The Official I Hate The CRTC Thread - Page 35 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

GusX · 2011-08-09, 08:43 PM

Quote:

17. The Commission further imposes the following conditions of licence:

No more than 10% of the licensee’s quarterly broadcast schedule shall be drawn from category 7.

Their license allows them to air movies ... but is limited to 10% of air time.

Francois Caron · 2011-08-11, 05:26 PM

I just posted this article on my UBB Deception Web site, and I thought it would be of great interest for all of you here.

http://theubbdeception.ca/2011/08/cr...es-and-the-35/

To summarize, we might get screwed big time if the CRTC approves this proposed tax scheme, which would only benefit the Secret Society of the "35".

s40 · 2011-08-12, 10:44 PM

The CRTC could just put an across the board tax on the internet providers. They do it with your blank CD's and blank DVD's there is nothing stopping them from taxing the internet at some point. I will say I am totally opposed to this but I think that eventually that is the easiest way to get more money out of the consumer for Cancon.

Leafs13 · 2011-10-14, 09:52 PM

Does anyone else find it incredible that the CRTC Glossary uses sources like:

Wikipedia(English and French)

Webopedia

Walt's Internet Glossary, that has a nice wizard head on its main page

Wayne · 2011-10-14, 09:58 PM

I don't find it incredible - what's wrong with using Wikipedia as a source. It has been shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars

Classof83 · 2011-10-20, 05:46 PM

I wrote into the CRTC about a simsub complaint recently, stating to them how I recorded the show from my cable receiver to the computer, and this is what they responded with:

"however, CRTC doesn’t regulate the content on Internet."

There was no mention of me whatsoever about watching anything online!!!

And these are the people that are attempting to regulate technology as it moves ahead at light-speed? Seriously?

Holmes108 · 2011-12-02, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne

I don't find it incredible - what's wrong with using Wikipedia as a source. It has been shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars

Agreed. Some people are quick to dismiss Wikipedia, but it really is a fantastic resource. You of course shouldn't believe everything you read online, regardless of the source.

But if you use your brain, and learn what types of topics are likely to be most accurate, and check the sources within Wikipedia (generally listed at the bottom of the article), it can be invaluable. You just need to be smart when researching, which again goes for any source.

Legend4Eva · 2012-04-01, 01:45 AM

My issue is with channels like Mtime and Action which are considered action/adventure yet half the time dont show movies or programming related to that. Its a ripoff that these are classified as movie channels when they maybe show 2 movies a day.

classicsat · 2012-04-02, 08:52 AM

Movietime I like, although it is repetitive, and light on actual movie.
Action, similarly.

If the CRTC has to look at anything, it needs to by History, to not verge too far from its intended genre format, and the greater practice of recycling content for other channels.

Dougofthenorth · 2012-04-16, 08:15 AM

RE: "To summarize, we might get screwed big time if the CRTC approves this proposed tax scheme"

Yeah an indirect way to tax the public...

New/higher tax on corporations - they just pass it on to the subscribers

makuribu · 2013-04-25, 11:15 AM

Modest proposals:
Fire everybody in the CRTC. Close it down.
Outlaw all of BCE's attempts to increase their monopoly on the market. Vertical integration should be banned.
Replace the "local channel fee" or whatever with some sort of fixed tax on cable/internet connections. A buck a month per service.
Put that money into the Independent Canadian Content that Almost Nobody Watches Fund. (Occasionally something brilliant will come out of it, as long as CBC, CTV and Global people aren't allowed to touch it.)
Deregulate TV. As long as I pay at least $30 a month to a Canadian signal provider, and pay the ICCANW fee, then let me watch anything my cable/satellite company wishes to broadcast, and let me watch/subscribe to any satellite service my dish can find.
Enough with the 1950's paternalism!

classicsat · 2013-04-26, 08:53 AM

Extreme proposal:

The UK system, or likeness thereof.

One license fee (can slide based on income related variables, such as students, seniors, and those in the equivalent of council housing.) In Canada, that would pay for a production fund, the public broadcasters, and the public transmission/distribution system, which by law has to be non-encrypted or open key.

Only premium channels can be encrypted for pay, all others strongly encouraged to be free.

