: The Official I Hate The CRTC Thread
2005-10-04, 04:38 AM
I found out some time ago that Shaw has a minority stake in Bell Express Vu. Not as big as the ownership in Star Choice.
I am also fed up with the regional ads on channels like tbs, cnn, aande, spike. Have you notice that the volume for the ads increase automatically. Shaw wants to make sure you hear the garbage claim in the ads. I don't believe they are not responsible for inserting the ads at prearranged times.
I hate CRTC -==> http://www.g4techtv.ca/canada/story/0610_animeupdate.shtml
2005-10-16, 06:15 AM
I sent another complaint about Shaw to CRTC and included my displeasure with signal substitution and the ads that Shaw/Rogers inserts on channels like aande, cnn at predetermined times twice an hour.
Received a response that is total nonsense. Don't admit that do all that in order to put local content on those channels waving the flag. Sent a reply that signal substitution doesn't allow networks to accurately say to advertisers what the audience numbers. In fact they are fraudulently inflating the numbers. I added that signal substitution and those ad inserts accomplish nothing but messes up tivo, dvr, and vcr recording. Also that I record everything I watch on the few channels that I care to watch and skip all ads.
CRTC said the cable companies inserts the ads, but Shaw had told me broadcasters insert the ads. It is obvious that Shaw/Rogers insert the ads. Shaw outright lied to me.
I concluded in the response about this thread and I would add to the title of this thread "...and companies they permit to lie, cheat, and steal from the public."
2005-10-16, 10:08 AM
I'm surprised the U.S. doesn't take Canada to task on the "Canadian Content" requirements. It is protectionism of an industry at the expense of a free trade partner - yes I know the U.S. isn't playing ball on the lumber issue but that doesn't make this right either.
An economist would have a field day with these protectionist rules. We are creating a glut of less than talented personnel through the imposing of a requirement that the air waves play Canadian content. Some of the bands we listen to who hail from Canada are quite simply embarrassing to listen to. *cough* Sam Roberts *cough* who otherwise would struggle if it weren't for the unfair airtime they are allowed to receive.
These musicians are all successful Canadians.
I venture most if not all would be equally and potentially more successful without the Canadian protectionism afforded to them. Their talent would undoubtedly receive support at any other level (consumer, corporate, the will to succeed) without tax dollars funding them.
An argument is always made that our film industry relies on the Canadian Content provisions to allow for funding of nature films and documentaries. I disagree. The work is important - it does not have to come from the tax base. The arts community will always find a way to ensure these forms of productions rightly receive the funding required to bring these to production.
The CRTC's may be following the Broadcast Act yet I find little merit in that argument. Who provides the key material required for input on the development of the statute (law)? Yes, the same people who monitor it.
The limitations to information imposed on Canadians by virture of the Broadcast Act and monitored by the authoritative body (the CRTC) are stealing the rights of the average Canadian with respect to the access to information.
Protectionism of your borders is patriotic. Closing your access to the information is medieval if not communist.
The solution is relatively simple.
Ensure there is a process whereby broadcasting revenues allow for support of the local community.
Ensure that the Art Community is funded from the tax base.
Ensure that the broadcasting community (including film, television, radio, and wireless) is an open market.
Foreign competition must allow for investment within the borders. e.g. a broadcast from the U.S. that is open to broadcast within our borders must have a system that ensures the additional profits are partially reinvested within our borders. A sharing of the wealth.
Let the best man win. Let the weak respond or move on.
2005-10-17, 01:58 AM
The response that CRTC sent me only said that signal substitution is to allow networks to maintain an audience number. Said some nonsense about channel splitting. That is all it is nonsense. Networks are inflating numbers to advertisers that not the true numbers. I said this to the crtc.
Their response about inserting ads on channels like cnn was to allow cable companies to announce channel realignments and adding new channels along with shameless self promotions. Added when local networks need more air time for some ads shaw/rogers put the ads on cnn aande and spike. My response to crtc was all that does is mess up tivo, dvr, vcr recording.
