Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

History of CRTC Treatment of U.S. channels

8K views 32 replies 20 participants last post by  Dr.Dave 
#1 · (Edited)
I've been saying it all along.

That:

If a BDU carries a U.S. broadcast channel.

It should be LAW / LEGISLATED - that they can *NOT* mess with it.

i.e. NO SIMSUBS. NO Blackouts or alterations in the signal or the content.

[ Except for maybe inappropriate content / by Canadian law ... / depends ]

That should be: By Canadian Law. By Canadian Regulation.


If you, as a BDU - provide a U.S. broadcast channel / U.S. signal to a Canadian customer - who pays for that service - you cannot mess with it.

No way. No how.


And that should also be a condition of the U.S. broadcaster (if they were smart).

U.S. Broadcaster:
"We give you permission to carry it on your Canadian BDU enterprise - only if you do so complete and in it's entirety. Not changed. Not edited. Not sim subbed. All original ADS in - and unchanged. No screen crawlers. No picture BUGS. Insert nothing. Take out nothing. Do not change the volume. You may "BLACK OUT" nothing / Block no program."

Otherwise - NO DEAL . Permission NOT GRANTED - to carry it.

[ You may block content - Only if Canadian law requires it - due to "inappropriate" content - as determined by the Citizens of your Country / and laws of your Country ]

AND - Personal Opinion - Canadian Citizens (if they were smart) would/should request the same LAW on the BDU's from our Government and our Regulator - here in Canada.

NO BDU can take "CONTROL" or "MODIFY" ... in any way ... the international signal they provide to their Canadian Customer.


In this regard ... BDU's do not rule / should not be allowed to rule.
[ Corporations should not be able to RULE in this matter ]

WE rule.

The Citizens of Canada - should rule - as per our wishes - through our elected representatives - national communications policy as *WE* desire.

Not some CEO . Or Gov't lobbyist.

It should be an issue .

[ and from another "ANGLE" - Canadian Citizens - as "Paying Customers" of a BDU - should tell the BDU - "YES ... we do want those broadcast U.S. channels / networks - un modified- so *DO* provide them for us, on your BDU enterprise - same as always - DO your JOB - or else - step aside - and let another company step in , and provide THAT for *US* as we desire.

Simply stated: BDU. DO YOUR JOB - or else GO AWAY - and let someone else DO it - if you can't or won't.

GET LOST IF YOU DON'T wanna do your JOB / provide the service we want. ]
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Give Canadians some reasonable choices and they will do the job. The current restrictive rules are only in place because Canadians would rather watch US or overseas programming and the government wants to keep their business donations intact. Canadian broadcasters want to use an iron fist to control what Canadians watch and the CRTC forces the government's agenda into the fist.
 
#4 ·
The current restrictive rules are a bizarre historical anomaly. I am no fan of US TV channels but ...

Restricting access to US TV channels has nothing to do with promoting Canadian content and culture. There are myriads of foreign TV services licenced by the CRTC to operate in Canada, and most of them are not American. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/satlist.htm Not to mention the myriads more foreign channels accessible OTT. We have large numbers in Canada that are quite happy to only watch their own ethnic channels in their own first languages and never need to touch Canadian originated programming and are completely untouched by this pretend promotion of Canadian culture.

What is bizarre is this strange obsession with restricting American content alone be it by OTA creeping over the border, Canadian BDU's, foreign satellites, or OTT. These restrictions can even on occasion prevent the legitimate Canadian rights holder from being able to broadcast to viewers in Canada. It is completely inconsistent with having a mosaic society.

Given that profound inconsistency, one can only assume that you might be on to something regarding large corporate political donations.
 
#6 ·
They may be happy just to keep on selling content to Canadian stations. Clawing back the rights will be time consuming and would involve a transition period with blackouts and other anomalies. Stations that sell US ads may see a reduction in revenue due to lack of Canadian income for those ads. Stations that rely solely on subscription revenue and retain most of their programming rights, like TCM, will do well. The big issue is getting carriage. Will Canadian BDUs that own stations airing US shows want to carry the US versions? It has the potential to start a "carriage war" where one BDU has the Canadian version of a channel (possibly owned by that BDU) and another the US version. I don't see that happening though.

There are myriads of foreign TV services licenced by the CRTC to operate in Canada, and most of them are not American.
Which points out the true anomaly. The current restrictions are mostly aimed at English speaking Canadians and are based on monetary considerations for English language stations and networks. Otherwise, English speaking Canadians would have unedited stations from around the world, like non-English speaking nationals.
 
#12 ·
Ever pick up a TV Guide (yeah, they still publish) to compare US Spike TV schedule to the stripped, filler craptcular we get here? I don't know what'd be worse... 1.) The Canadian "ABC Spark-ifcation" treatment of US original ABC Family, where owner Corus lazily & cheaply smeeeears their acquired shows over as many channels they own, despite the fact each has its own niche. Results: 3 hours of 'Just For Laughs Gags' I can see on CMT, YTV, etc. Or, 2.) The US original w/ blocks of alt. programs, a la Spike.
 
