sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

February 22, 2022 5:29 pm  #1


CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

I don't agree with everything he says in the article below, but I understand his position. Still, you wouldn't expect the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to argue for anything else besides more CanCon and more influence over the Internet.

I just know that if gets his wish - and I have no doubt he will - it's going to cost consumers more money in the long run.

As for Bill C-11, it's slightly better than its predecessor, C-10, but I can't in good conscience ever go along with a law that would give the CRTC more power over what we see and what we're allowed to access. And don't think for a moment that user content won't eventually come under their purview. When has a government agency ever not tried to take advantage of being given more influence? After all, aren't you aware that they know better than you? Silly citizen.

Having watched this group of incessantly wrongheaded bureaucrats not only help to destroy the industry with overly protective and unrealistic rules over the years, but endlessly kowtow to Bell & Rogers, there's no way this can end well. 

Thank God for VPNs and over the air TV antennas. They haven't found a way to block those signals yet. Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if they're trying to figure it out. 

CAB: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

 

February 22, 2022 8:39 pm  #2


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

The president of the CAB made a few good points.  Personally I have no issue with some regulations for the internet and streaming services. The free lunch and wild west days are over and should have been years ago. New media doing business here, setting up shop here and making money here absolutely should contribute to the domestic media industry and culture.  That's simply because most of the big operators are in fact now part of the domestic industry. 
 
To help level the playing field some regulations like cancon and monetary support for the music industry should be lowered and  loosened up for traditional broadcasters.  CAB pres. Kevin Desjardin is correct that the Broadcasting Act needs updating and this includes the new media. To satisfy those lost souls who complain that the internet and streaming is not broadcasting, change the name to the Communications Act or something similar. 

Last edited by paterson1 (February 22, 2022 8:42 pm)

 

February 22, 2022 8:53 pm  #3


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

OK. Maybe the Broadcasting Act does need some tweaking for the modern era. An argument can be made to that effect.

But are you really OK with making the CRTC more powerful? Do you not believe this pro-Rogers & Bell anti-consumer gov't. entity will use that additional power as they see fit? (If you question that interpretation, I invite you to review their past decisions, as we all pay more for cell phones, Internet, cable and everything else - which they had the power to stop. I sure hope the CEO of Bell at least paid for that lunch.) 

Maybe they will abuse that additional power, maybe they won't. But frankly, I don't want them to have the choice. There has to be a way to do this while keeping these busybodies on a tight leash. There are some things in Bill C-11 that I can live with. There are others that terrify me. And I'm not the only one. Many pundits, including a former CRTC Commissioner and renowned communications expert Prof. Michael Geist have expressed sincere fear about what they may do. 

I believe "CRTC" actually stands for "Causes Really Tremendous Chaos." And I fear that's exactly what they'll do if they get the chance. 

     Thread Starter
 

February 22, 2022 9:07 pm  #4


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

The purpose of regulating the airwaves in the first place was that the frequencies had limited capacity and were considered to be owned by the public. It was a privilege to broadcast on them, and the trade-off was some responsibility.

Streaming services operate in an environment of infinite bandwidth. There is no limit to the amount of Canadian content that can be offered.

Moreover, the CRTC is becoming completely incapable of defining what is or isn't Cancon on TV/Radio in 2022. Does a Canadian rapper get production credit if they create their beats on a plane while on tour?

Netflix and company are already hiring many Canadian actors and production staff and filming many series in Canada - many of which would not qualify as Cancon because this dinosaur of a commission cannot keep up with the times.

If the government truly wants to support Canadian talent -- fund it directly. Grants, increased CBC budget, etc. Regulating entities they barely understand just won't work.

 

 

February 22, 2022 9:22 pm  #5


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Well if not the CRTC then who?    You can't be advocating another government department! 

