Future of Canadian TV

[bush_cheney2004]

They wouldn't. Would ESPN buy the Grey Cup if they had to use TSN's advertising? I suspect people would just watch the American Network broadcasting it.

Agreed...that's seems logical for Canadian or U.S. networks. Americans get glimpses of Canadian network content (mostly for sporting events) but there is no concurrent feed from another Canadian network or broadcaster on cable requiring simsubs. American networks have timing hiccups and errors too, but nothing like the reported issues in Canada. Most issues are associated with network vs. local advertising slots.

There are Canadian made reality programming that's purchased and broadcast in the US too. I'm assuming without Canadian advertising.

Yes, there are, but again, no concurrent cable/satellite feed that I know of. That's the other dimension to the simsub issue....actual program timing from the American networks. Plus each simsub has to be requested. What a headache !

Canadians don't really think about this 4+1 model unless you're looking at the cord-cutters that wants the basic package. That's a small segment of the market.

That makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is the CRTC permitting "free" optional carriage of the American "4+1" for each time zone. I guess the thinking is that the program timing would be offset by three hours if people in British Columbia had to watch Boston or Buffalo "4+1" stations. Would also add to the simsub execution nightmare.

Even under the best circumstances, one would have to conclude that many Canadian viewers see some or a lot of American advertising not geared for or even applicable to their market/country. Hence Home Depot ads with radio/TV caveats..."not available in Canada".

[waldo]

again, simsub is the "here and now"... please stop (purposely) derailing this thread from its futurist theme/intent.

.

[Boges]

again, simsub is the "here and now"... please stop (purposely) derailing this thread from its futurist theme/intent.

.

In BC2004's defence, she's talking about the future where it won't be used and the implications of that.

[bush_cheney2004]

In BC2004's defence, she's talking about the future where it won't be used and the implications of that.

Yes...as discussed in the CRTC's Let's Talk TV hearings. Simsub is very significant to the current and future revenue model. Subsidy money would be impacted also if it went away.

...The cable providers were also united in opposing the elimination of simultaneous substitution (known as SimSub), the process whereby Canadian networks substitute Canadian advertising in place of U.S. ads in U.S. programs they've purchased the rights to that air at the same they're airing on U.S. stations available through free over-the-air signals.

Shaw argued that without the $450 million a year SimSub generates for the industry, there won't be sufficient resources to support Canadian programming.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-gets-an-earful-at-hearings-on-future-of-tv-1.2764290

[waldo]

In BC2004's defence, she's talking about the future where it won't be used and the implications of that.

I'm so confused here! In recent weeks I read others (and now you) stating the guy is a she... and black! You're messin with all my formed/forged impressions of the guy. In any case, again... simsub is the "here and now" and the CRTC has not (as I'm aware) given any indication to, through regulation, preventing simsub. More pointedly, it has actually moved towards regulation to hold broadcasters to account for errors related to simsub. Again... not the future!

.

[Bryan]

Yeah because seeing a Chic-fil-A ad makes me want to cross the border immediately.

Not immediately, but it definitely made me seek them out on my trip to Omaha last month. Good chicken and fries, and unusually high service levels for fast food. I'll definitely be back.

[Boges]

Not immediately, but it definitely made me seek them out on my trip to Omaha last month. Good chicken and fries, and unusually high service levels for fast food. I'll definitely be back.

Yeah I did the same in Florida. It's great. But it's not a market the advertisers consider.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh-oh....looks like Shomi, Canada's answer to Netflix, is going to bite the dust. Competition is hard that way.

Shomi says it is shutting down as of Nov. 30 after two years in operation.

The web streaming service attributed the decision to a business climate and online video marketplace that has changed markedly in recent years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/shomi-shut-down-1.3779675

[cybercoma]

"Canada's answer to Netflix?"

I don't think so. Rogers' answer to Netflix. They answered a question that was never asked. Canadian Netflix was just fine. It even offers Marvel films, which are absent from American Netflix.

[TimG]

I don't think so. Rogers' answer to Netflix. They answered a question that was never asked. Canadian Netflix was just fine. It even offers Marvel films, which are absent from American Netflix.

Shomi offers a number of shows which were not on Canadian Netflix. Losing means Canadians will have fewer legal options. If Shomi can't make it is safe to assume that CraveTV will be gone soon which will leave Canadians with no options other than Netflix or pirate sites. This is a bad situation. Edited September 27, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't think so. Rogers' answer to Netflix. They answered a question that was never asked. Canadian Netflix was just fine. It even offers Marvel films, which are absent from American Netflix.

Not for many Canadians who pouted about fewer choices, to the point of using proxies to get "American Netflix".

[cybercoma]

Shomi offers a number of shows which were not on Canadian Netflix. Losing means Canadians will have fewer legal options. If Shomi can't make it is safe to assume that CraveTV will be gone soon which will leave Canadians with no options other than Netflix or pirate sites. This is a bad situation.

Which will mean studios will have to go with Netflix for distribution. The death of Shomi means Netflix just got better. The content didn't disappear.

[Ash74]

Shomi offers a number of shows which were not on Canadian Netflix. Losing means Canadians will have fewer legal options. If Shomi can't make it is safe to assume that CraveTV will be gone soon which will leave Canadians with no options other than Netflix or pirate sites. This is a bad situation.

The problem with Shomi was it sucked.