#14 ·
Even though Bell and others opposed US channels in Canada.....the real reason was the Canadian Broadcasting act and the mandate given to the forerunner of the CRTC in the early days. Very little has changed since then from a legal standpoint. However the whole tech world has no resemblance to even what existed two years ago. The Canadian culture and identity concept has weakened over the years as reality set in with the exception of French language broadcasting. Comparisons between English and French broadcasting have little validity as they operate in two totally different worlds although under the same broadcasting act.
 
#17 ·
I don't think most Canadian BDUs or US channels care one way or the other. HDNet took a hard line on terms of carriage and Canadian BDUs just stopped carrying it. TCM and AMC want universal carriage but both finally caved in to Bell and allowed them to be put into a premium bundle. To US channels, Canada is a small market (~10% of the US) but a huge PIA when it comes to regulation and program licensing. Some of them would rather license the channel name and exclusive content to a Canadian company and just collect the royalties. To BDUs, an unapproved US channel is just another business opportunity.
 
#20 ·
Many of the licensed US specialty channels we have date back to the first round of Canadian specialty channel licensing. The US "Super Channels", for example, were approved as an add-on the Canadian premium movie channel packages. (The Super Channels at that time were quite a bit different and featured a lot of high quality movies and sports.) The thought was that they would add value and make more people subscribe. The movie channels all went bankrupt anyway, not just once but several times. Channels like CNN were also in bundles that contained comparable Canadian channels like CTV News. That's was quite a business model. It assumed that Canadians wouldn't buy Canadian specialty channels so US channels must be included to sell them. It's a "we are inferior so we must ride on the backs of others" mentality that still prevails in Canadian broadcasting to this day.
 
#21 ·
True but as you imply that inferiority complex first applies in the minds of the consumers. Witness also the American advertising obsession for Superbowl, continued black market satellite services, and the CRTC's expectation that skinny basic will include 4+1 to satisfy expectations. I don't know any other English speaking country where neighbour envy prevails so much. New Zealanders don't long for Australian channels, Irish don't gaze longingly for English TV. And from other comments on the history of TV in Canada both OTA and cable/satellite it seems to be demand driven not broadcaster driven.

I'm an immigrant, I love Canada. I just don't get the American obsession but it is nice to go south in winter and visit.
 
#22 ·
I think it's partly due to being too close to the US and partly due to the larger market they have there that creates better TV programming and other benefits. We tend to overlook some of the areas where the US compares unfavorably, like crime, but it does make for good TV dramas. It's not so much that we want US TV, we just want their TV shows and the products they advertise. When Canadian stations, networks and other products are comparable, I'm happy with them. The unfortunate fact is that they are often inferior, due to government regulation or some other factor such as market size.

New Zealanders don't long for Australian channels, Irish don't gaze longingly for English TV.
New Zealanders cannot get Australian OTA so the situation was totally different and the Irish dislike the British for historical reasons and want to keep their identity at a grass roots level. Canadians, in general, have a much weaker identity than countries that have deep, homogenous roots. A large number of Canadians identify with their immigrant cultural roots as much as Canada. That can be seen most strongly in Quebec but it exists elsewhere. Why wouldn't Canadians want TV from the US cultural "melting pot" that reflects their own experience? This is not unique to Canada either. Regulation created a similar situation in the UK. Radio Luxemburg was popular there and offshore radio stations were a phenomena in the late 1960s. That was due to a government created broadcast monopoly that stifled competition for the BBC. US TV stations and programming are also popular in the UK and around the world. I sometimes see references to US stations that are available in other countries but are not approved here.
 
#24 ·
^ Unfortunately the article's title and opening paragraph are misleading and inaccurate. The rest of the article seems okay. The CRTC has been quite clear that US Channels still have to be approved. The only change for them is the channels will have to be available unbundled, just like the Canadian channels.
 
#25 ·
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing TNT, Syfy, Discovery Family (dang you Hub Network), Nicktoons, and hopefully the true version of Cartoon Network (the one with the REAL Adult Swim and Toonami blocks) come into Canada. If they do, then it may encourage innovation with regards to the Canadian equivalent. For instance, how will Space compete against Syfy? Will Bell just rebrand it as Syfy, or keep their own identify whilst allowing Syfy entry to compete?

Same thing with ABC Spark. It should technically rebrand as ABC Family.

Plus getting Disney Channel and all the various Nick ones, Nick Jr., Nicktoons, TeenNick. TVLand maybe?

Possibilities are endless, it seems... only time will tell what really happens with this decision...
 
#26 ·
As previously discussed, that's not likely to happen due to lack of carriage approval, copyright issues and licensing agreements. The CRTC did not open the door to direct competition from US channels. It merely relaxed genre requirements for Canadian channels. That was already happening. A lot of existing specialty channels had already strayed from their original genre. Some are already rerun or time shifting outlets for other channels owned by their parent companies. We are not going to see a flood of new channels or programming due to this decision. We may see some changes in branding and content for a few channels.
 
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