Rabbit ears

[kurtbecker]

> > > Rogers Community 10 is part of the big stink!
> > >
> > Very true. Star Ray TV filed a new application for a
> > community station on June 3, 2004 and since then nothing
> has
> > happened. The CRTC is denying Star Ray due process.  This
> is
> > criminal activity, the CRTC has a statutory obligation to
> > hear filed applications in a timely manner.  Some CRTC
> > commissioners and
> > former CRTC employees need to be hung out to dry.
> >
> Please further note that all of a sudden,(as of Sept.30
> 2005) it's ok to run a jockless Jack fm (Rogers owned) EVEN
> THOUGH CRTC regulation CLEARLY STATES that a third of the
> broadcast week MUST be commited to local programming.
>
> The elimination of morning, afternoon drive, and local news
> weather and traffic info durring that time leaves that
> station in a state that means it may as well be a Vancouver
> station or something.
>
> My point? What makes Rogers so special?
> email CRTC to complain, and they'll just email you back the
> following message:
>
> "The CRTC does not wish to get involved with the labour
> disputes of a radio station"
>
> LABOUR DISPUTE? Nice to know rogers can do anything they
> want, and somehow pass it off as something different, but to
> get a licence, You're at the CRTC's mercy NO MATTER WHAT the
> reason.
>
> Did CRTC ever even try to say "Sorry Rogers, regulation is
> regulation, please obey it within an allocated time or
> concequences will apply"
>
> NO! They just sat there and let it go!
> MEANWHILE, there's a tv station trying to get a licence, and
> they can't have one!
>
> Wether or not one can agree or disagree on the very idea
> that Star Ray tv should have licence, I'm sure we can all
> agree the CRTC is NOT being fair, and has opend the door to
> other businesses to tell CRTC to stuff it, much like how
> Rogers has.

Rogers is paying big bucks for former CRTC employees to manage CRTC regulatory
affairs for them. From the Rogers.com website:

"Pamela Dinsmore is Vice President, Regulatory for Rogers Cable Communications Inc. She joined Rogers Cable in 1995 after seven years with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). At the CRTC she held various positions, including Chief of Staff to the Chairman and Legal Counsel.
At Rogers, Ms. Dinsmore began as Director, Regulatory Affairs. She assumed her current position in June, 1997 and supervises a staff of 6 people.

Ms. Dinsmore is responsible for administering the regulatory relationship between Rogers Cable and the CRTC and other Federal government departments, boards and agencies, overseeing the negotiations of access and support structure agreements with municipalities and utilities, providing regulatory advice to all cable company departments and participating in industry
activities."

How much did Ms. Dinsmore make at the CRTC and how much money is she making now at Rogers? Also how many of her staff of six are former CRTC employees?

Even if she makes 1M a year, she is a bargain for Rogers if you only consider
the awarding of a second "multicultural" station in Toronto to Rogers with no call for applications. CRTC employees can be bought cheaply.

Are existing CRTC employees going to cross a potential employer that can offer a very substantial pay raise? The evidence speaks for itself.

By the way it's Ms. Dinsmore that signed Rogers negative intervention against Star Ray TV: http://srtv.ca/rogers.html

[Yeziknoradio]

>
> By the way it's Ms. Dinsmore that signed Rogers negative
> intervention against Star Ray TV: http://srtv.ca/rogers.html
>
This link makes "2-13" look like one of the problems, yet in Scarborough, Rogers Scarborough television 10 moved to cable 62. There was no problem there moving the community channel higher up and putting NBC Buffalo on cable 10. (AN AMERICAN STATION!)

Looks like once Again, Rogers can do anything it wants, but others can not.
(Respectfully, some things may have changed since the date of that link, and a new link updating their reason(s) for rejection may be required.)

______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"

[kurtbecker]

> >
> > By the way it's Ms. Dinsmore that signed Rogers negative
> > intervention against Star Ray TV:
> http://srtv.ca/rogers.html
> >
> This link makes "2-13" look like one of the problems, yet in
> Scarborough, Rogers Scarborough television 10 moved to cable
> 62. There was no problem there moving the community channel
> higher up and putting NBC Buffalo on cable 10. (AN AMERICAN
> STATION!)
>
> Looks like once Again, Rogers can do anything it wants, but
> others can not.
> (Respectfully, some things may have changed since the date
> of that link, and a new link updating their reason(s) for
> rejection may be required.)
>
What Rogers really meant in their intervention is that there is no room on the cable unless it is for a station we (Rogers) own. I don't know what you mean about an updated link. Rogers did not file an intervention for the second Star Ray TV hearing in 2001.

This is off topic but I hate the renaming of Skydome to the Rogers Centre. That ----- Rogers only paid $30M for the Skydome when we the people of the province of Ontario paid $600M plus. The least he coulda done is keep the original name. This shows the arrogance of the whole Rogers corporation and their disdain for the average folk. Piss on them!

[M.J.]

