Part of the problem is that most people don't perceive it as being free TV. They look at their cable bill, see that they pay $75 per month, and feel they are owed. And I can't say that I blame them. Using satellite as an example, why do I pay more to get more channels? The costs are the same for the infastructure. Do cable/satellite companies pay the networks for the channels they braodcast?
I just don't understand any sort of model where it wouldn't be better for a channel to have as much exposure as possible. Lets take Rogers Sportsnet. If I was Rogers, I would want every cable and satellite subscriber to have that channel. I know there are people who aren't big enough sports fans to justify paying to subscribe, but would watch the odd Flames game if allowed.
Once TV is completely "free", then the broadcasters can do whatever they want. Until that time, keep your hands off the content that I pay for.
On another note, companies in the States charge a PVR fee every month. I wonder if this might end up going away a little quicker if the big US companies find out they cannot charge that extra fee every month.
|