# Anyone else fed-up with the CRTC?



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

... have a look here:

http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/default.htm

Bottom row of boxes... 3rd over. "Canadian TV and You".


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The CRTC is irrelevant in the Internet era. The Tories are slowing cutting it to pieces and I say the faster the better.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> The CRTC is irrelevant in the Internet era. The Tories are slowing cutting it to pieces and I say the faster the better.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

I've always dispised the goons at the CRTC. Now that they are forcing cable/sat companies to simsub the US HD shows the video and audio are just subpar to the US networks. I understand why they are doing it but one clear example is Global. No 5.1 sound and poor video.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Bajan said:


> I've always dispised the goons at the CRTC. Now that they are forcing cable/sat companies to simsub the US HD shows the video and audio are just subpar to the US networks. I understand why they are doing it but one clear example is Global. No 5.1 sound and poor video.


This is the one angle in which I agree the CRTC should change the rules. CTV, Global, A-Channel simply buy rights to the show, and reap the advertising rewards of simsubbing any show they get their hands on. I wouldn't mind if it was "protecting Canadian television interests", but I see very little investment by the above broadcasters in producing prime time Canadian television shows. Only one comes to mind... Corner Gas. (I flatly refuse to acknowledge "Canadian Idol", a program 10x worse than even its American equivalent as quality prime time television.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I want to watch the proper US commercials, not only for Superbowl, but all year long. I pay to watch the *&$%^ channel. The CRTC should be disbanded and US commercials allowed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah sure just invite in the cultural waste land the US represents. They can dump amortized junk into prime time here.

No thanks.

More Con crap. Time to dump THE CONs.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

one easy solution for all the whiners that want more US. 

Get the balls to move.

Period.


All the guns and US commercials to yer hearts content.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

SINC said:


> I want to watch the proper US commercials, not only for Superbowl, but all year long. I pay to watch the *&$%^ channel. The CRTC should be disbanded and US commercials allowed.


Maybe there is something I don't understand, but if you watch the US channel don't you get the US advertising. I've always noticed a difference in advertising between the US and CDN channel. It makes sense the CDN channels have CDN advertsing.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

I don't care if I watch US or Canadian commercials. I just want the Canadian HD broadcasters to simsub the US program with the same quality of audio and video as their US counterparts. Unfortunatly CTV, City and especially Global suck.

The CRTC needs to understand that if they are going to simsub HD programming then they need to make sure that Canadian broadcasters have the proper technology to do so. Unfortunatly I doubt if anyone on the CRTC truly understands.

Try watching 24 on Fox and then look at the Global version  The Digital Home Canada forums are full of complaints to the CRTC that they just toss aside.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Get a satellite if you want better HD or for that matter most SD quality.

The trade off with cable is on demand.

That's no reason to diss the CRT.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The CRTC's role should be knocked back to deciding who gets which broadcast frequencies.

The internet has made a mockery of the idea of Canadian content. As broadband capacity increases, their pronouncements will be irrelevant.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and what a nice sneaky way for the cons to undermine the CBC even more
since CBC is full of those health care believing types unlike the friends of capitalism over a CanWest Global and Bell Media who own CTV are only interested in less service for more money - just like buying a Motorla phone from bell and having built in features turned OFF just because bell wants to sell them back to you

imagine buying a car and then having the dealer selling you things such as radios, etc


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> one easy solution for all the whiners that want more US.
> 
> Get the balls to move.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more.
If you're in the wrong country and hate Canada and everything Canadian so much, there's a way you can make Canada a much better place. 
You can move South.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah sure just invite in the cultural waste land the US represents. They can dump amortized junk into prime time here.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> More Con crap. Time to dump THE CONs.


Oh sure, as if we don't get US commercials now. Hundreds of them every day. Bet you are the first guy looking for the Superbowl commercials. And FWIW it's NOT a Conservative thing. The Liberals screwed us with the way things are now. You remember the Liberals don't you? The crooks we threw out?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Kosh said:


> Maybe there is something I don't understand, but if you watch the US channel don't you get the US advertising. I've always noticed a difference in advertising between the US and CDN channel. It makes sense the CDN channels have CDN advertsing.


If a Canadian cable or satellite company is broadcasting an American show in the same time slot as a US station, They dub the Canadian commercials over the US commercials on that US station. I want the freedom to watch a US station or a Canadian station in its entirety, not be force fed Canadian commercials on US stations. It happens hundreds of times a day.

It has frig all to do with any "cultural wasteland" but come to think of it, that is pretty much Canadian content, isn't it, a cultural wasteland? I guess there are some exceptions, like Corner Gas.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> one easy solution for all the whiners that want more US.
> 
> Get the balls to move.
> 
> ...


That's akin to asking a guy with different ideas to concede a debate and is just plain insulting. When one does not like what is happening to their country, they don't give up and leave, they try to grab the steering wheel and change direction.

That's my goal and if you don't like it, perhaps you should take your own bad advice?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC, what do you think will happen to cdn. broadcasters if they can't sub in their own commercials on u.s based programming?

might as well erase that border and start using U.S. greenbacks
oh right, that's the fraser institute's agenda


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> Oh sure, as if we don't get US commercials now. Hundreds of them every day. Bet you are the first guy looking for the Superbowl commercials. And FWIW it's NOT a Conservative thing. The Liberals screwed us with the way things are now. You remember the Liberals don't you? The crooks we threw out?


No we don't get the US commercials. If you happen to watch shows that are always simulcast, you will never ever see a US commercial. And I don't care about that. I would have no problem with watching the Canadian network version of a show being simulcast, except for a few major problems with screw up my enjoyment of watching:

Repetitive Commercials:

As anyone who has been forced to watch the Superbowl or any other major sporting event, especially on Global. The same commercials are repeated OVER and OVER. You want to enforce Canadian Content? Enforce a rule that prohibits the same commercial being shown more than once in a 30 minute time-frame. Heck they even show them more than once in a 15 minute time-frame.

And those virtual commercials are a joke!

Late Switchovers:

Most shows these days have given up on the long openings, quite a few will go into the story right away. If the person on the switch isn't paying attention, parts of the story are lost. 

Idiots at the switch:

I have watched a show where in about the 3rd or 4th minute, it switched from the Canadian broadcast to the US broadcast. Then about a minute later it switched back again. It was like someone at the switch was going "did I switch it... I better check... okay I guess I did... now I better switch it back again"

This has happened more than once.

Difference in non-programming minutes:

There has always been a difference in the number of non-programming minutes allowed in the two countries. I realize that it has changed in the past few years but there are still instances where time from a show has been cut, simply to allow more non-programming minutes. 

And now I hear that there are differences in the sound and picture quality. Why should we be forced into a substandard broadcast. I live in what I thought was a democratic society. I should be free to make my own choices and decisions. I don't understand why I have to be forced to watch something I don't want to watch, and be prevented from watching something that I do want to watch. 

I've had this argument for years. Time-shifting has helped because for some reason there is no simulcasting done when two west coast networks are airing the same show at the same time. I have more choice now with HD but as I read some of these posts, I fear that I may lose that as well.

