Support local TV - Fight the TV TAX and Cable co's - put up an antenna!
Some Guy
Fight the TV TAX!
Fight big, evil Cable companies!
Put up an antenna!
Tony
border. The FROGs will be too busy to watch any television this month.
The FROGs will be shoveling hundreds of feet of snow this month and next
and next month and next month and oh all the way into July next year.
Some Guy wrote:
--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG
Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city
Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know
proper manners
Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs but got fired the first
day on the job for potty mouth,
Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!
El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar
Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man
Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability
Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday
Some Guy
> > Put up an antenna!
> That won't work for the FROGs they're too far from the CanaDUH US
> border.
The frogs don't watch english-language TV you freeking moron.
Ank
If no one would, it wouldn't be offered in Quebec. And a room mate, born
in MTL, mainly watches English channels (movies, news and cartoons; The
Simpsons in French sound gay, IMO), though speaks French otherwise.
--
Ank
chuckcar
LOL. Love it! About the only way that would matter too.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Canuck57
Tell you what, these local TV stations have the gaul With the number of
adverts, the sucky programming no woner I watch so few local channels
and not very often. Perhaps election night but I can skip the Liberal
urinalism and whining and get the results faster in the Internet.
The deal struck with local stations versus say a movie channel is
simple. The local channels provide a free signal to the local cable
operator and they can get to you the consumer for free. Yes,
Rogers/Shaw don't pay for this, just the cable and plant to deliver it.
But by law, Shaw/Rogers must carry them.
On the flip we have other channels, not local, specialty, movie, home,
science, hisory and they all get a cut. Rogers/Shaw does pay them. But
Shaw/Rogers can drop them too. There is no right of access.
Ok, let the local channels ask for cash for signal. But I too want the
right to drop then at zero charge to me, the consumer. I already pay
twice as much and get 1/2 as much as most countries in the world. Hell,
if I lived in China or Japan, I would get 100 mbs Internet which
includes digital TV for about $31 US/mo and they supply the decoders and
modems! While we think of watching TV over the Interent, they are
watching TV over the intenet.
If my bill goes up, I will slash the costs by triple by lowering my
services. Might even opt out of the TV portion altogether. 70 stations
of garbage is not much different than 10.
Both are evil, tell CRTC to make it law up to 4 providers are allowed
per area of service. Make room for the likes of Time Warner to come
here and show the locals how to get cost competative. Besides SciFi and
HBO blow away Encore and Space so bad....the reason Space can't be had
in the US is that they would pay for such garbage. And time shifting
movies between ralted channels means our industry is inbread.
Some Guy
> Tell you what, these local TV stations have the gaul With the
> number of adverts, the sucky programming no woner I watch so
> few local channels and not very often.
Why can't local stations buy and broadcast programs produced by
speciality channels like Discovery, HGTV, Food, etc?
Or, why can't those speciality networks set up their own broadcast
transmitters? Imagine that you could pick up the Discovery channel, or
the History channel OTA (over-the-air). They would have NO local
content. No 6 or 11 o'clock news.
Canuck57
Hey, I am all for it. But the media industry in Canada is regulated to
a point of envy by socialist and control freeks around the world. If
you work for media and want to take a crap, you are just outside of
having to go to the CRTC to ask permission.
But for larger country wide stations like History, setting up
transmitters in each city is cost prohibitive, especially since the
cable companies cut cheques to carry your signal.
The industry is myered in utter stagantion and CRTC beaurocracy to a
point it can't make money to survive. But the customers, the vieweres,
you and I are changing our habits.
For example, I haven't watched TV news local or national for 10 years.
And more are doing like it like me. I could watch 1 hour of TV news, 25
minutes of adverts, 25 minutes of liberal whining and 5 minutes of
credits. Leaving only 5 minutes of real news.
So I go on line, skip the crap and read the news on line in 5 minutes
that takes me 60 minutes of TV to do the same.
And sorry, the latest family sitcom with a 1950's script replayed
doesn't attract me to watch 25 minutes of ads per hour.
Oh, there are some good programs like W5, 60 minutes, but they don't
show when I have the time to watch and over time I stopped watching.
Add in I lived in that US for 10 years, where specialty channels abound.
