Some feel this is a major advantage for US cablecos, and if they lose it, they will lose lots of subs.

Good. I hope they do. There's no need for them anymore with alternative forms of distribution (Anything from OTA to online to DVD).

I hope they make it as tough as possible for the customer to use their service.

Why is it the government's business to tell one company in a competitive market how to secure its products from unauthorized use?

1) Who says it's competitive when you can only subscribe to one company for cable TV service?

2) Why is it the business of the government to regulate anything? Because it's in the public interest and the government is the embodiment of the democratic rights of the citizenship.

Because it is precisely not a competitive market. Its an oligopoly and the incumbents benefit from government restrictions on their competitors (american television providers).
You can buy TV service from Bell, Shaw or your local cable company. That is domestic market competition. The US and Canada don't have an agreement to allow for cross border sales. It is a competitive market in my view and it's not worth further discussion - at least not with me.

...
1) Who says it's competitive when you can only subscribe to one company for cable TV service?

You can get the services offered by cable companies from other providers - in the case of Internet some even use the cable infrastructure. Competition happens at the service level not the technology level.

2) Why is it the business of the government to regulate anything? Because it's in the public interest and the government is the embodiment of the democratic rights of the citizenship.

I don't have problems with the government regulating things when necessary but I do have problems with uneven regulation. Why should cable be told how to secure services when the satellite and IPTV providers are free to do what they want? Unencrypted services facilitate theft which means some people are not paying their share of the cost. The rest of us pay more as a result.

Encryption eliminates the need to connect and disconnect cable drops and filters which is a significant operating cost for cable companies. Why should cable companies be forced to use outmoded technology when their competitors are not restricted?

The cable industry and the consumer electronics industry will eventually get to the point where the technical platform for downloadable security is standardized. When that happens, digital boxes won't be needed.

You can get the services offered by cable companies from other providers - in the case of Internet some even use the cable infrastructure. Competition happens at the service level not the technology level.

Who says I can? I live in an apartment therefore I cannot mount a dish. IPTV from Bell (or anyone else) isn't offered at my location.

The only option for non Over the Top subscription TV is cable. Many are in even more of a monopolistic situation where even OTA isn't an option.

I don't have problems with the government regulating things when necessary but I do have problems with uneven regulation. Why should cable be told how to secure services when the satellite and IPTV providers are free to do what they want?


Who said there should be uneven regulation. However beyond that you're welcome to vote for whatever party or ideology which supports what you advocate.

Just as I'm welcome to vote for a party which would legally require the CEO's of the cable companies to put on a chicken suit and do a little dance if that's my choice.

Encryption eliminates the need to connect and disconnect cable drops and filters which is a significant operating cost for cable companies. Why should cable companies be forced to use outmoded technology when their competitors are not restricted?

Because they benefit from the monopoly many customers face like myself who only has cable as a subscription TV option.

Or 'just because' the voting populace demands it. Democracy isn't based on fairness - it's majority rules.


The cable industry and the consumer electronics industry will eventually get to the point where the technical platform for downloadable security is standardized. When that happens, digital boxes won't be needed.

I remember a cable company employee telling me that digital cable was the first step for a la cart when that was first being introduced. That didn't happen.

Either way I don't care. For any service where there's a viable alternative the local cableco is dead to me so it doesn't matter what they do.

Because it is precisely not a competitive market. Its an oligopoly and the incumbents benefit from government restrictions on their competitors (american television providers).

Yet that doesn't stop Americans, apparently unfettered, from subscribing to Bell or Shaw satellite service.

You can buy TV service from Bell, Shaw or your local cable company. That is domestic market competition. The US and Canada don't have an agreement to allow for cross border sales. It is a competitive market in my view and it's not worth further discussion - at least not with me.

Funny that in most cases those 3 are also the ones who own most of the content...in my case the choices are Rogers/ bell and Shaw...and they own 90% of the content offered. That is an oligopoly who can crush anyone trying to start up business delivering TV if not regulated and mandated by the government. Ahh the illusion of choice is great in this country when those 3 can dictate the prices and choice. It does not matter which provider you choose...all three will have their hand in my pocket at once.

Yet that doesn't stop Americans, apparently unfettered, from subscribing to Bell or Shaw satellite service.
Both US & Canadian DBS providers are prohibited by law from selling their service outside of their respective countries.

Canadian law prohibits residents from using US DBS providers services. US law does not address US residents use of Canadian DBS services, and is considered a 'grey area' for US residents.

Due primarily to the availability of US DBS services years before the Canadian ones, and the satellite footprint of US services covering the major Canadian population centers, availability of US DBS services in Canada was a significant black market business for many years.

