Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Why is Canada always behind in technology?

9K views 34 replies 21 participants last post by  ExDilbert 
#1 ·
Alright, rhetorical question here, but I was just reading an article about how Dish and DirecTV are already working on the next generation of 4K HD receivers, along with voice-controlled remotes.

Meanwhile, north of the border, neither of our satellite providers, Bell or Shaw, even have Whole Home DVR, let alone voice-control, or anything close to providing 4K quality.

Frustration to the power of 100.

It feels like we're stuck in the 90s, and not in a good way either. I mean, we are coming close to the time when both should be looking at new receivers yet again, this time in the Whole-Home DVR department, considering how practically every other cable/fibe provider in Canada already has it (like the Rogers Nextbox 3.0, August 2013), but how much longer do we have to wait?

It's painful, like waiting for Star Trek to return to the small screen.
 
#2 ·
How do you know that Bell or Shaw aren't working towards 4k-capable receivers or voice-controlled remotes?!?
 
#3 ·
The problem is the Canadian political system which creates artificial monopolies which prevent such technology from being introduced in our country.

Until voters mean more to politicians than lobbyists from Bell, Telus, etc who contribute large sums of money and media to aid their re-election campaigns, the situation is unlikely to change.
 
#5 ·
^This! We're still not getting broadcast 1080p content, so why the heck should we be worrying about having cable boxes and such support 4K?

That said, I do agree about other things like whole-home DVR for satellite, and the accessibility stuff (my brother & I were floored at what Comcast is doing with their voice guide and such).
 
#7 ·
It feels like we're stuck in the 90s, and not in a good way either. I mean, we are coming close to the time when both should be looking at new receivers yet again, this time in the Whole-Home DVR department, considering how practically every other cable/fibe provider in Canada already has it (like the Rogers Nextbox 3.0, August 2013), but how much longer do we have to wait?
I'd just like to point out that Canada isn't always behind in technology. Bell Fibe has had Whole Home PVR since 2009, long before any U.S. satellite company and before any U.S. cable company that I can think of.

I believe Dish still gets their satellite hardware from Echostar, as does Bell, so 4k may not be that far off, if Bell chooses to implement it.
 
#9 ·
You are incorrect. In the US, AT&T U-Verse had the same system as Fibe TV (Media Room with whole home DVR) years before Bell got it. In fact, I remember having it installed and using it in Houston,TX as far back as 2006. They also had wireless TV years before Bell got it on Fibe TV too. Bell is just a follower of AT&T U-Verse and takes the tech developed on their platform. It usually takes years before Fibe TV implement anything new from U-Verse.

So yes, Canada is always behind in TV/Cable technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_U-verse
 
#11 ·
nacholibre, I posted in too much of a hurry. I didn't mean to imply that Bell was the first to implement Microsoft Mediaroom. I was following AT&T U-verse in 2008 and posting my findings at this site. My point was that Bell and other Canadian telcos like MTS introduced Whole Home PVR before most other providers in North America so we weren't lagging far behind.

What I recall from that time is that as Microsoft introduced new features and patches, AT&T would implement them first. The Canadian telcos would follow soon after if they proved to be stable.
 
#12 ·
Why is Canada always behind in technology?
Three reasons: Money, money and more money. US satellite and cable companies have 10 time the customers, 10 times the revenue and can afford 10 times the R&D.

Canada would have been better off adopting open standards for BDU broadcast equipment. That way, satellite and cable company customers could draw on the global pool of available equipment rather than be stuck with proprietary solutions that are available only from their suppliers. There are lots of examples, in other industries, where open standards have provided cheap reliable solutions. It just hasn't been applied to television distribution in NA.
 
#13 ·
Three reasons: Money, money and more money.
It wouldn't cost Canadians a dime to allow competition into this country.

I'll bet it would cost Canadians LESS money if we didn't have to pay for unnecessary satellite tv providers because we wouldn't have to subsidize these broadcast distributors.

Laws that inhibit competition increase costs to consumers and reduce technological innovation.
 
#16 ·
If you want to start up a new cable or satellite company, you can. You'll just need an absurdly huge amount of capital, a massive marketing budget, and some way to convince Canadians to use your service when it won't be particularly cheaper than the other guys.