PBC, HBC, History (US with F22s and not WW I reruns), Cramer, Rush...
at 1/2 the cost and now I have to put up with Canadian cable? We are a
seriously media deprived bunch.
And Canadianized Discovery is a joke as is Space.
This industry is a stagnent old whale flopping in the wind. They need
to change or die. The Internet is replacing it, and they had better get
with the plan. Kids today are a complete generation of web enabled end
user savvy users that will watch what they want when they want and CRTC
and mdia can go to hell if thy think otherwise. It is why google is
rich and local stations are dying.
Geoffrey Welsh
> On the flip we have other channels, not local, specialty, movie, home,
> science, hisory and they all get a cut. Rogers/Shaw does pay them. But
> Shaw/Rogers can drop them too. There is no right of access.
I thought that some (paid) cable-only channels were designated "must carry."
If I recall correctly, at one point there was some discussion over whether
The Weather Network should be designated must carry.
Geoffrey Welsh
started the "net neutrality" debate in the States, where an executive with a
broadband access company (I believe it was BellSouth, or it might have been
SBC... in either case now part of AT&T) commented that they, who built the
distribution network, should be paid by the people who were making money
distributing content through it. That comment ignored the fact that there
would be no reason to build (and charge for) that distribution network if it
weren't for the content...
But I digress. My point is that:
- both systems worked fine - worked best, in fact - for the vast majority
of their existences without compensation;
- in each case, a different side (content vs. distribution) decided that it
was due compensation;
- the argument for compensation in both cases boils down to the fact that
one side was making more money than the other;
- the organizations arguing for compensation are largely responsible for
their own situations, having made bad business bets based on hype and a poor
understanding of the business they were spending (and borrowing!) to
dominate.
Unfortunately, the one thing you can count on when Canadian do-gooders
implement regulations: the people who screwed up, either actively or simply
by failing to recognize and adapt to change, will be rewarded and supportde
but those who innovated, made the right bet, and succeeded will be
penalized.
chuckcar
Don't even bother. It's yet *another* nick for Tony.
Canuck57
Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer decide?
No real reason other than politics why you can't visit a web page, see
the costs and select the channels (local or not) and decide which ones
you want.
The reason they don't is channels that provide what we want would get
more of the take and the filler channels would get less.
Weather, I could get that of the intenet. It has adverts, so free
because I would not subscribe.
Geoffrey Welsh
> Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer decide?
A policy of letting the consumer decide would eliminate the need for the
CRTC and no sitting CTRC commissioner, nor any organization who has ever or
expects ever to gain from a CRTC ruling would support that.
From the CRTC's web page, their mandate is "to ensure that both the
broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public." Not
Canadian _individuals_, "the Canadian public" as a whole. Like the Zeroth
Law of Robotics used in film and literature to explain how robots can
extrapolate a law more important than the Three Laws of Robotics (and
therefore permitting them to violate the Three Laws), the CRTC uses their
mandate to protect the interests of the Canadian public - as determined, of
course, by the CTRC - even if that means acting against the interests of
Canadians individually. And that's exactly what the CRTC does, wholesale.
Literally.
JF Mezei
> Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer decide?
Would someone in Toronto want to pay to get a Prince George CTV station
when they can get the Vancouver one to get the west coast times for shows ?
Heck, I don't watch CBC montreal, I watch CBC ottawa because its sound
is of better quality on star choice (or whatever its name is this week).
If we are given freedom of choice, there will be no regional stations,
just one or two stations per time zone.
And if we are given freedom of choice, nobody will subscribe to a
station in their own city, which means that they would then be spared of
the terrible channel substitution junk and be able to watch US
programming from US stations. (channel substitution kicks in when you
have a local channel that steals the US content).
Some Guy
> > Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer
> > decide?
>
> If we are given freedom of choice, there will be no regional
> stations, just one or two stations per time zone.
What if *everyone* could choose?
What if individual TV stations could choose to broadcast anything they
wanted?
What if cable and satellite companies could choose to carry (or not)
local TV stations?
What if consumers could choose to pay for individual channels? Local or
not?
What if cable tv boxes had antenna inputs to allow me to mix local OTA
reception with cable TV channels that I choose to pay for?
