Amen..singing to the choir....
 

I couldnt agree more! :D

Well considering I don't have Canadian cable I can't see these ads you refer to nor am I at home to view them if I did :D

So why is it acceptable for me to listen to radio stations of the world by Internet, but when I want to have such a wide variety of music choice in my car I can't subscribe to a service such as XM? I read today at the Globe and Mail on-line that the CRTC ruling allowing for the expansion of these US based satellite radio services are being contested by a small group of Liberal insiders from Quebec. :rolleyes:

Technology will be the end of the liberal social experiments. The internet and the creation of on-line TV will hopefully make this bloated government body obsolete. I will pay for the US service and exercise my choice for a free market.

I think it would be great if we could get more TV from around the world. I often wish that some of the shows I find in the UK would make it over the water faster for my enjoyment. I would gladly pay to view more choice. ^

And the President appoints the management, which in turn hires other management, etc., etc. So it all gets politically infected with individuals who are often little more than Liberal bagmen.

Surely as a Shareholder , you would know at least how corporations work these days in general, the CBC being no exception.

Good question. The only answer is that "the CRTC said so." Once a choice of cable carrier is available over broadband, one wonders what the Canadian government will do to ban the site from being available in Canada. Shades of China, North Korea, etc.

Question: is it still signal theft if you have paid up to the maximum of the Rogers packages, but still choose to watch it (assuming it's a show that can actually be seen on Canadian TV, not the new Ricky Gervais show, say) on another medium? Who is being ripped off, exactly?

Simon

[QUOTE=Simon]Since I just experienced internet censorship in China, I now know that that the Canadian government is just as thick headed as the Chinese by limiting our choices


In censorship speak yes its still wrong because in theory you are robbing the Canadian network of viewers and thus ad revenue. Guess who lobbies hard to keep it that way. :rolleyes:

If so, to borrow ?u@now's train of thought: what if I watch an over-the-air US version of the broadcast? I've deprived CTV or Global of viewers and resultant ad revenue that way as well, presumably. Will the RCMP next come and round up people with rabbit ears?

spoken like a true viewer of FOX NEWS :td:

CBC is the only network that can provide Canadain view points in international news (hint how many news bureaus does Global have... or in fact even the larger CTV... Answer alot less then the CBC)

Guess you rather here the commercial driven, mr clean, repackaged US broadcast info instead.;

forget about the little FACT that the right owners in canada are losing money because of your 'idea' to get whetever your want.

It does not seem to dawn on peoples mind that a company bought the rights for the broadcast and the US did not (for canada viewing)

it has NOTHING to with anarchy, but lonely buissness and the rights. making out like some anti-liberal rant is just a cover-up for self justiciation of stealing from a ligit owner.

Soi i guess you don't support jail sentences for criminals either then? :p

The real truth is that the Canadian owners lobbied the CRTC to stop US broadcasters form coming in directly so they could sell ad revenue separately and profitably.
I didn't get a say in that decision and nor did you.

So.The Liberals did the nasty deed and everyone winked and they got another plug from the already Liberal minded broadcasters by being fed easy ad money from the feds. IOW's its just another form of bribery.

So, don't give me your crap about self justification; its the socialist way of doing business for our so called "national good".

Its all BS however.

No the CBC provides the CBC viewpoint on anything they carry and the majority of stuff the carry is crap anyway. Mind you BBCW is worse (I didn't think that it was possible).

You can say the same thing about all our laws. That is what politics are about lobbies... or do you not know that??? (hint it happens even more in the US so its not only in Canada... SORRY TO BREAK YOUR BALLON).

And by the way what is wrong with profits... YOU SOUND ALOT LIKE THOSE SOCIALISTS YOU ARE RANTING ABOUT?

So profit is only good when you want it to???

No its called revisonist history... try to blame everything on someone else when you don't like something.

The industry did lobby, and convinced the law makers... just like MADD has lobbied for stiffer terms for DUI..

So you can get off your soap box and realize that if you don't like it, campaign to make canada a dictatorship because that is how Our and the US and all other democratic societies work.

The only perfect society was penned by Marx... So you better pay up your communist party memebership :p

[QUOTE=galambo]
No, profit is good when everyone has a chance to make it;not just a chosen few who will act as bag men for sleazy the Liberals

Not revisionist.....I'm not changing a thing;the liberals have been crooked and still are


And, I can't stand MADD either with their doomsday scenarios.


I'm campaigning to make Canada truly free of censorship and to have real citizen participation in decsion making

His penmanship was a lot better than his actions...and so are the Liberals the same way.

