Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
The problem is as much with copyright holders as the TV services. Exclusive licensing is a huge issue that drives costs up considerably. With the proliferation of services, most content has become spread out among all of them with extremely little new content on most. Traditional TV services are losing content to streaming services but are not adjusting their prices to match the loss.

Companies like Viacom license most of their content to other services in Canada. We need a traditional service for the network shows (some are on Paramount+ but delayed), Netflix for Yellowstone and Paramount+ for 1883, with other shows on YouTube and other streaming services which vary depending on the country. Multiply that by 5 studios, 5 networks and dozens of specialty channels with separate licensing agreements for dozens of channels and streaming services in dozens of countries and it becomes a confusing, expensive mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
That is correct. See how confusing it is. ;)

To make things worse, new episodes of 1883 are MIA on Paramount+ this week and Paramount Network starting Sunday. I wonder if some Canadian broadcaster bought the rights and is sitting on it. I already paid for Paramount+ for the month and the only thing we want to watch has disappeared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I think Yellowstone is on Paramount+ in the US. The US version of Paramount+ might be worth the cost. The Canadian version of Paramount+ is garbage as almost all the new programming is licensed to other services and broadcasters in Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I got the half price Paramount+ Canada offer late last year. It's not even worth that unless you've never seen CBS programming. I also got the 99 cent offer for several Prime channels. Again, some are not worth that unless you've been in a TV vacuum for the last 20 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
We have been watching a lot on content on Prime Video recently. It's no Netflix or Disney+, but neither are most other streaming services, and there are other benefits such as audio books, free ebooks and music. Although far from being the best in each class, it's one of the best values available. As for the Prime Video channels, most are lame Canadian versions that are available elsewhere. Prime is simply acting as a aggregator which is fine with me. We need more of those. The thing I like is that Prime makes the subscriptions easier to manage. It took me about a minute to cancel several channels I no longer wanted. Apple+ has similar offerings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I would easily get my moneys worth from free shipping.
I've never paid for shipping even without Prime. Free shipping is available with most orders over $35. Prime has faster delivery, especially during peak sales times and there may be return restrictions without Prime. Prime pays for itself fairly easily. Some special offers are only for Prime members and it adds 1% to the cash back bonus on the Amazon credit card. Prime video is probably the biggest bonus for me though. Everything considered, it's the cheapest streaming service we have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
From my viewpoint, streaming services and expanded cable services have made things considerably worse. Broadcasters and copyright owners have used them to inflate prices by spreading new, quality programming across an constantly increasing number of channels and services. Prices have skyrocketed as a result. At one time, sports were a large part of network television schedules but are now expensive specialty services, though I've seen a minor comeback in the last couple of years. As noted, news services have gone down the drain but that's largely a result of revenue loss to internet based advertising services, not video streaming services.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
CBC's Gem streaming service has "live news, journalism, footage from the local community". You have access to even more of this kind of programming if you're so inclined as local newscasts from across the country are available.
The CBC has almost no presence and no local newscasts in a lot of markets. That includes London and Kitchener, two of the top 10 biggest broadcast markets in Canada. We haven't had a CBC affiliated station here for 30 years. They had a Toronto station repeater for 20 years but the CBC closed it 10 years ago. It was rumoured that the CBC was going to open a news office here several years ago but I've yet to see a story out of it.

For being a taxpayer funded national service, the CBC has very poor coverage in some areas. There are 14 CBC stations, mostly in provincial and other capitals, and the largest markets. That's down from 25 just 10 years ago when the CBC shut down 11 stations rather than convert them to ATSC. Prior to that 32 CBC affiliates lost their CBC affiliation. Many are now owned by CTV, including the station here which once had good local news before CTV acquired it. That doesn't include the dozens of smaller market analog repeaters that were also shut down about 10 years ago. An outlier is CBC Windsor, a city with a Canadian TV market about half that of London or Kitchener but it still has a CBC station anyway. Detroit gets better CBC service than many Canadian cities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
No. I'm saying that many Canadians cannot get local newscasts from the CBC. Claiming they can is Canadian Broadcasting Crapola. I listened to and watched the CBC for years but don't recall our city ever being mentioned. The web site has a few stories, the same stories as other local sources, but no local video, as claimed by the CBC. The CBC is now so irrelevant here that I only watch it when a British or Australian show is on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I think he's correct for Canadians outside a few cities the CBC had deemed worthy of a local station. I tried GEM a few times but really hated it, as I do most streaming services with forced advertising, but GEM also had technical issues. Would I want to watch CBC news using GEM on the odd chance there may be a video or news story from a community the CBC abandoned and neglected over the past 30 years? That's a big not likely. The same goes for paying the CBC to get rid of advertising.