Regarding the CRTC, I look at the last 50 years and while they have made mistakes and been tone deaf at times, they have also had successes as well. Typically Canadian, the CRTC tends to be slower and more cautious than some other regulators and while this is frustrating it often has been the better approach for our media in my opinion.  Canada's media does not always need to be locked in to whatever is happening in the US.  They have their own issues and challenges. And most important our economy and market is only one tenth the size of the US.  So economics is always a much bigger consideration here.

Here is an interesting article I found in Variety that talks about how other governments are handling regulation for streamers and the internet.  You can see that Bill C-11 is actually not out of line with what other countries are legislating and proposing.  https://variety.com/2021/global/global/netflix-europe-avms-regulation-streamers-1235009148/

 

February 22, 2022 9:28 pm  #6


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

paterson1 wrote:

Well if not the CRTC then who?    You can't be advocating another government department! 

Revenue Canada?

Subscribers should have to pay HST. The companies should pay taxes on their Canadian profits. The system is already in place.

Last edited by RadioAaron (February 22, 2022 9:31 pm)

 

February 22, 2022 9:54 pm  #7


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Sad thing Aaron, is all of these weak arguments being made regarding cancon are similar to the ones made in the early 70.s.  These "what if" sidebar scenarios don't matter and are just an attempt at complicating the issue or a distraction.

Netflix productions that film here with no direct local involvement naturally wouldn't be cancon.  These productions also don't qualify for any of the tax breaks or grants.  Some just film here since it is cheaper because of the dollar or the producer likes the studio and location. 

However that is not the case most of the time.  This is why these companies have set up facilities here with offices, studios or have taken out two and three year rental agreements of studios.   Most important the major producers are also actively looking to partner with Canadian production companies, talent and writers.

That is part of the reason why there is more stories and programming set in Canada shown around the world now than ever before. 

So just dumping more grants out there and increasing the CBC's budget is not the answer.  The private sector has a big part to play in all of this, and it looks like the large international players seem to be agreeing with this, not only in Canada but other countries as well.  

 

February 22, 2022 9:58 pm  #8


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

RadioAaron wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

Well if not the CRTC then who?    You can't be advocating another government department! 

Revenue Canada?

Subscribers should have to pay HST. The companies should pay taxes on their Canadian profits. The system is already in place.

We weren't talking about the taxes.

 

February 22, 2022 10:12 pm  #9


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

paterson1 wrote:

RadioAaron wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

Well if not the CRTC then who?    You can't be advocating another government department! 

Revenue Canada?

Subscribers should have to pay HST. The companies should pay taxes on their Canadian profits. The system is already in place.

We weren't talking about the taxes.

We are now. Because that's the answer.

Now that technology has removed barriers to access, how is the entertainment industry different than any other? Does Starbucks have to charge a premium to support Second Cup? 

Netflix productions that film here with no direct local involvement naturally wouldn't be cancon.  These productions also don't qualify for any of the tax breaks or grants.  Some just film here since it is cheaper because of the dollar or the producer likes the studio and location. 

However that is not the case most of the time.  This is why these companies have set up facilities here with offices, studios or have taken out two and three year rental agreements of studios.   Most important the major producers are also actively looking to partner with Canadian production companies, talent and writers.

That is part of the reason why there is more stories and programming set in Canada shown around the world now than ever before. 

How is this an argument for regulation? Looks like the market is doing its job.

 

Last edited by RadioAaron (February 22, 2022 10:13 pm)

 

February 22, 2022 10:26 pm  #10


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

If you want to argue that the Broadcasting Act needs to be revamped to keep up with the times, fine. How about a revamp of the structure of the CRTC? They are also out of date. Maybe put a few current or at least former broadcasters on the board, so they can argue why a policy will or will not work from their experience, and let them battle it out with those who oppose their stance. Who knows the business better? 

Instead, the Commission is filled with former phone company lobbyists, ex-Bell & Rogers reps, various politically connected types and hangers-on and bureaucrats who think they understand the business without ever having actually worked in it.