Quit your whining and go make money honestly like the rest of us.......you obviously have more than a vested interest in this. :rolleyes:

CBC management never gets purged when a new president comes on board and the big problem is the same people continue to stay on. There is no political influence on senior management, which did not change when Perrin Beatty was appointed by Brian Mulroney, or when his successor was appointed by Jean Cretien. This is a total fabrication by those who really don't understand how management at Crown Corporations, or any corporation for that matter, really works.

As for censorship by the CRTC or Liberal government or any other such entity, what foolishness. There isn't a single American television program that is not available in Canada on one or another Canadian or US network. Are you being deprived of ROME tonight, which premieres on both HBO in the US and our own two pay TV networks here in Canada. FOX News was kept out, not because of the CRTC as some would like to suggest, but by the fact that CanWest Global had a contract with that cable network to distribute its programs and signal in Canada. It was not in CanWest's immediate plans to market the service in Canada, so their exclusive contract had to expire before Fox could apply to come into Canada. And it was approved by the CRTC.

Until the Americans decide to allow foreigners into their market, why should we let them into ours? This is exactly the same situation that exists with airlines, and Washington is the ultra-protectionist in both cases, despite using rhetotic to the contrary.

The reason for territorial exclusivity is the basis of copyright ownership and the ability of creators [be it Microsoft, Warner Brothers or my own film company] to finanance and make a profit from our creations. And to control the sale or exhibition of their property in all world markets. None of the networks, American or Canadian or French or whatever, own their programs [other than news]. Programs come from private companies that finance their production by selling licenses to exhibit the material in various markets. Every country is considered a separate market, and HBO or NBC doesn't buy the rights to transmit their signal and its programming beyond the US border. Producers sell those rights to Canadian networks and thus to Canadian viewers. International treaties respect territoriality, and thus safeguard the economic viability of independent producers -- including Hollywood studios -- and domestic broadcasters. [The same goes for music on radio BTW.]

That is the actual reason HBO or DirectTV cannot sell their services in Canada. They do not own the content that you would watch on them in this country, so would be in violation with their licensing agreement if they did sell in Canada. This is simple commercial law, not Liberal nationalist government policy, or irrational CRTC fiat!

And BTW Parnel, my film company had a profit last year and paid income taxes in two provinces, something AC hasn't had or done in decades. And any tax credits or subsidies we may get in our industry pale in the face of what the mining, oil or high tech industries get. Making an "honest" living can be a lot more than your narrow definition of free enterprise or capitalism.

[QUOTE=Shareholder]
So AC is smarter than you; or you are jealous of them...is that the message

Its all about risk;imagine if you started to make a movie and there was suddenly no story.......same goes for natural resource Companies whose subsidies have helped create one of the great export stories in this Country and employ hundreds of thousands of people in small communities who all pay taxes along with their corporate masters who pay in spades when the commence production.

Well when you can show me the benefits of making movies are greater than a company that hires thousands of people thanks to the tax rebate policies. On a dollar for dollar basis the heavy inustries contribute much more tax money than the movie makers with their funny accounting.

Really. What channel is the new Ricky Gervais comedy "Extras" on? What channel in Canada over the past few years would have let me watch Expos games?

Funny given all the above arguments that if you look back at the Starchoice and ExpressVu websites back before service was launched, they were advertising they would have HBO, Starz, etc. until shut down by the government. Even the distributors wanted it. You're right, they don't own the content for Canada. Thanks to the Canadian government forbidding it.

Go check out the DirecTV program guide for tomorrow night. Then check the Rogers one. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a typical couple who likes "commercial" TV, not Canadian dreck like "Robson Arms" or painful "comedies" like "Corner Gas", not documentaries, not telefilms about incest in some remote town. Trust me, there's nothing on Rogers other than perhaps the new prison escape show (on FOX). You may be able to get all (most) of the shows/films on DirecTV at some point on Canadian TV, but the choices at a particular moment in time pale for Joe average consumer. Try out the Rogers On Demand service (308 in YYZ for a good sampling of the "films" available). Or the PPV: "Where The Buffalo Roam" ?! Otherwise, why do so many people have dishes and pay for it? Closet Yankee lovers, or something?

And again, if you have paid to watch it on Rogers, who exactly is being ripped off if you choose to watch it instead on another medium? And what's the difference if you watch over-the-air? The BBC announced today that it will be distributing its shows (radio/TV) over its website for up to a week afterwards. Do the feds block that? What about Internet radio stations?