Networks Propose Charging Fees to Carry Their Signals

[watching&waiting]

If Canada can not produce quality films at standard market prices, then we should not be in the film business. There should be no coddling the producers to amke a show, if there is not any real chance of making money from it. It really does not matter anymore as the internet is already more then capable of bringing all the shows from everywhere in the world and CRTC has nothing that they can do to stop it. So they might as well just shut up shop and let them all in, which is what should have been done long ago. Hell I would be $100,000.00 richer if they had of done that already. Anyone can legally download full length movies and sports from all over the world to play on your computers, but if you have an integrated TV tuner in your computer you can watch them on your TV even HDTV.

[jdobbin]

If Canada can not produce quality films at standard market prices, then we should not be in the film business. There should be no coddling the producers to amke a show, if there is not any real chance of making money from it. It really does not matter anymore as the internet is already more then capable of bringing all the shows from everywhere in the world and CRTC has nothing that they can do to stop it. So they might as well just shut up shop and let them all in, which is what should have been done long ago. Hell I would be $100,000.00 richer if they had of done that already. Anyone can legally download full length movies and sports from all over the world to play on your computers, but if you have an integrated TV tuner in your computer you can watch them on your TV even HDTV.

There isn't any market justification for any Canadian television or film. All Canadians want is American and some international programming. Canadians networks pay $400 million for U.S. programming and $90 million for Canadian programming.

They probably don't need to either. Sell the Canadian networks and make them affiliates of U.S. networks and it is all free.

[Riverwind]

However, Canada's cannot sustain itself in the market. And Canadians don't appear to be watching the programs made here in any number that would make then pay for themselves.

Ah, how many American shows would pay for themselves if they only had 1/10th of their current viewership? Not many I suspect. There are certain services/goods where the simplistic argument that we should buy it from the most efficient provider does not make sense. For example, it would be probably be more cost effective to simply disband the Canadian army and pay the US to provide protection. However, being cheaper does not make it sensible.

[jdobbin]

Ah, how many American shows would pay for themselves if they only had 1/10th of their current viewership? Not many I suspect. There are certain services/goods where the simplistic argument that we should buy it from the most efficient provider does not make sense. For example, it would be probably be more cost effective to simply disband the Canadian army and pay the US to provide protection. However, being cheaper does not make it sensible.

I agree the numbers make it difficult. As I said, I think debate is good on the subject.

As far as the military goes, I think we should look at any and all options. If our NATO allies are worried we are not protecting our own sovereignty, we could make nuclear weapons. Probably cheaper and it gets everone's attention.

[Remiel]

How long has CPAC been around? Why did they form it? Is it financial viable? Is it not purely Canadian content?

[jdobbin]

How long has CPAC been around? Why did they form it? Is it financial viable? Is it not purely Canadian content?

It started when CBC ditched the Parliamentary channel because it was costing too much to run. Cable channels picked up the whole network in 1992. CPAC doesn't make money. It is part of the public service obligation for cable companies.

[geoffrey]

How long has CPAC been around? Why did they form it? Is it financial viable? Is it not purely Canadian content?

It started when CBC ditched the Parliamentary channel because it was costing too much to run. Cable channels picked up the whole network in 1992. CPAC doesn't make money. It is part of the public service obligation for cable companies.

They changed the CPAC channel on Shaw in Calgary. I CAN'T FIND IT!!! Ahhh!!! I've missed a few weeks of Question period and instead my DVD recorder has been taping f'in Much More Music until I figured that out.

But anyways, CPAC is important to the democratic process I think. It need not be commercially viable, it's an access to the government type solution.