Guess what the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is made up of? Doctors. People who can judge the actions of other medicos when needed and know the scenarios they might encounter and what they're talking about. Not government types who wouldn't know a stethoscope from a gyroscope.

If the Act is out of date, so I would argue is the CRTC. Fix the latter and the former might take care of itself.

     Thread Starter
 

February 22, 2022 11:09 pm  #11


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

RadioActive wrote:

If you want to argue that the Broadcasting Act needs to be revamped to keep up with the times, fine. How about a revamp of the structure of the CRTC? They are also out of date. Maybe put a few current or at least former broadcasters on the board, so they can argue why a policy will or will not work from their experience, and let them battle it out with those who oppose their stance. Who knows the business better? 

Instead, the Commission is filled with former phone company lobbyists, ex-Bell & Rogers reps, various politically connected types and hangers-on and bureaucrats who think they understand the business without ever having actually worked in it.

Guess what the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is made up of? Doctors. People who can judge the actions of other medicos when needed and know the scenarios they might encounter and what they're talking about. Not government types who wouldn't know a stethoscope from a gyroscope.

If the Act is out of date, so I would argue is the CRTC. Fix the latter and the former might take care of itself.

Everything, the broadcast act, CRTC should be updated but isn't this what they are looking at? Over the years the CRTC has had broadcasters and industry people on the board.  There are many more people that work at the CRTC than just the commissioners. 

In all of this talk about regulation it is odd we have not heard any arguments why streamers and the internet should continue to be unregulated.  Maybe there was a case 20 years ago.  So much has changed and this new media is now essentially the same as the older traditional broadcast media. What is the argument for unfettered treatment?

Initially we have seen this new media scoff at any thought that they should bow to any regulations, with an arrogant  "rules don't apply to us" attitude.  Does this still apply and is it right?  The new media has become huge, more important, richer and has more influence than the struggling older broadcast media.  So what is the argument why nothing should change for the internet etc.?

 

February 23, 2022 12:42 am  #12


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

I've always felt that the Canadian government has no business telling an American company how to conduct themselves. Netflix, Disney+ and the rest are all based in the U.S. Imagine if the FCC tried to tell CBC Gem or Crave what they needed to program in order for them to be able to be seen down south. (I'm aware they're not, but the scenario is the point.) 

We go round in circles on this stuff, but in the end, I have no problem with the government regulating public airspace, a finite entity, or preventing interference between stations. But there's no way any government agency should be involved in programming decisions, Canadian or otherwise. It smacks of totalitarianism and control of the airwaves. which they should never be involved in. 

I know you don't feel that way and that's fine. But the government should keep its sticky fingers out of my Internet. I don't need "discoverability" for Canadian shows nor do I want them telling YouTube or Amazon Prime what their algorithm should push to the top of my "must see" list simply because of its country of origin. It gives me the creeps. 

And again, I know you disagree, but several experts have taken my side on this - the Internet may be used to display shows, but it is NOT broadcasting, which by its very definition involves the public airwaves. There are no airwaves being used and the web is virtually limitless. But like most bureaucracies, they can't resist sticking their grubby hands in it. Government intervention in stuff like this rarely ends well. By its very nature, the institution of bureaucracy is both clunky and inefficient.

And I fear they're going to ruin what is currently a pretty good thing.  That might be the only thing they're truly good at. 

     Thread Starter
 

February 23, 2022 11:39 am  #13


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

This discussion has been lacking any reasons why the deregulation for the internet and streaming should continue, or why it is even necessary. The fact that the CRTC is in line with many other regulators in the world has also been ignored. See the Variety article posted above. Also internationally the biggest most successful companies like Netflix, Amazon, Disney, HBO etc. also seem to be on board or not as resistant to regulation and contributing content to the media makeup in various countries.