The CBC I am proud of as a Canadian. CTV isn't too bad. Global is an absolute embarrassment. It is a disgrace and whenever I see SCTV reruns it reminds me of Global. 

If Global had been around earlier they would have been the ones giving us the Trouble with Tracy. For those of you who don't know this show, you're lucky.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, what do you think will happen to cdn. broadcasters if they can't sub in their own commercials on u.s based programming?
> 
> might as well erase that border and start using U.S. greenbacks
> oh right, that's the fraser institute's agenda


The CBC and CTV did just find prior to cable. And there was no way you were able to simulcast on over the air broadcast television. In fact I think we might have had better quality commercials back then because they had to compete with the border stations. 

Why is it that the minute anyone complains about this, the "might as well use US Greenbacks..." or "if you don't like it, MOVE..." arguments come up. I am proud of a lot of what comes out of Canada. This is not an I don't want to watch Canadian Content issue. This is an issue about freedom of choice.

I seem to recall that the rules for Canadian content in the music industry were actually relaxed in the past 10-20 years or so. That has hurt us so bad hasn't it? Bare Naked Ladies, The Tragically Hip, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, Michael Buble, ... You might not like all of their music, you might not like any of their music, but they have become very successful internationally. 

What did we have in the 70's when the CanContent was being so strictly enforced. And how many of us remember that one of Brian Adams' biggest releases was not considered to be Canadian Content because it didn't have enough points. 

I want to look at something that comes out of Canada and competes on the world stage to be there because it is good, not because I have been forced to watch/listen to it.

I don't see anyone forcing us to use Blackberries over Palms simply because one is Canadian.

So stop with the "if you don't like it... move" and the "why don't we just become the 51st state" garbage. It makes Canadians sound like that whiney kid who complains that nobody ever plays with him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> Why is it that the minute anyone complains about this, the "might as well use US Greenbacks..." or "if you don't like it, MOVE..." arguments come up. I am proud of a lot of what comes out of Canada. This is not an I don't want to watch Canadian Content issue. This is an issue about freedom of choice.
> So stop with the "if you don't like it... move" and the "why don't we just become the 51st state" garbage. It makes Canadians sound like that whiney kid who complains that nobody ever plays with him.


:clap: 

I rest my case, finally someone understands and can comment constructively instead of like a juvenile.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Whoa!

There is no way I want to see the CBC go the way of the dodo bird! I watch it... a lot and I have no problem with Canadian content on other channels as well... if it's good and interests me... I watch it. I think it will stand on it's own merit... I resent the CRTC force feeding it! 

I also couldn't care less if they sub in Canadian commercials instead of US ones... a commercial is a commercial and being I'm in Canada, yeah, I'd probably rather hear about what's available in the stores and so on to me locally.

I maintain the draconian hold the CRTC has right now needs to be severely modified however... I am not a child to whom you present a group of toys that suit *you* and deny me the right to choose from the pile I know is there.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The CRTC's role should be knocked back to deciding who gets which broadcast frequencies.
> 
> The internet has made a mockery of the idea of Canadian content. As broadband capacity increases, their pronouncements will be irrelevant.


www.sho.com

If your ISP is on their hit list you will get the following message:



> We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.


As per a previous thread on ehmac, they are proposing a national firewall to prevent people from accessing child porn on servers in other countries. With that in place, it isn't much of a stretch to be able to continue to protect Canadian content.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There is little use for the CRTC now. As MF mentioned, broadcast frequencies, which are a public good and, possibly, phone and cable service in remote areas that don't have competitive options. 

The rest is just controlling media under the guise of "Canadian culture", which is apparently not defined by what Canadians choose, but by what is subsidised and forced upon them. That is a culture too, in a way. Sort of like defining oneself by who you are not like instead of who you are.

If funding Canadian programming is really a priority it is quite easy (CBC and/or buy time slots for funded CDN productions...after all, bureaucrats must define our culture for us) and does not require the types of controls we have in our system. We've got manipulative regulation for its own sake, defended by simple flag-waving rallying cries (see: with us or agin' us) and little else.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's akin to asking a guy with different ideas to concede a debate and is just plain insulting. When one does not like what is happening to their country, they don't give up and leave, they try to grab the steering wheel and change direction.
> 
> That's my goal and if you don't like it, perhaps you should take your own bad advice?


sorry it just seemed oh so simple to me. And probably ar less frustrating to you in the end.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

SINC said:


> I want to watch the proper US commercials, not only for Superbowl, but all year long. I pay to watch the *&$%^ channel. The CRTC should be disbanded and US commercials allowed.


What, you don't like "Little Mosque on the Prairie?

Like it or not, without the CRTC there would be no Canadian entertainment industry. And who would regulate the various frequencies?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They don't like it.
You'll never convince them otherwise.
Most Cons think "art and culture" including the CBC are dispensable frivolities.
Easiest way - keep them out of any meaningful power.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Like it or not, without the CRTC there would be no Canadian entertainment industry. And who would regulate the various frequencies?


:clap: 

Not only is art and culture essential to maintain a healthy society but many many tax paying Canadians are employed in/ by the Canadian entertainment industry. 

= cultural enlightenment, education and good economics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Britnell said:


> What, you don't like "Little Mosque on the Prairie?
> 
> Like it or not, without the CRTC there would be no Canadian entertainment industry. And who would regulate the various frequencies?


That is utter nonsense. You mean to tell me you actually believe that if the CRTC was disbanded the likes of Bare Naked Ladies, The Tragically Hip, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, Michael Buble, and so many others would not rise to the top just as they have now?

If anything it would pave the path for Canadian entertainers to rise above the constraints of an antiquated old system.

And frankly, some of the Canadian entertainment industry that is being force fed to us by the CRTC would die an early death if the CRTC did not exist and that too would be a good thing. Much of it is bloody awful and has such a limited audience it is a waste of the tax dollars of the majority of citizens who in reality simply won't watch it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

spoken by someone who probably hasn't been involved in the industry.

Sinc the cancon allows artists to grow. Like anything, there will always be less than desirable content, but then I spent quite a number of years touring solid in the US and there's plenty of crap down there too.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ultimately, CRTC or no CRTC, we are 'force fed' by broadcasters and programmers. American or Canadian. Has the CRTC really messed up your quality of life? Do you not understand the good it does? Oh well...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> spoken by someone who probably hasn't been involved in the industry.
> 
> Sinc the cancon allows artists to grow. Like anything, there will always be less than desirable content, but then I spent quite a number of years touring solid in the US and there's plenty of crap down there too.


I agree on there being plenty of crap down there too. The difference is though, they don't force their citizens to watch that crap like they do here, and one does not have to be in the industry to be forced to see that. 

Bottom line is that there are far too many who don't belong in the industry and just don't know it. Remove the CRTC and you remove them. Illusions of grandeur make for poor viewing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Ultimately, CRTC or no CRTC, we are 'force fed' by broadcasters and programmers. American or Canadian. Has the CRTC really messed up your quality of life? Do you not understand the good it does? Oh well...


