Our Cable/Sat Bills are about to get bigger! Yay! :(

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Homer_J

The cable/satellite companies are the ones who are lining their pockets with the consumers dollars. They're making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every year. They don't need to pass this expense on to the consumer, but understandably, like any corporation they don't want cut into their profits. The local broadcaster's signal is free with the purchase of a set of rabbit ears.

Sorry, but companies like Canwest Global and CTV (BellGlobeMedia) are the ones not creating enough local content (other than news broadcasts), purchasing American TV shows to show us (which we can already watch from an American source) and simsubbing on most major channels to sell the commercial content.

I'll agree that the cable and satellite companies are raping the Canadian public as well, but the broadcasters don't get a pass...not even close.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I don't mind that CTV wants to charge more for me to subscribe to their channels. What I have issue with is that in order to get Rogers Sportsnet or TSN, I am forced to buy CTV. Never mind the US channels; which as you point out can be a muddy area with respect to ownership of rights. So going back to my print media; it's like saying I cannot subscribe to MacLean's (Canadian political magazine) with also subscribing to the Herald. Then having the Herald; now being manditory subscription- tripling their rates.

Well, the other issue is that CTV is broadcasting their signals free over the air so why would anyone pay money for it when it is already given away for free?

The cable companies could come up with cable boxes that allow antenna signals to be picked up and integrated with the channels delivered through the cable. I believe the US satellite providers did this or do this because there are too many local stations to carry them all.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess Fred and I aren't reaching you, nfotiu. The problem is the government involvement up to this point, and how they are taking a problem that they created themselves, and adding to it.

In the 80s when CTV found that people were split between watching their show on NBC and their own channel, instead of finding ways to make us watch their broadcast, they asked the gov't to step in and force it upon us. There are many ways they could have had the same results using standard business practices; in fact back in the 70s and 80s it was common to see contest giveaways during prime time shows. That was how they did it then.

Let's look at other media. Say the Associated Press produces a news story; and both USA Today and Calgary Herald buy the rights to publish that story. The Herald does not have the right to force Canadian USA Today subscribers to not unly subscribe to the Herald, but also force USA Today to run the Herald article in their paper along with the Herald ads.

I don't mind that CTV wants to charge more for me to subscribe to their channels. What I have issue with is that in order to get Rogers Sportsnet or TSN, I am forced to buy CTV. Never mind the US channels; which as you point out can be a muddy area with respect to ownership of rights. So going back to my print media; it's like saying I cannot subscribe to MacLean's (Canadian political magazine) with also subscribing to the Herald. Then having the Herald; now being manditory subscription- tripling their rates.

Cable re-transmission of American affiliates without simsubbing of popular programs wasn't going to last. It only existed because Canada was basically off the radar in the early years of cable. If the government didn't step in, the American networks would have. If abc owns a show, and they can sell it to ctv non-exclusively for 500,000, or sell it to them exclusively for 2 million, they are going to find a way to give them that exclusivity by preventing the abc affiliates from re-transmitting that signal to Canada.

Your AP example is very flawed, as they are a non-profit co-operative. A more appropriate example would be that the Calgary Herald pays a popular syndicated columnist a fee to run their column, and they have to compete with someone who is just photocopying an american newspaper and selling it on the street. A better example would be an American publisher sells the rights of a novel to a Canadian publishing company. The American company is not going to ship their version of the book to Canadian stores to compete with them, as it would make it much harder to sell a book to a Canadian company in the future.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of Canadian publishing rules, but I'd guess that American companies are allowed to sell books directly to Canadian bookstores, so your argument would be abc should be allowed to sell their programming directly to Canadian cable companies, then you don't have to deal with the middle man. The problem is, abc wasn't selling directly to the Canadian cable companies, the spokane affiliates were, and they don't really have the rights to sell their programming outside their area. They just got away with it until the lost revenue was realized. If the crtc opened their doors and said, ok abc can go ahead and sell their stuff directly to Canadian cable companies, the you can bet abc would have started charging a fair price to the cable companies, and then the Canadian cable companies would have to pay for it either by overlaying commercials or charging a fee, and what has the Canadian consumer gained? In that scenario, they wouldn't bother selling their programming to ctv, so you'd lose the OTA option.

Sure bundling the channels is pretty evil, but that is between the consumer and the cable company, and as long as the consumer tolerates it they will continue. This is where internet solutions may win out. Although the cable companies here are fighting pretty hard to make this as tough as possible. Itunes is a pretty ubiquotous option for non sports programming, but $2.99 for an low quality hd show on itunes gets pretty expensive pretty quick.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by ken0042

For those of you looking to Apple TV et al as a substitute for cable- how is the picture quality on a bigger TV; like a 50"?

I ask in all seriousness, because as much as I hate this, I can't see myself giving up watching HD content on a 50" TV.