We have been fed National Post articles and opinion pieces from experts that all have the same point of view regarding these dark and evil scenarios if any regulations come in for the internet.  Somehow it will be handled for all of the wrong reasons, especially in Canada.  Naturally it will be worse here than anywhere else.  Like government controlling what you can watch and forcing the public to view material they don't want. This paranoid and confused thinking is not dealing with the facts and not very professional. 

Offering Canadian produced programming on services available to Canadians is not an evil thing.  All of the other material is there as well.  The regulations are trying to insure that Canadians productions are in the mix the same way as everything else and to let people know it is there.  Why is that a bad thing?  It is up to you to decide to watch it or not.  Scenarios of government control of what you can watch or totalitarianism are both laughable and not dealing with reality. 

These are the exact same scenarios and arguments brought up over 50 years ago with the  cancon regulations for radio and TV in 1971. The skeptics need to get over themselves and get on with their lives.  

Netflix, Disney, Amazon etc. being US owned and therefore not subject to any Canadian law would be correct if they weren't doing business here or available here, just like the example of CBC Gem or Crave. 

However this is not the case.  Many of these companies are now based here as well.  Just because head office is in another country is irrelevant. We have many many examples of this already and I have brought this up many times, but again this point is ignored. Why is that? What makes the new media so special or precious that the rules don't apply to them even when they have Canadian facilities and regularly partner with Canadian media?

Again, just for the record, US based companies or any other foreign company, when they set up facilities in Canada, produce products in Canada, employee Canadians, make money in Canada, and finally pay taxes in Canada, are subject to the rules of this country.

"But,...they aren't broadcasting" is not much of an argument. The business that they are in is the same as broadcasting.  The definition of broadcasting can and likely should include the internet or simply refer to all of it as communications.  End of argument and end of the special treatment. 

And we seem to try to fan the myth that the CRTC has been a total screw up by even existing.  Ruining good things may be the only thing that they are good at.  Please explain all of these things they have ruined in the past please. I get a feeling we won't hear anything factual, but rather one individuals opinion. 

Last edited by paterson1 (February 23, 2022 11:51 am)

 

February 23, 2022 2:57 pm  #14


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

paterson1 wrote:

This discussion has been lacking any reasons why the deregulation for the internet and streaming should continue, or why it is even necessary. The fact that the CRTC is in line with many other regulators in the world has also been ignored.

So let me get this straight - just because other nations have misguidedly gone down this content regulation road, means we have to? At the very least, we could learn from their mistakes, instead of blindly following. 

paterson1 wrote:

the biggest most successful companies like Netflix, Amazon, Disney, HBO etc. also seem to be on board or not as resistant to regulation and contributing content to the media makeup in various countries.

Not that they've been given much choice. If they want to do business and collect money from a potentially large audience and their wallets, they have to agree. Doesn't mean they like it or we should force them to do it. 

paterson1 wrote:

We have been fed National Post articles and opinion pieces from experts that all have the same point of view regarding these dark and evil scenarios if any regulations come in for the internet.  Somehow it will be handled for all of the wrong reasons, especially in Canada.  Naturally it will be worse here than anywhere else.  Like government controlling what you can watch and forcing the public to view material they don't want. This paranoid and confused thinking is not dealing with the facts and not very professional.

I don't get my opinions from the National Post or any other paper. In fact, I barely read it or the Sun. And while I have a lot of disagreements with their stance, my only newspaper subscription is to the Saturday Star. That said, my thinking is neither "paranoid" or "confused." I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it - just like "governments have no place in the bedrooms of its citizens" as a certain Prime Minister's dad famously said, the government has absolutely no business trying to influence what broadcasters must show or spend money on. What's next? Loblaw's must sell you - and you MUST buy - only Canadian-grown tomatoes, regardless of whether you eat that product or not. No, because it's patently absurd. Why should broadcasting get such special notice? Let the marketplace decide. It's been proven to work. People will buy - and watch - what they truly want without government's perceived wisdom.

paterson1 wrote:

Offering Canadian produced programming on services available to Canadians is not an evil thing.  All of the other material is there as well.  The regulations are trying to insure that Canadians productions are in the mix the same way as everything else and to let people know it is there.  Why is that a bad thing?  It is up to you to decide to watch it or not.  Scenarios of government control of what you can watch or totalitarianism are both laughable and not dealing with reality. 

