[Jake]

Please leave your top 10 or 5 list here. No need to discuss or debate someone elses list. Just plop it down for all to see. We all have a rant thread but try to keep your list short and sweet. You can continue your rant in your old rant thread. Try to order them by importance. Here is mine. Also, note that while some of these issues do not originate in Canada we still look to the industry for a solution. This is the Canadian Television Industry forum after-all. If you are happy or think there are few problem I invite you to create another thread entitled "Your Top 5 List: Reasons why the Traditional Canadian Television Industry is Working".

1. High prices
2. Unreliable scheduling information often times resulting in missed recordings
3. Constant commercial interruptions of broadcast.
4. Taking 8 months or longer to broadcast 22 episodes.
5. Mandatory channels (believe it or not some of us don't want it).
6. Antiquated, unreliable and single supplier set top boxes

 

[99gecko]

Can you clarify your use of the term "Traditional"? It is subjective; it may mean different things to different people:

• OTA only,
• Non-digital BDU service only,
• Anything regulated by the CRTC,
• Canadian origin stations only (you mention Canadian in your post, but not in the title of the thread).
• Anything except IP distribution.

 

[hugh]

Can only think of one

Tariff barriers to protect "Canadian culture and jobs"

Every industry wants Government protection. The worst run industries in this country are the ones that get it: Automobile, Agriculture, Legal, Broadcasting and Telecommunications.

If any of these industries has a problem, the government either creates laws to reduce competition or gives them handouts.

 

[magnet]

An addition to your Government protected industries list would have to be the Banking industry.

Main issues with the Canadian Broadcasting model:
1. Oligopoly of ownership of the networks and channels by the BDU's.
2. Proximity of us to the largest provider of English speaking entertainment in the world.
3. Other than the Windsor- Quebec City corridor, a relatively small spread out population across 6 timezones.
4. Foreign broadcast rights to network programming which make it difficult for other American based cable networks to be available North of the border.
5. The CRTC's mandate which seems to favour the Oligopolies and discourages new private companies to force competition.

 

[classicsat]

Problems with traditional TV (and to a lesser degree, radio.). There is no particular order to them.

1. Too few players. The few players there are own too many of channels and content licenes.

2. Specialty channels allowed to change from their original licensed format, too loosely anyways.

3. Too little programming is aired on too many channels.

4. The same companies own the broadcasters, specialty channels, and the BDUs.

5. Locals, at least out of major centres, are not what they used to be or need to be, especially with local programming, and their desire for the digital transtition, not to mention where smaller centres and rural viewers are left.

6. Content rights (to broadcasters) are too broad for them, not enough for end consumers.

7. I agree, there is not enough consumer choice in the set-top hardware market.

I will argue your point 4, in that episodes are not usually made all in a row, they are made in spurts, just as they air, at least for live action programs, with a 2-6 week lag between shooting and airing.

 

[thegiffer]

Top Industry Issues

1. Management will not innovate in a meaningful way - response to technological change is to run to the regulatory partner for more protection from competition e.g. Netflix as broadcaster, lowball caps.

2. Limiting of consumer choice created and maintained by outdated regulatory regime. There are whole threads on this site dedicated to simsub for example - in a more market-oriented environment, we would spend this time talking about how great or bad Show X was because there'd be no simsub.

3. Having to settle for fake versions of foreign service options - e.g. fake HBO, fake BBC, quasi ESPN - when the technology exists to allow us to access the real feeds for these services. The genre monopoly rule that keeps out real HBO, real ESPN, real SyFy, FX and the others has to go. It's an unacceptable non-tariff barrier

4. No a la carte programming access. I have to buy tiers of programming I don't want to get at what I do want e.g. NFL Sunday Ticket. Why should I cross-subsidize Weather Network so I can watch football?

Really the only issues are 1 and 2 - 3 and 4 fall out of those two.

 

[JohnnyCanuck]

1. Canadian content rules - should be about quality and originality, not about quantity (eg. Canadian Idol should never have qualified as CanCon, neither should ET Canada).
2. Simsubs - Canadian content providers don't have to be original with current rules allowing them to reap advertising revenue without having to earn it
3. Rights - Regulation should prohibit those who own both a TV network/station and a BDU/ILEC from owning both airing rights and digital distribution rights.
4. FFC - the CRTC did nothing to reward innovation or creativity.