I understand one thing very well and that is the CRTC has removed my freedom of choice. That's it in a nutshell and there is no denying that fact. It is wrong IMHO and should be stopped.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Believe it or not the CRTC is a good thing. Aside from setting frequencies, they are also responsible for making sure Broadcasters support the creation of Canadian Content. The problem is that it is cheaper to licence than to make our own, thats why we don't see huge shows coming out of Canada.

Take for instance Alias. Their average budget PER EPISODE, is around $12-$14million, whereas a Canadian show is lucky if they can scrape together $1million per episode (Most 1 hour Canadian shows end up with about $800,000 per episode).

Same with Canadian Movies. The movie Chicks With Sticks (Hockey Mom in the US) only recieved about $1.4million in funding!! I hate seeing reviews on 'low budget' US films with $10million budgets. You want to be a true Indie Filmmaker, come to Canada!

While I wish the CRTC handled things differently, they really are helping Canadian Producers make TV shows and Movies. We just need to get the greedy broadcasters to put some actual money into our productions so we can produce some Huge International TV shows (Ala Sopranos, Alias, CSI, etc). We have to stop letting all the Canadian Talent go to the US where the money is, lets get some money here and make our own top notch programming that the US would want to watch too!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> If a Canadian cable or satellite company is broadcasting an American show in the same time slot as a US station, They dub the Canadian commercials over the US commercials on that US station. I want the freedom to watch a US station or a Canadian station in its entirety, not be force fed Canadian commercials on US stations. It happens hundreds of times a day.


From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC



> The CRTC's simultaneous substitution rules require that when a Canadian network licenses a television show from a US network and shows it in the same time slot, upon request by the Canadian broadcaster, broadcast distributors must replace the show on the US channel with the broadcast of the Canadian channel, along with any overlays and commercials. If Seinfeld is on Citytv and on NBC, for instance, the cable, satellite, or other broadcast distributor must send the Citytv feed on NBC's channel, even where the NBC version is somehow different, particularly commercials. (These rules are not intended to apply in case of differing episodes of the same series; this difference may not always be communicated to distributors, although this is rather rare.)
> 
> The goal of this policy is to create a market in which Canadian networks can realize revenue through advertising sales in spite of their inability to match the rates that the much larger American networks can afford to pay for syndicated programming. This policy is also why Canadian viewers do not see American advertisements during the Super Bowl, even when tuning into one of the many American networks carried on Canadian televisions. *Some Canadians erroneously believe that simultaneous substitution is a uniquely Canadian rule, and decry its influence on Canadian television viewing habits. In actual fact, American cable companies are required by the Federal Communications Commission to follow a very similar policy of syndication exclusivity*.


The bold text is there just in case you wanted to compare the CRTC to the land of the free below us. There is a link there taking you to the definition of syndication exclusivity.

The CRTC is not exclusive in it's actions. I for one would not want to see it disbanded for the 'freedom' to watch American commercials...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I agree on there being plenty of crap down there too. The difference is though, they don't force their citizens to watch that crap like they do here, and one does not have to be in the industry to be forced to see that.
> 
> Bottom line is that there are far too many who don't belong in the industry and just don't know it. Remove the CRTC and you remove them. Illusions of grandeur make for poor viewing.


What you don't understand, is that would effectively kill many talented artists who would not have the chance to grow with radio support. We have a piss poor industry here as it is. I speak from personal experience.

And oh yes, in America they are force fed crap. Just way waaaay more of it.

Be thankful, trust me.

There is always better ways of doing things, and there certainly is more than this issue to consider. But simply axing the crtc is a very dumb thing to do, and would have consequences far greater than you assume.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The local cultural scene is what matters in communities and targeted, locally administered funding can go a long way. Heck, local music scenes are quite vibrant with no funding, at least in the cities I've lived in.

Controlling the content on TV is something else, aside from unnecessary. Government could also control movies (mandatory 1 Canadian film per 6 screens?), newspapers (already local coverage, but it could always be more!), internet (1 Canadian site for every 4 accessed) and much else. All under the same "value" statement that allows no evaluation...that would be unCanadian.

If we didn't have these kinds of controls and a government proposed them, people would be hopping mad about being controlled. But, because they're already there, they must stay. Standard tradition argument. I like things this way; downfall of culture and society, etc. Just like other tradition arguments that get so soundly shouted down around ehmac. 

Funding to Canadian arts can be delivered without regulating content. Like anything else, government funding a public good has a strong case, but when they try to force the funded "good" on people, they're in dubious territory.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC
> 
> ...


I have never stated that I want to disband CRTC, that assumption goes into the 'whiny kid' comment I made earlier.

I want freedom of choice. I'd be curious to hear from some of our US members who receive the Canadian stations on their cable. Does the simulcast of shows happen? If you tune into CTV at 10 pm on Thursday night, do you see the CTV broadcast of ER or do you see the WGR broadcast. 

And yes I just checked Time-Warner Cable for Buffalo and both CTV and CBC are on basic cable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

After reading through this thread, it is obvious that many ehMac members are completely clueless about what the CRTC is and what it does.

1) The CRTC has no jurisdiction on the Internet. Online broadband broadcasts are not controlled by the CRTC.

2) The CRTC does not force broadcasters to substitute foreign commercials with local commercials. It is purely a smart business decision. Commercials pay for broadcast television. If local broadcasters couldn't sell those commercials, you wouldn't get the television.

3) You may want freedom of choice, but the CRTC has to ensure a balance. The Americans, with their billions of dollars in entertainment budgets and Hollywood studios could wipe out the entire Canadian industry if left unchecked. Without the CRTC, the likes of Bryan Adams, The Barenaked Ladies, Corner Gas, and Kids In The Hall would have never had a chance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> 3) You may want freedom of choice, but the CRTC has to ensure a balance. The Americans, with their billions of dollars in entertainment budgets and Hollywood studios could wipe out the entire Canadian industry if left unchecked. Without the CRTC, the likes of Bryan Adams, The Barenaked Ladies, Corner Gas, and Kids In The Hall would have never had a chance.


BS!

What ensures a group or individual is successful is one big word, "talent".

If they're good, they'll make it. If not, they won't. Being force fed the bad by the CRTC does greater harm to up and coming entertainers than if the marketplace decided their worth in clubs and on local talent shows.

If a new artist is popular in a radio station's coverage area, they will get played. That is what builds listenership, not the CRTC. All they should exist for is to regulate what frequency is assigned to what station.

Oh, regarding the internet, I doubt many here even remotely considered the CRTC has anything to do with it. Even Elections Canada found they can't control the internet.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

There are laws and regulations about the internet, and they are enacted and enforced by the federal government.

As for the possible rise and survival of the musical artists above, it may have been possible without the CRTC, maybe not.

But for sure The Tragically Hip would be a tiny blip in the delete bin if not for Canadian content regulations.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I doubt many here even remotely considered the CRTC has anything to do with it. Even Elections Canada found they can't control the internet.


Give it time. With enough people using the "End of the world/culture etc." argument, and "Things would be worse if things were different" argument, it could happen. After all, it's a "clash of civilisations" and we (the people who make up Canada) can not be trusted with something so important as defining our culture for ourselves by choice. To think otherwise is unCanadian.

I think Canadian culture should be defined by openness and see what happens. There is no bad, just different. Snobs would say too much hockey and too little opera is "bad". Good for them; but to give them regulatory power? 