True, I do not have to watch Canadian programming. But look at the average ratings for CBC non-sports programming. It's pretty pathetic. They may get a million viewers, and that's only a handful of shows. The last census showed there are nearly 37 million people in this country. Most of them are not watching and this is taxpayer money being thrown away on shows relatively few see.

ABC just pulled a show called "Promised Land" from its schedule after only 2 episodes. It was tanking in the ratings. Can you imagine if an exec. was forced to say, "Yeah, but it's American content, so we have to keep running it?" That would be insane.

Look, Canadian shows have vastly improved from the days of "Hymn Sing" and "Tommy Hunter." Those like "Transplant" deserve to survive. But there's a lot of chaff among that wheat, forced into production simply because they have to. What other business is forced to produce material its customers have mostly rejected?

paterson1 wrote:

Netflix, Disney, Amazon etc. being US owned and therefore not subject to any Canadian law would be correct if they weren't doing business here or available here, just like the example of CBC Gem or Crave. 

However this is not the case.  Many of these companies are now based here as well.  Just because head office is in another country is irrelevant. We have many many examples of this already and I have brought this up many times, but again this point is ignored.

Not ignored, just irrelevant in my mind. I still don't understand why, if I order a product on Amazon that's made in the U.S., has no Canadian involvement whatsoever - not a part, not a worker - we have to pay GST on it. It's ridiculous assessing a Canadian levy on something that had absolutely nothing to do with this country. I'm not entirely sure Disney+ has an office here. Let them pay whatever taxes they owe here if they do. But otherwise leave them alone.

paterson1 wrote:

"But,...they aren't broadcasting" is not much of an argument. The business that they are in is the same as broadcasting.  The definition of broadcasting can and likely should include the internet or simply refer to all of it as communications.  End of argument and end of the special treatment.

Saying end of argument doesn't mean it's the end of the argument! The CRTC has decided on its own that the Internet is the same as broadcasting, aided by an over officious Parliament bent on controlling the media where possible. I beg to differ. I can't calculate my taxes using a program in my TV. I can't send email over my television. I don't need virus protection for that big screen in my living room. My car and my bike can do the same kind of things - but they're definitely not the same. The Internet is NOT the same as broadcasting. It's a different animal. And the CRTC deciding in its imperious wisdom that it has the God-given right to rule over it shouldn't make it so.

paterson1 wrote:

And we seem to try to fan the myth that the CRTC has been a total screw up by even existing.  Ruining good things may be the only thing that they are good at.  Please explain all of these things they have ruined in the past please.

Perhaps of all your points, this one is the most laughable to me.

-How about some of the highest cell phone rates on the planet?
-An absolutely unconscionable and sudden reversal of a decision to lower Internet rates for citizens, raising them to protect Bell & Rogers, [sarcasm] who as we know are barely making a profit and are struggling to survive. [/sarcasm]
-Exclusionary policies that have kept Canadians from having access to all streaming services and U.S. cable stations without restrictions or watered-down Canuck versions that are not as good as the original.
-Simsub that limits Canadian cable viewers from choosing which stations they can watch a show on.
-If you really want to go back, how about delaying Canadian TV stations from broadcasting in colour until late 1966, even though it had been available in the U.S. since the middle 50s?
-And let's not forget the Super Bowl ads debacle from a few years ago.

And that's just a partial list. Now they want to get their grubby fingers on your Internet. You should be angry and resisting them every step of the way instead of welcoming more regulation! If the CRTC is your idea of a government agency that's working well, I'd be very afraid to see which ones you think are worse. 