It was the CBC of online streaming without the original content.

As far as pirate stations go I have no guilt watching what I want when I want without Cancom ripping me off or the cable companies that charge me obscene prices. I pay the stupid amount for high speed unlimited internet. That is more than enough.

[TimG]

It was the CBC of online streaming without the original content.

WTF? This comment makes no sense. Shomi had a selection of US shows. It's catalogue was not as large as Netflix but it was different. It had more interesting content than I have time to watch.

As far as pirate stations go I have no guilt watching what I want when I want without Cancom ripping me off

Rationalization is easy. Eventually the content won't be available at any price if content producers can't make money. This is actually my bigger fear. I stopped watching TV at all for a decade or more because I hate ads. Netflix and others give me options to access content while contributing to the cost of its production. Edited September 27, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Which will mean studios will have to go with Netflix for distribution. The death of Shomi means Netflix just got better. The content didn't disappear.

Monopolies are bad. It really makes no difference that the dominant player currently offers a good deal because without competition there is no incentive to improve.

[bush_cheney2004]

Monopolies are bad. It really makes no difference that the dominant player currently offers a good deal because without competition there is no incentive to improve.

So we're back to the original "monopoly" issue....Canadians want content that is largely produced and distributed by other nations. Today's streaming pains are the same as any other going back to the beginning of broadcast radio and television in Canada.

[TimG]

So we're back to the original "monopoly" issue....Canadians want content that is largely produced and distributed by other nations.

It is not clear why this is an issue. The US is good at producing entertainment like China is good at producing cheap electronics. Canadians want to buy that product and the only question is ensuring that there are multiple distribution channels. Why is that a problem? Edited September 27, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

It is not clear why this is an issue. The US is good at producing entertainment like China is good at producing cheap electronics. Canadians want to buy that product and the only question is ensuring that there are multiple distribution channels. Why is that a problem?

It's a problem because Canada's protectionist barriers and content funding schemes impacts the distribution and cost of entertainment product.

[cybercoma]

Monopolies are bad. It really makes no difference that the dominant player currently offers a good deal because without competition there is no incentive to improve.

Dividing the content up between streaming services and giving each of them exclusive distribution, forcing people to pay multiple times to get access to all the content is monopolistic. Shomi never competed with Netflix. They locked down exclusive rights to content and tried to force consumers to buy multiple services. I'm glad they're dead and can't wait for Crave to die too.

[Bryan]

Shomi offers a number of shows which were not on Canadian Netflix. Losing means Canadians will have fewer legal options. If Shomi can't make it is safe to assume that CraveTV will be gone soon which will leave Canadians with no options other than Netflix or pirate sites. This is a bad situation.

No, it's a good thing. There's no value for consumers to have to subscribe to three or four services to get all of their content. Imagine if you had to have three different cable subscriptions in order to get all the channels you wanted. Or if Telus cell phones could only call other Telus phones, and you needed three or four phones to actually call everyone. Choice is only good if you aren't being forced to do it. As long as content makers are issuing exclusive exclusive licenses, less choice is better.

[Boges]

No, it's a good thing. There's no value for consumers to have to subscribe to three or four services to get all of their content. Imagine if you had to have three different cable subscriptions in order to get all the channels you wanted. Or if Telus cell phones could only call other Telus phones, and you needed three or four phones to actually call everyone. Choice is only good if you aren't being forced to do it. As long as content makers are issuing exclusive exclusive licenses, less choice is better.

I think its more comparable to premium cable. Want to watch Walking Dead? Gotta subscribe to AMC, Want to watch Game of Thrones? Get HBO. In Canada you can't get new episodes of Homeland without a subscription to the SuperChannel.

These makeshift streaming services didn't offer the same variety of programming as Netflix but it was priced similarly.

[Bryan]

I think its more comparable to premium cable. Want to watch Walking Dead? Gotta subscribe to AMC, Want to watch Game of Thrones? Get HBO. In Canada you can't get new episodes of Homeland without a subscription to the SuperChannel.

But all the cable providers HAVE Superchannel (and AMC, and HBO). You aren't forced to choose one provider over another in order to get it.

[Boges]

But all the cable providers HAVE Superchannel (and AMC, and HBO). You aren't forced to choose one provider over another in order to get it.

I see subscribing to Netflix much like subscribing to a channel. The price point is actually cheaper than getting HBO/TMN. Lots of people are getting around paying for Netflix by sharing accounts.

You can actually do the same with TMN/HBO, Sportsnet and TSN.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Boges

[dialamah]

I was talking to a Shaw rep a few weeks ago, and was told that in December, they're going to start offering TV channels a-la-carte, all of them. No more bundles (unless you want them, I guess), just pick and choose the channels you want to watch and only pay for them. He didn't have any price points, though. Not entirely sure I believe him, expecting there'll be a catch somewhere, but I will certainly be looking into it come December.

[Boges]

I was talking to a Shaw rep a few weeks ago, and was told that in December, they're going to start offering TV channels a-la-carte, all of them. No more bundles (unless you want them, I guess), just pick and choose the channels you want to watch and only pay for them. He didn't have any price points, though. Not entirely sure I believe him, expecting there'll be a catch somewhere, but I will certainly be looking into it come December.

Cogeco does that now. But you still have to order a minimal number of channels (10, 20 etc increments) . The catch is that the popular sports and premium cable channels come at an extra cost.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Boges