I agree with funding for local work and even some larger productions. But, at some point, it must be asked why there is a presumed value on government control, outside of 'natural monopoly' things like airwaves, versus inherently valuing what comes about on its own. The internet is an excellent example, for all of its warts and worse, of why the people should choose individually, not government through its plurality and multi-issue voting what "Canadian" content is. Canadian is what Canadians pursue.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> What ensures a group or individual is successful is one big word, "talent".
> 
> If they're good, they'll make it. If not, they won't.


If only. In any industry, luck, politics and many other factors have as much, if not more, influence than the talent of the individual in question. In the entertainment industry, this is even more obviously true.

Does Britney Spears have more talent than [insert name of you local street-corner busker]? I've seen drunken karoke singers with more talent than her, but she's making millions due to the power of the American Entertainment Industry.

The CRTC, the Canada Council, CBC and other agencies don't go nearly far enough to level the playing field, but they do help. They're welcome to my tax dollars.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> BS!
> 
> What ensures a group or individual is successful is one big word, "talent".
> 
> ...


Again. You haven't the first clue of the music industry. Not even a spec. 

Go learn, and come back. You are in for an eye opener. A biggie.

nuff said.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Beej said:


> The local cultural scene is what matters in communities and targeted, locally administered funding can go a long way. Heck, local music scenes are quite vibrant with no funding, at least in the cities I've lived in.


What good is funding something if it doesn't have a chance against big budget American entertainment?

Local music scenes are fun, inspiring, and gosh darnnit a good thing. But it doesn't pay the bills in a significant way.

Programs like factor loans and grants aren't there to simply hand money to artists so they can exist, they're there to help kickstart them into bigger and better things. Much like small businesses.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If only. In any industry, luck, politics and many other factors have as much, if not more, influence than the talent of the individual in question. In the entertainment industry, this is even more obviously true.
> 
> Does Britney Spears have more talent than [insert name of you local street-corner busker]? I've seen drunken karoke singers with more talent than her, but she's making millions due to the power of the American Entertainment Industry.
> 
> ...


No she probably doesn't, but she has found a way to rise to the top above the competition without the support of an agency like the CRTC. I want our own talent to be successful because they are entertaining, not because their airplay/exposure (pardon the pun in Ms. Spears recent past). 

Hmmm, did The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. benefit from a United Kingdom RTC in the 60's? Did the Bee Gees, Olivia Newton-John, AC/DC, INXS, Air Supply, Savage Garden, etc. benefit from a Australian RTC in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, etc.?

Why should we be forced to "level the playing field"?

This compares very closely with the Cities of North America giving out all kinds of tax dollars to attract sports franchises and industry. Whenever that happens (i.e. both Vancouver's and Toronto's Olympic bids), people scream bloody murder. 

I don't mind seeing tax dollars to help the Arts in the form of funding, etc. What I object to is what ultimately becomes the promotion of mediocrity. For those of us who grew up as teenagers in the 70's, we basically had a lot of crap which was a direct result of the newly established Canadian Content rules which broadcasters were forced to follow. 

The Bare Naked Ladies are a perfect example of having 'luck' help them out. Personally had it not been for an ill-informed Mayor of Toronto at the time, I probably would never have become interested in them. They were banned from performing at Nathan Phillips Square because of their name and of course I had to learn more about who they were. Once I listened to their music, I was hooked.

But they are a group of entertainers who work hard at what they do. And they paid their dues. So their success was earned.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Should local "culture", by necessity, be put into media to compete with imports? Again, I think Canada should be about openness. As in, we'll try anything from anywhere, including here. Using restrictions is not the answer. Some tax money can be justified, but everybody thinks their "thing" needs funding to add to Canada. Canada is added to by its people, not by presuming moral authority for funding.

Government is not there to make small business into something more. Bandying about the word "culture" doesn't make it a good thing. I think help in getting started (generous tax breaks and/or subsidies) is helpful. At some point, all people and entrepreneurs, know that they must make it on their own.

Help a startup and get out there. From there, it is up to them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> The Bare Naked Ladies are a perfect example of having 'luck' help them out. Personally had it not been for an ill-informed Mayor of Toronto at the time, I probably would never have become interested in them. They were banned from performing at Nathan Phillips Square because of their name and of course I had to learn more about who they were. Once I listened to their music, I was hooked.


that's a load of BS. When I was touring for years in the states, I came across the BNL many times they worked extremely hard on the road, it pains me to see people say bands had 'luck' on their side when people work as hard as they did. The NPS incident was just an incident along the way.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> BS!
> 
> What ensures a group or individual is successful is one big word, "talent".
> 
> If they're good, they'll make it. If not, they won't. Being force fed the bad by the CRTC does greater harm to up and coming entertainers than if the marketplace decided their worth in clubs and on local talent shows.


Local talent shows? SINC, your ignorance of the industry is very apparent.

Talent is 1% of the equation. Money, luck, and sheer determination is the other 99%. Keanu Reeves is the poster-child for this equation.



SINC said:


> If a new artist is popular in a radio station's coverage area, they will get played.


You have no clue how the radio industry works.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Again. You haven't the first clue of the music industry. Not even a spec.
> 
> Go learn, and come back. You are in for an eye opener. A biggie.
> 
> nuff said.


I don't have any wish to learn anything further about the CRTC. I want them gone. I wish to be free to choose who I will watch or listen to, not force fed by the CRTC.

Beej said it best:



Beej said:


> I think Canadian culture should be defined by openness and see what happens. There is no bad, just different. Snobs would say too much hockey and too little opera is "bad". Good for them; but to give them regulatory power?


Perhaps it is you who need to go away and learn about abuse of that regulatory power? It much bigger than than you think.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> I have never stated that I want to disband CRTC, that assumption goes into the 'whiny kid' comment I made earlier.
> 
> I want freedom of choice. I'd be curious to hear from some of our US members who receive the Canadian stations on their cable. Does the simulcast of shows happen? If you tune into CTV at 10 pm on Thursday night, do you see the CTV broadcast of ER or do you see the WGR broadcast.
> 
> And yes I just checked Time-Warner Cable for Buffalo and both CTV and CBC are on basic cable.


I never said you did. I was replying to SINC's comment. So your 'whiny kid' comment is, as it was earlier, unnecessary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I don't have any wish to learn anything further about the CRTC. I want them gone. I wish to be free to choose who I will watch or listen to, not force fed by the CRTC.
> 
> Beej said it best:
> 
> ...


I didn't say the CRTC. The CRTC is not the music industry.

If you knew what you were talking about there, you would not suggest what you are.

The reason for some of the crap cancon isn't because of cancon rules. If that were so, there wouldn't be any American crap. But funny enough, there's even more of it down there.

If we had at least 'some clout in our industry, I'd say sure, kill it. But we don't. You don't know just how little we have. It's sad.

Why do you think artists go south??? To escape cancon????
lol.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I have read a great deal regarding economic regulators (natural monopoly), and they, for the most part, do an excellent job at a very complex and demanding task.

Regulators of society and culture are a different matter entirely. 