     Thread Starter
 

February 23, 2022 4:38 pm  #15


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Just to be fair, here's how the CRTC justifies its right to regulate the Internet, which it says is defined in the Broadcasting Act.

"The Act broadly defines the term “broadcasting” to mean any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place.

"Whether this broadcasting takes place over the Internet or a more traditional method does not affect the determination in this case of whether the Commission has jurisdiction over a particular broadcasting undertaking. The Commission has consistently held that “the mere fact that a program is delivered by means of the Internet, rather than by means of the airwaves or by a cable company, does not exclude it from the definition of ‘broadcasting’.”


I vehemently disagree, but it's interesting to see how they justify governing a technology that didn't exist when the Broadcasting Act was initially drawn up.

     Thread Starter
 

February 23, 2022 8:06 pm  #16


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Well RA, the only thing we can agree on here is that we are talking in circles. You have a  pro US republican view of the marketplace and broadcasting and I don't. Sorry you think my points on this are laughable.  But judging by your posts and comments I guess we should just scrub our domestic broadcasting system and have open skies and let the Americans run everything.  You won't admit it, but this seems to be what you are advocating. 

You call any limitations on US cable or streaming as exclusionary.  So a marketplace that is one tenth the size of our friends to the south should get all of the same services?  Economically how does this work? No other country in the world has this, but we should?  That also leaves little room for any domestic services.

Oh that's right...if they are any good they will survive...let the market decide...please....And all of these watered down versions of the US streamers, you have watched and subscribed to them? Or just don't like the idea of them?  Many people feel the Canadian version of Netlix is better than the American.   More variety and a bigger catalogue of programming offered. 

Why not just get rid of the CRTC and let the FCC take over regulating Canadian broadcasting?  If there was total domination of the Canadian market with open skies the CRTC or any domestic regulator wouldn't really have a purpose, correct?

Let's allow all Canadian networks radio and TV be bought up.  I guess if Bell and the others were taken over by Comcast, AT&T, Fox Corporation all would be so much better? Best of all, cheaper phone and internet and we would get to watch all of those crazy good local Buffalo TV commercials on cable. Let's hope that Russell Oliver, the Cashman dumps his ads on City tv and starts to advertise on WKBW!! Just like the good ol' days!

The so called Super Bowl ads debacle had more to do with the NFL and Bell.  The CRTC wanted the US signal of the game shown across the country and it was the NFL, Bell and even the US government that was against this. Economics and the money raises it's head again. 

Colour TV, we talked about this months ago.  I guess both ABC and CBS were also delayed with this  long available technology since they never started broadcasting in colour regularly until 1966.
Even the "color network" didn't have much colour programming until about 1962 and this was primarily to help parent company RCA sell colour tv's which had not been selling well in the marketplace for years. Most Americans were still buying black and white tv's.

Never said the CRTC was my idea of a government agency that worked well.  What I said was that they  had their failures and successes over the past 50 years. You are the one that overstated the case and said that the only thing they were good at was ruining good things, which is your opinion. 

Sorry for my long rambling and grammatically poor posts RA. As usual nothing personal, we are just debating, arguing, venting and hopefully keeping mace and the other two people reading all of this entertained...

 

February 23, 2022 8:52 pm  #17


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Yes, I will agree with you that I will never agree with you on this!

I'm only asking for open skies, as they used to call it in my C-Band satellite days. It is ridiculous to tell people they can't watch TV, signals that are in the sky and now on a worldwide network, because of a border. What next, banning books in Canada because they were written in the U.S.? Why not do that if it will help Canadian publishers? It's an idiotic idea no one would consider. And yet it's OK for broadcasting?

That's not Republican - a party I do not support in the least, especially in its current incarnation. Instead, it's a breath of fresh - and free - air. This has been my position for years and will be until I sign-off this mortal coil for good (or for bad, depending on how you look at it.)