What if the fuckers that run Hulu stopped geo-blocking and allowed
Canadians to access their content over the net?
What if the obstacles of having a Canadian version of Hulu were
removed? (Why can the economic model for Hulu work in the US, but not
in Canada?)
Canuck57
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer decide?
>
> A policy of letting the consumer decide would eliminate the need for the
> CRTC and no sitting CTRC commissioner, nor any organization who has ever or
> expects ever to gain from a CRTC ruling would support that.
Think of the savings. In the end, everyone wins but for the lazy,
monopolistic types and statists.
> From the CRTC's web page, their mandate is "to ensure that both the
> broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public." Not
> Canadian _individuals_, "the Canadian public" as a whole. Like the Zeroth
> Law of Robotics used in film and literature to explain how robots can
> extrapolate a law more important than the Three Laws of Robotics (and
> therefore permitting them to violate the Three Laws), the CRTC uses their
> mandate to protect the interests of the Canadian public - as determined, of
> course, by the CTRC - even if that means acting against the interests of
> Canadians individually. And that's exactly what the CRTC does, wholesale.
> Literally.
Think, media did fine before there was a CRTC. They do sell a good
government line in selling what we don't need and shouldn't want.
When government crashes, I will have a big party. CRTC will certianly
be cut in time. Too much corruption and waste.
Canuck57
> JF Mezei wrote:
>
>>> Here is a novel idea for the CRTC, why not just let the consumer
>>> decide?
>> If we are given freedom of choice, there will be no regional
>> stations, just one or two stations per time zone.
>
> What if *everyone* could choose?
Nirvana, great idea!
> What if individual TV stations could choose to broadcast anything they
> wanted?
No problem with that. In fact, they should have the freedom to do so.
If they have more popular shows, they get more advertising revenue and
the customers get what they want.
> What if cable and satellite companies could choose to carry (or not)
> local TV stations?
Why not, their choice.
> What if consumers could choose to pay for individual channels? Local or
> not?
Fantastic idea.
> What if cable tv boxes had antenna inputs to allow me to mix local OTA
> reception with cable TV channels that I choose to pay for?
Bet China, Japan, India have it.
> What if the fuckers that run Hulu stopped geo-blocking and allowed
> Canadians to access their content over the net?
They already do, there are ways to beat their throttling and anal
retentive attitude.
> What if the obstacles of having a Canadian version of Hulu were
> removed? (Why can the economic model for Hulu work in the US, but not
> in Canada?)
Actually if I am not mistaken Hulu is a take off of iCraveTV.ca/.com.
iCraveTV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICraveTV
Canadian too. But almost every cable company and TV station in North
America sued them all at once for airing content unaltered, adverts an all.
Because they want to control what you hear, when your hear it, how you
here it and most importantly what you over pay for it.
The last thing Shaw/Rogers and a long list of others wants is real
competition.
JF Mezei
> Think, media did fine before there was a CRTC. They do sell a good
> government line in selling what we don't need and shouldn't want.
Media did not do fine. When cable came out, people started to watch US
shows on US channels, so the canadian media convinced the canadian
government to take actions against that.
There were 2 major changes made: first one was no longer allowing
canadian businesses to deduct advertising expenses when advertising was
spent on US media. (for instance, a montreal company buying 30 second ad
on a Plattsburg NY TV station that is wathced by montreal folks).
Second step was the channel substitution torture we must ensure to allow
CTV/Global to make money reselling US programs we are not allowed to
watch on the original US channels.
Some Guy
> > What if the fuckers that run Hulu stopped geo-blocking and allowed
> > Canadians to access their content over the net?
>
> They already do, there are ways to beat their throttling and anal
> retentive attitude.
Perhaps only if you $pay$ for a US proxy service.
There's no free proxy that I've found that works.
> > What if the obstacles of having a Canadian version of Hulu were
> > removed? (Why can the economic model for Hulu work in the US,
> > but not in Canada?)
>
> Actually if I am not mistaken Hulu is a take off of iCraveTV.
>
> iCraveTV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICraveTV
Which seems to be defunct for the past 8 or 9 years.