I watch a fair amount of ps3 hd tv shows on a 65 inch tv, and the content is decent enough to not be distractingly bad, but not quite good enough to make you forget you aren't watching the broadcast version. Lots of black crush and banding type compression artifacts that get pretty visible on a big tv.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Has anyone watched NHL Gamecenter on their HDTV?

How does it look?

I'd really like to cancel my cable and chuck my PVR through the show-tower windows.

If it wasn't for hockey, I'd have a 30 dollar a month utility bill.

I have a pc hooked up to my tv, but it is not quite there yet for me. Picture is very clear, just not smooth enough motion. I have fast internet, but my pc is getting old, so that might be the problem. Other internet hdtv stuff looks good on my tv, so it may be hockey is just too fast for internet streaming.

[gottabekd]

So, on the subject, what alternatives are there to cable if I want to catch the odd series?

Apple TV...$1.99 or $2.99 an episode? I'm a cheap S.O.B., I'm not paying that much. I just want to watch an episode once, not own it.

Is there ANYTHING like Netflix for Canada? For 9 bucks a month, you can get unlimited streaming of movies and selected TV shows. I'd go for that, but it isn't available in Canada. Anyone know a way around this restriction?

[Devils'Advocate]

Mmm.. I was thinking of dropping my cable altogether since the only things I watch on TV are Daily Show/Colbert plus 60 minutes.

But cable costs about $30 a month. While 60 Minutes is free, it's audio only. And the Daily Show & Colbert Report would cost at least $10 a month if I get the multipass. I suppose I could watch them on the comedy network web site, but that's not as convenient as putting it on in the living room. So in the end, I'm willing to pay for the convenience.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Sure bundling the channels is pretty evil, but that is between the consumer and the cable company, and as long as the consumer tolerates it they will continue.

Actually, the same gov't body that approved these additional fees is the same body that also mandates that cable companies must bundle the local channels in all cable packages.

As for consumers "tolerating" it, keep in mind the sample of CPers is not your average TV viewer. We tend to be a little more on the "geeky" side so options like Internet are there for us. I think of people like my parents, who wouldn't know how to download a show if their lives depended on it. They also aren't going to cut off their cable, so like most people they will have no choice but to "tolerate" it.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Actually, the same gov't body that approved these additional fees is the same body that also mandates that cable companies must bundle the local channels in all cable packages.

I'll give you that one as being unfair. I'd be surprised though if that continues to be the case with the new framework being proposed. The article did mention that the cable companies have the choice whether to pay the network what they want, or drop them. This seems like a much better framework than the alternative they were proposing which would have seen a mandated fee charged to the cable company.

[fredr123]

Here's the follow up report released by the CRTC yesterday on the consumer impact of the new fees: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...s/rp100323.htm

Of particular note is section 4.0 where "skinny basic" and "pick and pay" service pacakges are discussed. It sounds as though changes are set to take effect in August 2011 that would help eliminate many of the regulatory barriers that prevent "pick and pay". This report, however, doesn't seem particularly in favor of either scenario. Seems to be some flawed logic at play too:

The Commission also heard evidence that few subscribers may be interested in a skinny basic service as the vast majority of consumers subscribe to optional or discretionary services in addition to the current basic services.

An alternative explanation could be that consumers are subscribing to those optional or discretionary services because that's the only way they can gain access to the handful of channels they desire outside of the basic service tier.

As Michael Geist has pointed out, the most interesting part of these reports from the CRTC is probably the Minority Report filed by Commissioner Michel Morin: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...00323.htm#tocB

I can only applaud the Commission's decision (the Decision), as set out in The implications and advisability of implementing a compensation regime for the value of local television signals, to finally recognize the right of private conventional broadcasters to negotiate the value of their signals. On the other hand, I can only deplore the Commission's lack of will to establish a skinny basic service – less expensive and competitive – that would have given consumers the choice whether or not to pay the new subscription rates that could result from the negotiations between local broadcasters and broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs). I say yes to the freedom of the undertakings to negotiate, but yes also to the freedom of consumers to choose when it comes to conventional services, the complimentary delivery of which is seriously threatened by the Commission's Decision.

For those upset with the news surrounding the CRTC's findings, you should find some solace in Morin's comments. Hopefully, the government gives due consideration to the Minority Report.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by ken0042

but now the cheapest seat in the Dome is $50 instead of $40,

Wait...isn't that Ticketmaster?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

So, on the subject, what alternatives are there to cable if I want to catch the odd series?

Apple TV...$1.99 or $2.99 an episode? I'm a cheap S.O.B., I'm not paying that much. I just want to watch an episode once, not own it.

Is there ANYTHING like Netflix for Canada? For 9 bucks a month, you can get unlimited streaming of movies and selected TV shows. I'd go for that, but it isn't available in Canada. Anyone know a way around this restriction?

Apple tv is about as advanced as we get up here. It's funny because in the states the Apple TV is looked upon as a true failure, whereas up here anybody who has one tends to adore it.

I'm afraid if you want to stay legal your options are either Apple TV or the Free to air satellite hookup.