I agree that content rules don't work. It is only a numbers game has nothing to do about quality. I don't listen to am or fm stations any longer. Yes there some talented actors and musicians but there far more who stink and as you said are embarrassment - Brent Butt comes to mind and many musicians like Paul Shaeffer along with grudge/alternative rock musicians.
2005-10-17, 02:56 AM
It seems to me that the CRTC is a politically well-connected group of people who grant licences to a group of well-connected businessmen i.e. the network and station owners.
This corporate elite then buys U.S. programming, deletes material from the shows to insert extra commercials and we are then supposed to love signal substition? What a croc!
I have no objection to original Canadian productions. The CBC has produced some excellent documentaries over the years and their Olympic coverage was top notch.
If the Canadian networks and stations didn't employ the "greed factor" that is to say: cramming in as many commercials as they can in an imported U.S. show, then I would have no problem with simsubbing.
I only watch U.S. produced shows on U.S.timeshift channels or the American HDTV channels because this practice of deleting programme material has ruined so many shows for me in the past!
2005-10-17, 03:26 AM
I had also mention to CRTC that had filed reports about Shaw disreputable behavior and price gouging with CSC, BBB, and competition bureau. The latter mentioned forwarding report to civil matters department to follow up. The CSC and BBB said to me that CRTC is to regulate Shaw in matters of service quality and pricing. CRTC said don't get involved with anything Shaw does. The CSC said they forward all complaints that they get about Shaw back to CRTC because Shaw not a member of the CSC and the CRTC is to regulate them. I smell something pretty bad and criminal.
As for CBC productions they haven't done anything good since Street Legal. They also lost olympic coverage to CTV and TSN. Also after their recent labour dispute I am wondering how many people even knew the CBC wasn't on the air. It is like that old saying if a tree fell in the forest and no one there to see did it fall. If the CBC disappear from the air waves would anyone know.
I don't watch any channels on the basic channel schedule, and only a handful of specialty channels. I can count on one hand. There is no digital specialty channel that is worth the added cost. Listening to fm stations on the tv is the biggest waste of money and the stupidest thing Shaw/Rogers ever came up with. Also if think I would trust them with VOIP you are crazy.
2005-10-17, 05:32 PM
About six years ago, I read several articles in the local newspapers, and it was also on the TV news, about a Multipoint Distribution System (MDS) that a company called Look Communications wished to install in the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, and the Interior of B.C. Incidentally, Look had several MDS sytems up and running in Ontario and Quebec, at the time, so they knew what they were doing!
Basically, it works by receiving TV signals mostly from satellite and fibre optical cable and then re-broadcasts them via microwave to subscribers' homes which pick up the signal with a small dish and a set top box. It is often referred to as: "Wireless Cable."
Thinking this was a novel idea, I bought a few shares in the company and also intended to be a customer once the system was up and running. Everything seemed to be on track until Craig Broadcasting submitted a competing application.
On July 6, 2000 the CRTC granted the MDS licence to Craig and I haven't heard a word about it since! Why does the CRTC allow a company to abandon or not fulfill their commitment without some kind of penalty? Or at least give the "losing" companies the licence when it becomes obvious that the winning company is not going to go ahead with the project?:confused:
2005-10-18, 08:54 AM
Notwithstanding our view on liberalization of access outside our borders, the UN (or more correctly UNESCO) is meeting on this very same item this week.
It appears that today this will go to a vote that will alienate the U.S. and insist on differentiation between free trade versus protection of individual nation's cultural diversity.
The U.S. is against this and given that they support 22% of UNESCO's overall funding, this could become another symposium where everyone feels good about what they accomplished yet find that it becomes an ineffective policy. It may also create friction between UNESCO and it's key supporting nation.
Condelozza Rice has already given the Whitehouse's position - they proposed 14 amendments that were rejected by the member nations. Washington is not pleased.
Here's a link that was posted earlier this week regarding the U.S. persepective. Not surprising in that they have a multi Trillion dollar interest in global trade.