And yes, no company that owns the right to distribute content (Eg broadcast) can own significant interest in wired or wireless terrestrial data or TV distribution networks, so that all network providers have equal access to content, and none (hopefully), restrict competitive content, and are encouraged to develop networks better.

2011-08-11, 05:26 PM	#512
Francois Caron Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,368	CRTC, Taxes, and the "35" I just posted this article on my UBB Deception Web site, and I thought it would be of great interest for all of you here. http://theubbdeception.ca/2011/08/cr...es-and-the-35/ To summarize, we might get screwed big time if the CRTC approves this proposed tax scheme, which would only benefit the Secret Society of the "35".

2011-10-20, 05:46 PM	#516
Classof83 Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 882	The Best Response Yet From the CRTC I wrote into the CRTC about a simsub complaint recently, stating to them how I recorded the show from my cable receiver to the computer, and this is what they responded with: "however, CRTC doesn’t regulate the content on Internet." There was no mention of me whatsoever about watching anything online!!! And these are the people that are attempting to regulate technology as it moves ahead at light-speed? Seriously?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2011-08-12, 10:44 PM	#513
s40 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Coquitlam, BC Posts: 270	The CRTC could just put an across the board tax on the internet providers. They do it with your blank CD's and blank DVD's there is nothing stopping them from taxing the internet at some point. I will say I am totally opposed to this but I think that eventually that is the easiest way to get more money out of the consumer for Cancon.

2011-10-14, 09:52 PM	#514
Leafs13 Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 145	Does anyone else find it incredible that the CRTC Glossary uses sources like: Wikipedia(English and French) Webopedia Walt's Internet Glossary, that has a nice wizard head on its main page

2011-10-14, 09:58 PM	#515
Wayne Veteran Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Scarboro Posts: 5,568	I don't find it incredible - what's wrong with using Wikipedia as a source. It has been shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars

2012-04-01, 01:45 AM	#518
Legend4Eva Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sault Ste Marie Posts: 97	My issue is with channels like Mtime and Action which are considered action/adventure yet half the time dont show movies or programming related to that. Its a ripoff that these are classified as movie channels when they maybe show 2 movies a day.

2012-04-02, 08:52 AM	#519
classicsat Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kincardine ON. Posts: 3,942	Movietime I like, although it is repetitive, and light on actual movie. Action, similarly. If the CRTC has to look at anything, it needs to by History, to not verge too far from its intended genre format, and the greater practice of recycling content for other channels.

2012-04-16, 08:15 AM	#520
Dougofthenorth Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: near Ottawa Posts: 110	RE: "To summarize, we might get screwed big time if the CRTC approves this proposed tax scheme" Yeah an indirect way to tax the public... New/higher tax on corporations - they just pass it on to the subscribers

2013-04-25, 11:15 AM	#521
makuribu Rookie Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Kingston, ON Posts: 3	Modest proposals: Fire everybody in the CRTC. Close it down. Outlaw all of BCE's attempts to increase their monopoly on the market. Vertical integration should be banned. Replace the "local channel fee" or whatever with some sort of fixed tax on cable/internet connections. A buck a month per service. Put that money into the Independent Canadian Content that Almost Nobody Watches Fund. (Occasionally something brilliant will come out of it, as long as CBC, CTV and Global people aren't allowed to touch it.) Deregulate TV. As long as I pay at least $30 a month to a Canadian signal provider, and pay the ICCANW fee, then let me watch anything my cable/satellite company wishes to broadcast, and let me watch/subscribe to any satellite service my dish can find. Enough with the 1950's paternalism!

2013-04-26, 08:53 AM	#522
classicsat Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kincardine ON. Posts: 3,942	Extreme proposal: The UK system, or likeness thereof. One license fee (can slide based on income related variables, such as students, seniors, and those in the equivalent of council housing.) In Canada, that would pay for a production fund, the public broadcasters, and the public transmission/distribution system, which by law has to be non-encrypted or open key. Only premium channels can be encrypted for pay, all others strongly encouraged to be free. And yes, no company that owns the right to distribute content (Eg broadcast) can own significant interest in wired or wireless terrestrial data or TV distribution networks, so that all network providers have equal access to content, and none (hopefully), restrict competitive content, and are encouraged to develop networks better.