Who here is for regulating newspapers, movies and the internet for Canadian content? If not, and if you want the CRTC to regulate such matters for "broadcast", why the difference?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Beej said:


> I have read a great deal regarding economic regulators (natural monopoly), and they, for the most part, do an excellent job at a very complex and demanding task.
> 
> Regulators of society and culture are a different matter entirely.
> 
> Who here is for regulating newspapers, movies and the internet for Canadian content? If not, and if you want the CRTC to regulate such matters for "broadcast", why the difference?


how is regulating newspapers relevant to this?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm sorry I should just exit this kind of merry go round thread. I've spent most of my adult life in the music industry and had some real highs and lows, and it always amazes me how little people know about the music industry. Oh just make it on talent. The good will triumph.

Sure. We don't have much an industry here, at least, when you compare it to the US. We don't have the clout, or the resources to promote our artists. If we're going to kill the CRTC, we're going to have to be prepared to invest a HELL of a lot more in our artists here, because if we don't stand much of a chance here now and move to the US or Europe a lot now, that will be pretty much the option if you want to go further than a 'local' luminary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

groovetube said:


> how is regulating newspapers relevant to this?


Because the statements in support of content regulation are vague and rely on a presumption of "Canadianess" and loss of culture without. Why doesn't the same logic apply to other aspects of culture? This is the traditional line of reasoning. 

We do it, therefore it is and all that may befall otherwise is bad. If we didn't do it already, people would not be happy with such an intrusion. Sorry, but such arguments of how society "should" be don't work any better here than in the SSM debate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Beej said:


> Because the statements in support of content regulation are vague and rely on a presumption of "Canadianess" and loss of culture without. Why doesn't the same logic apply to other aspects of culture? This is the traditional line of reasoning.
> 
> We do it, therefore it is and all that may befall otherwise is bad. If we didn't do it already, people would not be happy with such an intrusion. Sorry, but such arguments of how society "should" be don't work any better here than in the SSM debate.


I'm not talking about preserving 'tradition'. Where the heck would you get this idea? And now this is being compared to a debate on SSM? This is why I shouldn't get involved in these silly threads.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

groovetube said:


> I'm not talking about preserving 'tradition'. Where the heck would you get this idea? And now this is being compared to a debate on SSM? This is why I shouldn't get involved in these silly threads.


yeah, no kidding

one has to do with human rights
the other with entertainment which i haven't seen enshrined in the charter, yet....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> You have no clue how the radio industry works.


You should really be careful when making a statement like that GT.

One of my dear friends is the GM of CFCW AM and Big Earl FM in Edmonton. She was in fact the radio personality of the year in 2005 for Canada. She has explained to me how they play local Canadian talent and pick it right out of the Molson Saloon at the Big Valley Jamboree each year, which by the way is Canada's largest outdoor music festival. Many of the performers in the songwriters tent and on the Molson stage have graduated to the cream of the crop of Canadian country music. Among them are Corb Lund, Lisa Hewitt, Paul Brandt, Aaron Pritchett, Carolyn Dawn Johnson, Aaron Lines, The Road Hammers and I could go on. Aaron Lines' Dad and I went to school together and spent eight years together again in Fort McMurray while Aaron was growing up. 
And Aaron Prichette is best friends with my best friend's son and has spent many hours with us at the BVJ describing in detail how tough it was for him to make it. He is a great guy, a great talent and never have I heard him credit the CRTC. They mostly make it in Nashville in every single case. And it is who you know in radio that will make or break you, not the CRTC.

I might just know more than you do about the rise of Canadian talent without the help of the CRTC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You should really be careful when making a statement like that GT.
> 
> One of my dear friends is the GM of CFCW AM and Big Earl FM in Edmonton. She was in fact the radio personality of the year in 2005 for Canada. She has explained to me how they play local Canadian talent and pick it right out of the Molson Saloon at the Big Valley Jamboree each year, which by the way is Canada's largest outdoor music festival. Many of the performers in the songwriters tent and on the Molson stage have graduated to the cream of the crop of Canadian country music. Among them are Corb Lund, Lisa Hewitt, Paul Brandt, Aaron Pritchett, Carolyn Dawn Johnson, Aaron Lines, The Road Hammers and I could go on. Aaron Lines Dad and I went to school together and spent eight years together again in Fort McMurray while Aaron was growing up.
> 
> I might just know more than you do about the rise of Canadian talent without the help of the CRTC.


How nice for you that your friend manages a radio station. 

I spent 20 years touring Canada and the US from sea, to shining sea. And have been on 3 major labels and then some.

I know of what I speak. 

I wouldn't venture into an industry such as the movie industry that I know very little about, just because I have a few good friends 'up there' in their industry.

I see no point yakking about this because you have a friend who manages a radio station. If that makes you an authority on the subject, I cry uncle.

Enjoy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> They mostly make it in Nashville in every single case. And *it is who you know in radio that will make or break you*, not the CRTC.


And I was thinking it was payola that made you....


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

We finished scrapping now?  
Please take a look at my original post:



Dreambird said:


> ... have a look here:
> 
> http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/AboutShaw/default.htm
> 
> Bottom row of boxes... 3rd over. "Canadian TV and You".


I'm not sure if anyone is even looking at the link I provided by now because the conversation has had "nothing" to do with what I intended. You will find three links on the that site, 2 have to do with the CRTC and TV, 1 has to do with the CRTC and phone companies, *period*.

Nothing about trashing the CBC, or trashing Canadian art and culture, or even dropping funding for artistic talent in Canada. I don't even think there's a call to disband the CRTC and certainly nothing about hindering musical Canadian talent. However 1 link is essentially a comment box where you say whatever you want I suppose. 

I'm certainly not advocating any of the above. I'd just like NOT to have to resort to quasi-legal dish service which I can't afford anyway. Or Bittorrent as a way to get what the CRTC or whoever has decided we shouldn't downloaded legitimately in Canada while all my American friends are redeeming their Christmas iTunes gift cards for the videos they want. 

BTW... FWIW... myself, I highly doubt the CBC will bite the dirt anyway... I have many friends in the US who receive it via cable and are quite hooked on some shows and some even prefer the world news to the garbage on CNN, Fox etc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I'm not talking about preserving 'tradition'. Where the heck would you get this idea? And now this is being compared to a debate on SSM? This is why I shouldn't get involved in these silly threads.


So, without resorting to arguments about how culture should look, what is the reasoning behind content control? Industrial protection policy (similar to tariffs)? 

The primary reason, as seen in this thread, is a vague appeal to what is presumed to be "Canadian" culture, how things should be, and statements about how bad things would be (culturally) without said institution. If this Institution isn't protected, society would be lessened in some way that is undefined except that different is bad. It is the same line of reasoning behind opposition to other liberal (small "L") social changes. 

Start without it, and the concept of such controls over broadcast content would be opposed, versus just funding Canadian arts. Thus the comparison to other parts of our culture (newspaper, movies, internet) that don't have such strict content controls. Why would the vague appeals to what is "Canadian" not also apply to them? If it doesn't, then the argument is pretty clearly based upon protecting the status quo. Protecting tradition.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

groovetube said:


> that's a load of BS. When I was touring for years in the states, I came across the BNL many times they worked extremely hard on the road, it pains me to see people say bands had 'luck' on their side when people work as hard as they did. The NPS incident was just an incident along the way.