 

[willise]

For me, the following:

1. CANCON - Pushing content down the consumers throat just to save an industry that cannot stand on it's own without forced intervention is wrong.

2. PROTECTIONISM - We all know that CTV and Global are just a rebroadcast channel for the mainstream American providers. The Government and CRTC should allow the consumer the choice in what they want to watch in the privacy of their own homes. IF I want to watch a TV show on the life of JFK rather than John A Macdonald, I should have that option.

3. REBRANDING - History Canada is not the History Channel - not even close. Same goes for Discovery Canada, Showcase, HBO Canada, TVLand, HGTV, etc.

4. REALITY TV - My personal distaste for reality TV programming gets higher each year. Sure they are cheap to produce and fabricated "real" situations may make them enjoyable to watch to some, but I'd rather watch a well written show any day or a History Channel International show.

5. COMMERCIALS - No one wants to pay upwards of $100 per month to watch endless commercials. During the recent Grammy Awards, my wife counted 16 commercials during one of the breaks. That is unreasonable.

5A TORRENTS - I pay for my TV content every month, but I find that it does not give me the freedom that torrents do. I enjoy Fringe, but I refuse to pay upwards of $300 for a PVR, so I download the show the day after it airs. The show is in perfect quality with zero commercial interruption. Plus torrents also allow me to watch TV shows that the CRTC mandates illegal for me to watch in Canada - ie - the History Channel documentaries, plus many others.

 

[ScaryBob]

My top 4 in no particular order. Everything else is unimportant in comparison.
1. Protectionist regulation. The CRTC's mandate to protect Canadian broadcasters from competition at any cost.
2. Too much concentration of ownership. Too few people own too many channels.
3. Too much vertical integration. Stations, networks, BDUs and ISPs all owned by the same company.
4. Poorly implemented regulation. Not enough protection for smaller, local broadcasters or consumers and too much bias in favour of large broadcasters.

 

[j0dest3r]

1. Inflexible WRT hardware, locked out with no local channels unencrypted try to force their STB on you
2. Slow to pick up new channels
3. Programming on specialty channels seem to be plagued with rerun after rerun
4. Commercial volume (someone is looking at that one at least)
5. Cablecard fiasco! Grrr!!

 

[Jake]

I just got back home. Sorry Gecko I never got a chance to reply sooner. "Anything except IP distribution" is what I had in mind. OTA is a special case closer to the border but since it is free to receive it is hard to complain. If you pay $50 or $150 per month you expect or would like to something in return.

Also, most of my points could also apply to the US. Other than CANCON I don't see much difference (big picture-wise).

 

[Danno100]

1. Failure of the CRTC to force cable co's to provide clear QAM of all digital channels
2. Failure of the CRTC to force cable co's to provide a cable card solution
3. Failure of the CRTC to force HD OTA transmission for all local stations
4. Failure of the CRTC to open up the industry to true competition
5. Failure of the CRTC to focus on balancing the cable co industry protection against customer choice.

 

[madhi19]

Reason 1 300 channels.
Reason 2 But enough content for 30.
Reason 3 300 channels owned by less than 10 corporations
Reason 4 Packaging, Packaging and Packaging!
Reason 5 Free loaders who ride the tail of popular channel because of packaging!

 

[trask]

Can only think of one

Tariff barriers to protect "Canadian culture and jobs"

Every industry wants Government protection. The worst run industries in this country are the ones that get it: Automobile, Agriculture, Legal, Broadcasting and Telecommunications.

If any of these industries has a problem, the government either creates laws to reduce competition or gives them handouts.

This is the main one for me too. The Canadian Government protects Canadian Broadcasters and BDU's thus locking out true competition for both. In return Canadian viewers get an inferior product at a higher price.

 

[Tridus]

1. High Prices
2. Bundling of channels I don't want
3. The CRTC - you name anything in this industry, the CRTC has gotten it wrong somehow
4. Low quality protectionist Canadian knockoffs of superior US channels
5. Poor HD picture quality