They are very worried about this in saskatchewan.

Interesting....

THe Cnadaian Broadcasters demanded to be mandatory inclusions (for free) in cable line up.  Otherwise they were afraid that the cable companies would dump them.

Will they still be mandatory if the companies have to pay?  DOn't get me wrong, I am sure SHAW et al can afford it, but would they?  The committment of some cable companies to local television is suspect at best.

And will it really be the salvation of these local stations anyway?  Or is this a grasping at straws?  In  the end we all know that any new cost to the cable companies will be paid by the subscribers.  ANd as cable companies are pushed by the market to offer an a la carte approach to channels rather than the current package approach how many subscribers will pay to have the local channels?

We're watching huge changes to local news coverage. Newspapers, which used to do the job, are falling like flies. In any case, the quality of their coverage has actually been in deline for years as they scramble for readers with trivial sections of stuff like Hollywood gossip.

I can't say I've often seen even half decent coverage of the local scene on TV. part of the reason is that TV is such a bad medium for conveying messages. It's really very passive, and just pictures.

Radio does a better job - but it may not be entirely practical because radios in the home just don't get turned on after 6 pm. However, it is very effective before supper, and it commands far more concentration thanTV does.

On balance, I think it might be cheaper and better to forget about TV for local coverage, and pay more attention to developing radio for that role.

graeme

I'm afraid the only news we are going to get is the Internet - no newspapers, TV, or radio news..

We already don't have local TV stations. Right now, the so called "local" stations all broadcast the same programmes, except – for some networks – for some local news at supper time. For instance, the 1-hour local newscast at supper time has t most 15 minutes of truly local programming.

So overall, the only thing truly local about local TV is the advertising. If we were to lose local TV stations, that's basically what we would lose.

true mgagnonlv.  We lost our local coverage years ago.  We officially get local news from  a station 300 km away.  Used to be 100.  But I still listen to CBC in the morning for my news, economy and sports.

Peace

Joel

let's get real.

1. TV is the wors possible medium for any dissemnation of local news. It is mostly jsut picttures. It is vey passive, making no demands on viewers.  With its short attentiaon splan you will learned nothing of local affairs.

3, don't feel sorry for CTV. It is in he business of selling ads. Cable and satellite TV help it do that. I they don't think so, all the have to do is refuse to pay.

3. Local coverage is best done by radio. With proper support, CBC can do that with an adequate newsroom - which is far cheaper than TV. It can provide the reporters on the ground you need.

4. private radio can do an excellent job another element, the call in shows with local discusssion.

The CTV pitch is simply self serving.

graeme

It sounds like we consumers will have to be paying more for cable TV. If we convince the cable companies to pay the local tv affiliates, guess who's going to be paying for it in the end. As far as I'm concerned, local tv programming can go. It's seldom of high quality anyway. I'm sure the national networks will cover any truly important news from the various communities in Canada. What will get lost is local "news" of bakesales and community car washes and the like. This can be easily learned from local newspapers. You'll see no effort from me to save local tv.

-----

-----

I live in Cambridge. I resent the fact that the local daily was closed down.

There is one local TV station in Kitchener. Not even CBC, except on cable. If allowed, the cable providers will restrict our programming to Toronto and Ottawa only - if that, and call it "local programming". Every other province will be lucky to get one station.

The satellite providers don't even do that.

There is a lot more to Canada than the big cities.

The problem is really complex.

Local TV is free, or was. As we approach deadlines for "digital only"  many people on antennas scrambled for cable or sattelite in order to not "lose" local channels. The message that a box was available was lost. Those with bigger budgets flooded consumers with commercials about losing TV. By the time local channels ran little PSA's on the bottom of the screen about a product to not lose TV, many had already made the move to cable.

As Gord mentioned, locals wanted to be in the line-up on cable providers. It was made mandatory. The customer did not want a switch installed to go between cable/satellite and antenna/ locals. The cable company did not want to pay for what is free from the air. The customer did not want to pay on a cable/satellite bill for what was free on an antenna. The local channels did not want to pay to be on cable/satellite.

You can listen to locals channels that you will lose local channels without cable companies paying for them. You can also listen to cable providers telling you that if local has always been free, then what money have they been, are they actually losing? You can hear arguments they need money and the other side saying the money will not stay with Canadian local channels but will go to the US to buy high rated shows. Often, it will be shows that a cable/satellite viewer has already seen on a premium channel last season or one that is available already to them on ABC/NBC/CBS channels on the line-up. The fact is that like any industry, one cannot make money with things many people do not want or need.

You said most of what I wanted to say StevieG.  This is why I will not sign a petition like this.  To me if cable companies have to pay to carry CBC and such, then they should be able to say, no we don't want to carry you, but they can't.  The CRTC demands that they carry them, because they have to have the Canadian content, blah, blah, blah. . .  If they determine that cable companies must carry them, and that they must pay for it, guess what - that is a tax, and who pays this tax?  cable subscribers.

Thankfully I don't have cable, not a concern for me.

With the advent of digital broadcast TV and the new slingboxes, Cable TV may become obsolete.

There's a whole lot of potential technology that hasn't been commercially exploited yet.

I agree.  Complete shows only shown on the Internet is gaining in popularity.  People want to be able to pick and choose what sort of content they get in their homes.  Many of my friends that are younger than me, the Gen-Y or Z or whatever they are calling them, don't even want cable or satelite.  They get their internet hooked up and are got with that and renting movies or entire seasons of shows.

Why pay $40 + a month for over 100 channels when you only watch about 5 of them?  People want to just get those 5 channels, and if not, then they will go online or to the store and get just the shows they watch on those 5 channels.