Future of Canadian TV

[waldo]

But the "optics" is very curious from my perspective in a foreign country.

optics?

What other nationals think about this is completely irrelevant.

[On Guard for Thee]

"Status quo", surely you jest. Once again, try not putting Fox and news together in the same sentence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Netflix resists plans to tax or regulate internet streaming services to fund "incumbent" programming models, including CanCon:

"...Netflix believes that regulatory intervention online is unnecessary and could have consequences that are inconsistent with the interests of consumers," Wright said.

Viewers should have the ability "to vote with their dollars and eyeballs to shape the media marketplace," she said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netflix-tells-crtc-consumers-should-vote-with-their-dollars-1.2771603

[Mighty AC]

Netflix is currently being pressured by movie studios to block or ban those who spoof their location to access US content. I suspect they will comply at some point by blocking known VPN IPs, DNS services once or twice per year.

http://o.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/movie-studios-are-pressuring-netflix-to-block-vpn-users

[cybercoma]

I've used a VPN to access Netflix, but I didn't find the content on US Netflix all that much better. There's some films we get that they don't. There's more stuff on US Netflix, but not necessarily better stuff so I don' bother.

[bush_cheney2004]

Using a VPN to access Netflix outside of the geographical area for the subscription service and or licensed content probably violates terms of service. I have no desire to spoof U.S. Netflix to see content only available in Canada, better or not.

[Boges]

Using a VPN to access Netflix outside of the geographical area for the subscription service and or licensed content probably violates terms of service. I have no desire to spoof U.S. Netflix to see content only available in Canada, better or not.

Did it once. Not really worth the effort.

Just saw Wolf of Wall Street on Netflix. Pretty recent movie. 12 Years a Slave a few weeks ago. Hunger Games 2 few weeks earlier. Pretty good content.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't it once. Not really worth the effort.

Really isn't....$8.99 a month for access to plenty of licensed content is fine by me. No need to screw that up.

[Bryan]

I've used a VPN to access Netflix, but I didn't find the content on US Netflix all that much better. There's some films we get that they don't. There's more stuff on US Netflix, but not necessarily better stuff so I don' bother.

I travel to the US often enough that I use the US service legitimately (they don't let Canadian accounts access the Canadian site when they are out of the country). The US site doesn't offer any advantage that compels me to want a VPN.

[Michael Hardner]

The Canadian market has some peculiar attributes: government control married to large corporate gatekeepers, somehow designed to promote Canadian "culture", while strangling anything that's remotely interesting and keeping it off television at all costs.

There is enough talent out there, and there's money to support it - why can't we put these things together ?

How about this - the government takes the funding now allocated for Cancon and allocates it to independent channels and production companies directly, but based on how much interest they get from the public ?

[Bryan]

How about this - the government takes the funding now allocated for Cancon and allocates it to independent channels and production companies directly, but based on how much interest they get from the public ?

I'd much rather see no funding or control of CanCon, and let the quality material stand on its own. If it's good, people will watch it. If it's not, they won't.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd much rather see no funding or control of CanCon, and let the quality material stand on its own. If it's good, people will watch it. If it's not, they won't.

That's been proven to not be the case. The cultural market has been dominated by external entities which little interest in promoting local content and they drown out local product. If we're going to still have countries in this world, a national culture would seem to be central to that idea.

[cybercoma]

The reason people like Miley Cyrus are popular is not because of the quality of their product. It's that they have multimillion dollar companies behind them that can blanket the planet with their material 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Their music becomes familiar and that's what makes it marketable to impressionable people. A small country with a population of fewer people than California can't compete with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Canadian market has some peculiar attributes: government control married to large corporate gatekeepers, somehow designed to promote Canadian "culture", while strangling anything that's remotely interesting and keeping it off television at all costs.

From other Canadians commenting on the CBC story:

CanCon = Can Not

[bush_cheney2004]

That's been proven to not be the case. The cultural market has been dominated by external entities which little interest in promoting local content and they drown out local product. If we're going to still have countries in this world, a national culture would seem to be central to that idea.

OK...then why would anybody consider mandating carriage of foreign broadcast networks (i.e. 4 + 1) ?

[eyeball]

That's been proven to not be the case. The cultural market has been dominated by external entities which little interest in promoting local content and they drown out local product. If we're going to still have countries in this world, a national culture would seem to be central to that idea.

The only reason countries seem to exist anymore is to provide the shell game the external entities you mention use to move wealth around. If we're going to have a global market there's not much need for anything else except a global government so we can get a better handle on these entities.

[Michael Hardner]

OK...then why would anybody consider mandating carriage of foreign broadcast networks (i.e. 4 + 1) ?

They shouldn't have to consider that. People want it.

[bush_cheney2004]

They shouldn't have to consider that. People want it.

People want a lot of things....how are foreign broadcast networks consistent with "promoting Canadian culture" and production of CanCon ?

People can buy the foreign content in the marketplace if desired.