In the end, we will probably see no change. The CRTC will use this as ammunition within our borders to "protect our culture" and bleed this over into justification for limiting access to foreign content.
The U.S. will continue to insist that they have an inherent right to continue to broaden their reach through economic globalization.
Personally I have no problem in additional support to boost culture within our borders yet not at the expense of limiting access to information outside our borders.
UNESCO puts this to a vote today in Paris at the CCD (Convention for Cultural Diversity.)
2005-10-19, 02:19 AM
Well with all the effort to force more people to watch CTV, Global, and CBC. Has it helped.
There report that CTV at the top of the ratings over other networks. However not for local programming and restrictive content rules. Shows like CSI, Law and Order what allowing networks to get an audience. It means that content requirements and signal substitution is nonsense and not making any difference.
I heard not that long ago Showcase ratings has increase but only during the times they have CSI and CSI Miami on. Alliance which owns Showcase has managed the network horribly. It suppose to be network with international programs. All have is the CSIs and HBO programs. Their commericals nothing but local garbage. Canadian Tire, Maple Leaf foods. During CSI they have the most promos for their other programs.
2005-10-19, 05:32 PM
Honestly, I don't know what you all are complaining about.
It could be worse ... we could be subject to the FCC ... which:
Bans swearing, and even the briefest of nudity, even in the middle of the night.
Requires the blackout of distant locals if requested by local stations.
Doesn't allow timeshifted OTA networks like ABC, CBS, NBC ...
2005-10-19, 08:46 PM
But in the USA, they can openly subscribe to ExpressVu (well, keeping their address secret from Bell perhaps...) without fear of jack-booted, brown-shirted, CRTC thugs descending from silently-hovering black helicopters in the middle of the night(*).
2005-10-19, 10:23 PM
Actually, it would be RCMP officers in cars coming in the middle of the day - and because BEV lobbied to make it so.
2005-10-20, 12:40 AM
The FCC and CRTC both beyond contempt. I have no respect for either. Both take orders from power brokers at the expense of the public. Cable and satellite companies pay off the CRTC. However as I have pointed out cable companies are stakeholders (not shareholders) in satellite businesses.
Yes the FCC is a bit worse with their language regulations. When a religious zealot complains or politicos with religious agendas FCC imposes a fine or force a radio station or tv station to fire the offender and hire call screeners. Open line talk shows are a joke now. All the calls are scripted.
The CRTC also guilty of the same. Remember the Quebec radio station that had its license revoke, and MOJO in Vancouver that change its format after complaints over certain talk show.
2005-10-21, 04:37 PM
To: Canadian Government and CRTC
Have you ever watched an American television program?
If you own a satellite system or have Cable, the answer is of course. Did you know that there are literally hundreds of American and other foreign television channels that are purposely made "unavailable" to you by the Canadian Government and CRTC?
Do you own a small satellite system (DirecTV or Dish Network) or a big C-band dish? Did you know that your government and other parties with a vested interest (Bell Expressvu, Starchoice, Cable Companies) have made it illegal to receive ANY foreign television transmissions that have not been approved or sanctioned by them?
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in April that federal broadcasting law prohibits Canadians from gaining access to direct-to-home satellite TV signals from providers other than Toronto-based Bell ExpressVu LP — a unit of Bell Canada — and Star Choice Communications Inc. of Calgary.
Under existing Canadian laws, users of so-called grey-market satellite dishes — people who PAY for a U.S.-based satellite service — face up to one year in jail, or a $5,000 fine. Firms found guilty of the same offence face a $25,000 fine. This includes the big C-band dishes (that Canadians have had since the 1970's) as well.
The CRTC and governments have taken it upon themselves to decide what is okay for you to watch and what you can't. The CRTC's so called "white list" contains all the American and International channels that can be distributed in Canada. And all the other channels that aren't on it are forbidden to you as we, as Canadians, are obviously considered too dumb by our government to choose for ourselves what we should watch and so the decision is made for us like we are a bunch of preschoolers.