In the 1990s the CBC made a commitment to serve 90% of Canadians with OTA. That decision was completely reversed and undone less than 20 years later. GEM was created to replace OTA. Unfortunately, many Canadians still don't have internet capable of streaming video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I'm not purposefully trying to be slow but are you saying that if GEM didn't exist, your community would have a local CBC newscast?
I'm not saying that. Maybe if the CBC had fully followed through on their commitment to serve 90% of Canadians with OTA then that might be the case. That would have involved creating a full CBC station in the larger markets that lost CBC affiliates. All they got were CBC repeaters from a distant city that have since been shut down en mass. What I am saying is that GEM is not a replacement for shutting down OTA stations, at least not yet. Maybe when over 90% of Canadians have affordable high speed internet capable of streaming the CBC it would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I don't remember CFPL (and I'd assume CKCO) ever branding their local news as CBC.
CFPL wasn't a full CBC affiliate. It produced a lot of local programming and carried CBC news plus a wide selection of prime time programming from the CBC and US networks. CKCO was similar but with a full selection of CTV programming. I believe CFPL dropped the CBC affiliation on it's own but there may have been something else going on as the CBC either lost or cancelled all it's affiliate agreements within a few years and rolled out a lot of repeaters across Canada. It was a bad decision because ratings and advertising revenue dropped for both parties. That was compounded by the expansion of cable specialty channels and the rollout of satellite TV in the 1990s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
Disney+ has lots of good content but a large part of it are Marvel and Star Wars movies and series. It's a pretty good deal at $12/mo or $120/yr when compared to Netflix and Crave, plus it's 4K at that price. There is a lot of kids programming as well. If Marvel, Star Wars and children's programming is not desired then it's most likely not worth it. For families with children, it's a great service but Disney has always been about family entertainment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
We watched an episode of Hill Street Blues. The quality was not great but not annoyingly bad either. A lot of shows shot with NTSC equipment have been scaled up and remastered from the original tapes. Some shows that were shot on film have been remastered from the original film in HD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
Netflix password sharing is so rampant and easy to get away with that it is probably a significant portion of the subscription cost. It's even the butt of jokes on TV. Adding $2.99 per household for account sharing is an insult to people who don't do so. I refuse to pay Netflix's current prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
You won't pay for Netflix, but do you watch it?
No. I did, and paid for it, before the spate of recent price increases. Disney+ is $11.99/mo or $9.99 with an annual subscription that includes UHD (4K.) The equivalent Netflix subscription is $20.99/mo with no annual option. The last time I subscribed to Netflix I paid about $10/mo for 6 months of the HD plan in a bundle offer. We ended up watching Prime Video ($7.99/mo, less annually) and Disney+ more than Netflix.

The cost of Crave is also an issue. We subscribe but I've been wondering why for some time. At one time, First Choice aka TMN aka Crave was a good source of top rated, popular Hollywood and other worldwide movies on a non-exclusive basis. That slowly went downhill as studios started exclusive licensing in the Canadian market and other services bought the rights. Now it seems the only movies they carry are poorly rated, rotten tomatoes. Things have really taken a nosedive since Bell took over. Much of the time, the only programming worth watching is from Showtime and that has deteriorated as well. Then they siphoned off Starz programming to an extra cost service. That's another disappointment in both cost and program quality. HBO has taken a similar route with their own shows which are often low budget series, documentaries and talk shows. The days of big budget blockbusters that built their reputation and scripted shows with wide appeal are just about gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
I guess that's my point. $20+/mo for 3 shows a year is a bit much. There was a time when I subscribed to TMN for a few months a year and got to see everything in rotation which was probably dozens of shows and movies. That was before streaming and catching up by binging. (My version of binging is watching two episodes a day. ;)) These days I've gotten a bit lazy in that regard. The public library has a better selection of movies than Crave for no cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
At one time it included Moviepix and the US superstations. They were gradually dropped and turned into add-ons by most TV providers. Moviepix was eventually turned into Starz, whose programming was previously included with Crave. The launch of Starz included a hefty price increase. I don't mind the price increases so much. TMN went for years with minimal increases. It's the paucity of quality content that I dislike the most. What other service that costs over $20/mo has such a lack of new high end content, so many bad movies and such mediocre technical quality?
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top