I understand the dynamics of the industry and the need to have a Canadian component. I really do. But I always take the viewer's side in the end. Stop making it impossible to watch what I want. If I'm willing to pay for it - I don't believe in stealing signals - then let me do that. It will force the Bells and Rogers of the world to up their game and find a way to compete.

You remember competition - the thing that makes all sides better and separates the winners from the losers? Not to mention potentially spurring the losers on to becoming a winner. 

I would love to subscribe to the real HBO and Showtime - not this piecemeal parceled off to six different Canadian providers we suffer from here. I hate this half assed nonsense Canucks are spoon fed. I don't want an HBO Lite, where half the shows are pre-sold to Crave. Give me the real thing, as they might say at Coca-Cola HQ.
 
I'm for free choice. You're for government regulation. I'd rather live in my world than yours. Unfortunately, because of government edicts, I have no choice but to exist in the latter. Doesn't mean I have to like it or to give in to the iron curtain of protectionism that our broadcasting system has become.

So I'll conclude where I came in. I have my TV antenna and my VPN. And as long as they haven't figured out a way to jam the signals from across the border (and it would not surprise me if it's at least crossed their miniscule minds) or defeat the Virtual Private Network, I will watch what I want, when I want, and where I want. Just as God intended!

I'll leave the simsub to you. Hope you enjoy getting most of a program with parts cut out, ads foisted over your video and no scenes from next week's show because we had to squeeze in two more spots. 

And as for Mace, how you doing buddy? Hope all is well. 

     Thread Starter
 

February 23, 2022 11:11 pm  #18


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

RA and Patterson1:  Your discussions never bore me. I find them interesting, informative and entertaining. Generally, I have no problem with Canadian content. If it sounds interesting to me, I will sample an episode and perhaps continue to watch. I have enjoyed the new CTV series Children Ruin Everything. Degrassi and Street Legal were appointment viewing for me. Street Legal ran while LA Law was in production, so it dealt with issues from a Canadian law perspective. However, like RA, simsub and HBO lite sends me on spin cycle. If I want the U.S. network version of a show, that should be my decision NOT the CRTC's. I purposely subscribe to the Seattle network affilliates to avoid simsub. The ustvgo.tv site also helps avoid simsub and gives me access to channels that will NEVER be permitted in the Great White North [ESPN1 and 2, FOX SPORTS 1 and 2, TVLAND, USA, SYFY etc.] Ok. I will get off my soapbox now, go back to my lazyboy and wait for round two to begin.

 

February 24, 2022 12:25 am  #19


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Well RA I don't believe you understand the dynamics of the industry and the need for a Canadian component at all. If anything you are the exact opposite and don't seem to even care about the domestic business. Every time you comment or debate on Canadian broadcasting it is negative, and often with a condescending tone.  And you definitely don't understand the economics of the system since you never talk about this and typically ignore the fact when it is brought up.
 
The fields are not even for US and Canadian broadcasters, not even close, and never will be when one  market is ten times larger. It's very easy to say let the market place decide or if something is good it will always rise to the top. Pretty hard for this to happen if you can't even get domestic Canadian programming aired in Canada. With open skies and no reason to play any domestic product, this is what will happen.   

So rightly this is why we have the regulations we do and why our industry differs from the US.  You view this as a bad thing, somehow second rate, smacking of the iron curtain, half assed etc. etc. I think you are wrong and your reasons against regulation are primarily because you don't like them and not much else.   

It is odd for someone like yourself who wails on for days every time Bell or Rogers lays off people is also advocating for open skies for streaming and cable. This would result in hundreds eventually thousands of layoffs across the country.

So next time you go on and on about how greedy and uncaring Bell and Rogers is when they lay off some people, I will question why you rail on about this so much, since what you are advising would result in many more job losses and pain. 

 

February 24, 2022 12:57 am  #20


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

can't we all just..... get along? 

 

February 24, 2022 1:18 am  #21


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Our "arguments" are all in fun and honestly, there are no hard feelings at the end of the day. P1 and I do this a couple times a year and we almost never agree on this topic, which seems to continually come up in the news. 

