Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #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. ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Well technically they are doing their job, which is to bleed Canadians dry. It's up to the CRTC and the government to do their job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,705 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
There are no longer restrictions on U.S channels by the CRTC. The real issue with U.S. channels is obtaining rights for programming in Canada. Will we see USA or TNT now in Canada, well maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,705 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
I remember a number of years ago, USA Network wanted to enter Canada and they even offered to substitute programming where they didn't have the rights, but the CRTC denied them entry because of Bell. It might be nice to get the FOX Sportsnets and FS1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
What's to stop Rogers/City to now morph OLN, G4Tech or bio into one of these stations under these new rules. These 3 channels would probably die under Pick and Pay but might have a chance as FS1 Canada etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,705 Posts
You mean like FX Canada or BBC Canada or HBO Canada? It will likely happen.

I thought Biography is owned by A&E. Is it a Canadian knockoff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
In my experience few companies opt out of high margin revenue streams.

One way or another they will be selling their programming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,705 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,705 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top