If you read the paragraph that I added I did state that I thought that they worked very hard. But they did get a break. It wasn't the only thing, it was just one perhaps very small thing. 

Just as Brian Epstein did whatever it was he did that helped the Beatles become what they did. Just as John Hammond did something with:

Count Basie
George Benson
Michael Bloomfield
Leonard Cohen
Bob Dylan
Aretha Franklin
Benny Goodman
Lionel Hampton
Carolyn Hester
Billie Holiday
Meade Lux Lewis
Babatunde Olatunji
Pete Seeger
Bruce Springsteen
Big Joe Turner
Stevie Ray Vaughan

to make them become what they were/are.

Hmm, how many of these acts required the CRTC?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> If you read the paragraph that I added I did state that I thought that they worked very hard. But they did get a break. It wasn't the only thing, it was just one perhaps very small thing.
> 
> Just as Brian Epstein did whatever it was he did that helped the Beatles become what they did. Just as John Hammond did something with:
> 
> ...


Those are US artists no?

If so, then question answered.

The CRTC does not guarantee anyone's success. Nor is it a factor in everyone's career. Nor do I believe it's all about preserving the 'Canadian-ness' of our culture.

You made it sound like the NPS incident was the BNL defining moment. It wasn't. Not by a long shot.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Beej said:


> So, without resorting to arguments about how culture should look, what is the reasoning behind content control? Industrial protection policy (similar to tariffs)?
> 
> The primary reason, as seen in this thread, is a vague appeal to what is presumed to be "Canadian" culture, how things should be, and statements about how bad things would be (culturally) without said institution. If this Institution isn't protected, society would be lessened in some way that is undefined except that different is bad. It is the same line of reasoning behind opposition to other liberal (small "L") social changes.
> 
> Start without it, and the concept of such controls over broadcast content would be opposed, versus just funding Canadian arts. Thus the comparison to other parts of our culture (newspaper, movies, internet) that don't have such strict content controls. Why would the vague appeals to what is "Canadian" not also apply to them? If it doesn't, then the argument is pretty clearly based upon protecting the status quo. Protecting tradition.


because the US music industry would steam roller the Canadian labels. Going gold in the US means a nice lucrative career. Going gold here allows you to return to your Starbucks job. You could fund canadian artists to make yourself feel good all you like, but a Canadian artist will have to go to the US and sign a US deal just to get anywhere. As evidence of that, many do already, as have I.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> So, without resorting to arguments about how culture should look, what is the reasoning behind content control? Industrial protection policy (similar to tariffs)?
> 
> The primary reason, as seen in this thread, is a vague appeal to what is presumed to be "Canadian" culture, how things should be, and statements about how bad things would be (culturally) without said institution. If this Institution isn't protected, society would be lessened in some way that is undefined except that different is bad. It is the same line of reasoning behind opposition to other liberal (small "L") social changes.
> 
> Start without it, and the concept of such controls over broadcast content would be opposed, versus just funding Canadian arts. Thus the comparison to other parts of our culture (newspaper, movies, internet) that don't have such strict content controls. Why would the vague appeals to what is "Canadian" not also apply to them? If it doesn't, then the argument is pretty clearly based upon protecting the status quo. Protecting tradition.


I'm not sure if this oversimplification works in this case. There are many things to consider in either the abolishment or non existence of the CRTC. 

I don 't think you give the average Canadian enough credit when you make statements like _"Start without it, and the concept of such controls over broadcast content would be opposed, versus just funding Canadian arts."_

I think most people would recognize the juggernaut of American broadcasting laying over our land and would find a way to tell our stories without having to compete for crumbs with our very deep pocketed friends to the south. CanCon has created a cultural industry in Canada. It has produced and promoted both artists and technicians. I for one think if we had started without it we would have no industry whatsoever. We are in a very unique geographical and cultural place as Canadians and the CRTC recognizes this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Beej knowing that cultural industry protection is embedded in NAFTA are you espousing a demolition of that as well?? 

I'd say you're in an uphill battle over this principle and Canada is well within world concepts for cultural protection.



> EU OKs UNESCO plan for cultural protection
> By Leo Cendrowicz
> Dec 20, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...onal/news/e3i47f3f257299beabd9f18cc94f3956de3


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Those are US artists no?
> 
> If so, then question answered.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I don't believe that The Beatles were US artists. And unless I am mistaken, Quebec hasn't left the country which makes Leonard Cohen still a Canadian (he was born in Montreal). 

If you read an earlier post I made on this, I also listed The Who, Rolling Stones, Bee Gees, INXS, Air Supply, Olivia Newton-John, etc. All are/were entertainers with huge successes. I don't believe that any of them were successful due to any form of agency similar to the CRTC. 

I left out performers like Elton John, Queen and Supertramp. 

As far as Canadians who became a success without the CRTC, you could add Paul Anka's name to that list, he was long before the CanCon rules were put in place. So were The Band, Blood Sweat & Tears, Liona Boyd, The Guess Who, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Gordon Lightfoot, Ian and Sylvia, Tommy Hunter, Bruce Cockburn, Oscar Peterson, The Stampeders, and...

Guy Lombardo. 

Murray McLauchlan, Tom Cochrane, Kim Mitchell, Paul Shaffer, Dan Hill, Bryan Adams, Corey Hart, Rush, were borderline. NOT because of their talent, because of the impact that the CRTC may or may not have had on their success. I'm not sure of their timelines but I think that most of that group came into prominence during the 70's and I believe that the CanCon rules came into existence around 1975.

So no "the question" isn't answered...


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

As I have stated earlier, I don't mind having an agency fund the Arts. I think it is a wonderful idea and I am all for it. 

What I am against is having Canadian Content forced down our throats in the form of simulcasting and CanCon rules on radio. These are two VERY different issues and when I hear them put together in the "you can't have one without the other" it goes back to that whiny kid who threatens to take his hockey net home if he can't be captain. 

How does forcing me to watch CTV's broadcast of ER help the next Tragically Hip?

While the two co-founders were American, Roots was started and is still known as an Canadian company. RIM is Canadian. IMAX is Canadian. While there are incentives available for research and development, we as Canadian consumers are not forced to purchase products from either of these two companies. We have CHOICE and that is all that I am asking for.

Sandra Post, Lorie Kane, Al Balding, Pat Fletcher, George Knudson, Moe Norman, Mike Weir, Jim Rutledge and Ian Leggatt were/are Canadian golfers who have or are competing on the PGA and LPGA tours (way to go Jim Rutledge, a PGA rookie at age 47!). While we have a Canadian Tour, it is not restricted to Canadian Golfers. When we see the Canadian Open and Women's Canadian Open tournaments, there aren't restrictions on the number of Canadians in the field. 

Funding has helped many of our current stars in Golf, Tennis, Skiing, Speed Skating, Bobsledding, etc. And I agree with funding to support future stars in the music industry as well as other areas of The Arts. 