> The last thing Shaw/Rogers and a long list of others wants is
> real competition.
I'm sure that the US cable companies don't like Hulu, but still Hulu
exists and operates just fine in the US.
Doesn't explain how or why their business model works in the US, yet
there is no Canadian equivalent.
Some Guy
> Second step was the channel substitution torture we must ensure to
> allow CTV/Global to make money reselling US programs we are not
> allowed to watch on the original US channels.
CTV/Global (and CBC?) have to pay the owners of US programs to be able
to broadcast the programs in Canada.
So when we're watching a CTV or Global TV channel on cable or via
antenna, we're going to see Canadian advertizing during commercials.
The problem is when we're watching that same program on a US tv channel
on cable. The cable operator is supposed to insert the Canadian
commercials in place of the US ones. To make it simple, the cable
operators simply substitute the entire program feed from the Canadian
network over onto the US channel during the airtime of the program in
question.
The problem with that is that (a) we don't get to see the US commercials
(notable during high-profile events like the super bowl), (b) there may
be more commercials carved into the Canadian broadcast vs the US one,
and (c) sometimes the US tv channel in question is not broadcasting the
same program, so substitution is not called for but it still happens
because it's all timed and pre-programmed by computers.
Warren Oates
> Doesn't explain how or why their business model works in the US, yet
> there is no Canadian equivalent.
The best one could do would be
where one could d'load all sorts of 720p teevee shows, if one wanted to
do that, say if one wanted to watch Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy or
True Blood in 720p, but which wouldn't be particularly legal and would
be wrong in so many ways ...
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes
Canuck57
> Canuck57 wrote:
>
>> Think, media did fine before there was a CRTC. They do sell a good
>> government line in selling what we don't need and shouldn't want.
>
> Media did not do fine. When cable came out, people started to watch US
> shows on US channels, so the canadian media convinced the canadian
> government to take actions against that.
And of course they greased the politicians to close the market.
> There were 2 major changes made: first one was no longer allowing
> canadian businesses to deduct advertising expenses when advertising was
> spent on US media. (for instance, a montreal company buying 30 second ad
> on a Plattsburg NY TV station that is wathced by montreal folks).
>
> Second step was the channel substitution torture we must ensure to allow
> CTV/Global to make money reselling US programs we are not allowed to
> watch on the original US channels.
That practice always struck me as piracy. Hijacking a US signal and
substiting ads. If I did that I would be in court in the defendants box
looking at jail time and hefty fines.
But at each turn, the CRTC does not represent the consumer. It
represents media that wants a monopoly and price gouging flexability
they will certainly use.
JF Mezei
> That practice always struck me as piracy. Hijacking a US signal and
> substiting ads. If I did that I would be in court in the defendants box
> looking at jail time and hefty fines.
CTV and Global both buy rights for US TV programs. And if they get
exclusive distribution rights for Canada, then the US channels near the
border cannot demand/expect any canadian viewers.
If NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX stopped selling their US programmes to CTV/GLOBAL,
then Canadians could watch the same programmes on the origina. USA
networks. The border stations would have much greater viewership.
However, some detroit car dealer isn't interested in paying ad rates
that include viewers from Tuktoyaktuk NTW. So in the end, the USA
network probably end up making more money selling to CTV/global than to
let canadians watch their programmes.
Canuck57
CRTC backs monopolies that pass politcians pockets should hav eprotected
them saying free enterprize.
Funny how they can operate in teh US eh?
It is the real future of TV. Take rate throttling. Rate throttling is
racism and discrimination on the internet. The right answer is to ban
it. But CRTC washs it down and lets them do it.
If a single user is abusing, fine, throttle or disconnec tthem. But to
say to discriminate a open service, that is BS.
Canuck57
That practice is supported by CRTC as they don't want us to see pricing
and competative benefits.
For example, Warner might advertise cable TV with super speeds Internet,
$29. Or Cell phones with all you can eat including Intenet access, long
distance and roaming for $39. Then there is auto pricing and
incentives... $55K in Canada, $30K in the USA and Jim Pattison types
laughing to the bank.
There are a lot of "family" businesses that don't want the costs of
being Canadian shown to us.