I have nothing against it. I just don't use it much. However, it is nice to be able to catch a show that I found out about a bit to late to record on a local channel. However, at the moment, that's just on American channels, as all the left coast Canadian channels are still SD on cable.
In the age of duel tunner HD-PVR's and US Network & Sports time shifting which is a given with most providers now I don't see the need for canadian time shifting at all unless people like to watch news from other cities.
There have been times I wanted to record 3 shows at a time. Time shift channels allow the 3rd channel to be recorded. Also, many cable channels repeat later in the day or week, so it's possible to get a show later. I've used that many times.
the Supreme Court is not obligated to grant leave. I can't imagine they would see a reason to do so in this case. There's no issue of liberty. There's no divergence of legal application or practice across the province to reconcile. There's no Charter issue. There's no outdated Supreme Court precedent that needs updating. There's really no reason to expect them to grant leave.
That's the thing about the SCC: sometimes they don't need a "real" reason other than the matter is of national importance. Anything involving a fundamental shift in the workings/delivery of media in Canada I think could be construed as being of national importance and leave might be granted.
This won't happen for quite a while, though. The parties still have to deal with the FC then the FCA.
In my personal situation I'm fortunate to be able to watch American channels OTA. Any blackout of American shows by a Canadian broadcaster will have no effect on me. However, while a good chunk of Canada's population lives within 100 km of the US border I suspect good chunk of them are unable to receive OTA for whatever reason.
So yesterday I saw on the news Paul Sparkes from CTV say that the potential value for signal fee will help CTV create more Canadian content! Canadian content and CTV... isn't that like an oxymoron? Paul Sparkes must have been sparking something green himself before he made those laughable comments on the airwaves yesterday.
Well, I don't watch anything that's on Global. I watch very little on CTV that's not available from elsewhere (including DVD/BR). I watch the news and occasional documentary on CBC. The one broadcaster that gets most of my non news viewing is PBS, which had shows that Canadian broadcasters don't carry. So my message to the broadcasters is: "Good bye. I don't need you and I don't want to pay for you."
Agreed. There is nothing on CTV, Global or A that I watch that I can't get elsewhere. I watch CBC for local news and get national news online.
The CRTC completely dropped the ball by not permitting a la carte.
I've called Bell Aliant to tell them that I will not stand for a rate increase that is passed onto consumers by this ruling. I told them if I get a notice or see a fee increase, that I'll be cancelling and returning to OTA service[not since the late 80's].
Enough of this crap.
So, just for my own clarity here. Lets say I want to watch 24, Fox and Global carry it. So, if my sat provider did not negotiate terms with Global, Global could force the blackout of Fox while they are broadcasting 24?
Another example, Fox and Global carry "House", I assume the answer to my question above would be the same, however what about Showcase who shows older episodes, other seasons, as well as new episodes of House? Global could force the blackout of that too?
Showcase has a different rights arrangement. Old episodes should not be affected. Since CWG owns Showcase anyways, I don't see them asking it be blacked out.
How's this for an extra twist - who is going to pay for the blackouts of all these shows - that is going to be at least a job or two, maybe some new equipment - if Global is going to enter negotiations, fail in them, then ask for shows to be blacked out -- shouldn't they have to compensate the cable co for this extra work?
The BDUs already have sim-sub equipment in place, so it would be as simple as going to black or a slate instead of the US station feed.
I'm surprised some do not like time shifting. I sure like the fact i get distant signals. Or lese I would be only watching one show between 9pm-11pm. I'd miss CSI:Miami seen as it is on at 10pm. I watch WWE Raw at 9pm-11pm.
As has been said, I don't mind it, and in fact do use the distant locals/time shifting channels, but if I could save a noticable value from my bill I would drop them.
Isn't that why we (BDU subs) are paying the LPIF and that other Canadian programming fund? What's this? A third pocket for them to stick their hand into?
No, LPIF (which I think doesn't go away or change, even if a station opts for VFS) is only to support local programming in smaller markets, not national or major market programming. VFS revenue can be used national and major market local/regional programming. The other programming funds do not change.
Personally, I don't see this VFS being implemented any time soon, if ever. The simple reason being that the CRTC is a toothless entity, they don't even have the authority to levy fines (FFC on the the hand does) on broadcasters or BDU's who violate the terms of their license so I doubt highly that they have the authority to implement something as dramatic and significant as Value for signal which will change the entire TV landscape.
I say sit back and relax and enjoy CTV and their lineup of great Canadian...er... American programming