Talk:Fee-for-carriage

Is "Ultimately each station must be profitable on its own in order to justify continued operation." really part of the pro-fee-for-carriage side's arguement?
The "for" subsection of the "arguments" section states that "Ultimately each station must be profitable on its own in order to justify continued operation.". Is this really part of the pro-fee-for-carriage campaigns' argument? IMO it fits far better with the anti-fee-for-carriage campaign's "no bailout" theme than the pro-fee-for-carriage campaign's "save local television" theme. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Same idea

 * If I heard right, a Shaw "overwrite" (in my terms used on foreign channels like broadcasting A&E in Canada) mentions a potential $2.0 billion bailout. Meanwhile, a "Save Local TV" campaign ad mentions a $2.0 billion profit to cable companies. It's the same financial figure, but both are interpreting it differently. Mechamind90 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article scope
IMO either information on fee-for-carriage in other countries and fee-for-carriage in general should be added to thits article, or most of the Canada-specific information should be split into its' own article. I've added globalize and split tags. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)