
·TELUS
1 edit | reply to ErikRP
said by ErikRP : "However its shareholders will not be so happy and will stay away in droves, which will often mean the company goes bankrupt." I hope you do not do any sort of investing in the stock-market. And I really doubt any corporation will ever help the customer in exchange for not making a profit . #1 priority is to make as much money as you can as cheaply as you can.....unfortunately
If they have to pay this perhaps Shaw could rely on Innovation and make things more efficient to help make up shortfall instead of raising peoples bills like they have been doing recently. It obviously that the tv customers are also subsiding the shaw phone service. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| What? Are you sure you read my post?
My point was that any company that is more concerned about making the customer happy, rather than watching its bottom line, will not be a company that investors want to invest in. Keeping the customer happy is important to be sure, but there is a certain point where you have to accept that not all customers can be satisfied 100% of the time, and that ultimately the company exists to make money, not (only) to make customers happy.
How is that different than what you said?
As to your point about innovation - innovation costs money. Shaw obviously already invests in R&D, so how much more should Shaw spend to save its customers a dollar or two per month? Again, you're right back to the whole discussion about ROI - return on investment. If Shaw spends $1 million to save $2 million, that's good. If they spend $1 million to save $500K, that's bad. |
|
netwerk007
join:2009-08-09
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Shaw
·TELUS
| Could operations be made more efficient? That doesn't have to cost a ton of money. I know they send me junk mail every month trying to get me sucked into using their home phone service with enticing cheap deals for 3 months then they jack the rates ups after the 3 months are up.
Perhaps their non-union employees should take a pay cut and pass those savings onto the consumer?
Maybe they should centralize their contact centres?
Have call centre people work for home even. That would work for people with families.
Just some ideas. |
|