> Looks like once Again, Rogers can do anything it wants, but
> others can not.
> (Respectfully, some things may have changed since the date
> of that link, and a new link updating their reason(s) for
> rejection may be required.)
-----------
So true.  Rogers got away with replacing the Rochester stations with the Detroit stations on their Ottawa system without CRTC approval.  But if, say, the locally owned cable system in Mitchell, Ontario did such a thing, they'd probably lose their license.

______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!

[M.J.]

> My point? What makes Rogers so special?
> email CRTC to complain, and they'll just email you back the
> following message:
>
> "The CRTC does not wish to get involved with the labour
> disputes of a radio station"
-----------
I got a similar response from the CRTC when I filed a complaint about Global and their issue of confining their news coverage on CIII to Toronto when they are required by the CRTC to provide a relevant news service to the entire province; not to mention that there is no reason why every other station in the country has to serve its city of license, but CIII gets to ignore Paris and serve Toronto only.  In addition I had observed that CIII was airing local Toronto ads, which is also prohibited by the license.  Anyways, I digress...here's what I got from the CRTC in response.

The Commission’s role, under the Broadcasting Act, is to supervise and regulate the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that respects freedom of expression and the journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by the broadcasters. The Commission is not a censor board, nor does it generally intervene in the day-to-day editorial decisions and operations of the broadcasters.  
 
The individual broadcaster (not the CRTC) is responsible for the selection, scheduling and content of its programming.  In other words, it is up to the broadcaster to decide which programs to offer and when, such that it complies with all regulatory obligations and meets its individual conditions of licence, including any requirements with respect to local programming.  It is also expected to be responsive to public complaints.

EDITORIAL DECISIONS? FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION? Since when is ignoring your city of license and defying several conditions of license an "editorial decision"?  And I need not explain what is wrong with the second last sentence, because it is too blatently obvious.  Global doesn't have to follow the rules but everyone else does.

If you're a CanWest shareholder, that's your investment at work.  I don't know what the Aspers are up to, but it's probably not very pretty.

______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!

[Radio Friend]

> This is off topic but I hate the renaming of Skydome to the
> Rogers Centre. That ----- Rogers only paid $30M for the
> Skydome when we the people of the province of Ontario paid
> $600M plus. The least he coulda done is keep the original
> name. This shows the arrogance of the whole Rogers
> corporation and their disdain for the average folk. Piss on
> them!
>
Yeah really eh?
How much did Sears pay for Eatons? You don't see Sears changing the name of the Eaton's centre to the Sears centre just because the Eaton store is now Sears...

[Yeziknoradio]

> > This is off topic but I hate the renaming of Skydome to
> the
> > Rogers Centre. That ----- Rogers only paid $30M for the
> > Skydome when we the people of the province of Ontario paid
>
> > $600M plus. The least he coulda done is keep the original
> > name. This shows the arrogance of the whole Rogers
> > corporation and their disdain for the average folk. Piss
> on
> > them!
> >
> Yeah really eh?
> How much did Sears pay for Eatons? You don't see Sears
> changing the name of the Eaton's centre to the Sears centre
> just because the Eaton store is now Sears...
>
That's not a bad example, but this, being a tv board, deserves a TV example.
Universal spent how much money to buy NBC? They didn't up and change that name now did they? um..ok, besides the point that Universal 2 Buffalo (for example) sounds like an awful long name anyway, I trust this too is a good example?

______________
"If you never say NO, How much is your YES worth?"

[Calgaryperson]

> > > This is off topic but I hate the renaming of Skydome to
> > the
> > > Rogers Centre. That ----- Rogers only paid $30M for the
> > > Skydome when we the people of the province of Ontario
> paid
> >
> > > $600M plus. The least he coulda done is keep the
> original
> > > name. This shows the arrogance of the whole Rogers
> > > corporation and their disdain for the average folk. Piss
>
> > on
> > > them!
> > >
> > Yeah really eh?
> > How much did Sears pay for Eatons? You don't see Sears
> > changing the name of the Eaton's centre to the Sears
> centre
> > just because the Eaton store is now Sears...
> >
> That's not a bad example, but this, being a tv board,
> deserves a TV example.
> Universal spent how much money to buy NBC? They didn't up
> and change that name now did they? um..ok, besides the point
> that Universal 2 Buffalo (for example) sounds like an awful
> long name anyway, I trust this too is a good example?
>
Other way around.
It was a merger with the majority owned by GE and the rest by Vivendi Universal who still own Universal Music AFAIK.

Keeping with the examples above, why not rename Universal Studios in Orlando to NBC Studios then?

______________

Canada TV and College Radio

[rugrats1]

> Universal spent how much money to buy NBC? They didn't up
> and change that name now did they? um..ok, besides the point
> that Universal 2 Buffalo (for example) sounds like an awful
> long name anyway, I trust this too is a good example?
>
Actually, Universal's previous owner did just that to one station -- in the late-1980s and early-1990s, MCA, the original owners of Universal, owned WWOR ch.9 in New York, back when they were an independent superstation. To reflect MCA's ownership of WWOR, they gave it the nickname "Universal 9". This didn't last long, though (a year at most).