Fund them, help them in the business side of things, give them places to work on their talents and people to help guide them along the way. Help fund places to showcase their talents. Then let them compete for success on the merits of their abilities, not because of their passport.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So Beej knowing that cultural industry protection is embedded in NAFTA are you espousing a demolition of that as well??
> 
> I'd say you're in an uphill battle over this principle and Canada is well within world concepts for cultural protection.


Because protection exists doesn't make it a good thing, or is status quo now, unlike otherwise, a powerful argument? It is yet another leftover sacred cow, like the dairy management system and numerous other restrictions. Once you unravel the usual wrapped-in-the-flag rhetoric (confers cultural superiority subjectively) it comes down to what it really is: protecting an industry, not protecting a culture. 

Yet again, us hopeless Canadians must be protected from the U.S. and our own decisions. We have the CBC to push Canadian content; the other manipulation is unnecessary and controlling. Nobody seems to be pushing deeper cultural controls, just the SQ. Reminds me of those two bicycle manufacturers that wanted to keep (raise?) tariffs on Chinese imports to protect their industry. For the good of the country, as usual.

If, after subsidies and the CBC's TV channels and radio stations, the people don't support the "culture" that you want, you should re-evaluate what you want. I want what happens when people make their choices, with some allowance for funding and generous tax treatment.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> As I have stated earlier, I don't mind having an agency fund the Arts. I think it is a wonderful idea and I am all for it.
> 
> What I am against is having Canadian Content forced down our throats in the form of simulcasting and CanCon rules on radio.
> How does forcing me to watch CTV's broadcast of ER help the next Tragically Hip?


Question for you:

If the CRTC backed off and no longer allowed the "evil" simulcasting that you hate, just how would the Canadian broadcaster's make any money? 

The Canadian broadcasters have to sell the airtime, and unlike the UK or Australia, I can get US programming off the air, and certainly on cable. So, if I chose to watch ABC rather than CTV to see programme X, that means that no money will be flowing to CTV. No money means no more US programmes. Which means that the CTV will go back to producing "the Trouble with Tracy" and "The Starlost" which no one wanted to watch. No viewiers means no revenue stream.

Don't think for a moment that Canada can compete on a level playing field with the US entertainment industry. And don't think for a moment that entertainment does not affect culture and identity. How many times have you heard people in Canada refer to their car's "pink slip" or their "Miranda rights"?

Sorry, your arguement for abolishing the CRTC is clearly borne of ignorance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Britnell said:


> Question for you:
> 
> If the CRTC backed off and no longer allowed the "evil" simulcasting that you hate, just how would the Canadian broadcaster's make any money?


Here's a clue:

By running the programs Canadian viewers WANT to see, not what the CRTC "forces" them to see?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc: I think the case has been made. Money must be funneled to Global and CTV to protect them from Canadians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> By running the programs Canadian viewers WANT to see, not what the CRTC "forces" them to see?


reminds me of his elected judges........Sinc continually forgets that protection of minority interests is paramount in the THIS country. 148 nations worldwide felt protection of their cultural industries was critical.

Looking at our rather vibrant cultural industry NOW after CanCon development is a far cry from 30 years ago.

Cultural commodities are prime items for "dumping".


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Yet again, us hopeless Canadians must be protected from the U.S. and our own decisions.


It's not about being protected. It's about being able to compete.



Beej said:


> If, after subsidies and the CBC's TV channels and radio stations, the people don't support the "culture" that you want, you should re-evaluate what you want. I want what happens when people make their choices, with some allowance for funding and generous tax treatment.


Are you implying this exists already? How will you find out what these people support? Will the Tories tell us what 'these people' support?

As MacDoc pointed out, culture industry protection is embedded in NAFTA. The world seems to be bolstering themselves against the American cultural juggernaut. That seems to be people making their choice to me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Looking at our rather vibrant cultural industry NOW after CanCon development is a far cry from 30 years ago.


:clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Otherwise, it would be all Tommy Hunter, all the time.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

There are days when I'm not entirely convinced that such wouldn't be an improvement.

As it is, I like a lot of what CanCon drama and comedy is able to get through the "safeguards" against homegrown quality programming airing on our domestic TV networks. Not to mention what CBC's still able to get away with airing under the present regime.

*Intelligence*, *Corner Gas*, *Rick Mercer*...and looking forward to *Little Mosque on the Prairie*, while I'm at it.

To be blunt: I want to see the CRTC get a bit stricter with the domestic private networks, and I want CBC better funded to boot.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> It's not about being protected. It's about being able to compete.


Being able to compete on our own playing field, most importantly. Agreed!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> Hmm, I don't believe that The Beatles were US artists. And unless I am mistaken, Quebec hasn't left the country which makes Leonard Cohen still a Canadian (he was born in Montreal).
> 
> If you read an earlier post I made on this, I also listed The Who, Rolling Stones, Bee Gees, INXS, Air Supply, Olivia Newton-John, etc. All are/were entertainers with huge successes. I don't believe that any of them were successful due to any form of agency similar to the CRTC.
> 
> ...


I guess I'd hoped you'd see that I was pointing to the fact that those were mostly not Canadian artists. And I did say not every artist benefits from cancon. It would be silly to believe so. That, is dumb argument. And some of those Canadian artists you mentioned, probably went to the US like I said many do in order to compete. It isn't a question of whether we have talent here, and whether they can make their careers happen. That's what the BNL did. Even with cancon rules in place, many still have to go stateside, get US deals, in order to compete. Some Canadian bands, including some I've played for, have turned down major Canadian label deals, because the Canadian industry just does not have the clout the US ones do. Without cancon, their clout would practically zip.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> reminds me of his elected judges........Sinc continually forgets that protection of minority interests is paramount in the THIS country. 148 nations worldwide felt protection of their cultural industries was critical.
> 
> Looking at our rather vibrant cultural industry NOW after CanCon development is a far cry from 30 years ago.
> 
> Cultural commodities are prime items for "dumping".


Good point MacDoc. There certainly is a lot more crap on Canadian TV than there used to be.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

one could say the exact same thing about american crap on american tv


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Funny how those saying we should gut the CRTC have nothing to say about the cable companies force feeding us channels many could do without.
The packages that Bell, Rogers, Videotron force you to take is ridiculous, of course they say you have freedom not to take them but will charge you a fortune for that privilege...


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

SINC said:


> Here's a clue:
> 
> By running the programs Canadian viewers WANT to see, not what the CRTC "forces" them to see?


Actually, you are suggesting that Big (American) Business gets to force us what we "want" to see. By eliminating competition, one is left with an monopoly, and a lack of freedom.

Don't think for a moment that there is a level playing field. The CRTC is only tryin to allow some Canadian competition. If you don't like CanCon, you are still free to watch US programming. So what if you miss Don Gambino's tacky sales ads. You probably won't be running to the US to buy Gambino's wares anyway.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Otherwise, it would be all Tommy Hunter, all the time.


No, some Don Messier's Jubilee and a couple of Ann Murry specials, with an annual live performance by Gordon Lightfoot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Britnell said:


> Actually, you are suggesting that Big (American) Business gets to force us what we "want" to see. By eliminating competition, one is left with an monopoly, and a lack of freedom.


I am suggesting no such thing. 