Edited September 20, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

People want a lot of things....how are foreign broadcast networks consistent with "promoting Canadian culture" and production of CanCon.

Ok... well, I'll assume I answered your previous question then.

People can buy the foreign content in the marketplace if desired.

Right. I don't see any disagreement here - we're on the same page.

Canadians want US content. The idea of protecting Canadian culture can be discussed on a wide spectrum, eg. "force feeding Canadians unpopular and poorly made eat-your-vegetables-because-its-good-for-you type culture" vs. "Canadian culture doesn't have a chance to thrive because nobody gives it a chance, it's drowned out by the American monolith etc. etc."

It's a qualitative argument, as there are examples from both ends of that spectrum.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canadians want US content. The idea of protecting Canadian culture can be discussed on a wide spectrum

Sure...I get that...Canadians have been gobbling up American television and radio since forever. The first Canadian TV set antennas were directed to the "south". But to the very specific notion of defining the future of Canadian TV and carriage regulations (e.g. "skinny basic"), mandating foreign networks seems to be inconsistent with the CRTC mission.

It's a qualitative argument, as there are examples from both ends of that spectrum.

I'm sure there are, but the record demonstrates that the CanCon framework has not been "qualitatively" successful. As Dixie Chick Natalie Maines would sing, "There's your trouble". The Canadian market twists and turns like a serpent trying at all levels to circumvent the CRTC restrictions. Example: there are Canadian owned radio stations across the border that specifically target Canadian cities with content (and advertising revenue) not subject to CRTC regulation and CanCon funding.

[Michael Hardner]

mandating foreign networks seems to be inconsistent with the CRTC mission.

This is the first I've ever heard that foreign content was mandated. It does seem inconsistent.

I'm sure there are, but the record demonstrates that the CanCon framework has not been "qualitatively" successful.

By some measures, I think it has. We probably have more Canadian product than we did, say, in the 1960s.

As Dixie Chick Natalie Maines would sing, "There's your trouble". The Canadian market twists and turns like a serpent trying at all levels to circumvent the CRTC restrictions. Example: there are Canadian owned radio stations across the border that specifically target Canadian cities with content (and advertising revenue) not subject to CRTC regulation and CanCon funding.

That's not surprising.

My suggestion would be to fund independent entities that promote culture successfully, and not the already-rich carriers such as Bell, Telus, Corus, Quebecor etc.

[Bryan]

That's been proven to not be the case. The cultural market has been dominated by external entities which little interest in promoting local content and they drown out local product. If we're going to still have countries in this world, a national culture would seem to be central to that idea.

Culture cannot be protected or promoted. If it needs any sort of intervention, then it's NOT culture, it's fake. Culture is what happens anyway. It's what people see/do/make because they want to, not because it's what the government told them/paid them to make. If it needs to be protected, that by itself means it's not worth being protected.

People DO watch Canadian content, often without even realizing it. Many Canadian production companies sell their shows to US networks.

[Bryan]

The reason people like Miley Cyrus are popular is not because of the quality of their product. It's that they have multimillion dollar companies behind them that can blanket the planet with their material 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Their music becomes familiar and that's what makes it marketable to impressionable people. A small country with a population of fewer people than California can't compete with that.

The same multi-million dollar industry that's responsible for Miley Cyrus are also responsible for Justin Beiber. Where's he from again?

Neither of their music is my cup of tea, but it would be false to claim the quality of the product is not the major factor. You can push anything you want, but if people don't like it, it won't sell. In the case of how Miley made it, millions of kids try out to be the next Disney star, very few have the skills to even make it as a supporting character on one of those shows, nevermind to headline, and to parlay that into a successful post-Disney career. Disney TRIES to push almost all of their "pop-tarts" (almost all of them record albums and have music videos that play every day on those channels). The thing is, only the ones that actually have talent get any sort of mainstream success. You and I may not like Miley's music, but there is no denying that she is a VERY good singer.

[Michael Hardner]

Culture cannot be protected or promoted. If it needs any sort of intervention, then it's NOT culture, it's fake.

Well, *some* kind of culture is being promoted. Mass media is not normal culture, since it requires a large network infrastructure to distribute it. If we were talking about quaint customs only, then that would be culture and I would be more inclined to agree.

People DO watch Canadian content, often without even realizing it. Many Canadian production companies sell their shows to US networks.

There is not a lot.

But we're not even talking about "American" vs "Canadian". It's "Hollywood" vs. "Everything". Small films and TV shows from Minnesota don't fare much better than Canadian shows do, do they ?

[bush_cheney2004]

...But we're not even talking about "American" vs "Canadian". It's "Hollywood" vs. "Everything". Small films and TV shows from Minnesota don't fare much better than Canadian shows do, do they ?

That's part of the problem....relentless comparisons to "Hollywood". The Coen brothers from Minnesota have "done well" large or small, but even if they didn't, there is no hue and cry for legal restrictions to protect Minnesota culture. The best state film boards can do is provide financial incentives and foster healthy markets for media distribution from all sources.