By the time Canadian DBS services were available, a relatively small amount of unique programming was available, and conversely the Canadian DBS satellite footprint was much more limited as to the percentage of US population that could receive it. Thus, pirating of Canadian DBS services was never seen as a major threat by US DBS providers and as such they did not push for legislation that addressed the issue.

Once Canadian DBS services were operational, the Canadian government took active steps to eliminate illegal use of US DBS services, and at this point in time it's no longer considered a wide spread issue.

Having said that, as recently as last May the Canadian Revenue Agency won a case of tax evasion against a Canadian company and its owner, for not declaring revenue obtained from 'selling equipment and services enabling persons to decode encrypted satellite television programming signals' without paying a subscription fee for programming signals from Canada and the United States. This occurred from 2003 to 2007, with the case resulting in the the owner being sent to jail for three years and given a fine of $223,849.

At roughly the same time, DirecTV sued 19 defendants for copyright infringement. They accused the defendants of hijacking DirecTV’s subscriber accounts, creating fraudulent subscriber accounts and obtaining and distributing DirectTV programming to Canadian businesses and individuals. The defendants also allegedly exported DirecTV receiving equipment to Canada and activated the equipment without authorization and in violation of U.S. laws.

Canadian law prohibits residents from using US DBS providers services. US law does not address US residents use of Canadian DBS services, and is considered a 'grey area' for US residents.

Exactly. It's not illegal for Americans to subscribe to Canadian services yet it is illegal the other way around.

My understanding is Bell/Shaw services are used in the US by Canadian snowbirds as well as Americans who wish to access Canadian Olympic coverage.

But hey the entire industry here is a scam designed to pilfer as much $ from Canadians as possible so why am I not surprised.

What does this have to do with clear QAM? Or is this thread intended to be a bitch session for anything that we can't have in Canada? BTW, there's lots the Americans don't get either - like many Canadian channels that carry Canadian and World-Wide ("foreign") programming/films. Or Timeshift availability.

This is true. The one thing I wish they would provide here but likely never will is the Canadian Locals in border markets. In the Buffalo market we do get a whopping 2 Canadian channels in SD, CBLT and CFTO and they are QAM & Analog available on the most basic package. So you guys should consider yourselves lucky for being able to to get the Buffalo Locals in HD. ie it could be worse.
For us it's not even an option. Even if they were, if showing the same programming as a local US station, the Canadian One will be blacked out
(no simsub, just black).
I don't know of anyone here subscribing to Canadian Services personally, but I do remember seeing a Bell Expressvu Antenna at First Niagara Center downtown (home of the Sabes). So it apparently is not illegal to subscribe.
Agree, it's not relavent to the QAM discussion. But may help to drive home the anti competition / protectionism that exists up there that has been discussed here & elsewhere I guess.

What does this have to do with clear QAM?
Uh, nothing? Not much? Very little? Take your choice....

So the real question is what are you going to do about it?

The problem could be worked at from both ends:


One End:

Approach Government (politicians) and the Regulator ... with the issues.


The Other End:

The other thing to do is to approach the Providors themselves.

Walk right in, in person, to where they interface with the customer, and let them know what you'd like to see included in their service.

Ask your Local Providor(s):

Why don't you use some Clear QAM / Unencrypted Digital on your cable network to deliver the Local and Regional channels and nearby U.S. network channels? For your "Basic Level of Service"?

Why don't you deliver them in HD, like they broadcast them, like we (many of us) are able to receive them Over the Air? With a good Antenna?

[ Since not all of us, necessarily, are able to receive them ourselves, with an antenna, that is where your Obligation / Duty to the Canadian Public begins. Step up and use your "network" to provide those basic things, at reasonable cost, to your subscribers. That is part of your reason for being. Reason for existing. ]

Why is it that you advertise giving us a U.S. network channel, and yet substitute it with something else? Cut it all up with different advertisements?

Dear Providor ... because you know what ? ... I would like to sign up for service with you ... and pay you my hard earned cash, but I would like all my locals and regionals and nearby U.S. networks (unaltered) in a Basic package, in their FULL HD and Audio SPLENDOR, without having to rent monthly from you a peice of hardware, and sign up for a special "channel package" for a small fortune each month.

Because, with Clear QAM / Unencrypted Digital Tuners in our HDTV's now - We have the Technology.

And Dear Providor if you can provide that for me ... I will consider doing business with you, and subscribing as a customer.

Let me know when you are able to provide me with that.

And now ...Dear Providor ... here is where you can contact me when you feel that you are ready to provide me with the services that I am looking for.

Have yourself a very nice Day !

[ And walk out ... ]


I too remember "The old days" - when there was not all this sillyness going on.