Wow, talk about reading into my post and putting words in my mouth. Wrong.

Except that is about the freedom part. You got that right if you are referring to the CRTC and what we see on TV.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Britnell said:


> Actually, you are suggesting that Big (American) Business gets to force us what we "want" to see. By eliminating competition, one is left with an monopoly, and a lack of freedom.
> 
> Don't think for a moment that there is a level playing field. The CRTC is only tryin to allow some Canadian competition. If you don't like CanCon, you are still free to watch US programming. So what if you miss Don Gambino's tacky sales ads. You probably won't be running to the US to buy Gambino's wares anyway.


No, I'm missing parts of the program I am watching at the time. It happened again yesterday afternoon. Fortunately it wasn't anything that important but it could have been. I was watching the Bills-Ravens game on the Buffalo CBS affiliate. The game was running late as is typically for the 4 pm game on a Sunday. At 7:00 p.m. Cogego technicians switched over to either Global or CH, not sure which but it was the channel that was going to simulcast 60 Minutes at that time. 

As I said it wasn't a big deal. Buffalo was eliminated a few weeks ago, the score wasn't that close, it wasn't a big play...

But my point is that each of those could have been reversed. Buffalo could have been in contention for a playoff spot, the game could have been close, and it could have been a big play that was missed. 

I don't see how much of an impact it is on advertiser rates to have competition, the ability for us as viewers to make a choice over seeing Gambino Ford ads (a Buffalo car dealership for those not from the GTA) or seeing the same ad that Global will show 25 times during an hourlong broadcast. 

Let ME make that choice.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This Merry Go Round is still spinning...

Is there not a way to tap into satellite feeds that will give you your full on American experience, ads and all? Will this not help you regain all your hard fought freedoms that have been so unfairly denied you? 

With all the good the CRTC has done, I find it odd that the majority of arguments against have to do with commercials and a football game that has run on too long.

Goethe:
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Noam Chomsky:
For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we sere as willing or unwitting instruments."

Janice Joplin:
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how those saying we should gut the CRTC have nothing to say about the cable companies force feeding us channels many could do without.
> The packages that Bell, Rogers, Videotron force you to take is ridiculous, of course they say you have freedom not to take them but will charge you a fortune for that privilege...


Agreed. We got so sick of the lame stations being forced on us and the fact that there is LESS new programing now that there are more stations and that the stations show the same shows over and over again throughout the day, that we had our satellite dish turned off at the beginning of the Summer. Haven't looked back yet!


----------



## Larry Renforth (Jan 9, 2009)

The simultaneous substitution rule was put in place so that more quality Canadian content could be generated that would attract Canadian viewers. However, as evidenced by the lack of Canadian shows in the top 10 ranking list released weekly, this is clearly not working. However, Canadian networks such as CTV continue to take advantage of this rule and instead of investing the time, effort and money in creating quality Canadian programs that attract viewers, take the revenues generated by simsubbing and do things like buy the rights to the Hockey Night in Canada theme song from the CBC, buy media companies like Alliance Atlantis (Global), or Canadian networks simply keep the money and the “programming executives” (and I use that term loosely because after all, how difficult is it to hijack signals from American networks each hour anyways) buy fancy houses and big boats. The Canadian content rules are very paltry as well, requiring Canadian networks to air only 50 percent Canadian content during the hours of 6 pm until midnight, with news programs and magazine type shows to be counted towards this requirement, leaving the hours of 8 pm until 11 pm open to the hijacking of hit primetime US dramas and sitcoms. 

Now as per CRTC regulations, each cable / satellite provider is supposed to carry out the simultaneous substitution of American networks whenever a show is of “equal or better quality” on an interrupting channel. First of all, the CRTC has very lax requirements for what is considered “equal or better quality”. Whenever a show is broadcast in 1080i on a major US network (CBS and NBC broadcast in this format), and a Canadian network is interrupting but is broadcasting only at 720p, the resulting hijacked feed will be only 1,049,088 pixels, while a 1080i signal is 1,382,400 pixels, a difference of 333,312 pixels! Also, the CRTC considers 5.1 surround sound and stereo (or even mono) sound to be the same, when it is clearly not. Why do consumers in Canada spend thousands of dollars on HD TV sets, expensive receivers and speaker systems, only to have the true experience of the latest technology robbed from us by this CRTC regulation and cable and satellite providers not pulling the plug on an inferior simsub? The CRTC should not view 720p and 1080i signals as being equal, and should not view 5.1 surround sound and stereo sound as equal, and cable and satellite providers should stop the simsub if both video and audio are not equal or better quality.

Along with the technical requirements of video and sound not being equal, simsubs cause Canadian viewers to miss the start and ends of shows, promos for next week’s shows are cut off, and during live events, many crucial segments are missed. Also, whenever a live event (primarily a live sporting event) goes over the allotted scheduled time due to the live event taking longer than expected, another Canadian network cuts in at the top of the next hour and believes that the regularly scheduled program is still going to air at the normal start time. The cable / satellite provider fails to see that the live event is running over the allotted time on the US network and lets the Canadian channel cut in and doesn’t override the automatic simsub. Cable / satellite providers in the past have stated that they will monitor this more closely, but this continues to occur. 

Now some US sitcoms and drams are being produced to run over the regularly schedule 60 minute mark, and instead are 62 or 65 minutes in length. This is causing even more problems since another Canadian network will cut in at the top of the next hour causing viewers to miss out on the ending of the extended sitcom or drama. 

Both CTV and CITY-TV interrupt the NFL on CBS and the NFL on FOX now. CTV has come back many times late from commercial break because they try to insert an additional promo for their useless network overtop the originally scheduled commercial time, and they catch the FOX or CBS announcer in mid-sentence and the action in mid-play. As well, every year during the Super Bowl, us fans in Canada are disheartened as well since the coverage is always interrupted by a Canadian station, and we miss out on key plays and the unique American commercials, and instead have to endure repeated Canadian Tire and Tim Horton’s commercials over and over and over again. 

CTV used to butcher the greatest sports telecast ever when it interrupted the NBA on NBC in the 1990’s and early part of this decade. Whenever CTV hijacked the NBC feed, the introduction to the telecast was cut off, NBA on NBC promos were removed and we were forced to watch the same old useless Canadian commercials over and over again, Rob Faulds and Suneel Joshi would come in and interrupt the telecast and spew out incorrect stats about the game that was occurring, and on top of it all, you had that useless joke of a comedian Mike Bullard trying to explain the rules of the game, including basic things like travelling. Who the hell doesn’t know what travelling is???

For those in the know about simsubbing, they know how annoying simsubbing is in Canada, and hopefully everyone will realize that consumers in Canada do not want to put up with this any longer and it’s time for the CRTC to change the policy, and for networks such as CTV to stop hiding behind this rule and come up with a lot more original Canadian programming or get off the airwaves!!!

And why is the television industry offered so much protection to begin with, simply because it can't compete? Why aren't newspapers offered the same protection like someone else mentioned. Why isn't Joe's Canadian Hardware Store offered the same kind of protection against mighty Home Depot? 

CTV and Global continue to cowher behind this rule and are afaid to go up head to head against the likes of NBC and CBS.


----------