The channels that are on the "white list" are the ones that are available on cablevision. There are literally hundreds of channels that our governments say are "illegal" to watch and discourage us from disobeying them by slapping our wrists and declaring that Canadians watching "grey market" TV are lawbreakers!
If we have the ability to watch a program on television and we want to watch it in the privacy of our own home, then we should be able to do so! Without any governments or corporations declaring us a lawbreaker!
Silly me I was also under the impression that we lived in a free country, but that also is proving to be a fallacy.
I agree with the fact that Canadian companies have paid big money to acquire the broadcasting rights of some of the American companies, but the last time I checked, viewership was a privilege not a right, and if these Canadian companies want us to watch their programming instead, then they should do so by making it worth watching! And not because we are forced to!
We do not need government minions and functionaries to decide what television my children and family can watch.
This "Big Brother" attitude must be curbed here! Or it will set a precedent for other things! If this continues one day it may be illegal to read anything other than Canadian magazines or books.
Another factor to consider is they seem to be ignoring completely the Supreme law of Canada, The Canadian Constitution!!
Here is a related excerpt:
Section 52: The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)Freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)Freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication;
(c)Freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)Freedom of association.
Perhaps our government feels that they are not subject to constitutional provisions. You be the judge. Clearly they are trying to discourage International competition, protecting the cable monopolies and hiding it behind "Canadian Culture" excuses.
We have spent the last 40 years telling the Russians it was immoral to block broadcasts but yet our government is doing the exact same thing here in Canada!
As "free" people, Canadians should have the right to choose what we watch in the privacy of our homes. We should not be forced to watch CBC simply because a government agency has decided that CBC is better than USA network and so USA network is purposely made unavailable to you.
After the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in April, 500,000 - 700,000 Canadians were instantly turned into criminal’s because of what they watch on their TV's in the privacy of their own homes.
A country deemed to be the gold standard for multiculturalism makes it a crime for immigrants to watch programming in their own language, unless it's provided by the two government-sanctioned purveyors of satellite TV -- Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice
The Supreme Court's ruling against "grey market" satellite TV operators has put Canada in the fine company of North Korea and Iraq. Yet, while Ottawa is cracking down on foreign satellite signals, even Iran has reformed its Mad Mullah ban on satellite dishes.
Sign this petition to show our Government that this "Big Brother" attitude will NOT be tolerated! Let the people decide what they want to watch WITHOUT government intervention. To be free includes freedom of choice!
Be sure to pass this on to every Canadian you know.
2005-10-26, 02:35 AM
Even though there's some inaccuracies, I still agree with you in spirit.
But I'm not going to sign the petition. If people *really* want to see things change they need to figure out which politicians and political parties will or won't influence such changes, then do whatever they can to influence that in the election we've been promised is coming.
2005-10-28, 01:43 AM
Well after I sent another report to the CRTC this time about how their requirements and regulations has destroyed am and fm stations I got a reply which like their response about signal sub and the regional ad inserts they don't admit the real reason do it. For local content.
They say don't regulate radio stations. Again I responded to that by saying that is a line of garbage which in no way anyone would fall for. For example the Quebec radio station they shut down and MOJO Vancouver that was force to change its format.
Why is it they can't admit to providing more local content. Why do they say don't regulate when they clearly do. Why do they think we will not see that they are lying.
2005-11-01, 03:19 AM
in all their "great????" history the CRTC shutted down 6 radio stations
and all 6 where in the province of Quebec
i think they got a problem with us
2006-02-01, 09:20 PM
The best way to get rid of the past rulings by the Liberal controls over the CRTC is to write to your local member of government, especially those of you who are not in the GTA.
We have all experienced the way the Liberals have been treating you the consumer with bad legislation and even worse rules by the unelected patronage appointments to the CRTC. We must all put our collective grievances forward to the new guy on the block Mr. Harper.
Some of the listings are suggesting that with a minority government he may not want to address our grievances but if you don't write to your local MP and air you dissatisfaction with the way the CRTC has been doing business you will get the same treatment in the future until the new government takes the CRTC to task. Send an email to your friends and demand changes to the CRTC, and your friends email their friends. Send a message to your local MP once he or she gets into office.