When if your Providor said they gave you NBC ... they darn well gave you NBC, the nearest one across the border, not substituted, not sim-subbed, not hacked up. Not NBC or CBS or ABC from Buffalo or Detroit - from way far away. Or threatened to take away your WPBS, most local PBS station, "just because it's inconvenient now for us to pick up the most local PBS for you ... "

Today, we have the technology, and the bandwidth to provide these things.

We lack the will to provide them - or to have them properly provided.

Maybe we need some "Telecommunications Constitution" / "Bill of Rights" here in Canada.

I think these issues are actually quite important because it deals with access to information, communications, and yes FREEDOM / Free Speech / Freedom of expression / Freedom of the media / the press - Freedom to listen and watch that which is broadcast locally and regionally - in as best a quality as possible, and not altered, not edited, not censored.


Ditto / Vice-A-Versa for the U.S. regarding Canadian channels.

Variety is good.

We are two large neighbouring Friendly Countries.

Why can't we share and enjoy each other's Programming?

Why is it that you advertise giving us a U.S. network channel, and yet substitute it with something else? Cut it all up with different advertisements?


They substitute shows for the Canadian broadcast version instead because they're required to, not because they want to. If you removed simsubbing tomorrow, nobody in the cable industry would mind.

What does this have to do with clear QAM? Or is this thread intended to be a bitch session for anything that we can't have in Canada?

Considering we have an American in this thread it is (was?) a unique chance to compare and contrast the two systems as a whole.

Before replying further should I take your objections to this as that of a member or moderator (with the ensuing authority a mod could impose on a member if they continued with the "bitch session")?

Let's try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is supposed to be Clear QAM.

According to the CRTC, as long as they are providing the locals in analogue directly off the cable, then they are within the carriage parameters. I tried to make the argument that those parameters needed to be revamped because OTA is now digital (don't say HD otherwise you will get a long paragraph about how all OTA channels are digital but not all HD) but they didn't bite, that is where the conversation ended.

According to the CRTC, as long as they are providing the locals in analogue directly off the cable, then they are within the carriage parameters. I tried to make the argument that those parameters needed to be revamped because OTA is now digital (don't say HD otherwise you will get a long paragraph about how all OTA channels are digital but not all HD) but they didn't bite, that is where the conversation ended.

This relates to my point. Cable companies should carry them - freely and openly and with the same quality as they have over the air. If the OTA broadcast is HD, so too should the unencrypted cable channel be. A 4:3 480i analog cable channel is not the equivalent of a 16:9 1080i ATSC broadcast - not even close.

I was speaking to someone who works for a cable company and he mentioned that Internet services complicate things. Some clients only have Internet and not cable TV. The filters that many cable companies use to block analog cable to Internet-only subscribers do not block digital cable - that's why the encryption is there. Still, I don't think having the local channels in clear QAM hurts anybody because one could get them with an antenna anyway.

I don't think anyone here will argue against you, the trouble is the powers that be don't agree or think its un-necessary.

When I brought up the locals in clear QAM this is what the CRTC had to say. They actually recommended that I put up an Antenna as the solution, so that is exactly what I did. ;)

For what it's worth, Shaw had the locals in the clear for about 8 months in Edmonton and it didn't mean I was able to pick up any channels other than the ones that were in the clear, so I don't quite understand what your contact was trying to say.

Historically, the CRTC regulated only the price of basic cable television services. The CRTC has never regulated the price or terms of extended, discretionary programming or the set top boxes required to receive them. As such, the CRTC is unable to take action on your complaint.

If the signals you are interested in are available over the air, you should be able to purchase a digital tuner compatible with your computer to receive those HD signals over the air. Thus, you wouldn’t need access to the cable company’s signals or infrastructure.


Thank you again for contacting the CRTC.

you guys should consider yourselves lucky for being able to to get the Buffalo Locals in HD. ie it could be worse.
For us it's not even an option. Even if they were, if showing the same programming as a local US station, the Canadian One will be blacked out
(no simsub, just black).

I lied, it's even worse than black, they insert infomercials in place of the duplicate program.
Thinkin I'd rather deal with simsubs, than infomercials 'eh

In looking at these old emails a bit more, here is what they said about updating the BDU reg signal to better match what is available over the air.




The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (BDU Regs) do require the distribution of your local channels on the basic band. That requirement is still in place and the companies still distribute the local channels on the basic band. As long as they do that, they are compliant with the BDU Regs.

City TV (non-HD) should still be available to you and other subscribers in the basic service, unencrypted. All HD services are considered discretionary, premium services which the CRTC has never regulated. In the past, the CRTC regulated only the cost of basic television services – the CRTC never regulated the cost of premium, extended services or the set top boxes required to receive them. The CRTC no longer regulates the rates, terms or quality of service of the cable companies at all.