So let these be my final words on the subject (at least in this thread), and I'll give him the last say if he wants it. I'm pretty sure Bell & Rogers would do just fine gouging the public and maintaining staffing levels without CanCon or Net regulation. They would just raise their prices and with almost zero competition, life and employment would go on. Well, when they're not looking to cut staff, which seems to be every few months. 

Further, I have resigned myself a long time ago to CanCon. I don't hate it as much as paterson1 thinks. What I don't like is the government ordering broadcasters to have to make an essentially money-losing product. And I despise the "discoverability" rule they want to put in to force it to the top of your recommendations list. It's too "in your face," and I resent it. 

Beyond the technical things, like power, interference between stations and awarding licences, the solons in Ottawa (really Hull) have no business in the business. 

So I'll accept CanCon as a necessary evil, though I don't like my pittance of tax money going towards something I - and millions of other Canadians - provably never watch. And I can't accept the CRTC or the federal government trying to regulate the Internet. That's a step way too far for me. It ain't broke and there's no way they're going to fix it. 

There is simply no reason to give the misfits on that Commission the chance to police the web. Given their track record, it's a recipe for disaster and I have absolutely zero doubt, they'll find a way to screw it up so that no one's happy. We have hate and libel laws for anything untoward on the net. We have plenty of places where you can watch CanCon, if that's what you want. 

They have no reason to turn this thing up to 11, as they say in Spinal Tap. Yet with the government's blessing that's exactly what I'm expecting. In the case of broadcasting, less government interference is better government overall. Stop walking this tightrope - and using our Net to break your fall.

     Thread Starter
 

February 24, 2022 1:17 pm  #22


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

splunge wrote:

can't we all just..... get along? 

Yes we should always remember, it's only the media and semantics that RA and I are discussing, and not something that always is that important.  Those of us that were in the business or currently employed in media sometimes need a reminder that we are not always the big deal that we think we are.

What those in the industry think is of paramount importance often is not that important to the people we serve and the average listener and viewer.  The majority of the participants who regularly post here are not the average media consumer. But I also know that there is a large silent majority of registered users who maybe are not in broadcasting but have an interest and these are more likely to be the regular consumers of media. 

My take has always been that to have a viable broadcasting system in Canada there needs to be a certain amount of regulation and safeguards to insure this happens.  Other countries including our friends to the south do the exact same thing. They are the media and entertainment powerhouse in the world, and some regulations we have here are not necessary for them.  However they also have different priorities and this is reflected in certain rules and regulations that we don't have in Canada.
 
The rules vary from country to country but  in all cases they are designed to safeguard the domestic industry.  Because of market conditions and geography the rules and regs differ.  This has nothing to do with repression, totalitarianism, infringing on freedoms, gouging etc.  Those are just charged words and phrases to try and get the discussion to move in another direction, or to promote an agenda like we see all the time in the National Post and some right and left media.  

In terms of bill C-11 it is too early to condemn since nothing has happened as yet.  The mechanics of the bill is not a done deal and the government has made modifications and will continue to do so even after it is passed, based on input from the industry, the public and interest groups. Those against even the idea of regulations for social media need to dial back the inflammatory rhetoric and exaggerations of dark government conspiracy and suppression.  This is not true and they know it.  

Other democracies and respected countries such as Australia, the UK,, India, South Korea, France, Portugal in fact all of the EU nations are passing or have passed similar legislation regarding the internet and social media. The US is also looking at regulations.  This wouldn't be happening unless there was a need for a system that isn't working as well as it should and has become large, unruly maybe even out of control.  Safeguards are needed and they are coming.     

 

February 24, 2022 1:52 pm  #23


Re: CAB President: The future of broadcasting in Canada is at stake

Since I promised paterson1 the last word, I will offer this without comment.

Canadian broadcasters to share in revenues from tech giants, heritage minister says

     Thread Starter