A foreign company can't come in and do it, but Canada isn't the only country on the planet that doesn't want their entire telecom sector to be foreign owned.
 
#14 ·
I agree but the government does not. The broadcasting, music and film industries are the last bastions of protectionism in Canada. Everything else has been opened up to competition and there is a trail of closed companies and lost jobs to prove it. Unfortunately, the people who work in these protected industries seem to think they have a right to make excessive, sometimes undeserved, profits at the expense of other Canadians and have convinced the government to make it the law.
 
#15 ·
Well, Americans probably are number one in using protectionism, like passing the law forcing american companies to use made in America products. They are also using unfair practice to bribe companies in Canada to move to the states by offering huge incentives. Just read the news to find out how many companies are moving south.

When it comes to TV service I am pretty happy with mine and it is not behind american services in any way.
 
#17 ·
@tridus: How could you start a new cable company? Every viable inch of the country belongs already to one company or another. Cable is one area where you can't steal customers from another cable company. You're either licenced for an area (exclusive) or you're not. The ultimate monopoly.
 
#18 ·
Yeah all pretense of competition is gone in the broadcasting and broadcasting distribution industries in this country.

Sadly, Anti-trust legislation and the competition bureau in Canada are a joke thanks to politicians who will gladly take contributions and positive media exposure from the big telcos and cablecos in order to allow massive mergers in the broadcasting industry.

Does anyone really believe that companies like Rogers should own all of our countries publishing industry, broadcast industry, broadcasters, digital cable TV outlets, wireless, wireline and internet service providers?
 
#19 ·
Bell, Shaw, and everyone else have to think about whether it is worth the investment. How many people are even buying 4K TV's at what they cost? Probably not a lot of people especially considering the fact there isn't much content to watch on them, kind of like the 3D tv's.
 
#20 ·
Also the market up here is different. Satellite TV companies up here are owned by companies that have significant wireline operations. So they'll invest in developing their wireline networks as it is cheaper and more lucrative due to the multiline sales opportunities. Satellite is mostly used by consumers who don't have any other option. Why invest in something you don't have to?

In the US satellite providers are direct competitors to wireline TV providers so they need to come out with innovative features in order to stay alive
 
#21 ·
The cross ownership that exists here does not exist in the US. That reduces competition and has the potential to increase prices and reduce innovation. For example, Shaw owns Shaw Internet, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct, Global TV and a number of specialty channels. BCE owns Bell telephone, Bell Fibe TV, Bell Internet, Bell TV (satellite), CTV (1&2), TSN, Astral (TMN and HBO Canada) plus other specialty channels. Rogers owns Rogers Cable TV, Rogers Phone, several small TV networks, SportsNet and a number of specialty channels. You won't see that in the US. That tends to make Canadian companies stronger and better able to survive but it has also led to some anti-competitive practices, especially by BCE. There are basically only two or three competitors in most regions and some of those have non-compete agreements with out of market competitors in their respective service areas. They typically compete for customers. Apart from new customer signup offers, there isn't much competition on price. Prices go up in lockstep on an annual basis and vertical integration magnifies price increases and profits at the BDU level.
 
#24 ·
The US is well on track to be just as bad as Canada
I would agree that it is getting worse but concentration is still nowhere near Canada

In the U.S., the wireless companies are separate and the satellite and cable companies are separate.

I highly doubt the U.S. would allow a single company to own the quadruple play plus all the broadcasting and publishing assets. Realistically what isn't controlled by Bell or Rogers in Ontario?

In addition, its clear that Rogers and Bell collude on pricing to extort consumers. Check out the prices of Bell Fibe or Satellite in Quebec vs Ontario and it becomes quite clear. Bell charges less in Quebec because Videotron competes rather than colludes.
 
#27 ·
What about Verizon and Comcast, they provide wireless, cable and phone service.
I agree that concentration in the U.S. is problematic but I don't think they also own a satellite company, the bulk of digital channels and most of the networks, news publishing and sports industry!

Regardless, my original point is that the lack of competition in this country has led to technology lag, lower penetration of services and higher prices.
 
#28 ·
After reading some of the 'security' stuff on the... I think its Samsung remotes with voice controls.

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to really WANT that technology.

(that all commands, and on systems where it was set to ALWAYS ON/LISTENING, pretty much all talk could be passed/sent out)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top