Let's all band together and get rid of the steel-curtain that denies American satellite service from coming into Canada. Let's stop cable companies from sim-subbing our television channels with no redress back to us the consumer. We've paid for those channels that the cable companies substitute over and no Liberal government would address it for us the consumer.
Let's all make it clear that the CRTC is useful for ensuring that child pornography doesn't get onto our airwaves and cables lines. But they are not their to promote unfair business tactics that have been used against us the consumer.
2006-04-14, 05:10 PM
There seems to be some confusion between three mostly unrelated issues. The first being commercial substitution, the second being show substitution and the third being governmental protectionism of the TV industry.
This is common practice worldwide and isn't a Canadian phenomenon at all. The content providers want this to happen so that they can re-sell the same air time all over the world to local advertisers instead of to a handful of US companies operating where the content is created. It greatly increases the overall advertising revenue and yet keeps the regional costs low enough that companies who would be unable to advertise on TV at all can purchase air time for just Canada instead of the whole world. The overall breadth of advertising is wider, by far, than if the US commercials were broadcast with the shows to everyone world wide.
The CRTC enforces this, but the providers do the commercial insertion locally, and the rules governing it were created by the Canadian government. The content creation industry generally supports this scheme as it greatly increases the overall advertising revenue for a given show, even if a portion of the overall revenue is diverted locally to the providers doing the insertion. If the CRTC disappeared, this would undoubtedly continue because it is a win-win for local providers, the gov't (taxes) and the content creators (who get a cut of the local ad money).
This occurs because there are national broadcasting laws for every country in the world. Buying the US broadcasting rights does not automatically mean you get the Canadian rights, Swedish rights or Argentinian rights. Show substitution happens in Canada, usually, because a Canadian affiliate of a US broadcaster (MTV Canada, for example) brings in the entire US feed without verifying if the Canadian rights have been secured for every show prior to bringing in the feed. Rather than block the whole channel from airing, the CRTC allows broadcasters to feed in rights-secured shows to replace those whose Canadian rights have not been secured. This happens quite often with certain US channels (MTV, TBS) who just couldn't care less about Canada and securing the Canadian rights to a show.
The CRTC enforces this within Canada, but this is a worldwide phenomenon (again), so removing the CRTC isn't going to stop it, just divert the responsibility to a new government agency that would do the same job. No country is going to open up free reign to its airwaves and the content creators really don't want them to. Why would they sell worldwide rights to a broadcaster once when they could resell those rights to smaller broadcasters in every country in the world? Who could afford worldwide rights other than a small handful of multinational corporations?
The substitutions are made by the local provider (cableco or sat. provider) under the direction of the affiliate in question and are monitored by the CRTC. It is up to the broadcaster, ultimately, to secure the rights for the areas they want to broadcast in, so if you want to complain about the practice, complain to the broadcaster. If they were on the ball, legally, nothing would have to be substituted.
This is the only legitimate complaint about the CRTC, in my opinion. Minimum Canadian content rules, the line at the border vs. US satellite companies, etc. seem like stupid rules on the face of it. Nevertheless, all the CANCON content in the world is a better solution than to deal with the content creators directly. If you think that the CRTC is dictatorial when it comes to content, do some reading on Viacom, Disney, Wal-Mart and how those giants use their leverage to control content in the US. Anyone who thinks that the CRTC is evil hasn't been on the wrong side of a Disney lawsuit.
The DMCA is a small taste of what the content providers would like to force down the throats of consumers if they were given free reign. Give them enough rope and they will have us all paying endlessly for time-restricted 'loans' of content which we can't record or share amongst ourselves. Having a permanent copy of something that you can do whatever you want with will be a thing of the past.
So ... yeah, the CRTC sucks, but it isn't responsible for a lot of the stuff people fob off on it. The stuff that it is responsible for aren't really as bad as the alternatives. The only thing I wish they would do would be to allow US satellite companies to operate up here as long as they opened Canadian affiliates, just like they do with broadcasting.